Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by CharonY

  1. It already does. Unfortunately it means that psychopaths have increasingly being in charge in the GOP. Moreover, according to an article https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/exclusive-jan-6-organizers-met-congress-white-house-1245289/ GOP lawmakers were coordinating with Jan. 6th protestors to coordinate efforts to contest the elections.
  2. This is entirely nonsense. I have done actual research in these areas and the device, as presented, could not work without major breakthroughs in technologies that did not exist yet. I do not have all the details in my head anymore but the fundamental issue is that the device should work on a very limited volume of blood, have several types of analytics on the the platform and be in a specific compact format. Each of these issues is solvable, but together the problems your run into include dilution effects, which could be countered by using just a bit more blood, temperature issues, which could solved with a bigger platform to separate the reactions more and a couple of other things that I do not recall anymore. There are many, many articles at this point and I find it curious that you claim that you have a hard time finding those. Heck, there is even a book out there called Bad Blood. I have linked one more or less random article that you could have found by consulting google for a minute or two: https://www.vox.com/2015/10/20/9576501/theranos-elizabeth-holmes https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has-struggled-with-blood-tests-1444881901#pq=Jd8MoW Both outline how the company made misleading claims and failed to adhere to standards that would have revealed that their tests just did not work. Some of the analyses that they made in order to pretend that their system worked were actually used on a different instrument from Siemens, which they hacked to run their cartridges. However, as the blood volume was too low, even those results were at best questionable. In other words, there is no conspiracy to be found here. The one thing that is odd is that for once someone is actually getting held accountable. This could be because in contrast e.g. tech startups, there are actually standards against which performance can be measured. You can easily oversell silly things like time-share offices, for example if you just hype it enough. But a blood tests actually needs to provide precise results in order to be useful. That being said, the only kind of conspiracy there is to talk about is the claim that Holmes is taken accountable because she is a woman. That, at least at first look hard to accept, considering the level of fraudulence being reported. However, some articles claimed that other, male CEOs in similar positions which were involved in at least similar ethical questionable behavior mostly escaped unscathed. However, I think the comparisons made in the article were mostly related to tech companies, which I think have different standers than med and biomed companies. So in the absence of actual statistics I am not sure how true it could be (would be interesting to take a look at least). There is the phenomenon of glass cliffs which has been investigated in studies such as by Ryan and Haslam (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00433.x) https://www.vox.com/2018/10/31/17960156/what-is-the-glass-cliff-women-ceos But I don't think that really applies here. Overlooked that argument. This is of course silly. A proper test requires to reproducibly perform with a given level of accuracy and precision. There are gold standards in place, basically the best performance we can do (with whatever method) and if a test performs worse, they should have other benefits (price, speed) but still be good enough to allow clinical diagnosis. If we accept random errors without qualifiers we might as well just do dowsing.
  3. An issue with just being brutally honest is that many actually do not like to be on the receiving end. This is especially true if a power imbalance is in play (and I suspect that some of the issues arising from anti-discrimination laws and similar measures is that it gives power to folks who, according to conventional wisdom, should be powerless which might be upsetting or at least confusing to some). That being said, there is also a cultural aspect. I found it that in North America folks tend to be a bit more polite of sorts and have on average more trouble to criticize things directly (I am talking in person, not the internet). Compared to that, Germans often appear brutally blunt. However, it is not uncommon in Germany that superiors bully their employees while not being particular receptive to criticism themselves. There is a bit of a change in society insofar that folks now talk more openly about discrimination and bullying.
  4. So technically that is not considered fermentation as the larvae actively digested. While in common usage it may not appear very different, biologically they are distinct processes. Most specifically, fermentative pathways are used to recover reducing equivalents (which otherwise could be recovered by respiration). I do see some confusion of the term in the literature sometimes, though. Typically organisms with very effective anaerobic metabolic pathways are used for fermentation (so practically fungi and bacteria). While in other organisms there are residual pathways (say, lactic acid fermentation in muscles) but it is obviously difficult to utilize that to make yoghurt.
  5. Viruses are typically not an issue, assuming that bottles are not shared. But it is fairly certain that after some time bacterial biofilms will form in bottles. The only way to get it out is the use of things like detergents or perhaps vinegar, soaking and vigorous scrubbing (or heating).
  6. Ken Fabian has addressed the major differences between yeasts and bacteria and as MigL mentioned, you can use different types of yeasts. Beside potentially different metabolites, which could affect flavour, they also have different alchohol tolerance and can result in different alcohol contents. Many bacteria in dairy products are used for lactic acid, but also acetic acid fermentation and different cultures can result in different products (there are whole books dedicated to that). There are many species including various Streptococcus, Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus species in use. But there are also products which uses yeast and bacteria, such as kefir. Here, the yeast species (e.g. Kluvyeromyces) are also fermenting lactose together with the bacterial consortium. That being said, historically these consortia were not specifically added individually. Rather, these bacteria and yeasts were found naturally in the product that were used for fermentation. Sourdough is something that many of us have been doing over the last year and is basically a mix of lactic acid bacteria and yeasts and most of these are already present in flour. Interestingly, some of those bacteria are also more specific to our hands, which indicates that the sourdough culture is a mix of predominantly bacterial contamination of flour plus additional bacteria we carry over on our skin.
  7. The general point that iNow made stands, the racial groups you mentioned were developed during the enlightenment period (Blumenbach, I believe) and arose from the Linnaean idea of classifying, well, everything. The problem of course was that these ideas were not entirely scientific (as biological knowledge was limited) and perhaps worse, were heavily influenced by existing ideas on human populations, which were heavily influenced (or developed) into an imperialistic view of humankind. We now know that populations below the species level are mostly defined by the geospatial grouping (i.e. whatever can mix in a given area, tends to do so) as well as the fact that these 19th century ideas of grouping folks does not really fit what we know about human diversity. Many genetic studies have now shown, for example that African populations have the highest genetic diversity, which is basically expected from the out of Africa model. Fundamentally we find higher divergence between African population than, say between European and African population. As such the old 19th century classification you refer to does not make sense. So if we wanted to create subpopulations of the human species and have roughly equal distance between groups, it would not make sense to put all Africans in one group. Rather, they would be several groups and Europeans as well Asians would only be one of the subgroups. However, as Swansont already pointed out, classifications below the species levels are mostly arbitrary various degrees. Often they are used to create certain groups rather than a means to track actual genetic diversity. Especially in humans that would be difficult as there is a lot mixing and the way we use "race" in common usage rarely follows biology. Terms like black and white for example are more historic than anything else. Which is why folks like Barrack Obama are often considered black (which is a legacy of the one drop way of thinking about race).
  8. Maybe you are thinking of "I have no mouth and I must scream"? IIRC the protagonist was made unable to kill himself by transforming him into a kind of immortal blob (hence having no mouth). Of course as all stories there are even older ones, Prometheus being perpetually eaten by an eagle comes to mind. Zapatos' story sounds maddingly familiar but I cannot recall the title of the story nor whether I actually read it...
  9. And that in turn just demonstrates that his opposition to C-16 was just to gain attention. After all the bill itself (as well as the existing provisions on the provincial level) failed to manifest in actual compelled speech by law. I.e. he is just making a bit thing out of nothing and it seems to have seen more traction than proponents of alternative pronouns. I.e. I have seen more folks claiming that there is a law regarding pronoun use vs folks demanding the use of "ze".
  10. I can't as a) I have not seen it happening and so far it looks like a suggestion. If it transforms into the real world I may have more thoughts about it. Who forces though in your mind? Society? And if the balance is forcing minorities to conform or forcing part of the majority to conform, where should the balance be? Because clearly social pressures are happening whether you like or not, because actions (and in case of certain minorities the mere existence) has consequences.
  11. It is also everyone's right to criticize views as part of their freedom of expression. Not doing it is also a courtesy. The question for each individual is really who we want to accommodate. Folks based on their gender identity, because that is who they are, or folks that decide to be against accommodations. In the past, the majority decision was usually that minorities have to accommodate majority opinions. E.g. if folks decide that being gay in unnatural, well you just have to deal with it. Now, we do have a societal shift in trying to be accommodate more (even if it is sometimes only in a performative way) but it is also supported by science which some (but certainly not all) give it more weight than just opinions. So at least some of the demands have shifted from affected minorities to the majority and this is where much of the pushback comes from. In the past one does not have to accommodate much as part of majority. Most decision by the majority group was considered the norm and deviations suffered pushback. While it seems to be a reversal, it is important to note that it really only affects a rather limited area (i.e. the area where discrimination can be demonstrated). I will also invite folks who seem to treat gender identity as an opinion or fake to investigate their own sense gender. I assume it is the same for almost everyone else, but I do not recall ever to make a conscious decision regarding how I feel about my gender or sexual orientation. I certainly never had to karyotype myself or double-check my reproductive organs. As such I find it easy to understand how others might feel about their gender but having a mismatched body. We are only starting to understand how biology causes a certain gender identity, but dismissing it outright is certainly not something that follows our current understanding.
  12. OK, so as someone on the other side I can tell you that while we do all that, it is a burden on us and one that many of us feel unnecessary. Why should we be required to do the extra work just to earn the same level of respect that others get for free? I mean, of course it is a waste of time since every time you resolved an issue, another pops up. And if you address it too frequently, your are considered the one being disruptive. So we keep our heads down, don't complain too much if folks keep misspelling our name just to remain in folks' good graces. That being said, as it turns out that this attitude can hurt you in positions with higher visibility. For example, I did not mind too much about misspelling my name or that folks for some reasons keep forgetting to put my PhD to my name (but interestingly remembered for everyone else). However it resulted in folks thinking that a fresh postdoc was the project lead, for example or that my name ended up not appearing in press releases in time. I mean, especially in hindsight it is very clear why that happened, but in the past, who would dare to voice it? The way folks reacted when asking folks to do simple things like check spelling before sending things out (or give me a copy so that I could check) was almost asking them for a kidney or two. It was a bit refreshing that in countries USA or Canada folks actually apologized for misspelling your name, so I actually liked that blast of PC (which, again to me is just a basic level of mutual respect). Sure, you can characterize that as whining, if you want, but to me it is not having yet to deal with another thing on my plate. There is now a growing body of literature showing that the cumulation of this small things are adding to measurable levels of stress on the molecular level, so it is not just performance, it is something with an actual health impact. Now going back to sexual minorities, that effect has been found to be rather profound and one good summary can be found here: https://www.apa.org/pi/aids/resources/exchange/2012/04/minority-stress
  13. I would not be too hopeful about that. Even before the pandemic the most common specific question you get is "will it be part of the exam". During the pandemic, it has become awfully clear that not only cheating is rampant. Even worse, often you can find copy/pasted answers where the first sentence kind of make sense, but the rest is just nonsense. I.e. folks do not read past the first couple of lines. And unfortunately that is also often the case when they are given reading materials. The generation of especially premeds I have seen makes me afraid for the future of the medical system.
  14. Simple answer is probably psychoactive drugs. Sci-Fi answer could be activating the reward centres in the brain without drugs. It is not really that sci-fi as it has been done in animal models (there is even a wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_stimulation_reward). I think the range of potential issues are well described, starting from addiction, withdrawal from reality, lack of motivation and so on).
  15. So now you are fine with disobedience? But I assume we have moved on from the notion that this was all about pronoun use? Based on his publication records he has not worked in the area of gender-related mental health so not sure what his specialization is. That being said, there are recommendations by professional psychology associations and if Peterson follows those (even if they run counter his personal convictions), it may fall within the realm of his expertise. If he does not, it would be akin to an antivaccination MD. I am not sure what your ultimate point is, but I am pretty use that I probably am not going to an ob/gyn when I need a proctologist. And I would be critical regarding medical advice if they have developed their own idea about diseases and conditions that are not based on established medical frameworks. Perhaps the criticism folks not using thou will be criticized for using you and thou wrongly. Thou was the second person singular and the use of the plural form you is obviously wrong as there is only one koti. Bigotry depends on context on motivation. Just using a word does not tell folks either. And that is the crux of the anti-pronoun folks, they see the use in isolation (like in an online forum) and do not seem to realize that all is context-dependent. This is why also why folks do not simply get arrested for using a certain pronoun and why folks generally are not offended by accidental misgendering. In real life folks often also visually represent themselves a certain way, which already gives social cues how they want to be addressed and it I would assume it to be normal to follow such cues. Online you can make rather outrageous claims without any effort which cuts away a lot of the context. I also want to add that we have not pivoted away from argument A) (legal challenge) and are now again at B) (I don't wanna). Here the argument is you can be an arse if you want and you won't be legally challenged. However other folks might consider you an arse, including your employer.
  16. The issue here is that the whole matter would be the same if there the minor had a different medical condition. I am not sure which laws specifically apply but I assume the court order was in place because a) a minor was involved and b) medical records were involved. What I found was this: So in other words for the most past it appeared there were breaches in privacy rights. Can you see that the issue leading to jail has virtually nothing to do with pronouns or even just voicing opinion? Or conversely, do you think that folks' medical records should be allowed to be released without consent? But regardless whether you think the court order was just or not, it is about publishing specific records, not about someone's opinion or that someone was offended (well, besides the judge maybe). As such it does not really solidify the assumption that indeed many folks have been impacted by the law over misuse of pronouns. And again, if it is so hard to actually find actual examples, it may be time to re-thing the veracity of the assumption. Folks here are science-minded, and as such evidence-driven, aren't they? So why not apply the same skills to other topics?
  17. Actually no, I asked you to provide evidence there is ample evidence of folks being prosecuted based on Bil C-16 or because of pronouns. So let's the question again before we claim moving the goalpost, shall we? And that was prompted by So after all this outrage all you can come up with is one, and as the links indicated not because of pronouns or offending someone, but because contempt of the court? I mean, if that was such a big deal one would expect to come up with at least a couple of cases where someone was "charged" because someone did not "use their preferred pronoun?" If someone has stretch so much to find one case that is at best tangentially related, why spend so much energy on being offended by the situation? In contrast to clearly documented violence and discrimination against transgender folks this seems rather excessive.
  18. That is a poor analogy as it is well understood that the economy is not a zero sum game. In your example additional folks coming in could pool their resources and increase the size of the house (i.e. incoming population both consume and produce). The relationship between pop size and economy can be complex, depending on the overall economy under investigation e.g. But clearly the empirical evidence does not support a zero sum model.
  19. Again, outrage sells, and some are very good at fueling it (including folks like Peterson). Is the perpetuum mobile of money-making (and why facebook was so bloody reluctant to take off deadly misinformation who cares if a few hundred thousands might die if money is to be had?).
  20. Note that no one has provided any evidence of pronoun persecution. Just made the claim based on nothing as far as I can tell.
  21. I see we have reverted to argument A). Again, there is no legislation for that and folks are not prosecuted for misgendering. It is not about enforcing proper pronouns.
  22. And many do feel the same way. You forget that communication is also a social tool. You interact with that person. So if I decide to repeatedly call you a feminized version of your name, for example, it could be considered endearing if you are good friends, or perhaps intimidating if, say I was your boss. You may be OK with it either way or not. You are free to express your satisfaction/dissatisfaction to me. I had only few interactions with transgender folks and have misgendered a couple of times for different reasons and the interactions were always amicable. I did agree to call them their chosen name, but they were generally fine when I got confused and made my he/she dance. Slightly embarrassing for everyone involved but no big deal. As others noted, it only becomes a deal when it becomes a pattern of abuse. If I make it clear that I single them out. Same goes for religious folks. If I keep making disparaging comments about religion, religious students are likely to complain. If I on top single out the catholic student and make pedophile priest jokes at them, I may be in real trouble. Again, not an issue of law and something that has been around since human interaction and language existed. Why some folks think pronoun are such a big thing compared to all our other limits of social interactions, is still not clear to me. You make it so that every non-binary person wants to have things just right for them. Yet in reality there are real persons and as far as I have seen the only demand is to have the same baseline respect as other folks. I have therefore no idea why folks would be upset about books in your example (unless somehow the author creates a caricature of e.g. transgender people, but I suspect that is not what you had in mind). Of course there are always a small number of folks in every group that are unreasonable. However, I suspect that if we count the number of folks being offended to be "forced to use a pronoun" vs folks that are actually offended by certain pronouns the former would outnumber the latter. It is really that social media and certain news outlet make it so big of an issue that it appears to be a huge boogeyman of sorts.
  23. I think that actually that is not quite clear. In the US it seems that the courts are split whether the use of that word is so bad and historically loaded as a slur that it only is evidence for discrimination. Others consider it more of an utterance and does not pass the level of discrimination. And yet that person was not fired, it was remark in the personal file, and he sued the university for it. Moreover, most firings are not based on laws per se. They can be for breach company policy. Because folks cannot behave themselves many companies have such policies in place to at least seem to sanction discriminatory or harassing behaviour (which makes it easier for them to fire folks for cause). If a Walmart greeter says "Welcome to Walmart, arsehole", they can be fired, even if they did not broke laws nor even used a pronoun. I.e. it is a policy and not a legal thing. So since you consider it such a big deal, kindly let me know the rough number of folks charged under C-16 then? If failing that, how many folks were let go because of pronouns alone (i.e. without any further acts of discrimination). Again the one case you brought up was a policy breach that did not even result in firing (also was in the US, but that is probably not a big thing as they are similar provisions, I believe). Edit: Not to mention that it was a single case whereas these antidiscrimination laws have been around for close to a decade. Depends on how often you do it and how you do it. If it is wrapped in a clever joke I might laugh, if it is mean-spirited I would think you might be an arse. At no point would legal actions be involved.
  24. No I am just trying to figure out what parameters you consider to be objective enough to make the classification you do. You have specifically mentioned child-bearing, so fair enough I wanted to figure out whether that is a sufficient parameter. It relates to the points Arete (repeatedly) made. It requires us to ignore biological sciences (on a science forum no less) and if that is the case one would need to know whether other classifications are at least useful, if they do not follow the science. It is also an invitation to think whether the classifications we make in daily life are indeed as universal as we think they are. Basically we could ask ourselves, if there is a person looking like what we would consider a man or woman based on clothing, behaviour etc. How should we treat them. Should we first determine what we think their sex it and then insist on addressing that way (and why?). And if so (and that is already a big if), what are the parameters that tell you that person has a perceived mismatch between sex and gender? You brought up child bearing and rather obviously that is a) not an universal parameter an b) it cannot be used in casual determination as far as I know. But yes, youtube videos are obviously going to make everything better. At some point folks just want to feel outraged, don't they? Fundamentally the argument goes in circles. A) we treat everyone with respect but we just don't want a law that forces us to. If pointed out that the law is not forcing you treat folks with respect per se, just not discriminate against them it then goes to B) they are delusional and I do not want to engage in delusions. That goes away from the forced by law argument but then becomes they are not real (somehow) and I just want to do things the "correct" way (which in the past included rather horrendous elements, but I digress). Asking who is going to be the arbiter of what is "correct' and why folks cannot just be civil with each together it somehow goes back to A.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.