lemming @ lemming @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

91

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yes. Behind the toilet.

Do they actually work? I don't have actual experience, but I heard that they are only used by people who might benefit from them and thus the authors are automatically suspicious to the reviewer, plus you almost always cite your previous papers in a pretty obvious way, so it's hardly blind anyway.

I relatively often meet 4 of these:

• no speed limit (use the normal limit for this type of road)
• car tires may defy laws of nature (slippery road, usually followed by a sign saying it applies during rain)
• speed camera ahead
• no water polluting goods (not very common, but occasionally comes up. There is also no dangerous materials with an orange trapezoid instead of an ellipse)

I also saw don't drive off the pier (around ferries), watch for skiers (in the mountains with cross-country skiing routes), and warning about planes, although in different design (around airports).

Cool, thanks for the info!

How does Plantnet fare in tropics?

That didn't sound right, my experience that depending on luck and season, somewhere between 50 and 90 % of big mushrooms I come across in a forest are poisonous or at least disgusting. I admit it's a very wild estimate and I'm very far from knowing all the mushroom I come across, but still, that seems like a big contradiction. So I followed your link to the primary article.

I suspected that they might only count potentially lethal mushrooms, but no, it indeed seems they count even those that only make you nauseous. The problem is in the other number. The 100 000 means all funghi, it includes for example all yeasts. Most funghi don't create mushrooms that anyone would consider picking. So the ratio you calculated below is WAY off.

I would also like to note that the number 100 seems to come from a very simple PubMed search. Basically, if nobody wrote a paper about someone being sick after eating a mushroom, they wouldn't find it. I don't think that would mean that many foraged mushrooms would be missed, but it is a limitation worth knowing about.

Rubroboletus satanas is definitely poisonous. On the other hand, Imleria badia is very good. Bruising blue doesn't really say anything about edibility.

I'm not an expert, though.

Not so much Amanita phalloides as Amanita pantherina, that one looks much more similar. But I agree, if you know what you're doing and don't pick mushrooms with which you don't have experience with and aren't sure about, you're good.

I used to pick up even Amanita rubescens, an acual (although edible and tasty) Amanita, so even more similar to poisonous ones. But I didn't have an opportunity for quite a few years and now I wouldn't dare, until I got an opportunity to verify with someone experienced and trustworthy.

Well, if you want to head that way, there's Etruscan shrew. Less than 2 grams of weight and 4 cm of length.

There are also wimps. They might be dark matter.

I really like RING - really interesting new gene.

Bad title. Settings that actually do something are 0 (normal), 1 (compact) and 2 (touch). You can also do that in settings, I think.

And his wife's was Smith. They combined their names when they married.

It should be said that this is from Science Abridged Beyond the Point of Usefulness by Zach Wienersmith.

If you want to be able to write practically anything on mobile, including ≠, ≈, ‰, ℝ etc., have a look at Unexpected keyboard. No spellcheck or autocomplete, though.

Oh, that sounds reasonable.

Thank you! It looks like it needs more people for more excitement, but on the other hand, one-man projects look possible. Should be fun :-)

So... What is it exactly?

Photons have zero rest mass, right? They have mass while moving, don't they?

Is it better than using 25 % less salt?