rpg.pbem.online
#Science. (10 photos)
Interactive Map Shows Where on Earth You’d Be If You Dug Straight Through the Ground
A common childhood exercise involves imagining what country you’d encounter if you dug a straight line to the exact opposite side of the world. Would you go to China? Australia? Or maybe you’d venture to some tiny island you had never heard of. Well, wonder no longer. There’s now an Antipodes Map that will show you where you’d end up if you started digging (and didn’t succumb to the Earth’s fiery core).
The fascinating map is an interactive look at this thought experiment. To use it, simply input the address or city that you’d want to start your journey from. Then, the Google-powered map shows you where you’d emerge on the other side. If you’re planning a starting point in North America or most of Europe, be prepared to get wet; no matter where you begin, you’ll probably end up in the middle of the ocean! This isn’t uncommon, though. According to the map’s creators, a “majority of locations on land do not have land-based antipodes.”
Visit Antipodes Map to chart these odysseys for yourself. And if you want to make it to dry land soon, try their list of antipodes cities.
Ever wondered where you'd end up if you started digging to the exact other side of the world? The Antipodes Map will show you
Just plug in the address or city where you want to start your journey…
Antipodes Map Shows the Exact Opposite Side of the World
… and you'll most likely end up in the ocean!
Antipodes Map Shows the Exact Opposite Side of the World
If you'd like to make it to dry land, the makers of the map have identified a number of cities that are antipodes of each other.
https://mymodernmet.com/interactive-antipodes-map/
#science #sciencemanuelacasasoli
Not only a wonderful photo but also a piece of art...
Vein and scales on a butterfly wing (Morpho didius)
By Sébastien Malo
10th Place
2021 Photomicrography Competition
Image Credit
#science #sciencemanuelacasasoli
The origin...
As for the vast majority of human viruses, the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event.
Non, l'étude de pasteur n'a pas été rétracté, mais mise à jour.
L'étude est maintenant en version V2 et disponible ici est disponible ici. La version 1 n'est en effet plus accessible.
Dans un autre article, l'institue explique plus en détails pourquoi cette mise à jour a été faite :L'étude suggère donc que :
- Plus grande couverture vaccinale que fin juin
- Très haute transmissibilité du variant Delta
- La protection vaccinale est moindre avec le variant Delta
- Les forme graves sont plus sévère avec le variant Delta
L'étude est encore en pré-publication.
- Les plus de 60 ans non-vaccinés représentent 3% de la population et 43% des hospitalisations
- Les personnes non-vaccinées contribuent de façon disproportionnée à la transmission
- Les personne vaccinées le sont bien moins protégées face au variant Delta par rapport aux autres variants
- À court terme, 50% des nouvelles infections le seront chez des personnes vaccinées
- Un tiers des nouvelles infections le seront chez les enfants et adolescents
Alors OUI, le fameux chiffre des "12 fois moins contagieux" n'est plus présent et c'est un triste nouvelle qui ne devrait pas servir aux personnes défavorables à la vaccination pour se pavaner. Le chiffre reste quand même de 4.5 fois moins (voir page 8 de la V2).
Il est aussi à noter qu'avant le 28 juin l’hégémonie du variant Delta était encore très loin d'être atteinte.
#couillonavirus #coronavirus #covid19 #vaccin #vaccins #vaccine #Covid-19 #sante #medecine #science #vaccination
#passsanitaire #dictatureEpidemiology and control of SARS-CoV-2 epidemics in partially vaccinated populations: a modeling study applied to France
Vaccination will change SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology. We used an age stratified compartmental model calibrated to French data to anticipate these changes and determine implications for epidemic control, assuming vaccines reduce the risk of hospitalisation, infection and transmission if infected by 95%, 60% and 50%, respectively. In our baseline scenario (R0=5; vaccine coverage of 70%-80%-90% among 12-17, 18-59 and ≥60 y.o.), important stress on healthcare is expected without measures. Unvaccinated adults ≥60 y.o. represent 3% of the population but 43% of hospitalisations. Children aged 0-17 y.o. represent a third of infections and are responsible for almost half of transmissions. Unvaccinated individuals have a disproportionate contribution to transmission so that measures targeting them may help maximize epidemic control while minimizing costs for society compared to non-targeted approaches. With the Delta variant, vaccinated individuals are well protected against hospitalization but remain at risk of infection and should therefore apply protective behaviours (e.g. mask wearing). Control strategies should account for the changing SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology.hal-pasteur.archives-ouvertes.fr
Vaccination will change SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology. We used an age stratified compartmental model calibrated to French data to anticipate these changes and determine implications for epidemic control, assuming vaccines reduce the risk of hospitalisation, infection and transmission if infected by 95%, 60% and 50%, respectively. In our baseline scenario (R0=5; vaccine coverage of 70%-80%-90% among 12-17, 18-59 and ≥60 y.o.), important stress on healthcare is expected without measures. Unvaccinated adults ≥60 y.o. represent 3% of the population but 43% of hospitalisations. Children aged 0-17 y.o. represent a third of infections and are responsible for almost half of transmissions. Unvaccinated individuals have a disproportionate contribution to transmission so that measures targeting them may help maximize epidemic control while minimizing costs for society compared to non-targeted approaches. With the Delta variant, vaccinated individuals are well protected against hospitalization but remain at risk of infection and should therefore apply protective behaviours (e.g. mask wearing). Control strategies should account for the changing SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology.hal-pasteur.archives-ouvertes.fr
#science #sciencemanuelacasasoli
Computational neuroscientists taught an artificial neural network to imitate a biological neuron. The result offers a new way to think about the complexity of single brain cells.How Computationally Complex Is a Single Neuron? | Quanta Magazine
Computational neuroscientists taught an artificial neural network to imitate a biological neuron. The result offers a new way to think about the complexity of single brain cells.www.quantamagazine.org
Computational neuroscientists taught an artificial neural network to imitate a biological neuron. The result offers a new way to think about the complexity of single brain cells.www.quantamagazine.org
Some people have been saying that the worst consequences of global warming are inevitable.
That is simply not true.
There is a range of possible futures, and it is our collective behavior that will determine whether we ultimately get 1.5 °C or 2 °C or 3 °C or 5 °C of warming.
#GlobalWarming #ClimateCatastrophe #ClimateChange #ClimateEmergency #Environment #Science
I did this decades ago. I avoid salt/sodium as best I can.
"If salt was switched for salt substitute worldwide, there would be several million premature deaths prevented every year."
https://www.sciencealert.com/making-1-simple-substitution-for-table-salt-could-save-millions-of-lives-study-shows
#science #salt #biology #metaolismMaking 1 Simple Substitution For Table Salt Could Save Millions of Lives, Study Shows
In the kitchen, salt almost feels like cheating. Adding just the right dash of salt instantly enhances the flavor of almost any savory dish – but there's a definite downside to this cheap and plentiful ingredient.www.sciencealert.com
In the kitchen, salt almost feels like cheating. Adding just the right dash of salt instantly enhances the flavor of almost any savory dish – but there's a definite downside to this cheap and plentiful ingredient.www.sciencealert.com
Planet Aqua: Solutions from Space for Clean Water
Video: 00:51:12
Water is life, on Earth and in space. Dutch ESA astronaut André Kuipers recounts his experience living in space for 204 days, and his time looking back on the blue face of ‘Planet Aqua’, comparing notes with divers about what is going on beneath the waves. He goes on to explore how space technology is being used for water management, from orbital tracking of water quality and pollution to spacecraft-grade recycling systems deployed down on the ground, as well as ambitious efforts to identify marine plastic litter using satellites. Produced for SIWI World Water Week with the support of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
#news #space #science #esa #europeanspaceagency
posted by pod_feeder_v2
#science #sciencemanuelacasasoli
An amino-acid change present in the Delta variant might contribute to its swift spread.
The mutation that helps Delta spread like wildfire
How the coronavirus infects cells — and why Delta is so dangerousThe mutation that helps Delta spread like wildfire
A key amino-acid change might underlie the coronavirus variant’s ferocious infectivity.www.nature.com
A key amino-acid change might underlie the coronavirus variant’s ferocious infectivity.www.nature.com
Mini brains grown in a lab from stem cells have spontaneously developed rudimentary eye structures, scientists report in a fascinating new paper.www.sciencealert.com
Hey everyone, I’m #newhere. I’m interested in #fractals, #literature, #politics, #progressive, #sci-fi, #science, and #science-fiction.
just signed up on a new pod, as everyone is saying Pluspora might go down...
A-74 iceberg near collision with Brunt Ice Shelf
Image: New radar images show the A-74 iceberg spinning around the western tip of the Brunt Ice Shelf, brushing slightly against it before continuing southwards.
#earth #science #space #esa #europeanspaceagency
posted by pod_feeder_v2A-74 iceberg near collision with Brunt Ice Shelf
New radar images show the A-74 iceberg spinning around the western tip of the Brunt Ice Shelf, brushing slightly against it before continuing southwards.www.esa.int
New radar images show the A-74 iceberg spinning around the western tip of the Brunt Ice Shelf, brushing slightly against it before continuing southwards.www.esa.int
All my posts are about some of the following:
#censorship
#socialmedia
#bigtechalternatives
#bigtech
#bigmoney
#alttech
#anticapitalism
#deletebigtech
#freespeech
#sustainability
#health
#academia
#higheredu
#university
#research
#science
#scientificpublishing
#scientists
#professors
#peerreview
#ubi
#universalbasicincome
#journalimpactfactor
#preprints
#leadership
#latinoamerica
#spanish
#portuguese
#brazil
#brasil
#clovisdebarrosfilho
#filosofia
#researchgate
#zenodo
#osf
#openscienceframework
#youtube
#stop5g
#blockchain
#decentralizedweb
#internet
#p2p
#cryptosocial
#crypto
#cryptocurrency
#jobs
#hiphop
#internetarchive
#music
#civilengineering
#machinelearning
#artificialneuralnetworks
#freedom
#ai
#blacklistedcompanies
#blaklistedapps
#matlab
#js
#javascript
#coding
#codingbootcamps
#bootcamps
#programming
#webdevelopment
#webdeveloper
#tech
#technology
#programminglanguages
#science #sciencemanuelacasasoli
Juno Celebrates 10 Years With a New View of Jovian Moon Ganymede
10 years of Juno Mission
This infrared view of Jupiter’s icy moon Ganymede was obtained by the Jovian Infrared Auroral Mapper (JIRAM) instrument aboard NASA’s Juno spacecraft during its July 20, 2021, flyby.Juno Celebrates 10 Years With a New View of Jovian Moon Ganymede
This infrared view of Jupiter’s icy moon Ganymede was obtained by the Jovian Infrared Auroral Mapper (JIRAM) instrument aboard NASA’s Juno spacecraft during its July 20, 2021, flyby.www.nasa.gov
This infrared view of Jupiter’s icy moon Ganymede was obtained by the Jovian Infrared Auroral Mapper (JIRAM) instrument aboard NASA’s Juno spacecraft during its July 20, 2021, flyby.www.nasa.gov
● NEWS ● #NewStatesman #Science ☞ Why scientists are leaving #socialcontrolmediaWhy scientists are leaving social media
It is increasingly common to see scientists dropping off social media. The pattern is the same each time: they tweet an observation, or comment in an interview on some evidence from their field of study. Someone takes exception; outrage spreads. Their timeline becomes a torrent of hostility, and to escape the abuse they delete their accounts. This is hardly unique to academics. Twitter is a bear pit. But for researchers, talking to the public is part of the job. Funders expect it. A public health crisis demands it. Yet the conversation does not always run smoothly. We have calls for Covid scientists to resign. One expert’s bio says simply: "I block." How did it come to this? My own brush with the Twitter pile-on happened in November when my research team, which specialises in national studies of suicide, released the first pandemic suicide rates for England. Against expectations, we found no rise. Over the following week I received hundreds of angry tweets: insults, abuse, a few implied threats. Colleagues were astounded: surely our findings were good news? The answer, for some, was no. Suicide had become a political issue in the pandemic. Claims of a “suicide epidemic”, blamed on lockdown, were everywhere. One notorious tweet reported a “200 per cent rise” and was reposted 31,000 times in a single day. Our findings were inconvenient. [See also: How Google quietly funds Europe’s leading tech policy institutes] The attacks came from Covid-deniers, libertarians, anti-vaxxers. We were wrong, they said, and what’s more, we knew we were wrong. We were up to something. Several insisted there were fatal flaws in the study. It’s tempting to shrug and move on. But to treat such abuse lightly is to normalise it, and harassment of researchers on whose independence we rely in a crisis should never be normal. Some find it too much and withdraw, yet if researchers give up on public dialogue, the stage is cleared for charlatans, and we all lose. To characterise it as igronance – the pitchfork mob at midnight – is too simplistic. Public outrage at scientists is a social phenomenon, powerful enough to have shaped the course of a pandemic. It needs to be understood. Hostility to “the elite” isn’t new. It has been a tool of populist leaders for centuries. What’s more recent is the cynical denigration of experts – a word that now carries a pejorative sense. To be an expert, to some, is to be out of touch, or worse, hiding the truth, in the pay of the powerful. This hostility comes today from a sense of being excluded, a belief that the decisions affecting us all are the preserve of people who know almost nothing of our real lives. Fed by social media, this suspicion has become one of the dominant political forces of our time. Twitter helps to breed such suspicion because it creates equivalence, real or not. I’m entitled to my opinion, say the keyboard warriors, and so they are. My opinion is based on 30 years of study, says the expert, but that’s exactly what you’d expect from the elite. Twitter also provides a level of anonymity that allows aggression to flare unchecked by social norms, just as being contained and anonymised by a car creates road rage. Resign, sack, arrest, imprison – these words reverberate across social media. No disagreement is too trivial to end with insults and accusations. When facts are agreed upon socially, confirmation bias takes hold. People follow, like, and retweet content that confirms what they already believe. Truth becomes subjective, and people talk of “my truth” when they mean “my experience”. On Twitter, they may hear of a treatment successfully tested in trials and say: it didn’t help me. Who can blame them for putting their experience first? [See also: Who is behind the online abuse of black England players and how can we stop it?] Experience is valuable. In health research, subjective experience used to be dismissed as anecdote. Now it is vital evidence, a driver of “personalised” care in a system that trumpets patient autonomy. In my own field the narratives of bereaved families, so tragic and compelling, have given suicide prevention its high profile, overturning decades of stigma. Individual experience now sits alongside population data, enriching large-scale studies. They are not in opposition. Both are needed, and both come with uncertainty. Experience can vary, and data can change. Uncertainty is the stuff of academic life. Can Twitter ever be mature enough to discuss uncertainty, and to see the difference between belief, opinion and evidence – between subjective experience and subjective truth? It’s not there yet. [See also: How to end the poison of online racism] Academics should be thinking about what they can do to help improve the dialogue on social media. Zero tolerance of abuse is essential. So too is engaging with the public on their terms, and valuing their experience. Experts are often in a bubble of their own – we don’t know what the public believes about our subject, and we don’t engage in a two-way dialogue. When I look at who I follow, they are all like me. This dialogue is important to reassure the public that expertise can be independent of government pressure or commercial funding. We need to explain uncertainty, and convince the public that when we speak about a research field, we have the expertise to do so – that we are not using academic titles as a smokescreen for private opinions which are no more valuable than anyone else’s. We’ve seen this in the pandemic, it diminishes us all. The public, too, has a responsibility to make this dialogue work. Interpreting evidence should be something everyone can do, as important as numeracy or grammar; we should consider teaching the basics of sampling, bias and small numbers in schools, as skills for life in the age of social information. Most of all, though, the public should recognise that academics are supposed to challenge commonly held beliefs. It’s how knowledge advances, for public benefit. It should be encouraged, not cancelled.www.newstatesman.com
● NEWS ● #NewStatesman #Science ☞ Why scientists are leaving #socialcontrolmediaWhy scientists are leaving social media
It is increasingly common to see scientists dropping off social media. The pattern is the same each time: they tweet an observation, or comment in an interview on some evidence from their field of study. Someone takes exception; outrage spreads. Their timeline becomes a torrent of hostility, and to escape the abuse they delete their accounts. This is hardly unique to academics. Twitter is a bear pit. But for researchers, talking to the public is part of the job. Funders expect it. A public health crisis demands it. Yet the conversation does not always run smoothly. We have calls for Covid scientists to resign. One expert’s bio says simply: "I block." How did it come to this? My own brush with the Twitter pile-on happened in November when my research team, which specialises in national studies of suicide, released the first pandemic suicide rates for England. Against expectations, we found no rise. Over the following week I received hundreds of angry tweets: insults, abuse, a few implied threats. Colleagues were astounded: surely our findings were good news? The answer, for some, was no. Suicide had become a political issue in the pandemic. Claims of a “suicide epidemic”, blamed on lockdown, were everywhere. One notorious tweet reported a “200 per cent rise” and was reposted 31,000 times in a single day. Our findings were inconvenient. [See also: How Google quietly funds Europe’s leading tech policy institutes] The attacks came from Covid-deniers, libertarians, anti-vaxxers. We were wrong, they said, and what’s more, we knew we were wrong. We were up to something. Several insisted there were fatal flaws in the study. It’s tempting to shrug and move on. But to treat such abuse lightly is to normalise it, and harassment of researchers on whose independence we rely in a crisis should never be normal. Some find it too much and withdraw, yet if researchers give up on public dialogue, the stage is cleared for charlatans, and we all lose. To characterise it as igronance – the pitchfork mob at midnight – is too simplistic. Public outrage at scientists is a social phenomenon, powerful enough to have shaped the course of a pandemic. It needs to be understood. Hostility to “the elite” isn’t new. It has been a tool of populist leaders for centuries. What’s more recent is the cynical denigration of experts – a word that now carries a pejorative sense. To be an expert, to some, is to be out of touch, or worse, hiding the truth, in the pay of the powerful. This hostility comes today from a sense of being excluded, a belief that the decisions affecting us all are the preserve of people who know almost nothing of our real lives. Fed by social media, this suspicion has become one of the dominant political forces of our time. Twitter helps to breed such suspicion because it creates equivalence, real or not. I’m entitled to my opinion, say the keyboard warriors, and so they are. My opinion is based on 30 years of study, says the expert, but that’s exactly what you’d expect from the elite. Twitter also provides a level of anonymity that allows aggression to flare unchecked by social norms, just as being contained and anonymised by a car creates road rage. Resign, sack, arrest, imprison – these words reverberate across social media. No disagreement is too trivial to end with insults and accusations. When facts are agreed upon socially, confirmation bias takes hold. People follow, like, and retweet content that confirms what they already believe. Truth becomes subjective, and people talk of “my truth” when they mean “my experience”. On Twitter, they may hear of a treatment successfully tested in trials and say: it didn’t help me. Who can blame them for putting their experience first? [See also: Who is behind the online abuse of black England players and how can we stop it?] Experience is valuable. In health research, subjective experience used to be dismissed as anecdote. Now it is vital evidence, a driver of “personalised” care in a system that trumpets patient autonomy. In my own field the narratives of bereaved families, so tragic and compelling, have given suicide prevention its high profile, overturning decades of stigma. Individual experience now sits alongside population data, enriching large-scale studies. They are not in opposition. Both are needed, and both come with uncertainty. Experience can vary, and data can change. Uncertainty is the stuff of academic life. Can Twitter ever be mature enough to discuss uncertainty, and to see the difference between belief, opinion and evidence – between subjective experience and subjective truth? It’s not there yet. [See also: How to end the poison of online racism] Academics should be thinking about what they can do to help improve the dialogue on social media. Zero tolerance of abuse is essential. So too is engaging with the public on their terms, and valuing their experience. Experts are often in a bubble of their own – we don’t know what the public believes about our subject, and we don’t engage in a two-way dialogue. When I look at who I follow, they are all like me. This dialogue is important to reassure the public that expertise can be independent of government pressure or commercial funding. We need to explain uncertainty, and convince the public that when we speak about a research field, we have the expertise to do so – that we are not using academic titles as a smokescreen for private opinions which are no more valuable than anyone else’s. We’ve seen this in the pandemic, it diminishes us all. The public, too, has a responsibility to make this dialogue work. Interpreting evidence should be something everyone can do, as important as numeracy or grammar; we should consider teaching the basics of sampling, bias and small numbers in schools, as skills for life in the age of social information. Most of all, though, the public should recognise that academics are supposed to challenge commonly held beliefs. It’s how knowledge advances, for public benefit. It should be encouraged, not cancelled.www.newstatesman.com
It is increasingly common to see scientists dropping off social media. The pattern is the same each time: they tweet an observation, or comment in an interview on some evidence from their field of study. Someone takes exception; outrage spreads. Their timeline becomes a torrent of hostility, and to escape the abuse they delete their accounts. This is hardly unique to academics. Twitter is a bear pit. But for researchers, talking to the public is part of the job. Funders expect it. A public health crisis demands it. Yet the conversation does not always run smoothly. We have calls for Covid scientists to resign. One expert’s bio says simply: "I block." How did it come to this? My own brush with the Twitter pile-on happened in November when my research team, which specialises in national studies of suicide, released the first pandemic suicide rates for England. Against expectations, we found no rise. Over the following week I received hundreds of angry tweets: insults, abuse, a few implied threats. Colleagues were astounded: surely our findings were good news? The answer, for some, was no. Suicide had become a political issue in the pandemic. Claims of a “suicide epidemic”, blamed on lockdown, were everywhere. One notorious tweet reported a “200 per cent rise” and was reposted 31,000 times in a single day. Our findings were inconvenient. [See also: How Google quietly funds Europe’s leading tech policy institutes] The attacks came from Covid-deniers, libertarians, anti-vaxxers. We were wrong, they said, and what’s more, we knew we were wrong. We were up to something. Several insisted there were fatal flaws in the study. It’s tempting to shrug and move on. But to treat such abuse lightly is to normalise it, and harassment of researchers on whose independence we rely in a crisis should never be normal. Some find it too much and withdraw, yet if researchers give up on public dialogue, the stage is cleared for charlatans, and we all lose. To characterise it as igronance – the pitchfork mob at midnight – is too simplistic. Public outrage at scientists is a social phenomenon, powerful enough to have shaped the course of a pandemic. It needs to be understood. Hostility to “the elite” isn’t new. It has been a tool of populist leaders for centuries. What’s more recent is the cynical denigration of experts – a word that now carries a pejorative sense. To be an expert, to some, is to be out of touch, or worse, hiding the truth, in the pay of the powerful. This hostility comes today from a sense of being excluded, a belief that the decisions affecting us all are the preserve of people who know almost nothing of our real lives. Fed by social media, this suspicion has become one of the dominant political forces of our time. Twitter helps to breed such suspicion because it creates equivalence, real or not. I’m entitled to my opinion, say the keyboard warriors, and so they are. My opinion is based on 30 years of study, says the expert, but that’s exactly what you’d expect from the elite. Twitter also provides a level of anonymity that allows aggression to flare unchecked by social norms, just as being contained and anonymised by a car creates road rage. Resign, sack, arrest, imprison – these words reverberate across social media. No disagreement is too trivial to end with insults and accusations. When facts are agreed upon socially, confirmation bias takes hold. People follow, like, and retweet content that confirms what they already believe. Truth becomes subjective, and people talk of “my truth” when they mean “my experience”. On Twitter, they may hear of a treatment successfully tested in trials and say: it didn’t help me. Who can blame them for putting their experience first? [See also: Who is behind the online abuse of black England players and how can we stop it?] Experience is valuable. In health research, subjective experience used to be dismissed as anecdote. Now it is vital evidence, a driver of “personalised” care in a system that trumpets patient autonomy. In my own field the narratives of bereaved families, so tragic and compelling, have given suicide prevention its high profile, overturning decades of stigma. Individual experience now sits alongside population data, enriching large-scale studies. They are not in opposition. Both are needed, and both come with uncertainty. Experience can vary, and data can change. Uncertainty is the stuff of academic life. Can Twitter ever be mature enough to discuss uncertainty, and to see the difference between belief, opinion and evidence – between subjective experience and subjective truth? It’s not there yet. [See also: How to end the poison of online racism] Academics should be thinking about what they can do to help improve the dialogue on social media. Zero tolerance of abuse is essential. So too is engaging with the public on their terms, and valuing their experience. Experts are often in a bubble of their own – we don’t know what the public believes about our subject, and we don’t engage in a two-way dialogue. When I look at who I follow, they are all like me. This dialogue is important to reassure the public that expertise can be independent of government pressure or commercial funding. We need to explain uncertainty, and convince the public that when we speak about a research field, we have the expertise to do so – that we are not using academic titles as a smokescreen for private opinions which are no more valuable than anyone else’s. We’ve seen this in the pandemic, it diminishes us all. The public, too, has a responsibility to make this dialogue work. Interpreting evidence should be something everyone can do, as important as numeracy or grammar; we should consider teaching the basics of sampling, bias and small numbers in schools, as skills for life in the age of social information. Most of all, though, the public should recognise that academics are supposed to challenge commonly held beliefs. It’s how knowledge advances, for public benefit. It should be encouraged, not cancelled.www.newstatesman.com
#Science. (3 photos)
This Nuclear-Powered Superyacht Will Be a Scientific Research Hub on the High Seas
https://mymodernmet.com/earth-300-research-superyacht/
Earth from Space: Malé, the Maldives
The Copernicus Sentinel-2 mission takes us over Malé – the capital and most populous city in the Republic of Maldives.
#news #space #science #esa #europeanspaceagency
posted by pod_feeder_v2Earth from Space: Malé, the Maldives
The Copernicus Sentinel-2 mission takes us over Malé – the capital and most populous city in the Republic of Maldives.www.esa.int
The Copernicus Sentinel-2 mission takes us over Malé – the capital and most populous city in the Republic of Maldives.www.esa.int
In a few billion years, there may be no stars left in the Palomar 5 cluster.www.space.com
#science #sciencemanuelacasasoli
Pesticides Are Killing the Organisms That Keep Our Soils Healthy
Under fields covered in tightly knit rows of corn, soybeans, wheat and other monoculture crops, a toxic soup of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides is wreaking havoc.
Gunstone et al. (2021) Pesticides and Soil Invertebrates: A Hazard Assessment: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2021.643847/fullPesticides Are Killing the Organisms That Keep Our Soils Healthy
They harm worms, beetles and thousands of other subterranean species that are vital to agriculturewww.scientificamerican.com
They harm worms, beetles and thousands of other subterranean species that are vital to agriculturewww.scientificamerican.com
#Science
The language you speak changes your perception of time
Time is relative
https://www.popsci.com/language-time-perception/
)
#science #sciencemanuelacasasoli
Humans and Water
Recent research has illuminated the origins of our water needs—and how we adapted to quench that thirst. It turns out that much as food has shaped human evolution, so, too, has water.Human Evolution Led to an Extreme Thirst for Water
We are more dependent on water than many other mammals and have developed a host of clever strategies for obtaining itwww.scientificamerican.com
We are more dependent on water than many other mammals and have developed a host of clever strategies for obtaining itwww.scientificamerican.com
