exchemist

Your question is not a complete sentence. Typo? Can you try again?

I am not a baker but my understanding is the second rise gives the yeast time to "digest" the flour properly, giving a more chewy and resilient crumb when the bred is baked and improving its taste. In the UK, almost all commercial bread is now made by something called the "Chorleywood Process", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorleywood_bread_process , invented after the war and relying on much more yeast and violent mechanical mixing, followed by a short single rising time before baking. In consequence most modern British bread is horrible: a weak texture with little resilience and which dries up rapidly, a kind of biscuity taste - and rather indigestible. One of the reasons why boutique "sourdough" bread is now becoming popular (even I have reluctantly succumbed) is because that is made slowly and avoids these faults.A lot of young people now think that this is a feature of sourdough. It isn't. Properly made bread by the old method is just the same - without the sour taste. As recently as the 1980s one could still find local bakers, even in places that were not very prosperous, that made excellent bread. But almost no one makes it any more. This, as I say, is just my understanding as a consumer, not a baker, but one who, due to years of rowing, has always really enjoyed good bread - and hates the bad stuff. Someone more knowledgeable may contradict some of what I have written. You will need someone with baking experience to answer your other questions.

No my question is what authority Trump has for firing the existing incumbent. Can the president just do that, if he feels like it?

What then would be Trump's authority for firing the head of the bureau of labour statistics, as he just has because he didn't like the numbers?

Yes, the Exodus thing seems to be instructions for a form of ritual worship rather than praise per se but I see what you mean.

Do they demand praise, though? My knowledge of the OT is admittedly a bit sketchy, but as I recall it is people in the bible who exhort others to praise God, rather than a demand from God himself. I don't know about Islam.

It could. This story at least is a reminder that scientists far from immune from developing idées fixes or going a bit nuts, just like anyone else.

Is this saying that applying sunscreen does not much inhibit synthesis of vitamin D by the body? If so, good to know. (I'm interested in this as since the Covid pandemic I've been taking a daily vitamin D pill in the winter 6 months, on the advice of my doctor brother, to keep my immune system in good order. But I don't in the summer 6 months on the basis that I get enough sunshine to keep the level up.)

Yeah, Avi "Frontal" Loeb.😁

Oh please, not a YouTube video. Those are usually worthless. Can you summarise the points made?

Why don’t you start by following up the organisations listed in the Wikipaedia article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosimilar

One might hope that the -ve feedback designers are getting over "botshit", "hallucinations" and the recent sycophancy débâcle over Chat GPT will make them start to tweak the models, to be a bit more assertive in questioning ideas or suggestions from users that have little or no support. On the other hand, it is useful to have recognisable signs that a piece of text is AI-generated, so perhaps I should not express a hope that they may get better!

Computer programs don't find things out. They manipulate data they have been given by human beings. Though I suppose they might find connections between apparently disparate data that people have not noticed. I should have thought that in human affairs like the start of wars, which depend so much on intangibles like psychology, computers would struggle to predict odds accurately.

That's very interesting. So there was debate about the degree of presidential power between them at the time. I take @swansont 's point about the unforeseen complicity of both the Legislature and the top level of the Judiciary (though by no means the Judiciary as a whole). I suppose there's not much that one can do in a constitution to stop the former. The American people voted for the composition of Congress and they voted for, at the very least, running the risk of a dictatorship, despite ample warning from Trump's previous actions that that is what they would get. But I do think there is an advantage in having senior judicial appointments made, not by the Executive or the Legislature, but by a panel composed largely of their peers. I also think that what has happened in the US reveals the advantage in the British system of having the senior executives in government departments (i.e. ministers in the UK system) being required to report to Parliament to justify their decisions. They have to be members of Parliament to do that. The PM can't just appoint favourite TV personalities to run the government. But then again, the British constitution is not even written down but has evolved piecemeal, by largely unwritten convention. There is in principle little to stop a malevolent Prime Minister from overthrowing the conventions (we had a little taste of that with Bozo). I guess in the end, whether it is written or not, what ultimately matters is whether the people are sufficiently shocked by departures from the previously understood arrangements to object, in the media, in the streets and at the ballot box. It's the US people that have to wake up and vote, if they care enough about not living in an authoritarian future.

Except I think you made it up.

Yes but there is nuance here. Components can get withdrawn on a precautionary principle without real evidence of harm and sometimes for what seem to be public relations reasons due to doubtful but popularised allegations of risk. The weedkiller glyphosate is an example. That is no longer available at my local garden centre, all the brands that used it having been reformulated due to popular pressure, even though it is considered by regulatory authorities not to pose a risk in normal use. The arguments are often borderline, regarding max safe concentrations. That may be the case with your coal tar soap. My guess would be that you will get more exposure to benzene when refilling your car at the pump than you will from any hair product.

No. If you know anything about the bible (do you, actually?) you will know it is large collection of books, for example the book of Isaiah, or the book of Kings. And within each book, there are divisions into chapters and then into verses within each chapter. So if you make the rather surprising claim that the bible includes a verse according to which God says he made the moon so that people would have something to worship, you need to be able to support that claim by quoting the book, chapter and verse in which it can be found. You cannot expect readers to read the whole bible just to see if your claim is true.

What book, what chapter, and what verse?

Perhaps you have heard the expression,” Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the mid day sun”? To put it more scientifically, I think you need first to disentangle the effect of social behaviour from skin tone. In the Med, the locals generally don’t lie around on the beach getting burnt, like the tourists from N Europe. They stay inside in the heat of the day. Another confounding factor may be genetic skin tone vs. acquired skin tone. My son, whose mother was French, can tolerate longer in the sun than me, a Brit with a tendency to freckles. Also he tans much faster than me. So he may have inherited a better natural resistance to skin damage from UV. I think if you have naturally light skin it is dangerous for you to imagine that you can rely on progressive tanning as a substitute for sun cream. But I would agree that a little gentle exposure, to give you a light tan, without ever burning, may give you a bit more of a safety net than hiding away from the sun completely - which almost nobody does anyway. In fact I’ve a feeling I read a recommendation that effect quite recently, but I can’t remember where.

Yeah yeah.

I've had fried slices of plantain for breakfast all over S America. Quite nice I thought, like a starchy and not very sweet banana, a bit chewy but not unpleasantly so. But heavy - you don't need a lot.

Sure, but they invested tremendous power in one man. He seems able to hire and fire at will, with no reasons given, and to be able to make executive orders without any check. I realise the Legislature technically has to approve appointments to senior positions, so it's arguably their failure that Trump can appoint to the government people with no qualifications or experience. But he can appoint Supreme Court judges, so the Judiciary is not really independent - and the President controls the officers responsible for enforcing court orders.

Yes, so I have read. However they are still programmed to engage the user in further chat, aren't they? So while they may be less obviously sycophantic, they will still be biased to give +ve reinforcement to the user in his ideas.

So you've made up that thing about worshipping the moon, haven't you?

But a significant part of the new problem is it is the chatbot that is giving them the overconfidence, as it is programmed to reward the user by telling them how clever they are, to keep them engaged.