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.

Is it better than using 25 % less salt?

Cosmology and astrophysics are considered classical? I would expect both quantum physics and relativity to play a major role nowadays.

deleted by creator

For plants, PlantNet works very well for me.

The catch in this one is not a planetary body, but for science. Ingenuity was a technological demonstrator without any scientific instrumentation on board. I’m sure someone will use some of its images and flight data for science (probably already did), but its purpose was a proof of concept, not science. Dragonfly goes to Titan to do science.

I didn’t read the original paper yet, perhaps it’s there, but it isn’t in the linked article nor its source Ars Technica article. Can authors themselves upload their papers to these archives, and if so, how to do it correctly to make it findable both by DOI and other means? Does anyone know?

We see the same side all the time.

Not completely same all the time:

For partial eclipses, very cool is watching the light underneath trees. The small holes between leaves work a bit like camera obscura, so they effectively project crescents of the sun on the ground.