That’s literally the entire point of making the distinction between throwing away bottles with the cap and without. What did you think this was about?
That’s literally the entire point of making the distinction between throwing away bottles with the cap and without. What did you think this was about?
Feel free to try it out yourself, but people bring this up for a reason. You are wildly underestimating the strength of thin plastics.
Technically true, but kinda pointless to bring up here. It’s a thin layer that’s vaporized during recycling. Not exactly comparable to a plastic bottle containing tens of thousands of times more plastic that’s probably gonna sit in a landfill shedding plastic bits for the next 100,000 years.
A bottle full of air rolls when stepped on, with no cap they just squish flat.
They’re interrelated, and important to talk about together in this context. Sometimes it’s more useful to look at what the asker is trying to accomplish than simply answering exactly what was asked.
Attempting to interact with the shark vs. simply being in the water. The article mentions people trying to touch or feed sharks, free them from fishing nets, etc.
No is arguing otherwise.
One paper does not make a “fact”. Years of established research and widespread consensus barely justifies labeling a subject as a “fact”.
Have you already forgotten the room temperature superconductor claims from last year?
Let me be absolutely clear. I am in no way trying to discredit this paper. I see no reason to question their findings, it’s good science and absolutely should be followed up on. However, I take strong exception to people jumping on any half decent study and treating it as gospel.
Holy fuck what a stupid response.
Here’s some recommended reading, hope it helps: https://kids.kiddle.co/Hypothesis
One published paper is never sufficient to claim anything as fact. To suggest otherwise is purely ignorance.
That is absolutely antithetical to the scientific process. Nothing is considered ‘fact’ until rigorously proven. This is interesting evidence that absolutely warrants criticism.
Are you seriously complaining about requiring a signature? Why should weed paraphernalia be treated any differently to tobacco?