CharonY

Moderators
  • Content Count

    8952
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

CharonY last won the day on April 4

CharonY had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1946 Glorious Leader

2 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

59520 profile views
  1. I agree, also it is unclear whether congress actually wants an impeachment process in the first place.
  2. Some interpret it more strongly, as an effective path to impeachment.
  3. The document pretty much points to congress to do the evaluation. However, lacking urgency (say, evidence that the President is under foreign control), it will more likely be used in a political way. The report does paint a picture that the Trump Campaign expected help from Russia, but there was no explicit evidence for a tit for tat. It is somewhat troubling but pretty much established prior to the report that Russia expected to benefit from a Trump presidency and worked toward that goal. With regard to the "no evidence" line that was touted earlier by Barr/Trump, the report is also mentioning that certain evidence was destroyed by investigative targets and does explicitly not rule out that "unavailable information would shed additional light" on the described events. Obviously that is a rather harsh difference from an actual exoneration of sorts. Edit: I must say, the overall tone of the report (or at least bits I have read) are more damning than I thought. While stopping short of calling out a crime, it did little (if anything) to soften its blows and uses quite some space to at least strongly imply corrupt use of authority and the first half, which does not rise to the criminal level, nonetheless is used implicitly to outline all the events to explain why the President chose to exert his powers in the way he did, without explicitly spelling it out. It could be just by accident that they laid things out that way, but somehow I doubt it. Regardless of the actual content, there is quite a bit of compelling writing going on here.
  4. Interesting bit is that Trump actually directed folks to effectively end or obstruct the investigation. But they just denied to do so. Perhaps ironically, if he had more loyalist (but less capable) folks in position, it could have gotten worse. That being said, the report quite explicitly keeps the door open for the matter of obstruction charges, which will very likely be explored by Democrats for the next election.
  5. A redacted version of the report has just been released. Edit: A quick read over the summaries indicate that the investigation was rather careful to draw conclusions, and highlighted how unusual the situation was. Such as e.g. that the President's action itself prima facie legal mechanisms, but they also considered the fact that these mechanisms allow enormous acts of obstruction. They specifically said that the evidence they obtained did not establish a direct crime with Russia underlying election interference (which, again is a bit different to finding no evidence; they found interactions between Russian government and the Trump campaign, but not sufficient to support criminal charges) they state that the different motives (in case of the President) have to be considered. They seem to say that, yes the overall conduct pretty much amount to an intend to obstruct but they kind of keep it open or open with regard to the motives.
  6. First, it is dangerous to presume that all traits are under selection of sorts. It invites speculations that do not hold well under scrutiny (the areas of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are evidence to that). Second, plasticity cannot simply be ignored. OP describes a situation of strong selection of the genetic aspect, which again is very unlikely arising from a variable trait.
  7. In the earlier days, when intelligent design became en vogue, there was quite a bit in biology, specifically evolution. The other chunk that was for a while quite persistent was regarding race (and usually intelligence). The rest is more speculative sci-fi (transhumanism or similar aspects). But I agree as a whole, physics was always target of crackpots and in contrast to other it has barely changed over the years. A part of it is that those areas of physics which are most targeted by those folks are also rather counter-intuitive. The other being that e.g. in biology we have fewer stringent theoretical framework that can be "revolutionized".
  8. I'd be careful with overstating the directness of the interaction, and the role of the microbiome. There is quite a bit that is not that clear and it is also not certain whether it is really something different than, for example other sensory inputs.
  9. CharonY

    just got something cool

    You are missing the point. Why play bard's tale at all if do not have to pull out the cassette, turn it over, rewind press play and wait it gets to the right place when entering a dungeon...?
  10. I think in this case this is heightened by the fact that it is in an area that some (again, younger men) see as their domain. I.e. computational sciences. I have a a few female colleagues in that area and until they established themselves there was often the assumption that they were support rather than lead in key positions. But these are more subconscious aspects (that go into the realm of unconscious bias) rather than the outright manifestations of, well, misogyny.
  11. CharonY

    just got something cool

    Do you want to make folks feel old? I still got a working external 3.5 floppy drive (I also got a 5 1/4 inch on a very old PC, but I am supposed to throw it away as the PC does not work anymore). I do have a working C64 with datasette, too (got the bard's tale 1 on it).
  12. It seems that there is a tendency to describe such behaviour merely as a reaction to something, rather than calling the behaviour itself. If you followed the story you can see that it kicked off by a photo posted by MIT showing her being excited about (presumably) one of the first renderings. Within a day folks set up fake twitter accounts and targeted her specifically to minimize her contributions. One could discuss the predilection of the public to associate scientific achievements with individuals rather than groups, but it is not by accident that a woman's contribution is being minimized here. Specifically these trolls seem to target specifically young women. Men and older women are somewhat safer, though the latter tend to get commented on because their looks (whereas the stereotypical disheveled male scientists gets a pass. Ahem.). So clearly, this is not a gender war situation (as in, there are opposing parties). It is about a certain group of internet folks harassing the sh*t out of achievers who happen to be young women.
  13. In addition to what phi said, a number of these posts appeared on various websites affiliated with what they ingeniously call men's rights (which, rather than addressing gendered issues for men, instead promotes a misogynist worldview). Edit: social media was a mistake.
  14. I do not get your point here. Or do you mean that those guys trying to put down the author picking up other men from the list only accidentally to pick trans and minority folks?
  15. Yeah, considering the whole thing started with a rather adorable photo of someone being excited over results. There are folks on the internet that just had to ruin that (and put in some effort, too). Imagine a world where those folks were doing something constructive (or at least get a PhD themselves).