Leaderboard

The indolent apes of Punt Were much too lazy to hunt Their penchant for sloth Was protected by Thoth So their life skills tended to stunt.

Hmm, the relevance of those - obviously impressive - skills to those required in politics is not clear to me. Businessmen and military men do not always succeed in politics. They may be insightful and decisive leaders, but they tend to operate in structures in which obedience is built-in. Often they are not that well trained in consensus-building and the use of committees and other political processes to achieve gains, or in effective communication with electors whose interest in, and attention span for, political propositions is very limited. That's why many of them tend to be a bit, well, fascist in outlook (Exhibit A: Elon Musk). Kelly obviously is far from that, but nonetheless I see little reason to think the skills he has inherited from military aviation and the space programme are key to being a successful vice-president. Though they certainly may give him a personal aura of toughness and competence, which can help with getting the public to listen to him. By the same logic I would agree that a law career may not be the ideal skill set either. However it does have 2 relevant advantages. First, a good advocate has to be able to persuade a jury. This is a performance art, which can help with persuasive public speaking. Second, a lawyer has to understand law and is thus in an informed position when it comes to dealing with lawmakers or negotiating changes to laws being made.

We’re discussing US politics. Sensibility has nothing whatsoever to do with it. 😉

A gorilla in the zoo is reading a bible and On the Origin of Species. One says he is his brother's keeper, the other says he is his keeper's brother.

That rabbit's got a vicious streak a mile wide! It's a killer! He's got huge, sharp-- eh-- he can leap about-- look at the bones!

Time to trot out the parable of the puddle ?

I do think N Pelosi was putting a lot of pressure on him to bow out. But Pelosi seems to want a run--off to pick the nominee, not simply nominating K Harris. I didn't really think he could win this time around and in this political climate, but I felt his slide in the polls wasn't so much gains for D Trump, rather losses for J Biden amid Republican, and Democrat, criticism of his mental health. And I'm not sure any other nominee, including K Harris, can do any better. Democracy in the US is between a hard place and a rock.

I've been watching your comments on feedback with increasing interest, and you raise important points a) because there is an awful lot of misunderstanding mixed in amongst the loose terminology, and b) because it gets really complicated really quickly. Loosely, feedback occurs whenever a process output is fed back into the input thereby modifying the subsequent output. However, there are some major provisos here, particularly with regard to causal links. 'Feedback' cannot as of current scientific concensus refer to the transfer of anything back to an earlier point in time. It therefore is not a transfer from an output back into the input that created that output. It is a transfer from an output phase into a subsequent input phase. Some examples may help explain: This one is curious since mathematicians tend to irk engineers by insisting that pendulum type system really are controlled by feedback, because... reasons. I think the reasoning goes that since the equations of motion for an ideal, frictionless pendulum are time-reversible, they do not contradict the assertion that the last maximum displacement was a consequence of the next rather than vice versa. ie mathematically they are indistinguishable from a process controlled by negative feedback. Maybe that's a simplification, but at least we both agree that this system does not feature feedback. Compare with a father pushing a child on a swing. Hopefully, the father monitors the vertical displacement on the forward swing, compares that against some recommended maximum enjoyment criterion and adjusts his push at the top of the backswing accordingly. If we assign a phase angle 0 to the top of the backswing, and a phase angle pi radians to the top of the forward swing, it is clear that the input is being modified with an antiphase addition from the output - classic negative feedback. Arguably so, I think. Consider the following reaction. 2H2S + SO2 -> 3S + 2H2O If the reactants are initially dry, the reaction does not proceed. But add a small squirt of water to get it started and the reaction rate will rapidly accelerate via positive feedback. The output product phase is 'fed back' (at least partially) into the input reactant phase by eg. turbulent mixing and the reaction becomes self-sustaining, limited only by the continuing supply of reactants.

.....which she is not being slow to point out! My worry with her is she doesn't actually seem to be that good at inspirational speaking - perhaps like our own new PM, Starmer, also a former advocate, who is good at forensic analysis and cross-questioning to expose weaknesses in an opponent, but not possessed of high flights of oratory, like an Obama, say. I'm relieved she is starting to articulate a +ve vision of what she stands for, which seems to be loosely all around personal freedom. This can link things together like reproductive rights with the partisan control of the state envisioned in the deeply sinister Project 2025 and freedom from fear, as offered by better gun control (Exhibit B: Trump's ear?). So she does now seem to have more to say than just -ve attacks on Trump. Actually projecting something positive and a bit of happiness will be a real contrast with the permanently angry and abusive, self-centred negativity of Trump. So I'm crossing my finger she can make it. The whole of Europe is desperately hoping Trump loses, as our future as free countries at peace may be in the balance. (Have you seen that Russia has just sabotaged the French railway network, via 5 separate, simultaneous attacks on signalling and cabling at critical railway junctions, to try to turn the Olympics into chaos? The French arrested one Russian agent last week, but evidently there are more of them at large. More here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c28eyr3y18yo)

I would argue that this depends on the timeline. If we talk about species, we implicitly project long time lines (such as, until extinction, for example). Conversely societal benefits can be short-term. But if we add sustainability to the mix the timeline for what we consider societal benefit gets extended (i.e. it should not only be good for the current, but also for future generations). At which point what one might consider beneficial would converge. Edit: I should also add that one should not assume that selective pressure are all to the benefit of the species (as in creating a more successful species as implied by some comments). After all, a lot of species went extinct following highly successful and specific adaptations. It is possible to specialize oneself into a corner, for example.

1) yes, or more precisely we have the interconversion of NADH <-> NAD+ + H+ + 2e- 2) Not quite, it is the initial donor. The chain is basically a redox gradient, starting with NADH and ending with the terminal electron acceptors. 3) Also not quite, NAD+ is regenerated during the first step of the electron transport chain, following the reaction shown in 1). The electrons then continue to move through the chain, which powers the proton pumps. That is not part of regeneration of NAD+ per se, but just the process necessary to ultimately gain energy from the whole ordeal (the gradient in turn powers an ATP synthetase). 4) Simply put, yes. When there is oxygen, cells can use respiration to get more energy rather than having to rely on fermentation. That being said, under the right conditions (e.g. very high glucose surplus) some cells also conduct fermentation even in presence of oxygen. Here, cells prioritize rapid energy generation via glycolysis over the more efficient, but slower process of respiration. But this is only possible if glucose is not a limiting factor (as it is often the case in nature).

You would do well to read the whole thread, so that you fully understand other's views, before commenting with references to Nazi Germany, as you also did in the Incel thread. Is that a common theme with amateur psychologists ? Last I checked, an asteroid impact equivalent to 10 000 times the world's nuclear arsenal is not a predator. But I do agree, the sky is full of them. We call them birds. Thanks MSC, you seem to be the only one who got the point of our original discussion. The benefit of society is not necessarily the benefit of the species, and vice versa. Others are merely choosing to attack the examples I provided of 'not necessarily', which in itself indicates some cases fit and some don't. You also seem to have recognized how the ( mistaken ) belief that people were benefitting their society, almost caused the extinction of a group of people ( Jews are not a separate race ) in Germany, 90 years ago. But there are many more such examples.

You might find this one simpler and more digestible.

Of course you belong, it's an open forum; besides I couldn't write a formal paper in a formal way, that doesn't stop me from sharing my silly ideas; much to the chagrin of some of the membership.😇 The best way to learn, is to share your thought's and listen to why other people think it's a silly thing. Nazis are bad M'kay...

Here is some more information. Yes it's acetyl-thiolCoA Everything to the left of my marker arrow is expanded as previous diagram. Everything to the right is rolled into the CoA. It's from McMurray Organic Chemistry mine is the 4th ed. Sorry about the flatbed scanning but there 1350 pages so it doesn't sit well

What AI? Chat software is not AI. Companies abused the word too much..

With the Supreme court deciding that checks and balances don't work unless you can avoid checks and balances... Can Biden just... take care of TFG now? But you know... officially? A blacked out CIA hit with the presidential seal on the heavily redacted documents should count right? National security and whatnot. Also do we all know where this is going now? Once the lower courts rerule and defines the difference between an official and a private act, Trumps legal team is just gonna cry foul on that one too and demand the Supreme court delivers it's own definitions and rulings on that also, after it sits in the damn docket until it has at least an inch or so of dust on the damn thing and it requires a professional museum level document restoration treatment. Honestly if this Hitleruesque slow coup the Republicans are encouraging doesn't go their way and they lose, the democrats when next in majority will stack that court and rebalance it ASAP. They should really quit while they are ahead. Personally, I'm of the opinion that their has to be some recognition within the highest offices of all the branches of government of the strict need for term limits on the basis that incredible power corrupts incredibly well. Presidents, speakers, SCJs, two terms. No more than that. Enough is enough, it's true of the presidency and at this point a logical move applied in one way, inconsistently applied in the same way again for the same scenario, is madness. It's like watching a toddler put the square peg into the square hole one time and then failing to do it again for weeks. Like come on? You had this?! What the hell happened? Seriously though, why was it never implemented before once they implemented term limits for presidents? Seems like just a half complete job.

I think Lon Chaney would be great for capturing the werewolf vote! Or, wait, perhaps you meant Liz Cheney. I don't think progressives who are essential to a Harris win will warm up to Liz Cheney, however much she is a woman of character and courage. I think Harris needs someone who can talk with conservatives without being themselves a conservative, e.g. Beshear or Kelly or Cooper.

I think that is fairly anecdotal. In my field of work, and especially in the lab, I do see that on average women are better requiring focussed tasks (but of course there is a bit level of self-selection in terms of interest). To my knowledge, there are studies looking at task-switching and I think there is no clear evidence for differences. It might depend on task or there might be cultural factors and so on. That is very true and I see much in that especially among older colleagues (who likely had to fight very hard for their positions). Indeed. Acquiescing to a diminishing assumed centre (and defining it is pretty difficult to begin with) is likely not feasible. It is the reality that the less and less is found in the centre now and I will note that many of the sane GOP folks are very far away policy-wise. They are not center politically, they just happen to mostly acknowledge that there is an reality. Catering to that is supremely difficult and almost certainly a losing ticket.

Who is proposing a unity ticket? The same chuckleheads who were rooting for a contested convention? You might lose voters on the left for any you gain on the right. If you want an energized left, which is what’s happening right now, you can’t throw cold water on them with a “unity” choice.

Let's assume the tiger escaped from a zoo in Johannesburg...

I see your point. My take is that specialist vs generalist occurs in a direction with respect to the evolutionary tree, while a taxon vs another taxon occurs along a different direction. What I mean is any specialist in a given taxon has a cousin that is a generalist. It stands to reason that the more species there are, the more likely it is that a genetically-close generalist is there to fill the gap. There is no doubt that diversity is bound to take a blow any time a catastrophic event happens. Swarms of specialists will fall, and along with them relatively closely interdependent sub-niches. Conceivably, it's the generalist cousins that remain there to plant the seeds of the future biodiversity.

That, too, is fair. I just bristled a little at the male stereotype, "most men have a better grasp of the big picture than most men do." Calling us men relatively oafish is not really better than calling women ditzy or moody. It's a trendy thing to do, I hear it a lot, but it is not contributing to the mental health of young people to hear these kinds of stereotypes. If we simply go by the criterion of fresh perspective, then inevitably more women and POC will pour into our political chambers. Why does the software now take away the text window I'm writing in when I open another folder? This has been going on for a few months and it's annoying AF. I open a new window and recover my text, but why should that be necessary when it wasn't before?

Reported

OTTO Apes don't read philosophy. WANDA Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.

Yes, but see how dangerously close to a tautology we get? The default condition is whatever can sustain biota that will keep that condition. It's like the puddle suggested by @studiot. That was a brilliant analogy btw. Yes, I think this has to do with biodiversity being very low back during those eons --see last point by @StringJunky. Higher biodiversity will conceivable smooth out these patterns of variations. That's probably why we see those sharp banded-iron formations corresponding to the GOE. It's been speculated (but very plausibly so) that they must correspond to pulses of massive death of aerobic/anaerobic organisms and their re-births. It's like the oscillating pattern of daisy world, but with generations of aerobic/anaerobic prokaryotes playing the role of the black/white daisies, and oxygen abundance in the interstices of their bacterial mats (rather than the atmosphere) playing the role of the albedo. Well, perhaps the oversimplified way I've come to look at it. I agree with this. In fact, I've thought for some time that we usually focus too much on particular episodes just because of the particularly dramatic footprint they left behind, but the reason why we divide at all Earth time into these periods is because towards the end of each one of them, something had to give (biologically speaking) under one kind of stress or another, be it biological, cosmic, or geologically driven, or all of them together.

One thought that occurred to me later about this finding is that the world is badly in need of more efficient electrolysis methods, for green hydrogen production. Research into what is going on here might just yield new insights into options for catalysts. But it's still a mystery where the energy for this comes from. One would expect any potential difference between areas on the nodules to have become discharged long ago, given the whole thing is immersed in seawater. Something doesn't stack up here. I think we need to see the findings replicated. I wonder if they will discover there is some organism living in these nodules that is responsible, or something. I'm a bit sceptical about the battery idea.

Dear Algebra please stop asking us to find your X. She is not coming back and don't ask Y !

Just a small point. Sickle cell disease is the unfortunate result of inheriting an abnormal B-globin gene from each parent. Having a single sickle cell gene (as in the case of Mrs Seth) confers significant malaria resistance without the symptoms of sickle cell disease, but it does make one a carrier, which is routinely uncovered in blood tests. It's significantly less of a problem now than it used to be.

Kelly himself can go one better. He can say he’s met our Swansont!

I think the default condition comprises a moderately stable environment populated by a biota optimally adapted to thrive in those specific environmental conditions. If a genetic or behavioural change occurs in one species such that it starts to significantly alter the conditions in which it thrives, then that seems to be a recipe for evolutionary suicide does it not? As presented, this is a relatively straightforward, self-sustaining mechanism that provides the basics of Gaia without appealing to evolutionary foresight (or new age spiritualism). But... The empirical background came predominantly from the studies of modern (at least, pre-industrial) ecosystems. These in turn have been shaped by a global climate that from the close of the last glaciation 10 kya has until very recently been unusually stable by geological standards. It may well be atypical. We should also point out that it was initialised ~3.5 bya with the development of photosynthesis and advanced gradually raising free oxygen levels from ~1 ppm to ~2% by ~1.9 bya, with the GOE proper occurring over the final half billion years or so of that period. Obviously, we have a fairly coarse-grained perspective on such distant times, and there may well have been a series of lethal pulses in O2 concentration as each stage in the sequence of oxygen reducing buffers reached saturation point in turn. However, the picture we see is one of sustained hostility to life for one third of the planet's existence. This was not an overnight catastrophe like the Chixulub impact. For an immense period of time, this was situation normal (afu). GOE is not an isolated example: plants had another good go at wiping us out when they conquered the land in the Devonian and sent atmospheric O2 levels shooting up to ~30%; the advent of sea floor burrowing destroyed the highly productive seabed bacterial mats of earlier times. I'd make the case that such stability we observe is never more than transitory - the seeds of revolution are always ready in the wings. Indeed, imho they need to be in order to periodically begin anew. It's very tempting to write these off as 'special cases' when they threaten such such a seductive idea as Gaia. But nature is, as someone once said, red in tooth and claw. We idealise and anthropomorphise it at our peril.

I appreciate that you think highly of these AI language programs, and choose to answer/not answer my questions by using those same programs, but the results of even this small exchange make me doubt the benefits you mention. To me, it implies that adopting AI for any meaningful scientific exchange can be detrimental. I am still curious about the inherent bias in the AI systems that deny loan applications disproportionately to people of color. Can your program help me understand without a bunch of bullet points? A discussion forum should be more like a conversation than a lecture.

In exactly what way is n(CO2 + H2S + O2 + H2O) = (CH2O)n + n(H2SO4) intermediate between n(H2O + CO2) = n(CH2O) + n( O2) and Catabolism

Well that seems to be wrong, so as usual the journos have screwed up😄. This Wiki article is pretty unambiguous in stating the nodules are concretions composed of silicates, oxides and hydroxides of metals, in which Mn and Fe are major components: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese_nodule. "In both marine and terrestrial environments, ferromanganese nodules are composed primarily of iron and manganese oxide concretions supported by an aluminosilicate matrix and surrounding a nucleus.[2][3]" I expect the confusion arises due to the previous focus on the value of them as ores to be mined. Articles on that topic will talk in terms of the metal resource they represent, rather than the actual chemistry of the ore.

One difference between using sodium sulfate and using magnesium sulfate is that the product magnesium hydroxide has very low solubility whereas the product sodium hydroxide is very soluble.

Yes, but in the wrong direction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier's_principle

So what does it predict? Btw, Journal of Modern Physics appears to have been classified as predatory here, https://predatoryjournals.org/news/f/list-of-all-scirp-predatory-publications

https://www.theonion.com/loyal-dog-spends-hours-each-day-humping-owner-s-grave-1850042397

TIL that children's tendency to dislike vegetables may actually be an evolutionary advantage. Vegetables tend to be somewhat bitter, but so are poisons. Children have more taste buds than adults, since we lose them as we age, which makes them more sensitive to this bitter taste. With their smaller size, it takes a smaller amount of poison to be lethal, so a greater tendency to spit out bitter foods decreases the chances of ingesting enough toxins to be fatal if they put the wrong thing into their mouth.

Today I learned that sometimes you can increase photosynthesis in plants by reducing the sunlight they are exposed to. While listening to a gardening podcast there was a discussion of the impact of heat on photosynthesis. Some garden plants stop photosynthesizing at about 85 F. If you provide some shade you can locally cool the area and provide potentially a couple of extra hours per day of plant growth.

These don’t generally come with snide shitty remarks toward kind folks like you genuinely trying to help, but it’s your time to waste not mine so thanks for responding and informing

Or possibly in this case an honest misunderstanding. Particularly if one legitimately didn't know how the scale factor works

At least you can quote it in a response. A screenshot doesn’t permit this, and is a tactic of people spamming their ideas, rather than engaging in sincere discussion. “Look at this stuff I posted elsewhere!” just isn’t taken that seriously. You can whine all you want about being treated unfairly, but it’s mostly noise to many of us.

One of the many oddities about the hippopotamus amphibious is that they can neither swim nor float in water: https://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/hippo Here is a photo of a hippopotamus at rest in shallow water which I took myself a few years ago - coincidentally in the zoo at San Diego California.

Daisy World is a model and it works. NASA wouldn't be using it if it didn't. Whether StudioT disagrees with it besides the point, it's being used. Working models are descriptions that fit the prevailing data. GT has limitations, it's supporters or Lovelock don't say otherwise. Newton's gravity still works and will get you to the Moon, but GR explains more. Even that has limits that requires a new theory, and so it goes on.

I have not heard of this guy. What are his qualifications and areas of expertise?

Dad will be allowed to pass in two weeks, when his life support is to be stopped, on the advice of the expert's the family has decided that Jesus better get his skates on and forgive the ol' bugger. RIP the day after yesterday... 😉

I think it's a bit daft for the GOP and SC majority to show their devious hand before the election and actually winning.

You did not ask.

Blast! I was just about to link my "String's Pulled-Out-Of-My-Arse-and Evidence-Free Lectures On Things you Didn't Want to Know But I Think You Should" channel.