In my experience (in a different field), it is common for researchers to acknowledge the source of their funding. In particular, researchers are keen to acknowledge funding from government grants, as this is perceived to be helpful in applying for future research grants.
I glanced through the paper and I could not find any mention indicating who funded that study.
I'm also very sceptical of single studies that support the status quo for very large industries -- even more so when there is no indication of who funded the study.
Yeah, I don’t know what the solution is, but I’ve certainly noticed a trend in clickbate websites reporting on preprint studies that often don’t pass peer review after the fact.
This is a major issue in scientific reporting and research in general. It’s particularly damaging because of anchoring bias.
> yet didn't the truckers get robbed by the government?
No.
In the end, a few accounts were proactively and temporarily frozen by banks acting on their own, which they could (possibly would) have done due to fintrac [1] requirements.
electron volts is a unit of energy. Using E = mc^2, one expresses masses in the equivalent energy quantity. It turns out that electron-volts is a convenient scale for the (energy equivalent) mass for elementary particles -- much better than trying to express the mass in kilograms.
Or energy in Joules, which are around 10^19 bigger. So you'd have the inverse of that everywhere as an inconvenient factor.
As it happens eV works nicely from meV up to TeV for particles in all the most useful contexts, from chemical bonds to particle experiments. You only start getting insanely huge factors when you stop being subatomic.
Up until a month ago, when I searched Youtube using the "latest" filter, I could reliably get the latest videos uploaded that were relevant to the search terms. Now, it shows a couple of recently uploaded videos followed by many which are for weeks ago, while I know that many more had been uploaded in the recent days.
