Are you Canadian by any chance? It’s common in Canada to call electrical utilities “hydro” whether there’s water generation or not. In the states they don’t do this as much. At least not in my experience.
Well hello there Washington citizen! WA is the only state in the US to get most of its electricity from hydro.
You’ve got a great river system up there and WA manages to put it all to great use. If the whole country had that kind of river network, perhaps we’d all be running on renewables…
Ah - I didn’t know we were the only ones who do. But yes, it’s nice to have that. I understand we also have the largest ferry system in at least the US, although I think that’s not directly related to the rivers.
Utility poles. Could carry electricity and/or telephone and/or cable tv. In some places it may be home to street lights, sirens, emergency signals, fiber optic cables & junctions/splitters, or other infrastructure.
Strips cut through forested areas like this are generally called fire breaks. I don’t know if there’s a more specific term for those beneath power lines.
If you mean a belief in a supreme being, I’ve been agnostic for most of my life, leaning towards atheism. That hasn’t changed.
Organized religion is a completely different thing, and in my opinion, comparable to nationalism. I’ve seen way too much inhumane shit being done to other humans in the name of some ideology or other, and I decided not to be part of it. No gods or kings, as far as loyalty goes.
I suggest googling reproducibility/replication crisis or Francesca Gino or have a look at RetractionWatch. I wish your portrait of scientists were true but alas.
If it were such a wide spread issue, then science would not achieve the results it does. It lives from people checking other people’s work and arguing about the results.
There is still an issue of human bias, though. A thought is not accepted unless it's widely accepted. Even much of our established science was once a pipe dream, even with reproducible proof, until it was accepted on a wider scale.
It's not as simple as just providing proof and letting people accept it, you have to appeal to them. Which is exactly what politicians do.
It’s pretty incredible what we know about history, just from guessing by what we find and second guessing the first guess with more findings.
Or how we know pretty much all steps how the language evolved from Latin, thousands of years ago, to Italian, which is spoken today.
What I despise is when things are quite clear and politics just act like we would not know. Like how „brain drain“ is still a valid talking point while science already knows it’s false.
I agree. I only wanted to point out that reaching a consensus about the results of an experiment or a study is more difficult in some areas of research.
asklemmy
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.