Every morning for the past 20 years. Mostly TWIM, but only for 20 minutes as a formal sit. Lots of short meditation breaks during the day, though. It has made me way less of an asshole, and a happier person.
Every morning for the past 20 years. Mostly TWIM, but only for 20 minutes as a formal sit. Lots of short meditation breaks during the day, though. It has made me way less of an asshole, and a happier person.
I don’t know that scientists gaslit anyone. I think it’s more the state of journalism driven by the way it is monetized. Chasing SEO drives clickbait headlines and sensational claims to the top of everyone’s feed.
I really appreciate the discussion on Lemmy.
The video (you can skip to the last five or 10 minutes of it to get the gist of what I’m talking about) says that the discrepancy isn’t unexplained. It’s point is that the different models depend on a large number of variables, and one of those variables is the size and brightness of the first generation of stars in the early universe. Tweaking that part of the model can explain the discrepancy. (According to the video.)
I am not a planetary scientist, but I have read a bit on the subject. My understanding is that it’s almost entirely due to the lack of magnetic field. The solar wind just blasts the atmosphere away over time.
If we ever reach a high enough state of technology to terraform Mars, we will have to figure out some way to protect the atmosphere. I found this video to be a really interesting take on the subject: https://youtu.be/HpcTJW4ur54?si=P-HpbrHPjJFfAaEI
I was curious about why all of the authors of a study from Oxford University seem to have Chinese names. I didn’t find any of their names in a search of Oxford’s staff, either.
I have no idea what this means, but maybe the study was actually conducted elsewhere using data from the UK? Maybe there are just a ton of graduate students from China at Oxford in their life sciences program? I’m not insinuating any sinister, it just seems odd and I was trying to understand why.