Don't worry. It turns out that the cost of mercury is rising much faster than the cost of gold. Another decade or so of this, and it will be more economical for the gold miners just to sell their mercury stocks straight back to us.

Extraordinary! Wave Of Geek Suicides Has Investigators Perplexed!

I suspect OP was being ironic. British English tends to include words in sentences that US English usually omits.

At a concentration level similar to the ones you're likely to see in the few moments after breaking a lightbulb, symptoms of acute mercury inhalation exposure require "a few hours" of exposure to develop. The patients in this review each absorbed a dose similar to the complete mercury contents of a typical CFL; it seems unlikely that an accident of the type described would result in more than a few percent of this amount of absorption, as the instinctive response to the bulb breaking - closing your eyes and exhaling - will prevent most of the contaminants entering your system. Also, unless the lamp was turned on at the time it broke, it is unlikely that more than a small percentage of the mercury was in vapour form.

You should consider replacing it with a readily-available spirit thermometer, e.g. this one. Spirit thermometers have a smaller temperature range that they can measure than mercury thermometers, but are often more accurate over that range, and if you just want one for medical purposes, you're not interested in any temperatures outside a very narrow range anyway. Plus, when that untimely demise eventually happens, it won't create a health hazard that requires careful cleanup.

What I found out by following those references: she started sleeping with him in May. This article was published in January. To quote Gjoni's account:

To be clear, if there was any conflict of interest between Zoe and Nathan regarding coverage of Depression Quest prior to April, I have no reason to believe that it was sexual in nature.

(source)

It is therefore irrelevant.

Yes, but according to the account written by her ex, it was written 4 months before she started sleeping with the reviewer. It's hard to see how, given this information, it is even slightly relevant.

1. GGGGP was talking about Quinn, which is not what this image is about.
2. The analysis here is in any case somewhat dubious, as the supposed problems noted can be explained quite simply. Really, an average of 26 seconds per tweet to write correctly spelled and punctuated messages is not even slightly difficult, so I don't suspect advance scripting was necessary. The speed of reaction to get the screen shot can be explained by the capturer noticing the first few tweets, then opening the sender's timeline to take the screenshot, during which time additional tweets will have been sent. If the early tweets were noticed on a mobile device and the capturer then moved to a PC to perform the screen cap this also explains the lack of search terms and the fact that they are not logged in.

Link please. This information is missing from most accounts I've seen that I consider credible, so I would certainly like to know more about it. Preferably including precise phrasing and context.

And in all the analysis I've seen of this, nobody has pointed out a single published article that appears, based on the timeline published by Quinn's ex, to have been unduly influenced. Which is probably why journalistic integrity isn't being raised in many places: it just doesn't look like anyone has actually done anything wrong.

Like? Please provide actual examples, rather than allusions to the existence of such things along with unjustified claims as to their obviousness.

Please provide a link to publicity she received from somebody she was sleeping with at the time of publication, or in any reasonable period of time prior to publication. Note: this article doesn't count, as by the most reliable accounts available she didn't sleep with its author until 4 months after it was published.

The timeline I saw suggested her game got the green light 3 days before the story broke, i.e. the publication of the details of her relationships most likely happened in response to the fact that she was suddenly becoming better known.

That's quoting her a long, long way out of context. The confession was to cheating, which also amounts to hypocrisy due to the fact that she's on record as stating that she considers cheating to be equivalent to rape. As the rest of us, generally speaking, don't consider these to be equivalent, however, let's keep the actual facts of what she did straight.

Right. That's because they weren't in the account that you read. They were made up by other people after that account became public, and started spreading as rumours before anybody did the research and found out that the guy involved didn't review any of her games in the relevant time period.

Those aren't the false accusations referred to by the article. The false accusations are the ones that suggest that she slept with Nathan Grayson in order to persuade him to write a positive review of one of her games. These accusations were quite widespread (e.g. 1, 2, 3), and appear to be completely false because nobody has pointed out a review written by Grayson of any of Quinn's games which was published after the date she's accused of sleeping with him.

Honestly, I'm not sure why anyone who doesn't know her personally would care what men she chooses to sleep with. It's not like it's actually any of our business, really. The one important accusation, that she used sex to get positive reviews for her game, turns out to be false. So let's just forget about the rest, OK?

You see, that's the interesting thing about this story: everyone assumes that he wrote about her games at some point while they were together. But he didn't. As far as I've been able to discover, he last mentioned one of her games in an article he wrote in January (link). He also mentioned her on a personal level, but didn't discuss any of her games, in an article he wrote in March (link). Yet according to her ex's account, he only started sleeping with her in May. So what exactly is unethical here?

Fine. It's a favourable, if brief, review. But as it was written 4 months prior to there being any kind of relationship between the two of them (according to her ex's account) it's quite tricky to see what, if anything, is wrong with it.