@a Did you read the article? The evidence cited there seems more compelling to me than the suspicious-but-circumstantial evidence that supports a lab leak; cases statistically clustered around the part of the wet market that sold the suspect animals, and genetic similarity to a bat strain of covid.
Still, it's possible, I just no longer believe it's probable. This quote from the article sums it up:
“Have we disproven the lab leak theory? No, we have not,” Andersen said. “But I think what’s really important here is there are possible scenarios and there are plausible scenarios and it’s really important to understand that possible does not mean equally likely.” ...
“Both of these two studies really provide compelling evidence for the natural origin hypothesis,” said Aliota, who wasn’t involved in either study. Since sampling an animal that was at the market is impossible, “this is maybe as close to a smoking gun as you could get.”
I suppose it's not too bad. People typically use their wage as they get it, paying for rent/food/utilities. Many of these costs would be covered by the programme, which means they can potentially come out of it a year later with the full 60k.
Unless I'm misreading the article, right now this seems to just be regrowth for a very specific medical condition where teeth didn't come in in the first place?
The article mentions the possibility of stimulating growth in a latent third set of buds all adults have. But that doesn't seem to be what this specific breakthrough is.
I wrecked my bike almost a decade ago. Not the first time, but the most violent wreck I've ever experienced.
Got thrown into traffic, broke some ribs, messed up my shoulder, and cracked my helmet almost in two.
After healing tried riding my bike again. Absolutely did not expect PTSD, but could not otherwise explain how wholly unconfident I felt while trying to ride a bike, even til this day.
Sure back when it was the British and American aristocracies coming up with shadowy organizations that must have perpetrated the French revolution.
Doesn't seem to be tarnished when Smedly Butler unveiled the business plot, nor when the Pentagon papers leaked or evidence of MKULTRA was discovered. Then all the sudden right around the time they stopped teaching humanities at public schools all these groups appeared with very specific very laughable conspiracies they were blindly dedicated to.
Blaming spambots is one thing, but whoever set up this community should lock it if they’re not going to mod it because there are loads of spam messages here that haven’t been dealt with in days. It’s a pretty bad look. I’m unsubscribing but I also want to add shame on whoever set this up and abandoned it because it reflects poorly on the fediverse.
Is not really abandoned, the owner of this community is also the creator of Kbin. He is still working on developing kbin so there's not enough time for moderation
I don’t think this Lemmy thing is gonna make it tbh. Too many small communities all hoping to be the main hub for types of content, not enough moderation for the amount of fucking around that can happen, not to mention the constant armies of poorly informed morons trying to misinformation the general public.
It's still early days, I don't think we're quite doomed just yet. Right now we're witnessing the Fediverse's initial wild west Cambrian explosion sort of era. I reckon eventually the landscape will settle as people flock to where there are already other people, and tools develop and mature to navigate and manage servers/communities.
Obviously we need human mods to weed out morons and maintain quality, but automoderation and other mod tools for spam/astroturfing/etc. will also make a huge difference. A quick google turned up this Lemmy automod which appears to be in active development, and I'm sure there are plenty of others in the works.
I think the best part is how the journal told him he was focusing too much on climate change over other factors in peer review, he spends most of it trying to defend only accounting for climate change, then after publication comes out and goes on a media tour about how he was forced, forced i say to only include climate change by the journal, seemingly forgetting that the journals peer review comments are published alongside the paper.
This is in the same vein as that idiot that started the anti-vaxxer movement by writing a bogus study about vaccines causing autism. Tbf, his bullshit should've been uncovered while reviewing the study...
I think this is worse, arguably. Don't get me wrong, Wakefield wasn't good. But this is actually worse.
Wakefield wanted to call into question a thing which, at the time, was a relatively small thing: the MMR vaccine. There was no political platform of vaccines back then, it was the fallout from his con years after that created that platform. He wanted to do that so he could sell his own snake oil cure-all for autism. He frankly didn't care about vaccines, he simply knew people were hesitant about shots and overly concerned about normalcy.
So Wakefield really was just a greedy sonuvabitch ready to capitalize on the tremendous effort parents of autistic children are ready to commit for their kids. Bad, but just selfish greed. Not trying to accelerate an already existential crisis for political maga points.
This though, climate change, is already the political platform. This is very clearly an attack on the very institutions of academia themselves. This is trying to discredit the act of collecting data and replicating experiments as real science. And there's frankly a lot to say about that topic today (p<0.05 apocalypse) but this isn't saying any of that. It's simply saying "here's a reason not to trust climate science at all". That's the argument. That's way more dangerous than anti-vax arguments. Thank God this instance was as ineffective as it was.
Silver lining, it took almost ten years for Wakefield to get caught and detracted. This didn't take long to catch at all because the guy who did it was smug about his shitty goal, in typical right winger fashion: he went and published an opinion piece on his own paper, to the surprise of even his co-author.
An explanation of how this works from the article:
JWST is able to analyse the light that passes through the faraway planet's atmosphere. That light contains the chemical signature of molecules in its atmosphere. The details can be deciphered by splitting the light into its constituent frequencies - rather like a prism creating a rainbow spectrum. If parts of the resulting spectrum are missing, it has been absorbed by chemicals in the planet's atmosphere, enabling researchers to discover its composition.
Note that they say the identification is ‘tentative’ and not robust yet.
My comments was really made in jest…love the follow-up from everyone though! I also lov ehow science will always defer to “possible” instead of “definitively” no matter how much evidence there may be.
That's because that's how science works. Discoveries are not considered to be statistically significant until they reach what's called 5 sigma certainty which is approximately equivalent to saying that the chance that the discovery is wrong is 1 in 3.5 million.
A lot of scientists would consider it unethical to claim a discover until you had provided enough data to reach 5 sigma certainty. When papers are published, it takes a lot of peer review before the hypothesis of that paper event approaches 5 sigma certainty, but that doesn't mean that reporters aren't happy to pick up the story.
It's just bad and/or unethical science journalism that are picking up on unproven papers because of the sensational title.
science
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.