“In a Sept. 15 article in Military Times, Hoover discussed possible reasons why younger veterans could have higher PFAS exposures. He noted that previous research has shown that firefighting foams used on bases, munitions, treated uniforms, and burn pits used to dispose of industrial waste may be involved.”

I’m not the person you asked, but I do have answers.

I have a French press, so I often use that. The preparation is exactly the same as a hot press except for the time and temperature; same grind, same proportions of water to coffee. Just mix the coffee and cool water and wait to plunge for several hours. It would usually be something I’d prepare the night before, leave on the counter, then plunge and pour in the morning.

You can do the same thing with larger volumes/masses of coffee and water using a mesh bag and a pitcher. Same process just more. Also avoid squeezing the bag too much, but do let the coffee run out as you remove the bag containing the coffee from the pitcher.

Kind of amazing that something of this size and complexity is still a single celled organism.

I get that you’re trying to be witty, but … Well I don’t know what to say that isn’t mean. I just don’t think it’s funny anymore.

For the hopelessly literal and pedantic, the School is named after Joseph L. Mailman, a business person that donated a bunch of money, not a gender exclusive profession.

Take a look at the timeline for cigarettes. The time between something causing harm and someone putting together the statistics to prove that it does is not that short. 2006 was like yesterday. Kids that started vaping as children in 2006 aren’t even old enough for a midlife crisis yet.

That also sounds a lot like the kind of comments that Reddit (and Lemmy, and really any social network with votes) grooms for if you prefer up votes to arguing with pedants and trolls. Eventually all your left with are boring overqualified comments or inflammatory comments when the mob rules and you are striving/solving for the most popular/engaging answer. It’s like conversational least squares analysis.

I wonder where the LLM trolls are? Maybe they are just so subtle, we haven’t noticed them. Maybe LLMs aren’t hallucinating answers, so much as they and trolling us. And here is where I qualify my answer in an attempt to quell the fools that might think anything I’ve said here implies that LLMs are anything close to sapient.

Why is the thumbnail preview throbbing?

Sounds like something a sea lion would say.

Are these ratios of hours online in a day (3:11 implies 3 out of 11 hours) online per day? That seems unlikely given how difficult comparisons like that would be to make.

That leaves the other option that these “hours” are actually hours and minutes (hours:minutes). But, that option is almost as bad simply because then the map subtitle has lied to us through omission in not mentioning minutes.

This map should have either just shown the number of total minutes or shown the hours in decimal rounded to a sane number of significant digits. Making a distinction of a minute or three amongst such broadly general averages of almost certainly guesstimated numbers self reported in a survey seems a poor choice.

It’s a misleading legend, but the note at the bottom tries to clear it up a bit. This map seems to more be like “We took the range maps of 238 species of fish and overlaid them. The red area is where practically all of those range maps of each 238 species of fish overlapped.” Of course there are other fish, but they were not included here because the map maker didn’t have the right kind of dataset for them. To me that seems to indicate that this map isn’t so much a map of actual biodiversity measured, but the potential for biodiversity of the region. Given that it’s fish, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that this area is somewhere between/near the northern continent’s biggest river, a large gulf, and ancient mountain range, and a coast with a strong warm current (for now…).

Rude.

Bro, if you didn’t want people to respond with genuine takes on what you post and if you’re going to be so defensive, why are you even here?

Also, I’m not defending anything. DST should be the standard time because we spend most of the year in it anyway. But that’s just my own opinion, which I feel no need to defend to you or anyone else.

You’re so wound up about making your point and defending your point of view that you’re not actually comprehending my comments. It’s your map in the sense that you are presenting it to us, who authored it isn’t really relevant to this discussion.

Just pointing out the ridiculousness of getting petty and insulting about the way other people define time scales because you don’t agree. There is no objective truth here, just subjective opinions. ALL of those opinions and methods have flaws, especially your beloved “everyone should just use UTC”. There is no such thing as “correct” here, so putting that word in your map’s title and using “right” and “wrong” in this discussion is just naive.

We spend most of our year in daylight savings time. Standard time is the pretendy-magic-time.

This map really brings home how awful this projection is for this map’s purpose and how awful most projections really are near the poles. Greenland isn’t that big. I know this map is Plate Carree, not Mercator, but the size issue of an equirectangular projection is really similar when comparing longitude and size for the entire globe from pole to equator. 15 degrees of longitude for a timezone stops making sense that close to the poles. Greenland would mostly fit in the central time zone of the United States for example. Given its sparse population, dividing it up into 3 timezones seems unnecessary.

Strawman arguments aside, it seems you’ve already forgotten how this comment chain started. Just let it go.

This is a map enthusiast community, not a lying with statistics and graphic design community.

It says “not to scale”, which in the world of mapping means very specifically that the scale is inconsistent. An exaggerated vertical scale would not include the disclaimer for “not to scale” and is very common, as I already said. It’s common for maps showing vertical reliefs like profiles or cross sections to have a horizontal scale of something like 1:20 while the vertical dimension has a scale of 1:5 or 1:10, which would still be considered “to scale”. If you still can’t fit everything on a single sheet, you can add a break line or a jog to indicate a discontinuity, but the map would still be “to scale”. This map is “not to scale” because it says so, so the only real information we should be able to glean from it are the connections between things; size, angles, and lengths as are meaningless because that’s what “not to scale” is specifically warning us about.

I didn’t break out the ruler or anything, just going off of the pixelated disclaimer at the bottom.