Francisco

@Francisco@mander.xyz

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨This week in science⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Great summary, thanks!

  Despite the great images of IO the linked article comes with this mud pearl “[University of Arizona’s Large Binocular Telescope] With two primary mirrors measuring 8.4 m (~27.5 ft), it has a collecting area slightly greater than that of a 30-meter (98.4 ft) telescope.”

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Caption this.⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Original sketches for the drinking scene on the Predator movie.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Rare cross-shaped reliquary unearthed from medieval knight's home in Poland⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  according to Science in Poland.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨NASA's Curiosity rover reaches Mars ridge where water left debris pileup⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Same content on archive .ph

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Analysis: Most research on PFAS harms is unpublicized⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Thanks for your answers and perspective, trully. Even if none of us have changed their opinion.

  I see adjectivation and categorization as parts of reasoning. I think you used a red herring in order to have a strong opinion about it. With the same cheakyness, I’ll quote yourself

  I can’t say whether this is an important issue, because I don’t have any experience in this area.

  I take issue

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Analysis: Most research on PFAS harms is unpublicized⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  You feel free to use expressions and terms as “rub me the wrong way”, “buzzwords”, and “clickbait”. In those cases you are okay with the listener/reader interpreting the implicit meaning over their explicit wording. Why is “forever chemicals” different? Specially in an informal communication setting.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Analysis: Most research on PFAS harms is unpublicized⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  What would you consider as okay to mention as ‘forever chemicals’?