My headcannon puts these two in a gallery together somewhere in NY before their lives get more interesting.

How about instead of Ant-Man 2, they just go ahead and make The Wasp? Ant-Man can still show up as a supporting character if they want.

I’m still in awe of the AoS finale. I actually wish I had not watched it live and DVRed it so I could watch it again. It was simply one of the best season finale I’ve seen in a long while. Many 2-hours finale don’t really warrant their 2 hours. AoS made use of every single minute of it. Even the last one.

Yea agreed. The two daredevil like fight scenes with Skye and Bobbi were fucking awesome.

The Agents of SHIELD can stand down

TUESDAY - Marvel’s Agents of SHIELD (9 PM, ABC)

Isn’t Agents Of Shield’s big finale on Tuesday night? Or are they not worth the notice?

crivens!

Last night was awesome and might have been the first time Agents of SHIELD and The Flash put out two excellent episodes in the same night. 2 hours of comic goodness.

What I got from the Lola story was, no matter what upgrades, no matter how many times it's been broken down and built up again, at it's heart it is still that same 1962 Corvette. No matter what the mist did to her, she's still the Skye she's always been.

Did they really kill everybody in that town? I thought Cal and Coulson said the scream just rendered people catatonic? It's almost insanely dark that Cal and his crew seemingly just neutron bombed Coulson's hometown...

Have the Results Been Reproduced?

The list is terrible, IMO. Of course, peer review and journal credibility are important, but the rest?

On the other hand, your paper on hybrid pines and fire survival may be part of someone else's train of strong inference a few years down the line. Corroboration isn't as sexy as replication but it still has some heft.

Perhaps it's the field I'm in, but it's not unusual for legitimate researchers to repeatedly cite themselves. There just aren't that many of us; also, a decent review of preceding work frequently requires self-citation. This says little or nothing about the quality of the science being produced.

These are... not terrible, but can be pretty misleading.

Number 3's questionable. People can cite their own papers for legitimate reasons, a frequent one being that their current paper is expanding upon their previous work and they have to refer the reader to it. Sometimes there's a lack of other publications to cite - the authors might be the only people who have done…

Dude, don't you know that you're not supposed to say that? You're supposed to watch these artists, being brought to orgasm while singing, for art. This isn't some titillation thing to arouse you, so don't comment about it if it doesn't, mkay? Looking at them and sharing with us which one you think is or isn't as…