Maybe it’s haunted by a drunk cow?

I’m a fan of ‘your inner fish’ by Neil Shubin. Slightly dated, but the information is still good.

Yeah, it’s generally between Science and Nature in terms of greatest publication prestige. Most scientists work their butts off to get their works published in either of those, only to get their work desk-rejected and ultimately published in “less prestigious”, field-specific journals.

That’s not to say the Science and Nature are the end all be all of scientific journals; there are many journals specific to each field that is also prestigious.

Many biologists (myself included) don’t anthropomorphize animals because it’s impossible to objectively quantify things like “culture”. So, my opinion is that some fish change sex, and not their gender (because fish don’t have genders, which are human social constructs).

Happy to be corrected if I’m off-base. I’m not an ichthyologist.

Looks like a side blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) to me.

The Midas’ touch of Sally shit fingers

All of Francoise Hardy’s album Soleil. Absolutely lovely singing voice.

Only in Payne County.

A few points worth clarifying:

As another user pointed out, pseudoscientific journals and predatory journals aren’t the same. As you pointed out, pseudoscientific journals are generally easy to identify because they have a very clearly stated agenda typically. This means they will publish anything that places their ideas in a favorable light and are generally not objective. They tend to push garbage “science”.

Predatory journals are journals and publishing firms that have what is effectively a pay-to-play scheme, where authors are enticed with minimal peer review at relatively high publishing cost. Meaning, any crappy study can/will be published so long as the authors pay the publication cost. There’s a list online (Beall’s List) of what might be considered predatory.

Now, I will also point out that the authors paying is not what makes this unethical and damaging to science. The vast majority (if not all) scientific publishing is contingent on the authors paying the publication cost and these costs are going to be especially high in open access journals (e.g. PLoS, which is not predatory). These costs are only incurred when the journal agrees to publish after getting positive recommendations from reviewers. Predatory journals forgo the review, and simply publish.

Fraudulent work (i.e., faked data) is likely to be present in any reputable journal, albeit at low frequencies. I say “low” because science is increasingly moving toward an open data model of publication where the raw data sets associated with study must be available publicly, including code used to produce results. While there aren’t loads of people reanalyzing published datasets, the possibility that someone might could be enough to deter most people from making shit up.

I wouldn’t let the Wakefield example spoil the wealth of good studies that’s been published at the Lancet. At this point the only people giving that study any credence are Brain-worms and his ilk. A better bet is to look for retractions issued by the journals. This typically happens in the event of fraud, non reproducibility, fundamental flaws in the study, etc.

Source: I’m an academic scientist and actively publishing.

Tldr: look at Beall’s list for predatory journals; don’t worry too much about fraud in reputable journals; look for retractions if you’re really worried.

Course IDs vary from university to university—when I was an undergrad, lower div classes were <100, upper div between 100 and 199, and grad level classes 200+.

SNES for me, and rather frequently.

Bald eagles are sometimes considered kleptoparasites, and I’ve always found that fitting for the USA.

The old 4chan way: shoe on head with handwritten date/time stamp.

20%—I feel for tip-based workers, but I’m also not running charity nor am I in a financial place in life to be tipping much higher than that.

If 20% is not in the list I will enter 20%.

I’m genuinely curious what that means. What does it mean to “be manly”? Is it bad to not “be manly”? Along a similar vein, what is the opposite of “being manly”? Who defined the qualities that make a person “manly” (and what authority do they have on the subject)?

If Boston is the armpit of the Commonwealth, Worcester is the butthole.

You forgot to mention that the movie you’re watching is “The Land Before Time”

Dollar Store John Travolta: I Shit Myself Edition

I’ve always thought sky burials are pretty cool, but as a person living in North America who has no plans to move to Tibet or take up Buddhism, that’s completely impractical. Next best thing might be for my to be placed on a body farm.

I forget which one, but one of the Between the buried and me albums has an instrumental release. Honestly, all of their albums I recommend regardless because the musicianship is excellent.

Scale the summit is more along the lines of prog metal but purely instrumental (I think).

Protest the hero is prog metal that has a near minimal amount of death growl (still some).

Animals as leaders which has been mentioned by several people.

Exivious is decent, I’m like 90percent sure they’re instrumental.

There’s a Japanese band called té, which is way more prog rock but you might like that.

Death, despite being one of the progenitors of death metal, is less intense on the death metal growl vocals. To me, early death metal in general is a bit different sounding than modern death metal. Regardless, Death has a pure instrumental song called Voice of the soul which is part acoustic. It’s probably one of the most acoustically beautiful songs written in the genre.