The problem isn’t addresses being a few (tens of) meters off.

It seems suspicious that this would be hiding in the eyes. A separate specialized organ would be more like the other senses.

Like hearing and balance are both in the same sensory organ, and consist of sensitive hairs in liquid-filled chamber? Or the pancreas, which consists of separate endocrine and exocrine glands in one wibbly wobbly visceral organ? Nature would never do things like that.

I don't agree hearing and balance are the same sensory organ. They are two separate organs, just very near each other and indeed resembling each other, which explains why they are near each other.

The thought I was expressing is that there seems to be no separate organ at all here and that seems unexpected to me. I would expect there to at least be something like a specialized region. Not just that the eye in general happens to also have this ability.

Maybe, or it might just have been convenient to evolve that way since there was already a high-bandwidth sensory system there.

I wouldn't say "suspicious", but I do think it's interesting. Yes, it needs to receive light, but any exposed part of the animal could do that. Does it "feel" to the animal like it's part of vision, in the way that we experience taste in an integrated way combining signals from taste and smell receptors? Does pairing with vision make it easier to process both together for navigation? That is, you're point is how a separate organ would make it like an independent sense; is it functionally beneficial for it to not be independent?

This kind of magnetic sensitivity seems to be dependent on receiving light, because the sensitive molecules form the radical pairs when exposed to light. With this information, evolving within the eye scenario sounds plausible to me.

Not necessarily. You can measure things in ways that add energy: e.g. radar waves contribute a tiny bit of energy to the things they bounce off. Yet they measure where objects are.

You can also measure some things in ways that add exactly 0 energy. If some quantum system absorbs exactly nothing of a certain wavelength, that tells you something about the system.

Corn is much lower than it was 8 years ago, steel is at the same level as it was in 2018/2019, lumber only up 50% from last peak in 2018 (and price fluctuates a lot currently).

Theoretically, yes. In practice their UI simply may not have that option and you don’t just build something like that reliably on such short notice.

Ironically, you obviously didn't read the OP, as it clearly mentions people could at least bother to read the, free, abstract.

Sure, once, and for the rest of the article pretends reading the whole thing is easy.

I don't see the title being "Read the abstract before you comment."

edit: Didn't see the Scihub link admittedly, but come on. "Yeah just do the illegal thing."

One way of discovering what increases property X is testing that some change decreases property X.

Another way of discovering what increases property X is testing that some change indeed increases property X, while also discovering it decreases property Y.

While attempting to increase both X and Y, they made an intermediate with increased X and decreased Y. Perhaps it seemed a promising starting point to also increase Y.

I don't get the surprise. This is all par for the course in research.

You have obviously not actually read the article and are railing against a strawman.

The third of your ‘easiest explanations’ is pretty much the third explanation offered in the article. The article is an object level description of what happened, with little to no speculation, apart from three tentative explanations, and does not endorse any remarkable claims about how the world operates.

You have invented that ‘implication’; nothing in the article even hints at that being the obvious implication and it’s entirely unclear what you “don’t believe” to people that have actually read the full article.

The article also mildly makes fun of the people who believe it to be a supernatural phenomenon.

It seems to me that you can’t conclude that speeding causes accidents from these statistics. If people speed 30% of the time, then accidents will involve speeding 30% of the time if speeding doesn’t influence the risk at all. I would also expect the amount of speeding to matter a lot.

I’ve always had this issue with speeding statistics: the assertion that “speeding causes accidents” usually sounds like a textbook case of base rate neglect. Especially considering that nearly everyone in the US drives 5-15 mph above the posted speed limit.

But on a freeway accidents generally happen between cars traveling in the same direction, so the effective velocity is much lower than the velocity of travel.

You are improving your productivity by 'doing something else', such as 'walking for several hours in the forest'.

Banging your head against a problem for several hours while not making any progress is frustrating. Not because you are 'unproductive' in the sense of producing value for your employer or customers, but because you are 'unproductive' in the sense of not achieving the progress you desire.

Thus we want to improve our productivity. Not because we need to be productive in a capitalist sense, but because we want to be productive to have the feeling of achieving something.

Whether increasing your productivity comes in the form of going for a walk or getting rid of distractions doesn't change that.