• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


CharonY last won the day on January 29

CharonY had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1938 Glorious Leader


About CharonY

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

59390 profile views
  1. Oh, don't you worry. Graham has announced that they now want to investigate the FBI and the Clinton campaign and the Steele dossier. The latter is a bit funny as apparently McCain delivered the dossier to the FBI after advise from Graham. Graham has also argued for another special counsel to this end, so the drama is far from over (even before the report has been fully viewed by folks). I think we are stuck in a perpetual re-run of 2016.
  2. CharonY

    Our Ability to Produce Offspring in Teenage Years

    Yes, but that is not what was proposed. OP speculated that DNA damage favours child birth at young age. Tbf, the statement in OP was also slightly confusing, i.e. that folks are able to produce offspring once puberty hits. That, of course is the definition of puberty, so I take that OP meant "at a relatively young age" or before "full maturity". What I was hoping to achieve is to direct OP to a more careful framing of the thought. Specifically the testable aspect would be whether there is evidence that children of teenage parents are less likely to have health effects that can be traced back to DNA damage than adult folks. The complicating factor in health outcomes is that in modern societies, teenage pregnancies are more common when other factors that may adversely affect health are also present, including socioeconomic status (especially in the US among Western countries). But to make a long story short, there is only relatively weak evidence for increased risk past 30, which becomes more apparent hitting ~35. Between 15-20 there are no reliably detectable effects.
  3. CharonY

    My first thousand

    Ooooh I know. Since you are from the Netherlands, I am sure you have heard about the the rivalries regarding the various German dialects (and traditionally the outgroup is made fun of as being fake or drunk German, whichever it is). I like to make fun of it, especially at parties because, well, I do not look German at all but am a native speaker and used to have the ability to somewhat convincingly mimic a number of dialects. It is terrific fun to see people start to take offense if someone makes fun of certain dialects and then get visibly confused when they see me. But of course, the subsequent peace offering is beer and then we all make fun of Frisians (sometimes) or folks from Saxony (all the time).
  4. CharonY

    Our Ability to Produce Offspring in Teenage Years

    Thoughts that are untestable are usually not conducive for getting insights.
  5. I think the statement as quoted from the Muller report is a careful framing of their finding. The issue as iNow pointed out is that without the context of a fuller report the summary is open to interpretation. E.g. the mentioning of lack of exoneration could mean what you mentioned. Or the juxtaposition in the summary maybe a consequence of how Barr created the summary. What is certain is that there is certainly not enough meat to for criminal persecution. Though whether that is more an acquittal or an exoneration would highly depend on the overall substance of the report.
  6. CharonY

    My first thousand

    I think a coffee shop is somewhat safer than some of the seedier bars. But then this is such a common situation (or used to be) that I doubt much would come from it, besides more beer (incidentally, that is how Dutch was developed as a language).
  7. CharonY

    My first thousand

    I was wondering about that, the Netherlands were much flatter in my memory. Assuming still being in Europe it looks much more like a different country which speaks fake German (among other things) ;p
  8. The issue with such predictions is that obviously we do not have a real idea on what would be possible. Subcellular regeneration on that scale would be akin to immortality for example, so not sure how far one would want to expand the scope of OP. Actually very few larger animals can do that. The water bear is a tiny organism, and certain frogs are a different example. But after that there are not a lot who are known to survive prolonged freezing time. Not so. Development is highly dependent on environmental cues, both pre- and post-natal. The genetic information is expressed dynamically, depending on the situation it finds itself in (which is the role of regulatory circuits).
  9. CharonY

    Our Ability to Produce Offspring in Teenage Years

    I would not try to derive it from such individual basic principles. More often than not, you will have wild speculations that are difficult to test, especially as humans have a wide window of procreation. You could think about in terms of a simple optimization, i.e. having the broadest window of opportunity whilst still having a sufficiently high survival rate to be competitive.
  10. CharonY

    Biology Major

    Depends quite a bit on the industry you are interested in. A problem that many fresh graduates have is that their resumes almost all look fairly identical. An important aspect is to highlight evidence for transferable and applicable skills rather than using the kitchen sink approach.
  11. Not quite, or at least a grey zone. The quote was While open to some level of interpretation, it stops before actually stating that there was no evidence. Just insufficient to establish a conspiracy. I.e. it would be closer to an acquittal than an actual exoneration, though without details it is not clear what is meant. OTOH I would be surprised if the choice of word was not carefully crafted.
  12. It clears the ethical issues, but not necessarily the environmental ones, at least not until someone figures out a more energy efficient way to produce it.
  13. CharonY

    The case for reparations

    The crux is that there are convenient answers and responses to black on black crimes, including draconian measures. White issues are handled far more carefully, traditionally (other examples include how addiction is handled for each community). Now that folks ask for a similar recognition and handling for black communities some folks cry PC this and sjw that. If folks mention that this is disruptive or inaccurate, one gets accused of playing the race card or excuses it that some folks allegedly silence other folks by calling them racist. IOW there is a double standard at play and even acknowledging that seems to be troublesome.
  14. CharonY

    The case for reparations

    Nope. I say that this is part of the parcel. He can condemn, or better make fun of PC culture (as he does). It is his job. And in all actuality I do think that he is using that as a shtick, he is quite aware of how to navigate it. I would just find it surprising if a stand up comedian was genuinely offended by folks taking offense by their routine. On the one hand it is only a routine, of course. But on the other hand for many comedians finding the cutting edge of society is their thing and they push buttons. That is how some have made a name (like Pryor or Carlin). But rather obviously if you do that, there will always be folks who do not like it, regardless the topic. You could make a routine about gun violence, and if do it right you could offend both 2nd amendment folks, liberals and (perhaps the worst target), gun victims. It is just a consequence one has to accept when one works on this type of routines. Jim Jefferies has discussed quite a bit how you pull off offensive bits but come off terribly if you don't. I.e. there is a certain acceptance that folks would not like, and it is not a PC thing. It is that society always had several lines that certain folks find unacceptable. PC is just a convenient excuse to accuse others of.
  15. CharonY

    The case for reparations

    Here is a thing that I find silly. Comedians often push the envelope of what is considered socially acceptable. In some ways, it is their job. And it was always a risk that they risk backlash, be it making fun of certain people, use of obscenities and so on. As long as authorities are not involved (which happened far more in the past than nowadays) I am actually surprised that comedians have a problem with it. After all it is somewhat of an expected element of their job. Really? So explain to me how it was significantly worse than the other contestants in the area where it won, please? And I wonder whether you think that all the other winners have clearly won with BP as the sole exception? That being said, I am glad it did not win best movie (though the one that won was almost as disappointing). BP had good bones and the world building was the single most interesting aspect (though I did not like it at first, it got me thinking after a little bit). Perhaps to avoid further confrontation, my overall point is the double standard. Crap traditional (aka non-minority dominated) movies win and it is just a misjudgement. Crap minority movies win, and suddenly it must be a PC conspiracy.