CharonY

This is of course mostly just for fun, but I would say a bit earlier than that. The fact that Hitler was arrested is just too much of a neat parallel with Jan6 and the fact that the US is run by a convicted felon. I am thinking maybe 1932? At that point Hitler gained broader support among industrialist (now techbros) and getting money from that side. While the SA was banned, Hitler managed to unban them in 32 (Jan6 crowd) and the NSDAP became the largest party in the elections with over 30%. Of course Hitler only became chancellor in 1933 but much of the groundwork on the right was done (with the mistaken belief of being able to control him). Though we can also take the happenings in LA as an attempt to get a Reichstagsbrand going. But of course, this is just looking at parallels for the decline, either way, it ain't pretty. And again, the shocking bit is that it defies the long-held assumptions of the particular strengths of US democracy.

One should also add that credentials also do not really mean much, if someone with credentials proposes something silly (we also had that here) that idea will be taken apart just as well. This is part of the mechanism.

And no one claimed that to begin with. Just that, similar to Weimar Germany (which was likely the start of this discussion), the democratic norms and mechanisms are eroding. Which is way more shocking as Germany did not had the long democratic history, which could explain some of the more failures. The US does not have that excuse. And again, only one person argued differently. That person suggested that a "neutral" stance would be advisable. You should show them this particular quote. Except they are not really winning. First of all, many are rolling over. Second, while there are lawsuits on specific elements, there is an underlying issue- many aspects of academic freedom are not as safeguarded as folks thought they would be. There were certain conventions, such as the belief that things like health research would be an ultimate benefit, or perhaps even just rational decision making (after all, research investment has been a huge net benefit to the US economy). That has gone out of the window and federal funds are drying up. What they are suing for (among other things) is against clawing back money that was awarded and where they have for now won is the foreign student ban against Harvard. But there is nothing stopping them not to give them any money in the future. Well technically congress can, but, you know. What it means in total is that the administration is putting strain on all mechanisms that democratically constrain their power. While the mechanisms held during Trump 1 now the guardrails are popping off. And again, we are only half a year in. Not all good people have been ousted yet but if things are not kept in check now, it will become increasingly more difficult.

Holy, you are aware that you are addressing the wrong Trump presidency? If you have followed the discussion here, we have mentioned that the institutions held then, but are failing now. How about you address those points? I mean, it is fine if you have no idea about the current happenings (which in some ways requires an admirably isolation from information) but there is little to engage in the discussion, then. While rather vague that is one thing that is going on, though again, the same can be said for Weimar pre- 33. Importantly (and not addressed) is the fact that the administration has defied court orders. Without consequences, it makes little difference that lawsuits are moving. Also on that note, the administration also has weaponized the courts. Thereby, they have effectively forced journalists to resign (see 60 minutes), and is expecting big payoffs from bogus lawsuits. These are not signs of a healthy democracy. Also ignored: the power grab (which was very long in the making) to control school and university curricula, especially the latter are a clear violation of academic freedom. Absolutely. The system is gearing up to avoid any sort of accountability and is wielding the power in dangerous ways. If folks start to complain only after the power grab is done is kind of too late.

The question to me is also what you mean with "scientific". There are practical discoveries and invention that lay persons can arguably make based on known principles. It is somewhat different to push the boundaries of scientific knowledge. The latter requires a much detailed and nuanced understanding of the current state of the art in a given subject, and in many disciplines also requires collecting data to support the idea. Otherwise it is just unsubstantiated speculation which generally do not amount to much. I will also add that the plateau is almost certainly at a much lower point than the peak.

I have added context to the economic collapse story, this doesn't really address that at all. Please explain how ignoring court orders, conducting open bribery, effectively ending habeas corpus does not indicate a breakdown of democratic norms. In fact, how about substantiating your claim rather than repeating them? The obvious response should have been an act of congress. Failing that, the only other safeguard are the midterms. We'll see how that goes. But to be clear, the sentences are handwavy fluff as they do not in any shape or form acknowledge what is going on.

I may be wrong, but I think the data was age-adjusted. But the life expectancy gap is significant and one would need to look a a bit a demographics to see the impact.

Absolutely. Trump and the rise of what folks call illiberal democracies and the diminishing power of established democracies are all part of a common trend (we have discussed Europe a fair bit on this forum, too). One big issue is that with current technologies, fractured information platforms and how folks interact with them all make it very easy to push autocracy, Meanwhile, maintaining or re-establishing democratic structures is an uphill battle. We have seen much damage barely 6 months can do to institutions. Heck, I foresee that in the near future the full discourse will be between chat bots with people only copy/pasting their output and wondering why the world is going to hell in a handbasket (after asking a bot what a handbasket is).

Are you targeting a specific fraction using FPLC or similar? I generally only used gradients (way back) to optimize wash and elution conditions and then used those parameters for purification. If you have a FPLC setup rather than control for total volume you would go for an appropriate flow rate for your system in combination with the column to get decent-sized peaks of your desired fraction.

As mentioned before, one big issue is detection rates- I am not familiar with the Indian health system, but I wouldn't be surprised if screening is less prevalent especially in underresourced areas. A recent study also mentioned that rates are increasing, in part due to demographic changes, but they also mentioned improvement in screening programs. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10231735/

Part of it was certainly decades in the making by e.g. the Federalist society. I think the efforts were only partially stymied by, well, conventions that were upheld to some degree by the various branches of government. It started most visibly eroding with the tea party and gained steam from there. A major difference was that the majority of the folks at least attempted not to look crazy. You are clearly not paying attention. The administration clearly defying the literal rule of law, targeting free speech, and actively demolishing the checks and balances that were put in place by the constitution. If they get away with it, the Democracy as we know it is not longer at stake- it is gone. There is no other way to put it. If the government controls what schools and universities are allowed to teach, which books you can or cannot read in libraries, sidelines traditional media in favour of far-right influencers, usurps federal powers to put pressure on states to follow the administration's ideologies, ignores frigging habeas corpus, pardons people involved in violent insurrection and the list goes on. What else has to happen before a threat to democracy is recognized? The threat to the Weimar Republic did not start with Gleichschaltung. It ended with it. A certain poem from someone who realized that things ended badly too late comes to mind here (Niemoeller). MSNBC.comJamal Greene: I’m a legal scholar. We're in a constitutio...Some will argue this country entered into a constitutional crisis only recently, but the moment I realized we were in one was on Jan. 20.The AtlanticHow to Hide a Constitutional CrisisThe executive branch is relying on the language of the law as cover to claim that it is complying with court orders when in fact it is not.

Which apparently is par of the course among folks who were undecided or neutral regarding Trump.

Yep. You can go back and read similar contemporary comments on the NSDAP in the early 30s. And it was too late by 33. I think I may have said something during Trump1 that it was a test of the resilience of the mechanisms of the US constitution and its checks and balances and that it has mostly held up. Project 2025 has specifically found ways to undermine these checks and balances, not unlike the use of Article 48 by the NSDAP.

I started counting when he actually entered the arena as politician.

These points don't even map cleanly to the rise of the NSDAP. Note that for example the direst economic challenge in the Weimar republic was the hyperinflation of 1923, just shortly after WWI. How strong was the NSDAP then? They tried to initiate the famous beer hall putsch, which famously failed (Jan 6 anyone?). After release the NSDAP was banned for a while and Weimar stabilized economically. When the Great Depression hit Germany, how successful was the NSDAP in the elections in 1930? They got 2.6%. If they haven't been supported and propped up but by the monarchists, they likely would have gone under. Instead what happened was (among other things) a coalition of right-wing conservatives, industrialists and related folks decided to use Hitler to make inroads within the working class ("I love the uneducated") under the wrong assumption that Hitler could be easily controlled (really, no parallels here, right?). Also notably, Hitler's rise to power happened during phases of economic stabilization. While the economic instability and the resulting unrest will have made the populace more responsive to extremist parties, it does not cleanly line up with the power grabs of the NSDAP. More recent research also on Trump increasingly shows that economic anxiety is a contributor, but not a main driver for such election models. As Swansont mentioned, the US is basically in a constitutional crisis where checks and balances are not working (see congress) or simply ignored. The Weimar Republic also had those, and they were also disabled (eventually). On the note of vibrant free press, well that has turned into a partisan issue, hasn't it. It is not a hyperbole to say that Trump's government is unlawfully sending unnamed folks into foreign torture prisons. Assuming that this is the worst of it is misplaced optimism. These points don't even map cleanly to the rise of the NSDAP. Note that for example the direst economic challenge in the Weimar republic was the hyperinflation of 1923, just shortly after WWI. How strong was the NSDAP then? They tried to initiate the famous beer hall putsch, which famously failed (Jan 6 anyone?). After release the NSDAP was banned for a while and Weimar stabilized economically. When the Great Depression hit Germany, how successful was the NSDAP in the elections in 1930? They got 2.6%. If they haven't been supported and propped up but by the monarchists, they likely would have gone under. Instead what happened was (among other things) a coalition of right-wing conservatives, industrialists and related folks decided to use Hitler to make inroads within the working class ("I love the uneducated") under the wrong assumption that Hitler could be easily controlled (really, no parallels here, right?). Also notably, Hitler's rise to power happened during phases of economic stabilization. While the economic instability and the resulting unrest will have made the populace more responsive to extremist parties, it does not cleanly line up with the power grabs of the NSDAP. More recent research also on Trump increasingly shows that economic anxiety is a contributor, but not a main driver for such election models. As Swansont mentioned, the US is basically in a constitutional crisis where checks and balances are not working (see congress) or simply ignored. The Weimar Republic also had those, and they were also disabled (eventually). On the note of vibrant free press, well that has turned into a partisan issue, hasn't it. It is not a hyperbole to say that Trump's government is unlawfully sending unnamed folks into foreign torture prisons. Assuming that this is the worst of it is misplaced optimism. Or even earlier, the pathway to power, which took him a bit longer than Trump. One should also keep in mind that there are others, like e.g. Miller and Bannon, who would love to have the Nazi time back. There is reason why the far right is making so many efforts to diminish the atrocities of the Nazis. And just listen to what Trump said the Merz during his visit regarding D-Day.

One just need to compare the Project 2025 with the historic precedence (in fact, I wouldn't be particularly surprised if they just used what happened in Germany as blueprint adapted to the US). Importantly, Nazi Germany didn't immediately had concentration camps and full elimination of all democratic rules as Peterkin et al. pointed out. For example, they first "just" marginalized and marked Jews and other unwanted folks and the original idea was "just" to deport them. As it turns out that other folks didn't want to accept them it continued first with confinement and then the final solution. Likewise, press and other parties were not immediately eliminated. Rather they were first coerced, threatened and bribed to do their bidding. Rivals first faced threats and then violence not from the main party as such, but by various paramilitary groups. Just take those few examples and look at what the US government is doing now and where the trajectory is. In that regard, it should also be noted that the timeline under Trump is quite faster than what happened in Germany. Also, similar to Hitler, Trump is reigning using emergency measures and aims to normalize them as par of normal executive functions. The US is on an express train towards authoritarian rule and is passing milestones faster than the public discourse can keep up.

20x column is a rule of thumb for a mostly quantitative flush of the column. If running a gradient, it depends a fair bit on the purpose. E.g., whether you want to assess relative purity or optimize imidazole concentrations. The elution profile would roughly follow the same parameters as "normal" LC on parameters like peak width (related to flow rate and volume and gradient steepness), for example.

I think that is right. Fossil records were obviously even scarcer back then. Darwin discussed quite the challenges of fossil records quite a bit in the Origin of species and he was actually quite a bit more pessimistic than things turned out to be. I may be conflating different works, but IIRC he mentioned that soft tissue would never be conserved (which turned out to be not true) and he underestimated the number of fossils that would eventually be found and suggested in his book that fossil records would likely not be able to support his theory. Famously, it didn't take long after publishing his book for the discovery of the Archaeopteryx.

You have to understand how to contextualize observations. We do not have a full fossil records of all organisms that ever existed (fact), but this is not because there are flaws in evolution. Rather, you will have to understand that only few organisms will ever be preserved until today requiring uncommon conditions (see e.g. this link for examples https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fossils/how-fossils-form.htm). From those that are preserved again only a small fraction will ever be found by humans, e.g. because they are inaccessible or were not recognized as fossils (context). As a consequence we only gain information by what kind of fossils we can find and can make only limited or no inferences regarding those we did not see. In addition, there is a fundamental flaw in this line of thinking which has been dubbed "fossil fallacy" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fossil-fallacy/

Excellent point No! Leave my caffeine alone! ... sorry, what were we talking about again?

That is not a weakness of evolutionary theories, instead it is an expected outcome on how fossils are formed. Fossils require a set of specific conditions to happen to ensure that they are preserved and then they also have to be found. If anything, finding new fossils is the much less likely outcome.

While there are open questions, it also hold a lot of answers. However, many questions posed by folks, including those in this thread are not due to a failure of the evolutionary theories to address them, but by a lack of knowledge about biology in general and evolution in specific. Obviously one cannot expect everyone to know these things, but a good first step is to try to inform oneself a bit better rather than assuming that there are issues with it. It is a bit like declaring planes cannot possibly fly, as they are too heavy.

Already wrong. As any biological they are not inert, as you suggest. They mutate all the time due to chemical, biological and physical influence (e.g., UV radiation). It requires a complex repair apparatus (also biomolecules) to ensure that they don't mutate too much all the time. Considering that the understanding of even basic biology is missing, I would suggest not to try to overturn knowledge that has been established over many, many years.

Yeah that is wide stretch. Any kind of enjoyment by definition provides pleasure in psychological sense. That way, you could classify books as psychoactive drugs for book lovers.

I would go further and argue that any liberal democracy (liberal as an "free") requires universal principles, such as the recognition of human rights, that are uniformly applied. As a consequence, liberal democracies always struggle more with the implementation of these policies as just implementation is difficult and there will be many edge cases which have to be litigated. In contrast, autocracies, which in my book includes illiberal democracies (such as Russia), which only have the appearance of democratic structures (such as having elections but no processes to ensure that they are free or fair, for example), have always simple and clear answers. The only thing they need to look out for is to ensure that the ruling class benefits from whatever policy they implement.