CharonY

I think it depends a lot on the level. Once you secured tenure (which is a big if) job security is as good, if not better than in an industrial position. However, before that, I agree that an academic career is far more uncertain. I would also agree to some extent with the benefits. There are few objective benefits, most of the motivation for pursuing an academic career is internal (and to a certain degree probably masochistic).

That thread is fairly long but it could make sense to fuse them. I will say that this is the most expected unexpected outcome. Who knew that lying to folks for so long will make them believe that stuff. Also, I think riot is a misnomer. They are not protesting against a perceived injustice, they were basically attempting a coup, even if it is an incompetent one (weapons and pipe bombs were secured during that event and the specific goal was to overturn the election). It is also not a big surprise that despite the mounting threats, police were underprepared (some unsubstantiated reports indicate that police either removed barricades or at least did not stop the mob from passing said barricades. Numerous news outlets have been contrasting that with the actions during BLM protests. I am not saying that police should have been escalating the situation, but rather that the same restrained should be extended to other folks.

In academia there is a huge gap between tenure-track/tenured (as well as otherwise permanent) positions and non-permanent ones (e.g. postdocs). The latter I would not consider a career (and certainly not the half of ones career) as such but at best as prerequisites. It is also a misconception that a PhD mandates an academic career to begin with. It may have been that the path to an academic career was easier in the olden days (way, way, way back) but it hasn't been so for decades. Part of it is the mentioned oversupply of PhDs, but it only looks lopsided if you only consider the academic track (which really, you should not). In reality, the vast majority of jobs are found outside academia, such as industrial jobs (the biggest chunk), public sector and so on. About 20 years back the numbers were roughly 20-25% of PhDs making an academic career, a number that has been dropping constantly from years prior. I do not have current values but chances are that they are even lower now. At the same time there has been some inflation with regards to PhD requirements in industry and some positions which used to be held by MScs often require a PhD now. In terms of types of jobs there are a lot, ranging from sales, support, product and project management and so on. There is also R&D but it tends to be a smaller slice.

! Moderator Note I have split the increasingly off-topic discussion into a new thread. I apologize for taking matters into my own hands but there are few mods available and most have taken part in this thread.

Not sure what the videos says, but mutation in the gene for the spike protein are concerning. No conclusive evidence either way, yet.

Well, black being one of the imperative word here. Hypocrisy being the other.

Keep safe, I hope you remain negative. The numbers in Canada are currently (and recently) rather awful.

Well, let's see if the riot police actually starts shooting rubber bullets as they did last times when protestors defied curfew...

The only thing it really means is that the GOP cannot just block everything without consideration. The issue with the Dems is that at least in the past they did not vote en bloc as the GOP did (see the Obama years). Perhaps things are shifting, though during the impeachment proceedigns several House Dems voted against or abstained.

Haha, good one.

Well, now Trump supporters have stormed the capitol after all the incitement from the President and the backing from the GOP. Perfect example of what you have been describing.

I am not sure I understand the question is- in a standard PCR you obviously amplify both strands of your cDNA. So generally you would just create suitable forward and reverse primers with the tags you need. Or is the question more about primer design in general. I will add that typically you should talk to your supervisor about the project. Often there are standard practices in place that one should adhere to.

But I take your point that for politicians it can be quite difficult to enforce the right thing, in the face of political propaganda. I suspect that many powerful folks (either private sector or politics) are used to be able to replace reality with make-belief. However, under crises such as the pandemic it shows that nature does not care much for that attitude. The real issue is of course that the typically it is the powerless that suffer more. I always assumed that such failures would be sanctioned by voters, but in the world that we live in (regardless which country) it does not seem to be that straightforward.

Nope. But I have been involved in method development for surveillance and I do look at methods and approaches in various countries. I am not a big fan of re-inventing the wheel multiple times or assuming exceptionalism if there is no real indication for it.

Well, technically they are playing for the same team. They are only interested to cover their own arse, but have not intention to potentially harm another player on the same team.

I am not sure how it changes the essence, if we take the highest threshold (i.e. who won), which could be considered the epitome of crazy, it is already 52% of Trump voters. Only 26% accept reality. I do not think that this is due to the GOP, it seems that the Dems have massively increased their turnout. It would take some more analyses, but so far I have not seen anything that suggest a fracturing. My sinking feeling is that effectively the crazies have won (as the tea party before them) and that if they are folks disgruntled now, they are not enough to matter.

First, that is a very incomplete reading of how SARS-CoV-2 affects our bodies. Damages are not exclusively to cytokine storms, and there has been some discussions whether it is really relevant to the observed damages. There seems to be an association with severity but then there is also the question of the triggers. That being said, there are always interactions with the immune system in vivo but it is not the sole source of damage. What is known is that the virus attacks several organs, including the brain stem and at in vitro studies show that cellular damages also occur. Moreover, there have been immunomodulating therapies which in some cases improve outcome, but as it turns out, it only works for a fraction of the folks. Others still die under that treatment (or get secondary infections and die from that). And very obvious examples are immunocomprised folks that die from COVID-19. In fact, they can also suffer severe consequences from otherwise fairly harmlesss viruses, so no, making the immune system blind to a virus is generally not a great idea. In addition, the viruses that we carry and which do not make us sick anymore often have mutations that reduces their virulence- our immune system has not changed in that regard (and again, except for inactive ones, they are generally only harmless if your immune system still works). As such an one-sided view that viruses do not harm us only our own immune system is simply wrong or at best misleading. It is like saying electricity does not kill us, it is the heart failure. Or the fall is harmless, just the landing happens to be lethal. To be clear, SARS-CoV-2 can be lethal for many folks and let it roam through your body without an immune system to keep it in check is pretty certainly deadly. There is no evidence that rapidly proliferating viruses in your bloodstream, organs and nervous system are in fact harmless. Moreover, the immune system is easily one of the most complex regulatory system in our body. All mechanisms to modulate our immune system are blunt instrument, including vaccines. While many, many folks are working on it, precision modulation of the immune system is still science fiction. It is probably also the closest to a panacea that we could get, if we get it. As you mentioned, this is not the time for high-flying dreams. If folks are unable to the simple things to keep each other safe, a vaccine is really our only option. We (i.e. most countries and their population) failed to take it seriously and since this is not a movie, there won't be a sudden miracle cure delivered by Arnold Schwarzenegger. In fact, if we had taken it more seriously we would not have needed a vaccine. But obviously that was too much to ask. Folks are dying, and if folks would just keep their friggen distance instead of dreaming about sunshine, bleach or magic we would not be here. Edit: if that sounds angry, it is because I am. A good friend lost a parent. I am afraid for my parents and things go exactly as everyone said it would if we are complacent and mess up. And now some folks are surprised and some are protesting the need to do the absolute minimum to protect your neighbour and community. Plus there are students that do not care because they are effing young and do not care that they potentially kill folks around them.

So if we talk about the ingredient list, they are pretty much harmonized across Europe (as well as the Americas). I.e. you should indicate the stuff you add in a particular product in descending weight. Technically if nothing else is added beside coconut flour, the ingredient label could simply read coconut flour. It does not necessary to indicate byproducts due to processing, for example. Coconut flour definitely contains cellulose and hemicellulose, both of which are chemically carbohydrates. However, in the EU (and UK) carbohydrates seems only to refer to (human) bioavailable carbohydrates (i.e. digestible carbs) and therefore those would or should fall under fibers. It also contains certain polyols, such as sorbitol, which according to labelling requirements would not need to be listed, but would be part of the total carbohydrate count. So there is quite a bit of a difference between chemical and food labelling nomenclature, with the latter focusing on simplicity rather than scientific accuracy. So I am wondering based on these definitions how resistant starch are labelled, for example. As they are poorly digested, they can be classified as fiber, but then there is also the starch category...

I second Sensei's comment on books. Without any background perhaps start with a good highschool or first-semester level textbook and perhaps a good popular science book (best if written from an actual expert in the topic). For starters these provide more background and context that allows you to become familiar with terms and concepts and generally provide more context. It still requires interest and work, of course. If what you read is not in any way interesting to you, you will quickly forget. Learning is an active process that is driven by self-motivation.

I think it is fair to say that so far there are not viable alternatives to abiogenesis. It is less of a theory but more of a theoretical framework that exist due to what we know about the chemical composition of organisms. I.e. we know that something simpler than cells must have existed at some point, we roughly have an idea what chemicals are more or less likely and so on. Moreover are hypotheses regarding the mechanisms of abiogenesis, how potential candidate molecule could have occurred and so on. It is really not my field so I am not sure of the current progress in that area. With regard to evolution, as Phi pointed out, the term describes the observable process (i.e. fact) that gene pools change over time. The theory of evolution describes all the bits and pieces that explain and quantify those changes.

Even before NZ and Australia, China has shown the way. And then some other countries demonstrated what could work instead of a total shutdown. And way before that we have history lessons about the efficacy of quarantine. It is just depressing that apparently most countries (which includes Australia, which first tried a flattening strategy before going for a burnout) decided that they need to experience that lesson themselves and likely forget if the next pandemic arrives too far into the future. The only other alternative to lockdown seem to be high compliance coupled with massive contact tracing. The lesson this time around is that half hearted approaches do, in fact, not work.

Oh gosh, yes food, that alone could kill it. I mean, in the bigger city it is possible to get stuff you need/want, but the average supermarket is going to be a shock for many.

It is a bit complicated and I have not looked at it too deeply. However, one model is that the the inflammation might, similar to e.g. autoimmune diseases cause an activation of the complement cascade. This system is part of the immune system, but it interacts with the coagulation cascade (which does the clotting). There is evidence from other diseases that both system can enhance each other, and there is evidence that in COVID-19 patients that might lead to hypercoagulation and thrombosis (especially high D-dimer values, which are a produced by degradation of blood clots have been associated with poor outcomes). So the short version is, there is evidence for increased blood clotting in certain patients. I should add that I with disruption I do not mean that the system is dysfunctional, rather that its normal functions are distorted.

Or he showed a blueprint that an actual competent autocrat could use to seize power. Also note that a significant proportion of the US population that are part of the GOP or are GOP voters do not consider that crazy (70-80% believe that the elections were not legitimate, for example). Not sure if it considers wrecking, rather a long slide from the right into fantasy country. But I assume they will recover if Democrats will finally be nice to them.

I am not sure how to call it, but it is a somewhat self-centered perspective that no only fails to take the ramifications into account, but also neglects that the folks in Hong Kong are humans with their own agenda and not that just bodies that can be easily shuffled around.