Filth often emerges after a set interval relative to nutrition intake.

That’s a mouse. Sylvester is chasing it as we speak.

At least you’re rich, if you can afford to pay those amounts to your friends!

I can agree with that. And I’m sure it’s because letters on the forefront are published quickly without time to consider all the possible problems.

Anecdotal only, sorry. I’m sure it varies by field, and it’s more about letters than longer papers. There are probably fields where Nature is excellent, but I know that there is at least one where the odds of a letter to Nature being accurate a few years later is about 50%.

And, for that reason, about half the papers (depending on the field) published in Nature are wrong.

Assume a spherical chicken…

And be grateful it’s not something so much more expensive to fix!

Excellent, physics in service of humanity!

Elements formed by alpha capture. Since alpha particles have 2 protons, it’s generally elements with an even number of protons.

Some stellar atmosphere models also add “alpha”, which provides an extra knob for the abundance of alpha-capture elements. If you need anything more than that, you’re doing some niche astrophysics.

And for pushing through in spite of the active efforts to display your achievements.

Well done, and all the very best for whatever comes next!

We have never detected a single object (in situ) from this theorized population. There is no data.

It’s worth pointing out that it’s theorized structure. It shows up in a simulation of a solar system population that has never been identified.

They’ll die of diabetes together. How romantic!

Party on, Ted! No, wait, that sounds wrong.

Absolutely, but that’s not what your meme says. Peer review in this case says the manuscript should be significantly revised before publishing.

Because Einstein’s science had absolutely no basis in fact.

Yes. Yes, they did.

I believe he was a fellow seminary student with the late R.C. Sproul.