Again fukushima had no radiation related health impacts to non workers. Not “millions of people”, the worst case for that plant happened, and still no radiation poisoning.

Uncritically lumping Chernobyl in with TMI and fukushima loses you all credibility.

Chernobyl, where a critically mismanaged and politically nigh guaranteed failed emergency response to a similarly guaranteed foreseen design failure leading to hundreds of thousands of dosed people across all of Europe

… Compared to events largely which have had no detectable radiological health effects on non workers anywhere.

The nuclear industry is far and away the safest and most scrutinized of any industry, try to be honest when you’re making arguments.

The reason people don’t want to put nuclear facilities in convenient places is paranoia.

Complaining about Joshua trees for this is somewhat silly, it’s not one or the other, but the environmental impact is worth discussing.

You can get some information of the musculature from the bone structure, attachments are often fairly visible. But fatty tissue and skin, plus the uncertainty of the musculature still, all combine to be fairly high uncertainty ya.

Not only is the noise ratio low, this seems like a good lesson in “encyclopedias are not primary sources nor arbiters nor authorities on information.” Yes, people use Wikipedia that way anyway. No, baking in an even lower trust system does not seem like it’s actually a fix to any of Wikipedia’s problems.

This wasn’t a study and nobody has proven free will one way or another, the issue remains heavily semantic.

Scientists can have opinions and beliefs. A news organization encouraging it as being a scientific conclusion only because it comes from a scientist is really the issue here.

The issue is we as of yet still have no falsifiable or rigorous measurable definition of consciousness. So any reference to something consciousness isn’t doesn’t make a strong case.

I don’t think plants have a conventional consciousness, but I don’t think this study found evidence of something it can’t even structure a good definition of.

Well, the first step to this question is the ever infuriating “define cruelty”. It’s easy enough with complex vertebrates who have evolved to socially signal pain, which is almost everything we eat. It’s even easy to extend it to complex vertebrates which hide pain. But it’s hard enough to rigorously say whether something like an invertebrate insect or crustacean even feels pain at all. They certainly have pain responses, but is the qualia of that response in theory internal space recognizable?

It’s not an easy question to approach, but it is an important one broadly.

They have different physical modes of action, yes, but “force” doesn’t describe a distinct mode of action.

On the other hand, if you like whole numbers Fahrenheit provides more precision.

For one misinterpretation? Are you sure about that?

Incorrect, pemdas puts multiplication before division.

Pemdas and bodmas are not bullshit, they are a standard to disambiguate expression communication. They are order of operations. Multiplication and division are not on the same level, they are distinct operations which form the identity when combined with a multiplication.

Similarly, log(x) and e^x are not the same operation, but form identity when composited.

Formulations of division in algebra allow it to be at the same priority as multiplication by restructuring it as multiplication, but that requires formulating the expression a particular way. The ÷ operator however is strictly division. That’s its purpose. It’s not a fantastic operator for common usage because of this.

There are valid orders of operations, such as depmas which I just made up which would make the above expression extremely ambiguous. Completely mathematically valid, order of ops is an established convention, not mathematical fact.

But this title simply says it is explaining why a thing is happening. It isn’t sensationalizing, placing an emotional value on it, nor excessively simplifying it.

This title is the opposite of click bait.

A matter of convention: true

Unless you specify you aren’t using pemdas, that’s generally the assumed order of ops.

This is not one of the ambiguous ones, but it’s certainly written to be. Multiplication does indeed have priority under pemdas.

Under pemdas divisor operators must literally be completed after multiplication. They are not of equal priority unless you restructure the problem to be of multiplication form, which requires making assumptions about the intent of the expression.

Under normal interpretations of pemdas this is simply wrong, but it’s ok. Left to right only applies very last, meaning the divisor operator must literally come after 2(4).

This isn’t really one of the ambiguous ones but it’s fair to consider it unclear.

Physically this doesn’t make sense. Bludgeoning piercing slashing all have effects on breaking a rock.

A hydraulic press is just a slow application of high forces from a pressure trick.

Getting hit by a high pressure oil leak can certainly resemble being shot.

This sounds dubious. Sources?

Clarify your position on this statement you dodged:

calling for Palestinian freedom is not genocide