![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c47230a8-134c-4dc9-89e8-75c6ea875d36.png)
Yes, there are tons of recipes for oatmeals, overnight oats or baked oats. Enjoy trying them out! :)
Yes, there are tons of recipes for oatmeals, overnight oats or baked oats. Enjoy trying them out! :)
Oats and nuts maybe? They’re filling and will last you quite some time.
Yeah, but farmers have a powerful lobby and they produce our food. So they got some power behind their words.
As a scientist, it is tremendously important for us, that people trust our science. We saw, what happens, if enough neglect science with Covid and now climate change. Scientists like her, who stray from their area of expertise and report false facts, just damage our reputation. I mean, you seem to have a pretty bad opinion of scientists.
Of course people can make mistakes. That’s actually a fundamental principle of science to be wrong a lot. It’s how you handle these mistakes, that matters. Adapt your views to the new information, do not stick to wrong facts, because you don’t like to admit, that you were wrong.
The problem with people like her is, that they gain trust by making videos about topics, where they are very knowledgeable. Then they use this trust for other content and they do not put any disclaimer about that in it. So people who watch it and are not knowledgeable in the topic of the video think, that they will get the same quality. But they don’t. We have enough misinformation swirling around, we don’t need more published by reputable persons.
You write yourself, that she describes stuff in a way, that you can understand it. But how do you judge, if she explains a topic correctly according to the current state of science, if you have no clue about it yourself? She could just bullshit you on every video without you knowing.
Her video on nuclear reactors was awful. She just neglected facts, that didn’t fit her narrative.
We need a time period of inflation to explain our very homogeneous universe. Just read up on the wiki page about the inflationary epoch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
The whole discussion started for winter conditions. You can find the numbers in the other comment thread.
1l/h as I noted further down. Still less range lost relative to the maximal range than in an EV.
The answers to your question is already in my post and the 150 was obviously a typo, because the loss in range checks out. It should be 15. AC uses less because the temperature difference is less.
From cooling the engine. When you are standing still and the engine is running it consumes about 1l/h. I just looked up some numbers for EVs: 100kWh battery, heating takes 1kW for every 10K temperature difference, so 3kWh in -10°C. Its higher if you use additional stuff like the heating for the seats. With 150kWh/100km consumption you lose 20km every hour you are in the heated car. I would say that’s a noticeable difference compared to no heating. I also checked how much an AC takes in summer and its about 1 to 2kW for 30°C.
That’s why I said it depends on the type of the heat pump. Some can go really low, the cheaper ones not. At some point (the latest at -273.15C :D) they need to switch.
I mean, it’s not about them not working, it’s the efficiency. Most models will switch to a normal electric heater, if they can’t extract anymore heat from the surroundings. At which temperature that happens, depends on your type of heat pump.
If you are in a traffic jam, you lose range because of the heating. For gas cars, that doesn’t matter at all.
Yeah, but somehow they don’t like clips and it’s a pain to access them now, if the streamer has not highlighted any.
But it has support from observations? It’s an alternative explanation for the red shifts we observe from far away sources.
ΛCDM has also problems. For example that two different methods of calculating the Hubble constant do not agree, or that the James Webb telescope found galaxies, that are too old. The latter was the motivation for the paper and gives an explanation for it, contrary to current models.
Well, guess what the Λ in ΛCDM is? They just put it in there to be able to fit the theory to the observation. And it’s absurd to say, that they would’ve found that in the LHC, when they also did not find dark matter particles, even though they are actively looking for those.
They are aware of this and mention it already in the abstract:
It’s quite common for research groups to do this, because their work is quite complex and takes time. They proved that their approach might have some merit and now other groups can help them going forward with it.