Mushrooms, mosses, invertebrates and even some plants seem to rely on specific small features that aren't always captured in photos of the thing to identify accurately down to the species level.

I'm using a national app, probably tuned on national data, so your mileage may vary, but my experience has been good: the app sees different and more nebulous features than what I have been trained to see by the mushroom experts at our foraging association. I never eat anything based on the app only obviously, but I often get more specific IDs, which usually seems right when I look up the mushroom it suggests.

Russulas, for instance: in my country, there are no poisonous ones, but there are at least 90 varieties and experts will often need DNA analysis to place them confidently. The procedure for determining edibility recommended by the foraging association is, once you're certain it's a Russula, to taste a small piece and spit it out. If it has a burning sharp taste, it's not food.

The app has been very good at predicting whether I'll experience that burning sensation, and all from signs that are invisible to systematic description (I won't rule out that an expert can also spot subtle differences between a sharp green russula and an edible green russula, but they probably wouldn't be able to describe it).

This number seems low, so >90% of unsold clothes are worn? Are they all donated? 4-9% of unsold clothes could be defective/damaged or something.

I would have guessed, with no real basis whatsoever, that 4-9% of all manufactured clothes would be destroyed without ever being used.

Seems too inexpensive to be made of quartz to transmit the UVC. Typical glass will absorb it, possibly fluorescing a bit in the visible.

That's refraction not scattering though.

There are piezo actuators you could certainly feel but not sure they are made of quartz, maybe PZT.

Looks more like 1995

The Anguilla summary has 2020 population data, but some of the data is indeed much older:

https://simonw.github.io/cia-world-factbook-2020/attachments...

I meant the website looks like 1995

I don't really understand how coffee, lacking heavy metals, can effectively give contrast in the electron microscope. I can't access the paper but the available parts didn't seem to explain how this works.

Even without any heavy metal staining, you would end up seeing some structures. This approach allows looking at unstained / native tissue.

What is the coffee doing?

Uranyl acetate for staining is typically depleted and unless you have regulatory issues I don't think the radiation is a big concern, especially when you compare to the very serious toxicity of OsO4 (vapors can react with your eyes and blind you).

Interesting and makes sense! I know nothing but what I read from the stain description haha. OsO4 seems incredibly nasty. So do a few other of the stains!

Norman Borlaug probably comes close. H. Trendley Dean was also impactful on a large scale, while its seemingly less important it helps a lot of people.