I've always been appalled that an irreplaceable resource could be sold as filler for party balloons.

I rather dislike that they label things as "organic", in that there is no proof that they are indeed grown or raised using only safe, natural methods.
Furthermore, there is no proof that such foods are in any way better for your overall health.

As always in the modern era, it is no longer possible to know what to believe, you have to decide who to believe.

Here is the source paper: https://www.nature.com/article...

For each of the stages, the numbers given seem like absolutes: 9, 32, 66 and 83
Surely these are averages.
Are there differences between male and female?
Lots more to learn here.

Golf is the only activity that absolutely must have natural light far into the evening in summer.
Mainly the rich and powerful play golf.

I wish they'd just adjust their own schedules and leave the rest of us alone.

When up against other candidates, the under-qualified white guy can't find a job when there are quite qualified women, asian, hispanic, disabled etc people available.

The title is an example of why science is meeting with scepticism is the modern era

Why not "Evidence indicates problems with a common assumption about aging"

Other problematic phrasing such as "scientists believe..." tells readers that all their hard work, research and training has resulted in a mere belief — and beliefs are subjective. Thus while scientists believe one thing someone else opposite belief is just as valid — evidence notwithstanding

Are there other known reasons that galaxies can be moving away from us?
Perhaps a near miss with another galaxy could have accelerated this one in such a direction that its red shift makes it appear older than it is.
The presence of Carbon and Nitrogen, and the lack of neutral hydrogen suggest that it is not as old as its red shift indicates.
I only read the article cited in the summary, not the actual paper.

If they've broken laws, then charge them now.

You must answer the question, "Who should I trust?"
Commonly, people tend to trust those with the same ideological background.

The article uses the phrase "left-wing" Democrats, whereas the spectra of both parties overlap. The closer to the centre a person is, the more likely they are to trust peer-reviewed science.

If you've decided to trust a paper based solely on ideology, you need backup.

"When you publish a book, part of the process is that you're expected to promote it. That's how the publishing game works"

No need when the subject of your book is doing all the promotion you could ever want

They're deliberately including those that otherwise could not get in.

peaked 60 years too soon

They haven't found the brighter ones yet.

If you're looking for something to do with the pig after it has been butchered, why not grind it up?