![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/387e6015-044b-45fb-b625-a321772faf39.webp)
According to the article they’re spending $17 billion to increase production.
According to the article they’re spending $17 billion to increase production.
Good catch. I’ve updated it. Thanks!
(somehow got 12 upvotes without a working link… hmmm)
A very cool idea, however the headline is misleading - NASA has not even remotely committed to running this mission. They’ve selected the swarm project as one of 13 projects in their innovation program and given it up to $175k to study feasibility. That’s roughly a postdoc for two years. This is far, far from committing the hundreds of millions or billions needed for the execution of this mission.
On Mander, fighting the clickbait pop science menace is every citizen’s duty. Are you doing your part?
Source? I want to believe this but the first page of my search results is all articles saying that WIC will shut down within days and SNAP is unlikely to last much more than a month.
The Surviving Mars OST is spectacular, though the gameplay is just good.
New construction sometimes doesn’t even help, when developers knocks down an old affordable 12 unit apartment building and build a luxury 36 unit building, you’ve created -12 units of affordable housing.
The argument I hear against this is that the 36 people who move into the luxury apartments moved from somewhere, and so 36 other apartments become available. The reduced demand for the vacated apartments then drives their prices down.
Of course, housing as a market is super distorted for a bunch of reasons so this effect is muddled. But I think it would be a net negative to fully disregard supply and demand in a market-based economy and preserve 12 affordable units in favor of 36 luxury ones.
Largely agree with all your other points though.
This is a really cool read with lots of very strong results, but “show” doesn’t seem like the right word for the specific claim the article makes from the paper. In grad school we had a professor who led the first year seminar who drilled into us the importance of using the right word to communicate inferential strength. “Is consistent with” is weaker than “suggests” is weaker than “shows” is weaker than “proves” (really only mathematicians should use “prove”). Section E3 on this website has a similar hierarchy.
My “speak up in seminar” reflex was going off here because this article jumps one - possibly two - whole levels of inferential strength from what’s actually written in the paper.
In the paper, the inferential claims in the "communal effort’ part are:
These differences clearly suggest a lack of evident social stratification…
further revealed no clear signs of social stratification
It’s possible I missed a stronger inferential claim about the communal aspect - Please correct me if so!
I think “are consistent with” or “suggest” would more accurately communicate the strength of the results. The evidence presented that the drainage system was a communal effort is that the houses were the same size and the graves didn’t seem to be differentiated. This seems like absence of evidence for a state authority/hierarchy, not evidence of absence.
I love that more and more open source science projects are streamlining deployment and encouraging folks to just try it. This one has a binder link in the README (though it seems to be failing… may need some TLC). I really think this is a positive template for what academia could eventually become!
Not a huge fan of the Israel situation but it does seem like they often stay out at the US’s request:
During the 1990–1991 Gulf War, Iraq carried out a missile campaign against Israel, in which it launched 42 modified Scud missiles (designated Al-Hussein) at Israeli cities with the strategic objective of provoking Israel into launching retaliatory attacks and potentially jeopardizing the multinational coalition formed by the United States against Iraq, which had full backing and extensive contributions from other Muslim-majority states; Israel did not respond to the Iraqi missile attacks due to American pressure, and Iraq failed to gather support for its occupation of Kuwait.
DW news (dw.com) is pretty good and not too sensational. They’re like German PBS with a whole English side of the site.
I don’t intend to ever own bitcoin, but “the government called 1000 australians and asked whether they use a soon-to-be-taxed, questionably-illegal currency, and most people said no” is some pretty poor science. Why is this the top post in the “Science” community of the science-focused Lemmy instance?
What in the world is the original context here? Have these people never encountered a puddle before? Her foot is completely immersed in gutter water and his white pants are about to be soaked and gross.