None of this is really new, nor is this group in Germany particularly unique.

animal behaviorists and ethologists were doing work on this type of stuff at a USDA lab at Purdue University back in 2002 when I was a student there, and the lab was not brand new even then.

there are labs like this in most western nations. Not sure why this group decided they needed a little self promotion on /.

I have been noticing it on the desktop version of Safari for at least a week now. Possibly longer.

⦠And Iâ(TM)ll say it again. The Metaverse is a long con from Zuck to keep investors thinking FB is a growth stock. As such, it solves no customer problems, and never will do so. The sooner we stop talking about it, the sooner this will become clear to investors, the stock will tank, and itâ(TM)ll go away (hopefully taking down Zuck with it).

I review for a journal in my field, and spotted the same figure appearing 2x, with two different Y-axis labels, in the same paper recently. Cannot be sure if it is a mistake or malicious, but this campaign to pay closer attention to this kind of fraud is probably why I noticed it.

section editor was notified, and will be following up to sort it out. Hope I am just being paranoid, but with all the press around how often this happens, better to be safe than sorry.

Fair point, my bad.

The article indicates it is per length of track, whereas the usual fatality rate is per mile of road travelled. These are not comparable statistics. To even start to approach comparability we would need to divide the US car fatality total by the miles of road. Something sure to inflate that number

Or, we would need to divide the train fatality rate stated above by the number of trips along all that track. Vastly deflating the number used to criticize the railway

Either way, the railway critics are not using valid comparisons in their rush to make us all fear the railway.

was that 1 death per 32,000 miles of track, or as you suggest, 1 death per 32,000 miles ridden? I suspect it is the former, but do not know for sure where than number came from.

Also, would it not make sense to account for the vastly higher ridership of the train relative to the car. Most cars carry a single passenger, whereas trains are (ideally) carrying hundreds to thousands of passengers each run along the tracks.

We have understood and named the concepts in animal nutrition for decades.

Gross Energy = all the calories in something
Digestible Energy = all the calories in something minus the calories not absorbed during digestion
Metabolizable energy = digestible energy minus calories re-excreted in the urine
Net Energy = metabolizable energy minus calories lost due to heat production as a result of metabolism
Net Energy of X = calories spent on a. Specific metabolic purpose (growth, maintenance, milk production, fetal growth, etc) which all sum to the net energy above

Human nutrition has largely ignored this when calculating caloric density in human foods for nutritional labels for convenience. In animal nutrition, because we are much more focused on costs, we have been measuring these and using them for feed formulation for livestock for decades. As you move from GE to NE, the accuracy of your requirement and provisioning increase, meaning less waste and more money saved.

Yeah, after I posted that I started to question if I that part correct. Installations like that are not quick to build, and he ultimately was not president for that long.

I see your point, but even so he's not really THAT significant. If his last name were anything OTHER than Kennedy, we wouldn't be talking about him at all.

Think you are missing a word in there.
lobotomized because she was slightly below-average in school.

Yeah, the more you dig into that family, the less you see Camelot, and the more more you see the midden heap out back of Camelot.

precisely.

We had created an advantage for ourselves. Kennedy had the option to call their bluff and keep our installation while denying them one in Cuba, OR they could cave to the Soviets and remove our installations in exchange for the soviets abandoning their plans for Cuba. Kennedy ultimately chose option 2, with the minor caveat that no one - US or Soviet - ever acknowledge what we'd given up. Kennedy looks great after Cuba because he lied to everyone about what happened. That is not "Winning" the cuban missile crisis. At least not on the international stage, where everyone keeps tabs on their enemies and allies, and would soon learn of our dismantling the silo's on the soviet border. He won in a PR sense - by coming out smelling like roses DESPITE his concessions, not because of them.

I've yet to see much evidence of a "Rapid" downhill trajectory for Biden.

Polling this far out from the primaries is essentially worthless, at least according to 538. There is just too much time for things to come out, for candidates to rise and fall, and for voter sentiment to change in response to seeing who's survived on the other side of the isle. After all, we rarely get to vote for a candidate we actually like, and far more often are voting for the least bad option available.

As such, in a shoot out between Biden, Trump, and this ass-clown, I see this moron doing far more to take votes from Trump than from Biden. Biden voters have already rejected crazy in favor of Biden once before. I don't see how putting a blue jersey on crazy will change the fundamental choice for them. Whereas, Trumps supporters have already demonstrated a certain amount of comfort/preference for insanity, and when there are 2 insane options, it isn't hard to see at least some of them liking the Kennedy name as much as they do the Trump brand.

My understanding of events is as follows:

0. US puts missiles close to USSR
1. USSR negotiates with Cuba to put missiles next to the US
2. US attempts to blockade Cuba to prevent those missiles from reaching their launch sites
3. US secretly concedes to USSR demands to remove our missiles in exchange for allowing our blockade to appear to work
4. US Government pretends Kennedy stared down the soviets, when in-fact he gave them everything they asked for, so long as they didn't tell anyone about it.

The Kennedy administration created the situation by putting missile silo's so close to the USSR, without anticipating that the USSR would try to mirror that action in Cuba. They then put on a big show about the blockade and staring down the Soviets until they blinked. But at the end of the day the US blinked. We gave up installations we'd already built in order to go back to a status quo we'd disrupted. The only reason it was not viewed as an embarrassment at the time was because the Kennedy Administration essentially LIED to the US Citizens about what had happened, and how it had been resolved. And the only reason that worked, was because the SOVIETS were willing to let us believe they'd blinked first.

If you start a fight, and the only way to end the fight is to give your opponent an apology for starting the fight in the first place, I don't see how you can then go on to say that you won the fight. Particularly after it is discovered that you begged them not to let anyone know you'd apologies and admitted fault in the first place.

Kennedy was a hack at everything except manipulating the (admittedly more-than-willing) media. If Kennedy had looked more like Nixon and less like a golden adonis, we might have learned the truth about the exchange much sooner. If his wife and kids had not been the picture of the American Ideal, his reputation might fit more with the caliber of his actions, instead of breathy comparisons to fictional Camelot. And if he'd survived his presidency, we would likely have seen his star fall as his opponents worked to unearth and focus attention on his failings (both professional and personal) instead of enshrining him as a martyr to the cause of Democracy. JFK is the epitome of failing up.

As a former bay-stater, I gotta say - there is a lot of truth in what you say

The Kennedys made their money bootlegging. You know, the old-fashioned version of gangs/cartels/MS-13. They then used that money, and an address in an upper-crust part of the state, to buy their way into politics. Joe Kennedy was a bastard of the first order, and his boys were all fuck-ups.
- The son he wanted to go into politics instead went into the military and got himself killed
- The Backup became president, but was so focused on dipping his wick, that he had almost no mental capacity left for actually running the country. That is why most of his policies involved either assenting his enemies (see all the attempts made on Castro), or lying to the US citizens (see the recent revelations that the we LOST the Cuban missile crisis, and Russians simply agreed not to point that out to anyone) to cover up his incompetence.
- Teddy was an alcoholic, who murdered a young woman in his care, and may or may not have been cheating on his wife with said murder victim before hand

Only one of his boys was good for anything, and Bobby only got his position because his brother appointed him. He needed someone loyal to cover up all his scandals.

What confuses me is that political pundits see this latest Kennedy as a threat to Biden. He's Trump in a blue jersey. An egotistical, conspiratorial, legacy who's never built anything for himself beyond a cult of personality. Sure, Democrats go in for that stuff too, but none of the things he's about matter to any democrats I know, and fit far better with Trumps base than any other group.

The seaweed they are using is rich in bromoform, which we have known since at least the 1960's is capable of reducing rumen production of methane. Unfortunately, bromoform is carcinogenic.

I've been following this company for a few years now (I work in animal agriculture) with great interest, but they have yet to address the possible environmental contamination with bromine/bromoform. Nor have they adequately addressed reports from other labs that the bromoform can be transferred to dairy products.

This study is in beef animals, and I think the risks of bio-accumulation in that context are lower than in milk, but it is still something they will need to address before they can be considered safe. I hope they can sort this all out, becuase we do need methane mitigation solutions, but I'm not confident. They wrote a rebuttal of sorts to the report of bromoform transfer to milk that to my eye was a rather long winded "nu-uh". Lots of text, but not really substantive counter arguments were presented (can't find a link at the moment).