And this boulder could generate huge amounts of energy if I pushed it up to the top of Mt. Kilimanjaro and let it roll down.
44 upvotes and 0 downvotes for a comment that doesn’t understand that energy density measurements like this tend to measure the useful energy of a system.
My lab doesn’t have a retro encabulator for that yet, unfortunately. 😮💨
Tbf, Cunningham’s law doesn’t have a Wikipedia entry unto itself, just a subsection in the biography of the sort-of kind-of coiner of the aphorism. And it’s not trying to be scientific or academic; the law is just a light-hearted joke that people are less likely to answer questions on the Internet than they are to correct statements.
I am the soft stars that shine at night
Um, ackschually…
the average person has very little way to reduce the number of plastic nets in the water
Besides the obvious and 100% viable option of just not eating fish.
Useless red circle.
An actual source in the form of the HuffPost.
That’s not “a Yahoo article”. Yahoo! News hosts articles from different sources, and this is from some shitty E-tier website called comingsoon.net.
Probably the best source for this currently is the HuffPost.
And specifically milkweed flowers for the monarchs if you’re in the US.
I read this for a second as “neurotypical cockroaches”. Like “are there neurodivergent ones??”
When knee surgery is tomorrow.
Posting articles based on the contents of their headlines rather than the quality of their content or the reliability of the source seems irresponsible.
Why are you posting from Newsweek if you agree that it’s a rag? Your post directly before this one was Reuters. Your actions don’t align with what you’re saying here.
Newsweek has been a rag for over a decade now.
Found a real source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-79546-1
Jellyfish are cnidarians, a phylum which also includes corals and sea anemones. Jellyfish are a specific lifecycle stage of medusozoans (their own subphylum), while corals and sea anemones are anthozoans (another subphylum of Cnidaria).
So yup, they are polyps before sexual maturity. And you’ll find they’re more closely related to corals than they are to members of any other phylum.
Edit: I highly recommend that anyone who wants to get lost in the world of marine invertebrates check out WoRMS and then follow along in parallel on Wikipedia as you navigate the tree.
It really doesn’t?
Replicable*, and also see here.
Do you mean the Stanford prison experiment, which is famous because of how terrible it was? The one that’s taught in Psych 101 classes as a lesson on ethics and how not to design an experiment? Because while I would argue it’s not the most famous study, the entire reason it’s famous is because it was so shittily designed that psychologists going forward took lessons from it. No one’s holding that up to say “Wow, look at this great study we, the field of psychology, collectively did.”
That was psychiatry and neurology, but I don’t expect you to know the difference.
That a random quack psychiatrist came out and publicized this doesn’t mean that “the field of psychology” is behind the Satanic panic. Dr. Oz is a fraud who used his platform to sell bullshit supplements; does that make the field of medicine “behind” homeopathy?
This literally isn’t true, or at least it’s a ridiculous half-truth to put psychology at the forefront of eugenics. Eugenics is – surprise, surprise – rooted in biology after inheritance became more widely understood (read: we knew just enough to be dangerous). Eugenics had its hand in basically every natural science, and so you’ll find occasional psychologists like Henry H. Goddard showing up, but you’ll see biologists, statisticians, politicians, and so forth. Eventually eugenics spread into fields like psychiatry (note: different from psychology), but “they’re behind eugenics” is absolute fucking horseshit that you fail to back up with literally anything.
Uh-huh…
Why are you bringing up Jordan Peterson? Peterson is widely despised among psychologists, he no longer works at the University of Toronto, and instead of contributing research to the field or engaging in clinical practice, he puts out self-help sludge. “I’m not an anti-intelectual, but I’m going to take an entire century-old field of science and compress it into Philip Zimbardo(?) and Jordan Peterson so I can say that science bad actually.”