ArcticDagger

joined 2 years ago
[–] ArcticDagger 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Laver fu ammunition privat eller som en del af erhverv? Og hvis privat, er det så overhovedet lovligt? 😄

[–] ArcticDagger 3 points 4 months ago

Ja, det er et værre virvar de har pt!

[–] ArcticDagger 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Rigtig flot hjemmeside og ærværdig mission!

Du skriver på hjemmesiden:

Sortér dit næste glas rigtigt – glas for sig, låg for sig

Er det ikke kommune-specifikt (og måske endda glas-specifikt)? Det er f.eks. ikke nødvendigt i København: https://affald.kk.dk/affaldsfraktion/saadan-sorterer-du-glas

Det er ikke nødvendigt at skylle eller rense dine glas. Det er tilstrækkeligt at tømme fx madrester ud i den grønne pose til madaffald. Der må gerne være låg på konservesglassene.

[–] ArcticDagger 6 points 4 months ago

Næsten 900 tarmkræftpatienter blev tilfældigt fordelt i to grupper:

Den ene gruppe fik træning og vejledning af en personlig træner i tre år efter afsluttet kræftbehandling.

Den anden gruppe fik en brochure med råd om en sund livsstil.

I et nyligt offentliggjort studie viser forskerne, at de patienter, der fik personlig træning, havde 28 procent lavere risiko for tilbagefald – og 37 procent lavere risiko for at dø.

»Denne effekt er på niveau med mange lægemidler. Faktisk bliver mange lægemidler godkendt, selvom de har mindre effekt, og de er både dyre og giftige,« siger Julie Gralow til det britiske medie The Guardian.

[–] ArcticDagger 2 points 4 months ago

De tre sager:

  1. Bryggeriforeningen fik fredet pilsneren

  2. Kommunerne løb med magten

  3. »Smuk« [grøn] trepart med synlige lobbyister

[–] ArcticDagger 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Fra artiklen:

De første befolkningsstudier af alkohol og dødsfald er knap 100 år gamle, og nye kommer til hvert eneste år. Den hidtil største undersøgelse fra 2020 samlede tal fra 204 lande på samtlige beboede kontinenter.

Stort set alle undersøgelser fremviser en berømt og berygtet J-formet kurve. J’et er tiltet 45 grader, så den lange streg peger skråt opad mod højre i stedet for at stå ret op i vejret.

...

Mennesker, som drikker en-to genstande ad gangen, to-tre gange om ugen, har den laveste dødelighed af alle. Det er bunden af J’et. Flere genstande per uge får imidlertid dødeligheden til at stige, men også nul genstande giver et nøk opad – den lille bue på J’et.

...

Den lille bue opad for de afholdende kan vel dårligt forklares med, at menneskekroppen har brug for alkohol for at holde sig sund, og mysteriet ledte til opdagelsen af 'sick quitter'-effekten.

Ingen mennesker bliver nemlig syge af at lade være med at drikke, men mange mennesker holder op med at drikke, fordi de er blevet syge. Og alt andet lige er risikoen for at dø højere, hvis du er syg, end hvis du er rask. Det ved selv en læge!

[–] ArcticDagger 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Også i Aarhus er beslutningen om at vikle hele kommunen ud af amerikansk tech truffet for nylig. Bo Fristed, digitaliseringschef i Kultur og Borgerservice, er for længst gået i gang i sin afdeling.

»Vi har allerede flyttet omkring 60 systemer fra Microsofts cloudtjeneste Azure til en tysk udbyder. Sidste år betalte vi omkring 800.000 kroner, bare i vores afdeling. I år lyder budgettet på 225.000«, siger Bo Fristed.

Det kunne vel sagtens være hetzner?

[–] ArcticDagger 3 points 5 months ago

Jeg tror det er denne rapport, der henvises til: https://vbn.aau.dk/da/publications/sundhed-i-indeklimaet

Som altid, så virker det til, at journalisten har valgt en lidt skarpt skåret vinkel. Ved en hurtig skimning af rapporten, så lader det til, ar meget data beror sig på selvrapporterede gener. Dvs. det er ikke objektive mål for dårligt indeklima, der bliver korreleret med dårlige udfald.

Dermed ikke sagt, at der ikke er en sammenhæng mellem dårligt indeklima og dårligt helbred (som rapporten også redegør for)!

[–] ArcticDagger 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Kan de også deployes lokalt, hvis man er privatperson?

[–] ArcticDagger 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Enig, og igen en kløgtig form for retorik i det sidste citat. Hvis man stiller samme spørgsmål om vindmøller eller solceller, så falder opbakningen højst sandsynligt også markant 😄

[–] ArcticDagger 3 points 5 months ago

Ja okay, det er da elastik i metermål. Med den paragraf kan den vel falde ud til både cyklistens og bilistens fordel

[–] ArcticDagger 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Nr. 2 oplever jeg virkelig tit, men jeg har svært ved at finde ud om det er noget bilisten må? Nogle steder bliver de nødt til at være halvvejs ude for at orientere sig, men du må jo ikke bare blokere en kørebane, fordi der ikke er plads dér hvor du skal hen - cykelsti eller ej. Er der nogle, der ved om der er noget i færdselsloven?

 

cross-posted from: https://feddit.dk/post/9969468

From the article:

Risky play is associated with greater resilience, self-confidence, problem-solving and social skills such as cooperation, negotiation and empathy, according to studies by Sandseter and others. When a study in Leuven, Belgium, gave four- and six-year-olds just two hours a week of opportunities for risky play over the course of three months, their risk-assessment skills improved compared with those of children in a control group2. In this study, the risky play took place at school, in a gym class and in the classroom.

 

From the article:

Risky play is associated with greater resilience, self-confidence, problem-solving and social skills such as cooperation, negotiation and empathy, according to studies by Sandseter and others. When a study in Leuven, Belgium, gave four- and six-year-olds just two hours a week of opportunities for risky play over the course of three months, their risk-assessment skills improved compared with those of children in a control group2. In this study, the risky play took place at school, in a gym class and in the classroom.

 

cross-posted from: https://feddit.dk/post/9778976

Abstract

The disparity in environmental impacts across different countries has been widely acknowledged1,2. However, ascertaining the specific responsibility within the complex interactions of economies and consumption groups remains a challenging endeavour3,4,5. Here, using an expenditure database that includes up to 201 consumption groups across 168 countries, we investigate the distribution of 6 environmental footprint indicators and assess the impact of specific consumption expenditures on planetary boundary transgressions. We show that 31–67% and 51–91% of the planetary boundary breaching responsibility could be attributed to the global top 10% and top 20% of consumers, respectively, from both developed and developing countries. By following an effective mitigation pathway, the global top 20% of consumers could adopt the consumption levels and patterns that have the lowest environmental impacts within their quintile, yielding a reduction of 25–53% in environmental pressure. In this scenario, actions focused solely on the food and services sectors would reduce environmental pressure enough to bring land-system change and biosphere integrity back within their respective planetary boundaries. Our study highlights the critical need to focus on high-expenditure consumers for effectively addressing planetary boundary transgressions.

From the paper - definition of the top global consumers:

The global 10th percentile level of final demand is about US$27,000 per year, equivalent to the European average in 2017. The global 20th percentile level is about US$12,000 per year, comparable to the threshold of high-income countries defined by the United Nations in 2017.

 

Abstract

The disparity in environmental impacts across different countries has been widely acknowledged1,2. However, ascertaining the specific responsibility within the complex interactions of economies and consumption groups remains a challenging endeavour3,4,5. Here, using an expenditure database that includes up to 201 consumption groups across 168 countries, we investigate the distribution of 6 environmental footprint indicators and assess the impact of specific consumption expenditures on planetary boundary transgressions. We show that 31–67% and 51–91% of the planetary boundary breaching responsibility could be attributed to the global top 10% and top 20% of consumers, respectively, from both developed and developing countries. By following an effective mitigation pathway, the global top 20% of consumers could adopt the consumption levels and patterns that have the lowest environmental impacts within their quintile, yielding a reduction of 25–53% in environmental pressure. In this scenario, actions focused solely on the food and services sectors would reduce environmental pressure enough to bring land-system change and biosphere integrity back within their respective planetary boundaries. Our study highlights the critical need to focus on high-expenditure consumers for effectively addressing planetary boundary transgressions.

From the paper - definition of the top global consumers:

The global 10th percentile level of final demand is about US$27,000 per year, equivalent to the European average in 2017. The global 20th percentile level is about US$12,000 per year, comparable to the threshold of high-income countries defined by the United Nations in 2017.

5
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by ArcticDagger to c/nyheder
 

"

 

Det ser ud til, at der endnu ikke er godt videnskabeligt belæg for, at forbud mod mobiltelefoner skulle gøre noget særligt godt for eleverne. Men mangel på evidens er selvfølgelig heller ikke bevis for det modsatte

Fra artiklen:

Resultaterne er umiddelbart logiske, siger Jesper Aagaard. Han peger på samme forklaring, som de svenske forskere skriver om i deres videnskabelige artikel: at man i lande som Sverige, Norge og Danmark har digitaliseret undervisningen i en sådan grad, at det ikke har nogen mærkbar effekt, hvis man blot fjerner én skærm, men beholder de andre.

»Det er blevet udbredt at forbyde mobiltelefoner i skolen, men hvad med de laptops, som stadig står lige foran eleverne? Dem kan de vel også bruge til at gå på sociale medier eller til at spille spil med,« siger lektoren

15
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by ArcticDagger to c/nyheder
 

Fra artiklen:

I 2019 samlede elever også plastaffald i naturen. Der fandt de 31,6 cigaretskod per indsamling. I år er det steget til 37 skod per indsamling.

...

»Danskerne bliver ved med at smide skod i naturen. Tallene viser tydeligt, at den bløde lovgivning om cigaretskod ikke virker. Der skal hårdere lovgivning til a la forbuddet mod plastsugerør.«

»Cigaretfiltre har i forvejen ingen positiv sundhedseffekt, tværtimod. Filtrene blev indført i 1960’erne for at øge salget af cigaretter blandt kvinder. Filtrene er plastaffald, tilmed giftigt plastaffald,« siger Kristian Syberg, der er lektor ved Institut for Naturvidenskab og Miljø på Roskilde Universitet.

Og her er et link til den fulde pressemeddelelse fra Masseeksperimentet: https://masseeksperiment.dk/resultater-fra-masseeksperiment/

 

cross-posted from: https://feddit.dk/post/9189541

Abstract:

Working from home has become standard for employees with a university degree. The most common scheme, which has been adopted by around 100 million employees in Europe and North America, is a hybrid schedule, in which individuals spend a mix of days at home and at work each week1,2. However, the effects of hybrid working on employees and firms have been debated, and some executives argue that it damages productivity, innovation and career development3,4,5. Here we ran a six-month randomized control trial investigating the effects of hybrid working from home on 1,612 employees in a Chinese technology company in 2021–2022. We found that hybrid working improved job satisfaction and reduced quit rates by one-third. The reduction in quit rates was significant for non-managers, female employees and those with long commutes. Null equivalence tests showed that hybrid working did not affect performance grades over the next two years of reviews. We found no evidence for a difference in promotions over the next two years overall, or for any major employee subgroup. Finally, null equivalence tests showed that hybrid working had no effect on the lines of code written by computer-engineer employees. We also found that the 395 managers in the experiment revised their surveyed views about the effect of hybrid working on productivity, from a perceived negative effect (−2.6% on average) before the experiment to a perceived positive one (+1.0%) after the experiment. These results indicate that a hybrid schedule with two days a week working from home does not damage performance.

 

cross-posted from: https://feddit.dk/post/9189541

Abstract:

Working from home has become standard for employees with a university degree. The most common scheme, which has been adopted by around 100 million employees in Europe and North America, is a hybrid schedule, in which individuals spend a mix of days at home and at work each week1,2. However, the effects of hybrid working on employees and firms have been debated, and some executives argue that it damages productivity, innovation and career development3,4,5. Here we ran a six-month randomized control trial investigating the effects of hybrid working from home on 1,612 employees in a Chinese technology company in 2021–2022. We found that hybrid working improved job satisfaction and reduced quit rates by one-third. The reduction in quit rates was significant for non-managers, female employees and those with long commutes. Null equivalence tests showed that hybrid working did not affect performance grades over the next two years of reviews. We found no evidence for a difference in promotions over the next two years overall, or for any major employee subgroup. Finally, null equivalence tests showed that hybrid working had no effect on the lines of code written by computer-engineer employees. We also found that the 395 managers in the experiment revised their surveyed views about the effect of hybrid working on productivity, from a perceived negative effect (−2.6% on average) before the experiment to a perceived positive one (+1.0%) after the experiment. These results indicate that a hybrid schedule with two days a week working from home does not damage performance.

 

Abstract:

Working from home has become standard for employees with a university degree. The most common scheme, which has been adopted by around 100 million employees in Europe and North America, is a hybrid schedule, in which individuals spend a mix of days at home and at work each week1,2. However, the effects of hybrid working on employees and firms have been debated, and some executives argue that it damages productivity, innovation and career development3,4,5. Here we ran a six-month randomized control trial investigating the effects of hybrid working from home on 1,612 employees in a Chinese technology company in 2021–2022. We found that hybrid working improved job satisfaction and reduced quit rates by one-third. The reduction in quit rates was significant for non-managers, female employees and those with long commutes. Null equivalence tests showed that hybrid working did not affect performance grades over the next two years of reviews. We found no evidence for a difference in promotions over the next two years overall, or for any major employee subgroup. Finally, null equivalence tests showed that hybrid working had no effect on the lines of code written by computer-engineer employees. We also found that the 395 managers in the experiment revised their surveyed views about the effect of hybrid working on productivity, from a perceived negative effect (−2.6% on average) before the experiment to a perceived positive one (+1.0%) after the experiment. These results indicate that a hybrid schedule with two days a week working from home does not damage performance.

view more: ‹ prev next ›