Oh no

Same

Fun fact - some soldering irons regulate their temperature using the curie point. There’s a disk of ferromagnetic material with a particular curie point in the tip. A magnet in the barrel of the soldering iron is attracted to the tip, and when it sticks to the tip, it switches the heating element on. When the disk hits its curie temperature it’s no longer magnetic, and the magnetic switch opens and shuts off the heating element (it’s on a weak spring). When the tip cools down enough it becomes magnetic again, and the magnet is pulled to it and turns on the heater. You can have different tips with different curie temperatures, so one soldering iron can do multiple temperatures with very cheap internal electronics (basically, just a switch).

This seems like it opens the door to asking for a mistrial.

Thank you!

Could you share the recipe?

It’s not a loop, there’s a fresh towel roll and a dirty towel take up roll and it only rolls on one direction. You changed it when the clean roll ran out and washed the dirty roll.

The towel is not a loop. When you pull down you get fresh towel off of a roll. The used towel goes onto a different roll and when the clean roll is used up they change it and wash the dirty one. They are geared together so the amount hanging down is pretty constant but sometimes they got out of sync and the “loop” was either huge or so tight you couldn’t really dry your hands.

“US stock market sees the worst day since the last time Trump was President.”

You know now.

The journal article is generally fine, and if the article had quoted that line from the discussion it would have been ok.

My complaint was the popular article paraphrasing the one sentence in the journal article that used words in a way that completely inverted the message of the journal article.

The post headline correctly reports the way the article incorrectly paraphrases the confusingly written journal article.

The phrasing in the journal article is clumsy but clear in context. The article this post cites removes the context, so the only reading of the sentence in the article is directly opposite to what the journal article says. It’s clearly unintentional - they’re not deceptively trying to say red meat is good for you, but words actually mean something, so using the wrong ones doesn’t help anybody.

Either that article is terribly written or the study cited says exactly the opposite of what is implied. “Substituted processed red meat protein for that found in nuts….” means eliminated the plant protein and replaced it with red meat protein. They almost certainly mean “substituted… with”, but as written that’s not what they say.

EDIT: the original scientific paper uses a similar awkward construction, but in context it is clearer than in the popular article. Most of the papers’ authors appear to be non native English speakers, but their co-authors, the journal editors or the reviewers should have corrected that. Ambiguity in scientific papers is bad.

Oh wow, NYT. That’s a super deep insight. Nobody else picked up that maybe, just maybe, 47 was a teensy bit racist.

Ok, so they do that to everybody, and now the strike can’t end. This helps them how?

I like how this article is about Walgreens, but every comment is about Walmart.

Trump’s plan for ending the genocide is to let Netanyahu complete it.

That’s a good strategy, because appeasing fascists always works out well.

I wondered why Samsung, a company that literally produces military weapons, wasn’t on the list.

Probably because South Korea is a close military ally.