Cviridis or whatever they used here? Cviridis (and other scales constructed with the same philosophy) does.

There are colour scales that combine colours and intensities consistently, so that if you discard (or can't percieve) colour information, you still get a nice black to white scale. For a moment, I though the map used cviridis scale, which has this property and is designed to look as similar as possible to people with various variants of colour blindness. But then I realised that the scale used here has the brightest point in the middle, not on one side.

I use Pocketbook. It opens just about anything - epub, mobi, pdf, pdb, and many more formats. Just get a book anywhere and copy it via USB. Or send it as an email attachment to your special address and it will download automatically. You can even replace the reading app with another relatively easily, if you want.

Well, if you want to head that way, there's Etruscan shrew. Less than 2 grams of weight and 4 cm of length.

Bad title. Settings that actually do something are 0 (normal), 1 (compact) and 2 (touch). You can also do that in settings, I think.

It should be said that this is from Science Abridged Beyond the Point of Usefulness by Zach Wienersmith.

I very quickly checked wikipedia, because I couldn't easily identify the extra one. It lists all 16 of the 10 commandments... The table looks like different branches of christianity bundle some of them together (mostly various coveting) or don't even consider the first and last a commandment, so they always only count to ten. So it's an easy mistake to make.

But the fact that they couldn't even count the paragraphs is riddiculous.

Only a couple of years back, the French tried to pass off fish and seafood as vegetarian. It nicely illustrates how much acceptance and understanding veganism can get.

In a considerable part of the world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_driving_ages

Floppy discs are like Jesus. They died to become the icon of saving.

Have you read the link? It doesn't say thay that analysing figerprints is less powerfull than was known, but more. It describes previously unknown connection between fingerprints of different fingers of a single person. This could indicate, for example, that two crimes were probably commited by the same person even when not a single identical fingerprint was found on both sites.

Hang on, I was under the impression nobody actually thought singularities existed, only that our current math and physics isn't developed enough to get any reasonable results in such extreme places?