msrenee

Mine's in my basement and I hear it fine. I'm sure plenty of people on this site have bigger houses than mine though.

I was wondering what was going on in their life that the alert sound from the washer and dryer weren't sufficient for the purpose. My GE dryer sings a happy "laundry's dry" song when it's finished.

You're right though, this way is more fun.

It's interesting to me that there's so little public awareness about stainless steel as it affects workers. I'll go ahead and skip working with it as the piddly amount of a pay bump doesn't offset the known danger it poses. My nose has the correct number of holes in it, thank you very much. Add in the cancer risk and I've got no intentions of screwing around with the stuff.

He's just fast enough to stay away.

I've only ever seen dogs yawn on purpose as submissive/appeasing behavior. Kind of a nervous "I'm not trying to cause trouble." I'll get it from dogs if I've asked them to do too many behaviors in a row and they think it's because they haven't given me the correct one. Kind of an apology that they don't know what I want.

I see it occasionally between dogs when one is being stiff/dominant and the other yawns to kind of apologize and diffuse the situation.

Then again, I haven't worked much with sighthounds and they're basically a different species from other dogs, haha.

I'd say it passes reliably enough that some breeds are smarter than others. Over generations, I see no reason you wouldn't be able to consistently breed intelligent dogs.

Eastern Nebraska here. Woke up to no connection at 4am. It was restored by 8 am. Now at 10, it's out again.

Edit: And back again a few minutes later.

One of my favorites. The nearby Virgin River was also possibly named after a Thomas Virgin rather than any wild or unmodified qualities of the river.

They're just being cheeky. Toro is also a brand of lawnmower.

Mom's a nurse, so we grew up with about everything in the house being branded drug merch. The diflucan dolphin beanie toy is probably my favorite. As an adult, I wish she had brought home Viagra swag. They gave out some hilarious stuff.

Michaels carries their shirts as well as Gildan brand.

I think the implication is that it may be misrepresented or cherry-picked in a way that strengthens their argument against public education. Not that every outlet isn't biased in some way, but this is a group with a known strong bias.

I feel like all the articles are ignoring the important question: what kind of spiders? Obviously the roaches are dubias. Just hand those off to an employee at the nearest pet store and they'll be pleased as punch. What kind of spiders though? Cobweb spiders, jumping spiders, tarantulas? These are all very different situations. Heck, there's tarantulas that go for 100s of dollars. This could have been a thoughtful gift gone wrong.

In all seriousness these dudes thought they were the internet resale mafia and I've very much been enjoying reading how every piece of their plan blew up in their faces. They thought they were so damn slick. There's internet harassment and then there's sending a couple a book on how to deal with a spouse dying. Glad to see they're looking at jail time.

They're talking about neighborhoods and streets in Atlantic City, NJ. Not the actual regions of Europe.

Body building is an interesting example to choose here. The top dogs often do die young. It seems like it's just kind of accepted as the cost of the sport.

We get them in shells in the US as well. I'd definitely be interested in buying these still in the shell.

The continuation of this style of "improvement" of livestock brought us the meat chicken that quickly grows to a point where its legs won't support it. It's inhumane to keep them around for too long past slaughtering age (8-10 weeks) as they just suffer. You see people trying to "rescue" them in the backyard chicken groups and there just isn't a way to give them an acceptable quality of life.

That comes down to handling every employee as an individual and knowing what they do and don't respond to. If you've got someone who doesn't take "I need X" as a request to do X, you just adjust your phrasing so that your meaning gets through.

I'm pretty sure saying goods "fell off the truck" is just a euphemism for them being stolen. That's why they're sold cheap.

Did they? I'd love an article about that if you have one handy.

It's pretty clear in the article that they're talking about North America.

Not in medical terminology, no. I certainly wouldn't call a pap smear an invasive procedure.

I can happily chill out without my phone. I think it's something that more people should practice. I don't think that pre-colonoscopy is the time to expect people to go without comforting distractions.

I really wish I could turn down the play/pause beep on my aftershokz. It's perfect in a loud shop with earplugs in. Sitting in a quiet office with my music down low to concentrate, it's uncomfortable and startling. I don't understand why the system sounds don't respond to the volume level.

I've seen funnel clouds probably a half dozen times. The area I'm in now got hit in the last 10 years. There have also been a couple instances of stright-line winds in the last 15 years bad enough to tear huge oak trees out of the ground. The severely impacted area is fairly small, but it certainly would have been a concern for people loving in this area.

I think it's more common to call them Grandma and Grandpa Lastname or Grandma Firstname and Grandpa Firstname. I've also seen it where one set of grandparents are Grandma and Grandpa and the other set is Nana and Papa or Mimi and Pop Pop or whatever set of less formal terms they use for the relations.

I'm not sure I've met anyone who doesn't have more familiar terms than dad's mom and mom's mom. They're probably out there, but not super common.

Firing an Ak-15 and not realizing it? I know it was a hectic, stressful situation, but that gun has some kick to it.

>I agree with checking the references, but again, my point is that as a general rule it's really not that easy. You can think it's easy because you have had the work done for you for this particular article and that it is obvious in this particular article, but in general, it is way more complicated.

It is that easy to check a reference. The only real obstacle is whether you have access to an article cited, which any reviewer will through their university or organization. Find the article cited by the paper under review as referenced in work using the title, author, and year published. Read article. Done it a million times myself. Books are obviously going to take longer to double-check and very old articles might be hard to access. Studying the "quoted paper" (Although it often won't be a direct quote. That would be even easier to check on.) is an important part of reviewing. This isn't supposed to be a 5-minute read-through to be given a thumbs-up if it seems alright. It should take time to ensure that it makes a valid point using verifiable facts.

>But more importantly, and it makes your point moot: if the article is misrepresentating the reference, then, rather than in the peer-review process, it will be the reference author that will notice it.

The reference author isn't going through every work that cites theirs. It could be they notice, but it's more likely they never see the work. If the paper author is misrepresenting the reference, that's the peer-reviewer's job to catch it.

>The peer-review is the first step before submitting the article to the whole community, and it is then that the majority of the discussion happens.

The peer-review is the last step before submitting the article to the whole community. What do you think the point of the peer review is? It's not a rubber stamp. It's supposed to be other researchers who are capable of spotting a work which isn't supported by facts and the references cited.

>While I agree with the previous things, this bit makes me pause: careful with that, historically, the majority of correct claims were, at first, sounding dubious, and the majority of incorrect claims were, at first, sounding totally not dubious.

So you shouldn't look into questionable claims because sometimes false claims sound perfectly believable?

I was with you on most of your points until you extrapolated this to "the left" and rolled on into Netflix shows as evidence of the degradation of academia due to politics you don't agree with.

>The article can tell "Cort was informed about the new techniques from a family member back from Jamaica". How do you verify that? The only way is to redo the all work from scratch, refound all the historical references and cross-validate each of them. It's a huge work.

You start by going through the citations the author has listed and seeing if those support their reasoning. Sounds like that's what the non-expert in the linked article did. It turned out that some of what she claimed was not supported by or was in direct opposition to the sources in her citations. That's what citations are for. They're listed at the end of the paper in a standardized way so they can be easily accessed by anyone who wants to know where an author got a piece of information from.

If this wasn't possible, there would be no point to peer review. I can understand an article getting through where the author falsified experimental data. That's hard to refute unless you can find evidence of the false data or you run the experiment again yourself. A history article, though? If you're not double-checking dubious claims by see what sources the author is using to support them, you may as well not bother reviewing.