I think it’s supposed to be a better-paid test flight. It sound like nobody dares to send a crewed test flight and Boeing doesn’t want to lose yet more money on uncrewed test flights.

To date, the company has reported losses of $1.85 billion on Starliner. As a result, Boeing has told NASA it will no longer bid on fixed-price space contracts in the future.

Wow, they really messed up big time and obviously don’t think they can do better. I really wish SpaceX had competition, but they really don’t. Sad.

Oh, thank you. I stopped reading when it started to talk about someone else 9 years later, I thought it would be some other controversy. I wish he crowdsourced the $150 though. I wonder how many citations it could have gotten…

And how did it end? Was it published? Did they get off the fucking mailing list? Wikipedia doesn’t say.

I think pokemon used to be an oncosuppressor gene, but since its mutations caused cancer, Pokemon owners threatened (or mayvbe even sued), until the name was changed.

You’re right, somehow I managed to miss the tunnel completely… But still, it’s all very clean, neat and lacks any fixtures, machinery, velcros etc. It looks very nice, but not very realistic. But I admit I’m not the target audience.

I seriously doubt it will look like that. Where is storage? Where is research equipment? I don’t think it will be nearly this spacious.

I thought these were disproved by lack of gravitational microlensing?

I didn’t check the calculation, but I guess it assumes perfect conversion of motion to heat. But it’s good to know that if you can get a perfectly static chicken, you can hypersonic-slap it cooked.

Do they actually work? I don’t have actual experience, but I heard that they are only used by people who might benefit from them and thus the authors are automatically suspicious to the reviewer, plus you almost always cite your previous papers in a pretty obvious way, so it’s hardly blind anyway.

Cool, thanks for the info!

How does Plantnet fare in tropics?

That didn’t sound right, my experience that depending on luck and season, somewhere between 50 and 90 % of big mushrooms I come across in a forest are poisonous or at least disgusting. I admit it’s a very wild estimate and I’m very far from knowing all the mushroom I come across, but still, that seems like a big contradiction. So I followed your link to the primary article.

I suspected that they might only count potentially lethal mushrooms, but no, it indeed seems they count even those that only make you nauseous. The problem is in the other number. The 100 000 means all funghi, it includes for example all yeasts. Most funghi don’t create mushrooms that anyone would consider picking. So the ratio you calculated below is WAY off.

I would also like to note that the number 100 seems to come from a very simple PubMed search. Basically, if nobody wrote a paper about someone being sick after eating a mushroom, they wouldn’t find it. I don’t think that would mean that many foraged mushrooms would be missed, but it is a limitation worth knowing about.

Rubroboletus satanas is definitely poisonous. On the other hand, Imleria badia is very good. Bruising blue doesn’t really say anything about edibility.

I’m not an expert, though.

Not so much Amanita phalloides as Amanita pantherina, that one looks much more similar. But I agree, if you know what you’re doing and don’t pick mushrooms with which you don’t have experience with and aren’t sure about, you’re good.

I used to pick up even Amanita rubescens, an acual (although edible and tasty) Amanita, so even more similar to poisonous ones. But I didn’t have an opportunity for quite a few years and now I wouldn’t dare, until I got an opportunity to verify with someone experienced and trustworthy.

Well, if you want to head that way, there’s Etruscan shrew. Less than 2 grams of weight and 4 cm of length.

There are also wimps. They might be dark matter.

I really like RING - really interesting new gene.

And his wife’s was Smith. They combined their names when they married.

It should be said that this is from Science Abridged Beyond the Point of Usefulness by Zach Wienersmith.

If you want to be able to write practically anything on mobile, including ≠, ≈, ‰, ℝ etc., have a look at Unexpected keyboard. No spellcheck or autocomplete, though.