• 4 Posts
  • 62 Comments
Joined 2 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年8月19日

help-circle






  • Your graphic uses the same larger type of metric of greenhouse gases as does the Nature article. If you click on the greenhouse gas equivalents bit in the header where the figure came from, it makes that clear:

    Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas, but not the only one. To capture all greenhouse gas emissions, researchers express them in “carbon dioxide equivalents” (CO₂eq). This takes all greenhouse gases into account, not just CO₂.

    You’re not wrong about meat not comprising two-thirds of any person’s total GHG emissions, and I’ve never suggested otherwise. I just wanted to provide a better source of information than that graphic.






  • Any NIH-funded research must be made open access one year after its publication date. NIH publishes the accepted manuscript in PubMed at the one-year mark. Unlike NIH, (last I checked) NSF doesn’t strictly require it, but you won’t be getting NSF funding unless you say you’re going to make the resulting papers freely available somehow (e.g., preprints, paying for open access, etc.). Not sure about DOE/DOD/etc. funded-articles.

    The majority of federally funded research in the US is made open access. You might not realize it because news outlets typically report on brand-new articles, which haven’t hit the one-year mark for open access yet.




  • No, glia support neurons; they do things like redirecting blood flow to more-active-than-usual neurons, mylenate axons, etc. They wouldn’t form a mesh around neurons’ photoreceptors the same way they do neurons’ somas and axons. What the article describes is that glia actually are critical at allowing for color vision during the day and night vision at night, since on land we’d get too much blue light to see color with much fidelity were it not for glia, and a similar filtration process helps us see at night. It’s not that it’s not as bad as it could be, it’s actually that vision is better this way (barring one small blind spot outside of our fovea–which, being outside of the fovea, would have low acuity anyways).