Dietary calcium is great for preventing stones, actually. Calcium is bound to a couple different things that cause stones, but the body actually makes those things specifically to bind with calcium. When it happens where it is supposed to, this is a good thing. If you are low on calcium, these things get flushed, and may get trapped in the kidney. Then any calcium that passes through may bind to it. Having higher calcium intake helps prevent them from building up in the kidneys to begin with. Though extremely high amounts of calcium from vitamin supplements etc can increase the risk of getting stones, but high calcium diet is one of the best defenses against them.

It is actually not an excess of calcium that’s usually the problem, calcium deficiency is actually a greater risk for most. While yes, the most common types are both chemicals that are in part calcium, the body is meant to produce them, just in different parts of the body. Usually, a deficiency in calcium allows those other compounds that should be used up in other places to be flushed through the kidneys, possibly building up. Then incidental calcium that does move through the kidney binds to them there. Higher dietary calcium intake is associated with a sharp decline in stone risk, though extremely high intakes from vitamin supplements etc do increase risk. But in general, it is an excess of the things that bind to calcium that are the things to avoid, apparently almonds are pretty much the worse thing ever, with a fairly distant second being chocolate.

Just speak the incantation of motive energy and light the incense to soothe the machine spirit.

Pretty sure the whole point of this article is we have confirmed tiny black holes do rapidly evaporate. We’ve theoretically known that any black hole just about our sun’s mass or smaller will spew more Hawking Radiation than it can consume mass and will shrink. And this process should accelerate as the mass shrinks. This seems to be the first expiremental evidence to support the well established theory.

Specifically skeletons are a big deal. Lots of games edit them out, WoW had alternate models for the Undead players, who generally have exposed bone joints and other bits of bone protrusions, to cover them all in flesh. I think it is sometimes OK to use skeletons as enemies, but never for player characters, IIRC.

Strong sharks are smooth energy.

Ahhh, OK, I see it now, thanks very much.

I feel dumb, I don’t get the ace bit. Was it just slang, like he’s cool, and then they swerved it? Or was there something that actually made the commentary think they were asexual in the image? Now I feel dumb and old.

There is evidence to show that violet does actually weakly activates red cones too. This is because the violet light starts creeping up to double the frequency of the lower end of the red sensitivity, and so it can actually successfully activate it very weakly. There are other factors that can lessen or even fully negate that effect though, it’s all kind of fuzzy.

I think his issues more stemmed from academia and the rat race within it, not so much the ethical issues of mathematics and what they can lead to. Just shitty crabs trying to escape the bucket.

But fish don’t exist.

This is also true. Poisonous doesn’t specifically mean “dangerous when eaten” when talking about the substance. It is an insanely broad category. It basically just means the substance is harmful.

Ah, but we can go even further beyond in pedantry. This distinction is only exclusive when we’re talking about a living thing. When talking about the substances themselves, one is a subcategory of the other. A venomous snake is not poisonous, but a venomous venom is a poisonous poison.

deleted by creator

Am I the only person who heard this in the voice of the character in the pfp?

The cost is less from the design and more from the safety regulations. Best case scenario the state just starts making nuclear power plants, it’s just not a good idea to mix profit incentive with nuclear.

deleted by creator

Not to mention it wasn’t really “the church” as much as one egotistical asshat in the church that had beef with Galileo and more or less made up a reason to persecute him. And when more level headed parts of the church told Galileo to chill and he’d be fine he just doubled down and thumbed his nose at the pope. It was never really about the science at all, he was being funded by the church to do his research in the first place.

Yeah there was a compress all your favorites into the device bit, and cashing in on the semi-current trend of check out how cool it is to crush stuff bit, and they just didn’t connect.

I never got that. Surely, it’s nearly as likely to divert an asteroid that would miss us to a course that would hit us as it is to do the opposite, right? The number that are actually trapped/impacted is a tiny percentage, and then the percentage of those that would have hit us must be a small percentage of that, is it really enough to be statistically significant?