iflscience.comReviews of iflscience.com

Fb imposed IFL Science on me, talking boll-cks about Lake Trump. Using Bayes logic, I demote its credibility.

Would be zero stars if that was possible!!! Definitely NOT unbiased and not even free to read anymore?! This site is garbage tbh 🤷

These guys are partisan hacks. If you enjoy learning about science, go elsewhere. Nearly all of their "science" articles have very strong left leaning political bias.

Blocks random articles (some of which clickbait), requires subscription to unlock, but doesn't let me subscribe because it's allegedly unavailable in my region (?!).

They made a wild claim that a group of researchers are now the first to research a particular psychedelic for the treatment of depression. I pointed out that this was incorrect as practitioners have been researching and using it for this purpose for decades. They made a serious false claim and when i simply pointed it out they blocked me from commenting on any article on their site. Pure blatant lies constructed to help their research buddies get funding by stealing the work of others.

*sigh* seriously... today they claim experts recommend stockpiling before the eclipse. (!?!) I'll absolutely make a stockpile of varying size depending on the 95th percentile risk before a severe storm arrives to be prepared for a loss of regular services. I went through a storm that a lot of people weren't prepared for and it really drove that lesson home. It almost never is needed merely reassuring, but safe to have in case things are worse than expected cuz it takes time to repair infrastructure, etc. But a shadow? No. NOT before we have a lightly fun SHADOW! I know they've come up in my feed a number of times and I I'm sure I've read a few articles on their website, but I don't review a site just anytime I'm annoyed or disappointed. This really tops them all and solidly delegitimizes them. We have some legit risks they could have picked like Putin's regular consideration to nuke us, and regular big storms, fires, mudslides aka liquefaction, and flooding. But nope! A SHADOW! You know when else we have a shadow? A really really big shadow that's FAR darker? We call it "night". ----- That's the end of my review to the specific company. ----- Just because of the timing, assuming The link I saw today pop up at various times in various people's feeds, I'm including a little tangent on the topic that spurred my review below, for anyone else who is checking the legitimacy of this site for the same article until the event ----- If anyone does want to prep for the eclipse, (without any solid references) I can give you a starting point: You can go out and buy solar eclipse safety glasses that are supposed to be made from reputable companies cause they block a heck of a lot more visible light and probably have a higher resolution of blocking of UV since you're directly looking towards it than regular sunglasses. It's not like it's any worse for our face. I think the basic reasoning of why it's it's important for our eyes is that our? is that our lens to focuses all those rays that we normally know not to stare at The sun, particularly if it's not thoroughly obscured by the atmosphere to the point where it's making colorful a sunrise or sunset. That focusing amplifies the intensity of the breadths of light we see everyday on to a small area of our very sensitive receptors. and that's why we can't just look directly at it unless it's only in the MIDDLE of a total eclipse, where the object completely obscures enough of the intense rays. I know it's not supposed to be done in the transitional phases or for partial eclipses. I think that's about a four-star quality if accuracy. so go to the real science sites If you want more than a light overview. There are some major retailers carrying stock from verified manufacturer so you don't get knock off lenses that can lead to hurting your eyes. Incl. some major home improvement stores and I don't think any of my local grocery stores had it, but a couple of big groceries were listed. Sorry you got to find that one for yourself. I would look specifically for a scientific site or something by the American academy of ophthalmology or something. I had time to report this but I've already taken too much time this morning. I recall there was something that mentioned one type of a basic check, I don't know what distance but I think it was looking at a very bright light bulb fairly closely and you should barely be able to see the light cuz these lenses are darker than some welding lenses, but I think they're a little bit more tailored on what wavelengths can come through to enhance what we see and block more of the things that'll just make it harder for us to see. A local optometrist also had reputable eclipse glasses. the paper outer with the film, because of their love of the eyes, I assume that might be a semi-frequent thing to find. but if you don't want to get the glasses to look right at it, you can also just look around and it looks like dusk [except with less light scatter (more distinct shadows) and that is only *IF* I recall correctly from some form of eclipse a number of years ago where me and neighbors stood outside]. If you feel like going further, I read, I think legitimate, if you wear bright green(or teal?) and bright red, one of those two colors looks gray in the middle of a total eclipse, something about rods and cones. the receptors in our eyes, One works better. I think in dim lighting and it picks up one of those colors and the other one works better in more lighting. So it probably also applies at night time. Google it more if you wish to maximize the effect. lastly, people can rubberneck while they're driving. you always need to be cautious of people not paying attention on roads but be a little extra wary if you're walking we're parked alongside a road.

Deceptive, clickbait-leaning articles such as "Earth Just Received A Laser-Beamed Message From 16 Million Kilometers Away", which heavily implies extraterrestrial communication, only for the article to actually be about Earth receiving a message from a human-made object. Appears to be a low-journalistic-quality source of scientific news. 2 out of 5.