What you are referring to is absolute poverty. However, even if you can cover the very basics, such as rent, food and healthcare, if you have a lot less than most people that is known as relative poverty. Both are important to combat. I am assuming the definition is made as it is because it is quite simple to compute. Finding a good measure for cost of living is a lot more complex and easy to get stuck arguing what is an acceptable standard of living.

No, CRISPR has little to do with Dolly the sheep. Dolly was born in 1996. While CRISPR saw some fundamental research from 1993-2005 it wasn't used for gene editing untill 2012 and was named breakthrough of the year in 2015.

Dolly did not have a very short lifespan. She lived for six years and was eventually put down to a lung disease that has no connection to her cloning.

The wikipedia page has details and citations, I will only quote the relevant paragraph here:

Dolly lived at the Roslin Institute throughout her life and produced several lambs.[5] She was euthanized at the age of six years due to a progressive lung disease. No cause which linked the disease to her cloning was found.[6]

It is better to either do some basic research before making direct claims or ask more open questions. Stating wildly erroneous things is sowing disinformation, and putting a question mark at the end is not a very good loophole. You are actively spreading misinformation.

For Norway, NRK started releasing viewership numbers since 2018. So not that many years, 2022 was the best year so far with 1.22 millioner concurrent viewers on NRK. Then 2023 saw a decline and 2024 saw a decline and became the weakest year in the tracking with 861.000 concurrent viewers. So still quite a lot of people though it's a 30% decline.

Would assume this year is also weak, as I haven't seen to much hype about the Norwegian song, nor much Eurovision hype in general tbh. Would guess 800-850 thousand Norwegian viewers.

What are you talking about? The BBC article references the research paper directly?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4503401/

Employers deduct a part of your salary as taxes on every paycheck (usually monthly). But how much they deduct is based on your tax profile which is created by the tax authorities. It's typically based on expected yearly income. However, you are allowed (and encouraged) to update this number yourself.

So say you swap to a lower paid job, or work less overtime than you planned, you can change your expected annual income to reflect this in taxes paid. If you don't however, then you effectively pay too much taxes as your employer is basing the taxes on too high numbers.

Another reason is that you may have tax deductions that only gets computed into the total when you fill out your full tax report. So if you didn't bake those into your tax profile at the start of the year, you might get returns on your taxes (with interest).

You can also downplay how much taxes to pay through salaries, in which case you will owe back taxes when the full tax report is made.

In the Norwegian tax system, if you pay too much taxes trough the year from your paycheck, you get interest on the amount you paid to much. Likewise, if you pay too little taxes throughout the year, you will have to pay interest on the amount you have yet to pay. So the system is supposed to be balanced in that regard. The interest is on the level of a savings account (3.51% annual atm), so you could make an argument that saving that in a index stock or good bond is a better ROI though, so still recommended to try to not pay too much during the year.

The goal of pasteurization is to kill of harmful pathogens. If you do this early and package and store the milk in the right conditions it can be stable and safe for a long time.

If you don't pasteurize the milk and leave it for a long time, pathogens in the milk, such as bacteria, can potentially produce toxins. Boiling it at that point might not help, no, as it kills the bacteria, but can leave behind the toxins.

So pasteurization is very effective if done early, but you can't do whatever you want to the milk and then pasteurize it right before using it and everything is good.

If all things are equal except for mass. Then the object of higher mass will fall faster.

Hi. Physicist here. You are absolutely wrong. The mass of an object does not affect the magnitude of force of air resistance which acts upon a falling object. But the acceleration that object will have is given by Newton's second law as Force divided by mass. So a heavy and a light ball with the same shape will experience the same air resistance, but the heavy ball will "care less" and thus fall faster.

Well, this is simply incorrect. And confidently incorrect at that.

Vision transformers (ViT) is an important branch of computer vision models that apply transformers to image analysis and detection tasks. They perform very well. The main idea is the same, by tokenizing the input image into smaller chunks you can apply the same attention mechanism as in NLP transformer models.

ViT models were introduced in 2020 by Dosovitsky et. al, in the hallmark paper "An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale" (https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.11929). A work that has received almost 30000 academic citations since its publication.

So claiming transformers only improve natural language and vision output is straight up wrong. It is also widely used in visual analysis including classification and detection.

The ad is from the Israeli real estate company Harey Zahav. They posted this on their Instagram account. After criticism and backlash they claimed it was posted as a joke.

The Norwegian journalist collaborative fact checking service Faktisk.no has done a deep dive on this ad with a lot of detail if you want to check it out. You can read it using google translate (or similar tools) you are interested.

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jdplr/kraftige-reaksjoner-etter-spok-om-boligprosjekt-i-gaza

Some interesting facts from the article: the ad text says they are working to prepare for a return to Gush Katif, an earlier Israeli settlement in Gaza. The company is responsible for the development of settlements on the West Bank. The owner of the company lives in Moscow and seems to be an oligarch.

So based on the info in the linked in the article the ad is very real. And while the company behind it claims it was all a joke, that does seem a lot like damage control.

They are talking about .gov websites. Any website operated by the US government should, at least according to their own standards, develop for and test for users using Firefox. If this is followed in practice the article doesn't really cover.