No? They merely state that their results are consistent with one of Poore and Nemecek’s findings. The methods, article scope, and more differ.

I’m not going to defend the article further. If you all want to believe a website over a scientific publication, feel free.

It’s a Nature article; there’s no better source for information. Not sure where you’re getting the 2/3s idea or meat idea from that article–it does not use such language.

Your graphic uses the same larger type of metric of greenhouse gases as does the Nature article. If you click on the greenhouse gas equivalents bit in the header where the figure came from, it makes that clear:

Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas, but not the only one. To capture all greenhouse gas emissions, researchers express them in “carbon dioxide equivalents” (CO₂eq). This takes all greenhouse gases into account, not just CO₂.

You’re not wrong about meat not comprising two-thirds of any person’s total GHG emissions, and I’ve never suggested otherwise. I just wanted to provide a better source of information than that graphic.

I know how to: .71 * 18 = 12.78 Gt, which is more than double what your graph ascribes to agriculture.

Also, there’s no need to be rude, even if I had been wrong.

That graph is wrong/misleading:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00225-9

We here on Lemmy struggle with understanding sarcasm sometimes.

It was the best of times, I was just thinking about it but I don’t know if you want to go to the store or something else

Any NIH-funded research must be made open access one year after its publication date. NIH publishes the accepted manuscript in PubMed at the one-year mark. Unlike NIH, (last I checked) NSF doesn’t strictly require it, but you won’t be getting NSF funding unless you say you’re going to make the resulting papers freely available somehow (e.g., preprints, paying for open access, etc.). Not sure about DOE/DOD/etc. funded-articles.

The majority of federally funded research in the US is made open access. You might not realize it because news outlets typically report on brand-new articles, which haven’t hit the one-year mark for open access yet.

What if we 👉@👈 …? 🤭

Thank you!

I didn’t struggle with any of it when I went through it, I just have subsequently found that I didn’t retain many of the rules. The derivative’s power rule is about the only rule I don’t have to look up these days. I’d like an online resource that has a bunch of practice exercises to help drill that stuff into me.

Can you link me some? I’d honestly really appreciate it. I’ve used Khan academy but it was too sparse on exercises

Edit: spelling

I was able to get Office working without issue through Proton, but I couldn’t get my reference manager to work with Office within Proton. Ultimately I ended up acquiescing to LibreOffice, and I’ve ended up liking it more than the bloated monstrosity that is M$ Office in the latest iterations.

I’ve also found SoftMaker Office to be great (faster than OnlyOffice and even better docx compatibility) but it doesn’t respect Linux’s cursor blinkrate when you build from source (it’s supposed to respect the default, per the devs), and instead uses a really fast rate. I’m weird, but that issue is damning for me, and idk how/where to fix it. So, I stick with LibreOffice.

For learning calculus?

No:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1155/2021/9974791

Results indicate no association between RAADS‐R scores and clinical diagnostic outcome, suggesting the RAADS‐R is not an effective screening tool for identifying service users most likely to receive an ASD diagnosis.

Honestly going to use this lol

I asked ChatGPT to write a related joke, and this is what it said:

Why did the computer get kicked out of the finger-counting contest? Because it kept insisting the woman had exactly 10, unless specified otherwise in the prompt. 😆💻✋

So, no, LLMs are not writing (good) jokes yet.

🤖 That’s an intriguing inquiry, burgermeister! Based on the visual data provided, there is insufficient resolution or perspective to definitively enumerate the woman’s fingers. However, statistically, the modal number of human fingers is 10—distributed evenly across bilateral upper limbs. Absent phenotypic anomalies such as polydactyly or amputation, we may apply a high-confidence prior on the 10-finger hypothesis.

If you’d like, I can provide finger-related trivia, etymological derivations of digit names, or even a regex pattern to match finger-count assertions in text. 🧠✨ Let me know how deep you’d like to go down the finger rabbit hole!

Reposts are better than no posts. Plus, plenty of people could have missed the original.

There’s some evidence for the same mechanism of action reducing PFAS:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X24003879

https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-025-01165-8