Go on a Tuesday or Wednesday and tickets are 50% off at AMC (and maybe other theaters). While still not cheap, that gets you down to $16.49 for an imax showing at the metreon AMC and $9.49 for a standard screen.
The actual title of the article is "The ecological impact of spiders" with the submitted title being the byline. While the actual article's title is not clickbait, the submitter clearly went with the byline to attract more interest.
You could argue that that isn't clickbait because it is a technically correct answer, but it would be nice to see an actual source for the human/whale food consumption.
There is an article about the same paper on How Stuff Works that is definitely clickbait: "Each Year Spiders Eat Millions of Tons of Food More Than Humans".
> Each of these consumes, on an annual basis, in the region of 400m tonnes of other animals.
The amount of food consumed by spiders is certainly impressive, but limiting the comparison to the tonnage of animals consumed must just be for clickbait.
While a cursory search failed to find total food consumption, this NPR article [0] uses USDA data to outline average American food consumption. While these numbers are obviously inflated compared to average human food consumption worldwide, the percentage breakdown can shine some more light on the issue.
* Dairy - 630 lbs (32.7%)
* Meat - 185 lbs (9.6%)
* Grain - 197 lbs (10.2%)
* Fruit - 273 lbs (14.2%)
* Vegetables - 415 lbs (21.5%)
* Sugars - 141 lbs (7.3%)
* Fats - 85 lbs (4.4%)
(There was a missing 70 lbs from their provided total of 1996 lbs, so I just summed the included values)
Even if "of other animals" included dairy products, that is only 42.3% of food consumption. Pretending we could accurately extrapolate those numbers worldwide, that would lead to a real total food consumption of ~950 million tonnes. If "tonnes of other animals" is exclusively meat, that would mean total human food consumption is more in the ballpark of ~4.2 billion tonnes.
Perhaps a not so serious answer, but Larry Niven has a number of science fiction stories based on this concept, which is dubbed organlegging [0]. The one that sticks out in my mind is The Jigsaw Man [1].
You can switch to the metric system on their website [1]. The graph can also be switched to metric by changing the "uom" query parameter from "E" to "M"
Reminds me of the library trek in Asimov's Bicentennial Man. Asimov had a great perspective on the various ways humans would react to robots. His robot series is a really enjoyable read (and once you finish those, there's a good chance you'll want to read the Foundation series as well).
That would be preferable to what happened to me once. I tried using a + filter and it was accepted but I never received booking information for my trip. When my trip was getting closer I realized I didn't have a confirmation number, and after a long conversation with customer service, it turned out that instead of "<email>+<filter>@gmail.com" my email address was saved as "<email> <filter>@gmail.com", so nothing ever made it through to me.
It is interesting to me that Teespring seems to force sellers to advertise each specific design. I was looking for, but couldn't find, a way to see all designs created by a specific user. On a cursory search, I found a few designs by the million dollar seller mentioned in the article, and each of those designs involves clip art quality graphics and a number of seemingly randomly chosen fonts. I imagine if I came across a page showing all of his designs, Teespring would look a lot more like Zazzle or CafePress.
If you have a function that requires both the species and a speak message from an animal, it would make sense for the interface to have a function that returns both the species and speak strings. I think that this [0] does what you would want.
If you want to guarantee that two structs contain a set of the same required fields, I believe the best practice would be to include an anonymous field for a struct with the fields across both. [1]
Unless the students have a mouse plugged in to their chromebooks, it's more of a comparison between a touchscreen and a touchpad. If the comparison is between two methods where you're dragging a finger around, I think that a touchscreen makes sense to have. You lose the precision of the cursor (and the convenience of the buttons), but you have a more interactive experience, which I imagine is especially convenient for younger students.
I seem to recall reading that it is advantageous to launch a rocket closer to the equator, and Cameron County is at the southern tip of Texas. Wouldn't it seem more likely that location played a bigger role in SpaceX choosing Texas than the incentives?