194

Monthly Science Summary OC to reduce the time needed to get up-to-date with the latest major studies. Sources & related Wikipedia articles

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Appreciate this post, bruh.

[-] prototyperspective@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Thanks, spending lots days on going through the >2k studies, criteria-based selection and integrating most of these into Wikipedia (the image itself takes less time). Happy to see it's appreciated.

[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Got curious about the "new nuclear is a costly and dangerous distraction" in climate change mitigation

Went after the source, and the gist of the idea is "going nuclear takes too long, is more expensive than renewables and we need change NOW"

As for the carbon tax being better when going after the rich (because they're the biggest consumers of luxury goods): NO SHIT SHERLOCK

[-] prototyperspective@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, the issue is that many of the most obvious things are not getting researched or substantiated. Moreover, the two studies provide useful data on this. Costs stats

Sadly, many of the most valuable things scientists could investigate are no-shit-sherlock things. These are highly impactful and important studies. I've been tracking over a thousand of the top studies per month for over three years, since recently even with extra attention to policy-relevant studies as these are rare and often drown. I could give lots of examples of similar cases such as this recently featured first review of measures to prevent risks from bioresearch/labs or yet unstudied things with nothing to cite.
Maybe that inspires some to become scientists themselves because that is required to be able to meaningfully publish valuable research on such subjects that matter in the real world.

[-] Rokil@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Thanks for this summary! I was not aware of this article: "Why investing in new nuclear plants is bad for the climate".

It sounded a bit counter-intuitive, but I'm gonna read this article

[-] christophski@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

This is awesome, thanks!

this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
194 points (96.2% liked)

science

14595 readers
36 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS