Links 2/7/20

Links for you. Science:

Why do scientists cheat?
Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak’s origins
A deadly virus is spreading from state to state and has infected 19 million Americans so far. It’s influenza
New emails show how President Trump roiled NOAA during Hurricane Dorian
Can Cover Crops Save Florida’s Citrus?


Obama Helped Make Cars More Efficient, but Now They Spew Black Carbon
The Incomprehensibly Weak Case for Acquittal Without Witnesses
Traffic, rough roads cost average Northern Virginia driver 102 hours, $2,600 a year
This Mailbox Pantry In Hill East Is Trying To Make A Dent In Neighborhood Food Insecurity
What’s something you can say during sex and the disastrous Iowa caucuses?
Eleven takeaways from last night’s Iowa debacle
How McKinsey Destroyed the Middle Class
Hillary’s Selective Memory
R.I.P. the ‘First-In-the-Nation’ Iowa Caucuses (1972-2020)
D.C. Has More High-Income Residents Than Ever Before, Audit Suggests
Matthew Chamberlain proposes Street Tree Pods to alleviate London’s housing crisis
Trump is about to get a lot more dangerous. Here’s what’s coming.
The Money Behind Trump’s Money
Taxing the Superrich
Move Fast and Break the Iowa Caucus: Democrats desperately need to win the internet to beat Trump. Their first big test was a massive failure.
The Very Real Mental Ramifications of Extremely Long Elections
How Chickens Became Like Apple and Android Phones
Video shows Iowa caucus voter pulling support for Pete Buttigieg after learning he’s married to a man
The app that broke the Iowa Caucuses was sent out through a beta testing platform
The Iowa caucus smartphone app disaster, explained
Iowa Might Have Screwed Up The Whole Nomination Process

This entry was posted in Lotsa Links. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Links 2/7/20

  1. harrync says:

    Why do scientists cheat? Reminds me of freshman physics lab, Stanford, 1960. One experiment involved depressing a spring to various degrees, then recording and graphing how high the spring would project a steel ball depending on the amount of depression. Of course you should get a nice smooth curve. But the equipment was so old and decrepit, the data points were all over the place. You could still draw a parabola, but the data points were often well above or well below the curve. I have always suspected that the experiment was not to test our graphing ability, but to see if we would fudge the data to get a more smooth curve.

Comments are closed.