Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/26/20 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    I think there may a couple of wrong assumptions but I am not read enough in those areas to provide an immediate in-depth response. Let's talk about zoonotic diseases first. One thing of note is that at high population densities and contacts with animals there is a higher likelihood of a pathogen crossing species barriers. But even then they may not cause large outbreaks, as they may have low transmission or low virulence and either exist invisibly in a given population or do otherwise do not garner a lot of traction. Many viruses re-assort in pigs transfer to humans and then change further (e.g. by grabbing genes from other viruses in their hosts) before they cause outbreaks. Take the H1N1pdm09 (swine-flu) pandemic, for example. That particular strain has a bit of a mosaic structure, probably originating from three parental pig viruses and emerged into humans somewhere in North America, some assume in Mexico. There is also the MERS epidemic, that came likely from camels but were sufficiently contained not to cause an epidemic. Hantavirus is a deadly virus that has a case fatality of ca. 40%. However, it is spread by mice and not human to human (luckily) and was found in the USA. There are also plenty of zoonotic diseases found in India, such NIpah virus and has been slowly spreading. However as there is no human-human transmission the spread is not as rapid. Likewise, we had a Zika pandemic not so long ago, a mosquito borne disease, originating from Africa. Japanese encephalitis likely originated in the Indonesia-Malaysia region and while it is also transmitted by mosquitos, it causes outbreaks every couple of years with about 13-20 thousand deaths each year. Again, lucky break that they need mosquitos as vectors. So in a way to me the question is whether it is by chance that those originating from China have larger impact on global health and economy or whether there are factors contributing to it. I think one needs to think beyond sanitary issues, as you mentioned. One question could be for example how connected China is compared to India. But also for example how the meat industry looks like. Another perhaps simple question is also what types of potential zoonotic diseases are there that could for example mix with animals that come into close contact with humans. In India many are mosquito borne, but perhaps they are less relevant in China. In Europe and US industrial pig farming has a huge potential to recombine and spread viruses in pigs, but there are perhaps fewer animals around that can spread novel viruses into pigs. Regulating or closing those market can likely close some of the risk factors. However, ultimately my thinking is that the world is shrinking, for better or for worse. There will be more contact between each of us and there are diseases that not zoonotic. What it means is that otherwise local disease have a much easier to become epidemic and even pandemic. Without the willingness for rapid responses to detect human-human spread, I think that most of the measures will be insufficient. And I think it is somewhat wrong to think that in the Western world our measures will keep us safe indefinitely. We had prion disease entering the food chain (sure it is not an infectious disease per se, but still). Farm animals often have to be culled due to various disease outbreaks. So far those have not managed to jump the species barrier, but it is not something that may so forever. On the other hand of course there is the tendency of diseases to become less virulent over time (as killing the host is generally not a good long-term strategy) but in the meantime a lot of harm can be done. Other man-made reasons for outbreak are for example anti-vaccination campaigns. HIV/AIDS now is well controlled, and we get complacent again (in the 90s it was for a time the leading cause of death in young adults). We have tons of pathogens that can mix, mutate and while there may be area with larger reservoirs than others, I do think it is dangerous to think it as an "elsewhere" problem. I think this is what lead to complacency when China was facing COVID-19 and that is why despite ample warnings the Western world only reacted when they had deaths in their midst. It may not be quite what you are thinking of, but I do think that this change in mentality is necessary to combat the inevitable occurrence and re-occurrence of diseases (and I apologize for all the typo and rantiness, it is more flow of thoughts without proper editing, may try to express it clearer when I got time again). Edit: had so many unfinished thoughts but wanted to include that global warming is going to increase the likelihood of many, especially mosquito borne diseases, so that has to go in there also somewhere.
  2. 1 point
    I definitely agree. When multi threading and/or multi processing is required for a task, then I use it. I do prefer to use a simpler approach, such as a single thread, when that will achieve the same result. In Java I prefer, when suitable, to use higher level libraries or packages such as java.util.concurrent https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/index.html?java/util/concurrent/package-summary.html How do you define "combined"?
  3. 1 point
    e.g. while loop checking whether any of two threads is alife (rather than just for one). Use logical or operator.
  4. 1 point
    It does not seem random in my browser. If I show "all activity" and chose the expanded view (instead of condensed) I think I see "the reply to this status" for all status updates on members personal profile pages. And never for any posts in any threads.
  5. 1 point
    Was going to take a picture at the tree outside, but found the same on the web... Blooming starting and seed pods still there... (Cercis canadiensis)
  6. 1 point
    I would say that studies on synaptic plasticity and the molecular basis of memory (Kandel has a nice book on it, and some nice articles on the molecular basis of memories) , do definitely the notion that memories are the result of differing strengths between the connections of neurons (in my opinion). And although I wouldn't know how a study could 'prove' that personality is an emergent property of brain connections, I can't really see any other place where your personality would come from, especially based on all the neuroscience I know. One article: https://molecularbrain.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-6606-5-14 (the book is 'The principles of neuroscience)
  7. 1 point
    That activity is for the site as a whole, it is not specific to you as a user. The software provides the option to respond right from there. It’s for convenience. What are you even asking here?
  8. 1 point
    @Dagl1 I and j are loop counters used as indexes to array. You need to compare array values instead of indexes. You need to find math equation giving f(x)=1+2+3+....n. It will be total internal loop executions. Use debugger to see what CPU is doing. It will help you understand issues.
  9. 1 point
    Not sure this answers your question but a common construct in some program development is to use recursion*. Here is quick hack that produces the same result** as your code, without explicitly using loops: Array = [5,2,3,3,4,6,8] def recursive_Dagl1(i): if i==len(Array)-1: return try: if Array.index(Array[i],i+1): print('found one: ', Array[i]) except ValueError: pass finally: recursive_Dagl1(i+1) return recursive_Dagl1(0) *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion_(computer_science) **) Disclaimer: I've tried to quickly rewrite OP's code as recursive, not tried to create an efficient way to solve the task to find duplicates.
  10. 1 point
    You could find math equation which is giving total number of internal loop executions and then use modulo or so to extract i and j variables from it. e.g. (just an example pseudocode) If we have loops like for i=0 to 10 for j=0 to 10 it is easy to figure out total number of internal loop executions. It is 10 × 10 = 100 so we can write for k=0 to 100 i=k/10 j=k%10 and instead of two loops there is just one.. Your code could be replaced by sort of array then two fields with the same value will be one after another. One loop goes through the all fields and internal if for checking two array entries to check whether they are equal or not.
  11. 1 point
    I guess that's why our previous discussion regarding B Lazar ended up in the trash. I remember seeing him on TV in the 90s, making those outrageous claims. The only thing I've seen of him more recently is on the Joe Rogan Experience ( podcast ), and, for someone who was hired by the Government to reverse engineer a 'gravity' drive, he did not have a clue as to the workings of gravity or its effects. I nearly fell out of my chair when he said the 'old' theory of gravity involved propagation by gravitons, but it is actually a wave, evidenced by the 2016 BH merger detected by LIGO. ( gravitons are manifested by a quantum field theory of gravity, which we don't yet have, and he seems confused about gravitational waves ) He also employs certain 'tricks' in his interviews, like having an associate 'surprise' him with some 'evidence', which he claims not to have known about, in an attempt to be more believable. However, some people, even on this forum, seem to fall for his line ( along with hook and sinker ).
  12. 1 point
    I don't have Covid 19! test came back negative! Looks like just plain old viral pneumonia! That 104 fever was a bitch! Feeling better now! All I need now is a flight back to NC, CA is nice but home is nicer!
  13. 1 point
    The topic of the discussion is element 115, not whether we've been visited by aliens. So this suggests that Lazar's input is irrelevant. ! Moderator Note Irrelevant to the discussion (as I mention above) and basically using the lack of evidence to confirm that there is a conspiracy, because all the evidence has been erased. The antithesis of scientific discussion.
  14. 1 point
    It's not intuitive. Another one not intuitive to me is cold bleach, it seems, bleaches better than warm or hot bleach. Edit: Lower concentration increases contact time so that the surface of the microorganisms protein coat is not denatured too quickly such that it prevents more of the alcohol penetrating deeper into them. Superficial denaturing may just initiate dormancy.
  15. -1 points
    ==Well, honestly YOU led the thread in all sorts of OT direction. And, now, simply b/c you don't have your usual SMUG "BIOLOGY EXPERT" response, you want claim hijacking?? Really?!! YOU ARE A TYPICAL FORUM MODERATOR.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.