CharonY

No, elections are not forbidden. But there must be safeguards to protect the constitution (and mechanisms to override those). A party can be abolished in Germany, if sufficient grounds are found that they are anti-democratic and anti-constitutional, essentially being a risk to the country if elected, they can be sanctioned in various ways. One thing of note in Germany is that parties are partially financed by the government. Depending on how many votes they get, they have access to governmental funds. One of the mechanisms is therefore to stop funding them.

I would like to use this opportunity to suggest folks to contextualize their discussions appropriately. We have members from multiple countries, in some cases divided by the same language. Especially when talking about laws and regulations the jurisdiction is incredibly important.

Here you are. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2021.102379 This is about the very well-established cryptocurrency bitcoin. Importantly this study, as some others have found some inflation-hedging capabilities of bitcoin (in most studies it appreciates if folks expected inflation). However, in times of uncertainty it basically moves with the market, in contrast to gold. The conclusion is basically that it is not a similar safe-haven asset as gold. It should be noted that average growth is not a specific benefit to bitcoin. Index funds also all grow on average. A more important issue is probably whether it will still have the value when you need it, especially in times of crises.

To echo some of the things mentioned, in the medical field techs are typically overwhelmingly female in general (similarly so with lab techs). That is, even if we ignore mammography a quick google suggests that about 80% of the folks doing similar jobs are female. Even without regulations, there would be a small pool of men who could specialize in mammography.

Oh no, this is my favorite game that I bought and never opened. Since this is in the Lounge I want to add that I recently read reports on Chinese manufacturing and supply chains and there is a sense that the Western world is severely underestimating their integration and capabilities. The most striking opinion I read (cannot recall from where though) is that the West is competing with a version of China from over 10 years ago. Instead of fearing IP loss and competition, they should bring Chinese companies to the West with similar stipulations for foreign companies in China (e.g. regarding ownership) and then steal the crap out of Chinese technology to deploy in the West. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/02/opinion/trump-tariffs-china.html?unlocked_article_code=1.EE8.JSNH.GoggAq-yaOGD&smid=url-share

There is no fundamental objection against tariffs on the left. In fact, some of past motivations for tariffs were considered protective measures welcomed by laborers. The real issue is that tariffs are a specific tool that works in a specific way. It can be used for targeted protectionism, for example and when done in such a way, often has broad support. Biden supported tariffs on Chinese EV and got Canada and Europe on board to assist Western car companies. The issue with Trump are two-fold. a) for the longest time, he did not understand who pays the tariffs. b) he does not understand how tariffs work and when tariffs are beneficial and c) his team is too lazy to figure out how to implement tariffs in a beneficial way. So they ended up conflating multiple issues and simple used trade deficits as a way to implement tariffs. It is like prescribing drugs based on the size and color of your shoes. The inconsistencies come into play because the tariffs, when implemented that broadly with unclear goals, harm the international trade and when things went bad, Trump reversed them randomly. However, if you want to just cut consumption, there are easier ways. Just increase sale taxes for example. That will cut down consumption. The issue, of course is that modern economies rely on high consumption to flourish. Lowering consumption will likely reduce carbon footprints but also cause other issues associated with recessions.

There is a steeper gender gap in urology. In the US, only 10% of urologists are women https://www.nature.com/articles/s41585-023-00777-4#ref-CR1 Finding a female urologist would be challenging. A lower gender gap is among Ob/Gyns which about a third being men. I think especially for mammography it is a bit of a historic and cultural issue. It is a female dominated discipline, which discourages men from entering. As such, in many countries it simply became the norm. I am not sure if there are regulatory requirements outside of the UK. I am not really sure that this is necessarily the case. Or at least I am unaware whether there is data to support this. Anecdotally, I have heard that quite a few women prefer a female gynecologist but are generally alright with whoever they can get that is somewhat capable.

By posting a prolonged argument that not really makes the point you think it makes and not using your own voice to do so. Unless you claim to have read can properly contextualize the provided papers. Listen, I see many students trying to write essays or writing arguments and just use LLMs without really thinking. They are very easy to spot especially if the evidence they provide contradict their intended argument. Folks who just use them without any background thinking no not provide information for the LLMs to build an argument and lack the background to fine tune them. I mentioned above some the signs and it seems that you either have not noticed or are ignoring them.

Must be interesting roads, if you can find fish there regularly. RFK Jr. would have a field day!

Interesting article. Just for the future, if you refer to an article, you generally do not use the journal (i.e. according to Nature), but you refer to the researchers. This would be either Ye, Shalev, and Ratzke as in the first sentence of the summary. Or it could be Ye et al., referring to the first author, or you can refer to the corresponding author, who is usually the PI (i.e. Ratzke or Ratzke's group). Some also prefer to just generally refer to the location. I.e. German researchers or a research group in Tuebingen. The latter is more used by news outlets, but I often also do it, if I cannot remember the authors....

Yeah that is really unspecific as it does not specify time frame nor actual numbers. During the heyday of the debate in the 2000s and to some degree in the 2010s it was an outcrop of the US creationist movement that for a while got some traction. In my memory the movement had its gravitational center around the Discovery Institute and was basically just a way to try to give some fake scientific sheen on creationism. Now, while there are also creationists in Europe, the scale is very different. Depending on the precise phrasing, support for creationisms in the USA was slightly above 40% in the 2010s and the last one I have seen on Gallup was around 37%, but I have seen numbers suggesting support comparable to values back in 2010 (so, around 40-ish). Most surveys put the UK among the highest levels with creationist beliefs but I have rarely seen anything much about 20%. It is somewhat lower in countries like France or Spain. A comparative study from 2020 from a Pew poll allows a direct comparison, putting creationist responders at around 32% in the US and between 10-21% in Western Europe. More religious countries such as Russia and Poland are higher (24%/29%) but still lower than the US. Considering that the proportion of religious folks in the respective countries is higher (in some cases way higher) than the belief in creationism, it suggests that most religious folks do not actually believe in creationism. Surveys in the USA suggest around 69% of folks considering themselves religious (majority Christian) so about half are likely creationist. In contrast, Spain has about 55% considering themselves religious but only 10% hold creationist beliefs. So as a whole, the creationist argument is not plausible for the majority of Christians. It should also be noted that specifically the Catholic church does not endorse the literal creationist argument and has accepted evolution as real process. I believe John Paul II may have formalized the notion that there is no conflict between evolution and Christian faith, something that was reinforced by Pope Francis. That further diminishes the proportion where we should expect a strong adherence to creationism.

Have you read what I posted? Because you used a lot of words just to re-iterate pretty much the same points I was making. The way the argument is phrased makes it pretty clear that this is not only an output of an LLM, but that you also did not review it and rephrase it to make it your own argument. For example, I showed studies on molecular clocking highlighting the divergence of time, and you apparently your input resulted in the model to argue that the difference from 560 to 988 is significantly different from 685-1000 despite falling in a roughly similar range of estimates. The 700 MYA estimate was based on a weighted method developed by Kumar's lab, which I consider to be a bit of a gold standard. But again, that is not the issue. The issue is long-winded automated arguments that ultimately are not beneficial to discussions. Also please refer to https://scienceforums.net/topic/133848-policy-on-aillm-use-on-sfn/ But I think I will stop here as we are sufficiently off-topic already.

Except you are specifically wrong, Saccorhytus is in the parallel phylum where you would find humans. Also, note that I said "about" not definitely and also the published range is between 560 MYA (Aris-Brosou et al. 2013 Syst Biol ) to about 988 MYA (Blair et al. 2005 Mol Biol Evol)

Also Saccorhytus is clearly not a an ancestor to humans (or any veretbrate). They belong to the protostomia (arthropods, molluscs etc.), whereas humans belong to the deuterostomia. The split was about 700 MYA. And if we go that far back, why not just got straight to LUCA.

Define biotic resistance in this context then and what kind of specific information related you seek to find.

I suppose it was in another thread, but phage therapy is not precisely a new field of study, due to lack of antibiotics the Soviets used them starting around the 30s? I am pretty sure we had a thread here somewhere discussing the limitations of phage therapy and the reason why it never took off. It only now regained interest because antibiotics are failing, though most limitations still remain.

That is true, and what TheVat said. You seem to agree with him and disagree with your previous quote that TheVat alluded to. In that quite you seem to be referring to paleontological evidence of evolution rather than the fact that some strata hold fossils (which by themselves would not be evidence of evolution).

That is very difficult. As I mentioned, even a mouse which has very weak vertebrae folks often struggle to get it right. With a larger animal this is not an approved method and would be incredibly difficult. And I really don't think that one should even try. Depending on local laws, calling police, SPA or equivalent would be the right thing to do. Exactly, although I would add that in Europe I would be worried if random folks walked around with guns. It took me a while to get used to the fact that for some Americans this is considered normal.

Unfortunately it is not easy without practice. For example, for small animals (e.g. mice) there are protocols for euthanasia, using rapid decapitation/cervical dislocation. It is sometimes not very pretty, despite them being fairly fragile to begin with. Unless you are a hunter I don't think that guns are an option in France. Another thing to consider are local laws. I remember back that my zoology professor ran into trouble multiple times with the police because he was collecting skulls from roadkill. I think calling the authorities and ask for advice would be the safest bet. In Germany we were reminded to call police or local animal protection organizations for advice, at least.

Is your question specifically targeted at the impact on native ant species? There are papers documenting the various effects of invasive ant species on multiple levels. You might be interested in an older paper with long-term data https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-007-9194-x Or a broader meta-analysis not focused on native ant species: https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12672

That is exactly why I specified "developed countries" as in the vast majority the availability is not an issue. Affordability might be an issue in a few of these countries, but that wouldn't be addressed by having folks walking around with vaccines in their pocket. I took the suggestion as a means to increase availability.

Same thing there. You wouldn't want a random person to poke you. There, you would still want to have trusted folks in the community trained to administer injections even if access to fully trained health personnel is lacking. The alternative would be to simplify systems to that would allow safe self-administration, which still requires some training. That is basically what I was alluding to.

Mrs Tilly likes Apollo, but doesn't like God. Tilly likes essays and speeches, but neither prose nor poetry.

From your first premise, your second one (that human exist) would already be very unlikely. If we assume that we have 1000 worlds starting with the exact state as Earth 100,000 years ago the likelihood increases as by then there was substantial human population. But there are so many random trajectories that it is incredibly unlikely to get the same multiple times. It is more likely to throw a billion cards in the air a thousand times and they landing down exactly the same way every time. Edit: I don't think that this is a question related to evolution.

They are not going around shopping for the nicest locations. They (or their eggs) hitch a ride on their hosts and their belongings. They are also nocturnal. Hotels are where people sleep. But so is your bedroom. The main difference being that you probably don't have a lot of travelers in your bedroom. Breath initiatives host seeking behavior. I am not sure whether blood type affects the chemical composition but essentially they are attracted by body heat and breathing, AFAIK.