10 minutes of sun per day is typically less likely to give you cancer than 0 minutes. Vitamin D (and other compounds involved in the synthesis from cholesterol that you won’t get in supplements) upregulate DNA repair polymerases that protect against carcinogens. Of course after a few minutes the costs of UV exposure outweight this benefit though.
We needed a negative control, dammit!
I want to put Skype’s corpse on a banner and wave it around to all the software that’s currently undergoing enshittification.
I can almost hear it!
Acrylamide is a nasty neurotoxin. Look at old protein biochemists and their hands all shake from years of making SDS-PAGE gels without gloves.
It wouldn’t be science without some jargon :P
Basically, a new mechanism has been found - low nitrogen influences the signalling of a plant hormone to reduce the number of branches. Particularly pertinent to cereal crops and could help lower the need for nitrogen fertilisers!
Hope it stays open source going forward, especially given how it’s built on the back of decades of hard work in x-ray crystallography.
Rhipidura leucophrys :)
He/she came right up to me! I was having lunch by the river and the little fella just ran up to me and started singing. They eat bugs and don’t really scavenge off people so I don’t think he was even after my food. He even hopped on my foot briefly!
Can’t mentally decline if you were never sound of mind in the first place!
She munch on grass 😍
Lovely fellas! I’ve been seeing a few red wing fairy wrens this week I’m WA, bloody tricky to get a pic of them though - well done!
Wow, I had no idea! I wonder if they migrate or just have widespread populations.
Nah I’m guessing because it’s a popular opinion
No mention of the rate? Or the rate in non-police officers? I’m seeing an increasing amount of articles quote raw numbers rather than anything statistically meaningful, I agree with the sentiment of the article but it’s veering towards rage-bait territory.
Love these guys, except the brave one that stole my sandwich once.
I find it difficult to imagine a future in which humans aren’t making fun of impaired cognition.
I think the context is what’s most important, if anyone actually directs such language (be it retarded, idiot, etc) towards people with genuine mental impairment, that constitutes a slur. But the word ‘retarded’ literally means ‘slow’, and is still regularly used (including by myself) in scientific and technical contexts (compared to racist or homophobic slurs, which are only ever really used in a ‘slur’ kind of way).
I wouldn’t really have a problem with calling people ‘slow’ in jest, and I don’t think many would. Imo if not ‘retarded’, it’ll be something else with the same meaning.