The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
> Wikipedia about this source
Internet Archive - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Internet Archive:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
I would also like to put an end to banks sharing my new credit card information with businesses I have subscriptions with. A lot of subscriptions would de facto cancel if banks quit providing that information.
Anecdotally, my neighborhood seems to be 70% manicured “perfect” suburban lawns vs 30% natural yard. Our little neighborhood also has a LOT of thick wooded areas and tall grass. Guess which houses look and feel like they truly belong?
Also, we have native plants and wildflowers in our yard (haven’t gone full clover yet) and the amount of bugs and cute little critters around are incredible. So much life all bustling about. The bees love it, we had 6 different bumbebees across our 2 echinacea plants at the same time! So friggen cool to see.
Columbus Dispatch - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Columbus Dispatch:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Internet Archive - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Internet Archive:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Good first step is just seeding clover where grass is struggling.
Clover isn’t a normal part of lawns anymore because broadleaf herbicide kills clover too. But there is zero reason to use herbicide on a fucking lawn anyways.
But you barely need to mow clover if it’s dominant in an area. It “learns” the height you mow at, and just stops growing taller than that.
Like a 1/4 of my backyard only gets mowed once or twice a season, and it looks green as fuck because it’s denser. That ground covers helps retain moisture in the ground, feeds bees and bunnies, and with all the bunnies, I even get foxes.
Plus clover produces nitrogen, so it naturally spreads to the poor soil and improves it because it can out compete grass and even weeds. Insisting on an “all grass, only grass” lawn is some boomer shit.
We’ve already done our whole front yard in native plants, but we still have grass in the back, which is struggling because we live in CO and Kentucky bluegrass was never meant to grow in a desert with clay soil. My mom finally said I can have most/all of it removed and plant a native grass mix with clover next year. I’m so happy.
Just start using that stuff for bare spots. Plants spread on their own bro, you just got to establish a population first. Maybe it’ll cross pollinate and you’ll get some crazy new bluegrass that’s hardy.
Right, there's nothing wrong with grass itself as a member of a diverse lawn, it's making it the only plant around that hurts everything else. Let the various species do a natural battle of survival and enjoy the eclectic results, as well as the wildlife it invites that you don't see on these "perfect" grass lawns.
Eh, it was already a victory getting my mom to agree to this at all. She wouldn’t be able to handle the “chaos” of it happening gradually. She’s extremely anxious about anything she perceives as messy (and that would definitely meet her criteria), and we have a non-profit here that removes lawns pretty inexpensively, so I’m taking my wins where I can get them and doing it in a way that won’t stress her out more.
This is something the wife and I have looked at doing for our next house but is clover less resilient to dogs than grass? We were figuring on natural stuff for the front yard but keeping grass in the majority of the backyard because of our pets
The spots that our dogs have destroyed clover, they had destroyed the grass anyway. And that’s under an old magnolia tree where everything struggles anyway. The rest of the back yard is fine.
Clover is better, it grows along the ground instead of straight up like grass So does a couple other kinds of broadleafs that will show up.
With grass if they dig in hard in one place it can kill the grass and then it’s bare, and likely going to stay that way for a while if you mow often. With clover the nearby strands just grow in to the empty space.
Like, if you got some huge dogs in a small yard that pace, it probably won’t matter. But just letting them run around in an open area you’ll be fine.
There will be bunnies back there tho. Even if you have a good fence, they’ll break in for the clover.
There will be bunnies back there tho. Even if you have a good fence, they’ll break in for the clover.
Yeah, it’s impossible to keep those little varmints out. Even with a solid fence, my small veggie patch is constantly being invaded by those bouncy thieves.
Our two dogs have been destroying the clover at the same rate of the grass but grows faster back. Just overseed any gap with clover when there are bald or low spots
I’ve let the clover from the easement behind our house take over most of our backyard. We’ve got 2 very rambunctious dogs, and the constant trails we’ve always had back there are gone…filled in by either clover or some more robust grass variety that handles it better (. It took a few years for them to fill in completely, but it was worth the wait to not have to try and overseed and pamper them every year.
Clover is so beneficial that pre-WW2, grass seed mixes almost always explicitly advertised clover content. If you look up 19th or early 20th century catalogs, etc, listings for grass seed will nearly always not only mention that they contain a clover mix, but tout its benefits.
As you note, it was only post-war with the creation of modern herbicides that clover stopped being the norm. There was more or less a DeBeers-style PR campaign to convince people that clover is a “weed” since it can’t survive weed killers.
Researchers assessed 135,000 different molecules (RNA, proteins and metabolites) and microbes (the bacteria, viruses and fungi living in the guts and on the skin of the participants).
Also, see the previous article in Naturelinked in the article. That study looked at fewer proteins, but had over 4,000 participants.
I mean, that makes me even more skeptical. 108 volunteers tracked for that many sparesely populated vectors is 100% going to have hundreds of false positives just due to statistical noise.
My favorite part of science discourse will always be people self-reporting how little they understand science the math behind statistics by complaining about sample sizes that have nothing wrong with them
For a very basic example, say you have 1 million people, 200 000 prefers burgers, and 800 000 prefers pizza, then say out you pick people out randomly from the group of 1 million people
How many do you need to pick out to have a 95% certainty that the ratio falls within 95% of the general distribution in the population? The answer is: 246. 246 is a big enough sample size for a 95% confidence that you are within 95% of the range of the general population distribution in this specific example
There’s a lot more to this, of course, but hopefully this is sufficient to showcase that you do not need large amounts of data to derive conclusive results
Usually in a scientific context you go more the route of calculating the confidence percentage that the data you got is random, also known as null-hypothesis testing, where the confidence percentage is the p-value. So the inverse of that is the confidence that it’s not random
But, again, there’s so much more to statistics than this, this is just the very basics.
I understand sampling, but the sample doesn’t represent the human population. Do the same test to 108 in Okinawa or any other blue zone and watch the results be different.
That’s like only sampling the burger people and then concluding that most people like burgers.
Assuming that people are biologically different enough between these two areas that is, or some other localized cause of aging at these years. Which I don’t find particularly likely, but yes, it is an assumption
As always, bigger studies are desirable, but idk if it’s much of a criticism of studies. These are for a scientific audience, after all
So, are they.eschewing religion becase of the mysogny but still believe the god bullshit ? Or because of the patently obvious bullshit about the god thing, ?
Miami Herald - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Miami Herald:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Internet Archive - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Internet Archive:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Texas Tribune - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Texas Tribune:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Internet Archive - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Internet Archive:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
NBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for NBC News:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Internet Archive - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Internet Archive:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
ABC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for ABC News:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Environmental Protection Agency - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Environmental Protection Agency:
> MBFC: Pro-Science - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Quality media sources do not report that someone is "an attempted murderer" unless they have been convicted. If you are reading from a media source that does not characterize this as alleged at this time, you are reading propaganda.
Edit: Okay, I see, you're differentiating between the charge and the action of "shooting in the face." My point still stands; this case has not gone to trial, and so everything the defendant is accused of remains alleged.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.