CharonY

Moderators
  • Content Count

    9111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

CharonY last won the day on April 27

CharonY had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1981 Glorious Leader

3 Followers

About CharonY

  • Rank
    Biology Expert

Profile Information

  • Location
    somewhere in the Americas.
  • Interests
    Breathing. I enjoy it a lot, when I can.
  • College Major/Degree
    PhD
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Biology/ (post-)genome research
  • Biography
    Labrat turned grantrat.

Recent Profile Visitors

60471 profile views
  1. Beside the fact that Greenland is semi-autonomous which, I presume, would make the legal situation quite difficult, the sale of the Virgin Islands was part of the overall imperialist strategies of the 19th/20th century, which are (at least in the overt form) declining from the second half of the 20th century. While negotiations started in the latter half of the 19th century, various negotiations negotiations ultimately failed, despite the fact that the main interest for the US was imperialist expansion, whereas on the Danish side, decline in the same (as well as increasing cost) were a factor. The sale ultimately happened due to militarist threats from the US. Drawing parallel to current political situations are, tenuous at best (hopefully). Because it is either that or things have gone really insane.
  2. Actually there is little evidence that biotin improves hair growth, unless a person has biotin deficiency. Various forms of hair loss and skin conditions are associated with biotin deficiency and for the most part the cause is that carboxylases require biotin as a cofactor. I.e. hair loss and other conditions are the result of certain carboxylases not functioning any more. Otoh, there is little to no evidence that in patients with sufficient biotin intake will improve hair growth.
  3. The only measure to actually reduce pesticides in produce is washing. Not all pesticides can be effectively removed. It depends on properties of the pesticide, as well as the properties of the produce. Once it penetrates deeply into the tissue, rinsing is somewhat ineffective. Some studies have shown that for certain pesticides washing solutions with oxidizing agents, including ozone and chlorine have shown to reduce their concentration. Some have shown that baking soda may have a similar effect. A general issue is that it may actually require a rather long incubation step (more than 15 mins) to reduce the pesticide content.
  4. Could you PLEASE cancel the merge of my articles and delete the older ones and live only my NEW one article ???... because my older articles were not written well and NO serious scientist would read them !!!... My NEW article from today shows the "evolution" of my Idea and the solutions that I found to the problems I had !!!... THANK YOU !!!... SPYROU Kosta - Greece

    1. Koni

      Koni

      Now my merged article ... has again and again the same things and images !!!... and no one would read it until the end !!!... where my NEW article from yesterday is !!!...

    2. Koni

      Koni

      I have to THANK YOU !!!... because I see now ... that with the merge of my 2 articles ... I have a lot of "views" since yesterday !!!... (1.000) !!!... so you knew -better than I - what was good for Me !!!... ( only ... that I have NO answer to the problem that I have with my Idea !!!... ) Thank you very-very much for your Help !!!...

  5. ! Moderator Note Same topics have been merged.
  6. Not really, I want to remind you that we are still in the primary, which, as I mentioned, requires a generally more progressive (or conservative) agenda than during the actual election. And as I mentioned, the data seems to indicate that the bigger share of potential voters for the Dems are on the rather far left part of the scale. As indicated in the report, the lower left part of the graph (i.e. far left and left on both, immigration and econonimcs) captures 32% of all voters and 60% of Dems. Moreover, the authors mentioned that in the lower left cell, (i.e. the most progressive on both dimensions) the highest proportion of higher educated Dems are found, who generally are more politically engaged. Which is going to a point I tried to make, which is that even among those groups there are sub-targets that need to be mobilized, potentially with different means.
  7. ! Moderator Note Considering that no attempt at science was made, the thread is closed.
  8. This is something strategies have to work out, but of course the structural elements also play a role. E.g. while the base has always been clearly voting based on party affiliation, key is mobilizing. But there are the primaries, which are a weird US thing, which generally mean that during that time candidates traditionally shift more to the left/right in order to win it, as registered Reps/Dems, especially those showing up to those primaries want to be pandered to. Afterward, the candidates generally pivot to the middle, or quite frequently, somewhere around centre right, IIRC. Now if we ignore primaries and look at the graphs there are a couple of interesting points. If only looking at the total electorate (ignoring party affiliation and ignoring who is more likely to show up to vote) it would make a lot sense for Dems to go very far left on economics and slightly less so on pro-immigration policies. For Reps it would make sense to heavily go for anti-immigration but be less so on the economical axis. The risk of straddling the middle is losing the bulk on either the further right/left (which, may just decide not to show up to vote). There is also more information in the article that one could look at. for example, what is the profile of undecided voters? Those appear to be fairly liberal on immigration, but conservative on economics. That is slightly surprising, considering how polarizing immigration seems to be, but that also seem to coincide with voters who tend to have higher degrees and higher incomes. But what is missing from the article is weighing the axes. For example, it is not clear (unless I missed it) whether the two parameters are equally predictive of voting behaviour or whether one or the other is considered more important. For example, it is possible that for those highly conservative in immigration, it may be the pivotal issue (as they e.g. see a cultural threat from immigration), whereas those liberal might see it as important, but perhaps not as important as a tax cut. The most important point, however, is that the article does show that the commonly used talking point about the appealing to the middle may not be a no-brainer after all.
  9. Either I am misunderstanding your point of confusion or you misunderstood the setup of the report. Each responded was asked a set of questions regarding immigration and economy. From this you can plot the responses on one axis separately as in the top graphics, or you plot each response for economics of a given person against their response on immigration (the square plots). From there you can see that only few folks end up in the middle. I.e. folks in the middle of economics apparently are rarely also in the middle in immigration (and vice versa). It does not make a prediction on how folks end up voting other than the reasonable assumption that folks are more likely to vote for whoever is closer to their view. As seen in the graph, the center position is occupied by few. But if you move either bottom left or upper right, you get closer to more of the electorate and hence represent more voters. Unless your assumption is that voters either predominantly vote on single issues (which is not part of the report) or that somehow people do not follow their own preferences. Perhaps you could clarify that a bit.
  10. The cross The cross analysis shows that it does not work that way. If you take the median of both, you'll get only a small set of the electorate. Again because the folk in the median of one indicator are not the same as in the other.
  11. As mentioned, you are forgetting the intersection (which is the key point of the ppaper). Folks in the middle in economics for example are either left or right in immigration (and vice versa). So if you moved right on both you lose the perhaps 12% of moderates but gain 20ish (or more) of the more right electoraten(mostly reps). Going left from there gives you a bit more. In either case one could risk especially those that are left on economics and right on immigration. One of the points of the report is specifically looking only on one axis misses out on those trends.
  12. I think you are looking only at the individual index and drawing your conclusions from there. The point is that if we add at least two issues, the middle intersection becomes depleted. The likelihood of the extremes to be maximized in individual scales is, even by chance highly unlikely (just the way the surveys are set up). Or specifically that there are cross-corre One key conclusion is that: I.e. if someone wanted to get the crowd on economics, one would need to move quite left on immigration, too, to gather most of the folks. But one would lose the (smaller ) group which is left on economics but right on immigration. If one balances both out into two moderate proposals, you lose out over 80% of the electorate. It is correct to state that it also is arbitrary to some degree as the question invariably is what actually is perceived as left vs right by the voters. And perhaps even more important, it is really only relevant in the swing states.
  13. I found an interesting report in which the position in terms of immigration and economics are outlined.
  14. I think I am not too convinced about that. At least most of her policies mesh well at lest in terms of goals with many general polls among independents. While her support is much stronger among the progressive wing, her support among moderate/conservative dems is only behind Biden (who is at the top). That being said, I think much, if not most of politics is about name recognition and meta-narratives, rather than actual positions and proposals. Biden pretty much is the default candidate pretty much merely because of him being known as vice-President and being attached to a president who is (now) very well liked among Dems. At the same time Warren is branded as ultra-left (though in European parlance one could probably consider her to be a Social Democrat), which generally used to have a very negative connotation in US-politics. Yet if the proposals (or the essence of it, such as say antitrust regulation) were discussed independent on the person, quite a lot of folks including independents are quite for it. In other words, politics is mostly about perception and branding rather the actual reality behind policies. And it makes sense. If you ask whether folks want medicare for all, you get quite different responses than when you ask whether you want a public option that may remove your existing employer-based insurance. No one is really asking for numbers, it is all about snap decisions on how things seem to affect your current situation and then stick to the opinion come hell or decent maths.
  15. I think the trouble I have with his policies are that they are often presented as pitches, rather than a cohesive plan. I.e. you have on proposal that involves issues and mechanisms on the federal level, right next to proposals that appear to be very local in application. There are grand proposal such as overhauling the welfare system, next to unionizing MMA fighters. Based on that it looks a lot like a brain storming session with mixed priorities rather than cohesive policy proposals. I think part of it is based on his background, which includes little policy experience but more solutions pitching. While not necessarily against this approach, a bit of more prioritization and a cohesive write-up would inspire more confidence. On the opposite end I would put Warren, where the issues around a theme are outlined and then the pitches are that describe specifically these issues are going to be solved. Just to bring up the MMA example, why isn't it framed around strengthening union? The latter would make more sense in demonstrating a position. Or why is the GI bill filed under foreign policy? Again, it reads a bit student essays to me. They can have good ideas, but have trouble to form a cohesive narrative and contextualize the ideas properly. A little bit more polishing from someone would help a lot to make it look, well, more professional.