Misleading. It's deadly when injected. So are many other things, including table salt. There is a substantially bigger safety buffer when eating it.

Even as a young teenager I could see Commodore was screwing itself. It seemed like every other issue of Amiga format bright with it a new Commodore CEO. It's a pity the Amiga died, it was pretty wonderful in its time.

That would be true if the advisor were putting words into people's mouths (telling them exactly what to say). But my impression is that this isn't the case (beyond thing such as "wear red", which seem innocuous enough to me). Maybe you're right that this advice borders on "gaming the system" (e.g. username choice) but it's not right, IMO, to say that following this advice will cause you to present a fraudulent image of yourself. It just helps you maximise what you've got.

The advice in the article is no different from the role make up plays on a woman. It makes a heck of a lot of difference but it's not fraud.

The summary provides suggestions on choosing a user name, what sort of photo to take (which it suggests should have real smile) and to include real personal traits in the description of yourself. How is this in contradiction of the age old advice?

Interesting, thanks for that. I didn't know the colours were visible only in time-lapse.

Astigmatism can behave like this. I do a little astronomy and I've seen cheaper wide-field eyepieces introduce astigmatism in the outer portions of the field (even if the objective is known to be good). The centre is good, though. You know it's astigmatism because stars turn into shapes such as crosses. Spherical aberation in the objective, on the other hand, decreases contrast throughout the field of view.

What you're missing is that astigmatism tends to get worse as you move off-axis and astigmatism causes blurring and other similar effects. Thus, more blur at the edges of the field than in the centre. You can correct for this, but it involves a lot heavy and expensive glass.

I've always wanted to know what some of these things would look like if I was simply looking at them through a window of a spacecraft.

Well you can find out! Go look at an image of the Andromeda galaxy. Then go to a dark site and look at the summer Milky Way. Compare the two.

My astrophotography friends would beg to differ. There's plenty of awesome color there without the need to falsify it.

This is not ideology driven. There is a scientific consensus that extreme climate change is a serious threat. The only ideology I see comes from the deniers who don't accept the science.

One reason they can't tell is because the data are often crooked and the pharma industry has a lot tricks up its sleeve to manipulate the apparent effectiveness of a drug. One of their mainstays is not publishing results that indicate the drug failed to work.

What the authors are doing is supress stress-related signals that propagate along peripheral nerves. So it's not "mood-altering" directly. It potentially alters things that can feed back to mood. It doesn't zap your brain to change your mood directly.

The effects of TMS are generally considered to be very short term. The efficiacy in clinical domains appears weak to me.

At which point they'd be "scientists" not "data scientists"

Bogus title. There's nothing "mathematical" about this case for buying the ticket. It's just a circular argument that says it's worth the $2 because you get $2 worth or pleasure out of it. It's a stupid article and an even more stupid submission for a site like this.