CharonY

My take is a bit different. First, the issue is the critical thinking part. It is hard, counterintuitive and often results in friction with things that folks have learned as children or other long-held beliefs. What I have found is that kids are much less able to deal with friction of any sort. Regardless of political stance, this alone results in disengagement with critical thinking. However, on the right we see in recent times outright hostility to it. The second part involves the nerds. They are not the underdogs with marginalize rationalist worldview. Now they are the one who try to rule the world. With that, I don't mean the actual scientist, who are on the deep end of science, but those that promote a lightweight scientiscism/rationalism that seems to be rooted in science and realism, but frankly do not survive critical analysis. They have a certain simplified view on many science issues, some of them more or less accurate, but they then try to extrapolate to areas where they have little to now expertise, including societal issues. The gender/sex debate is such an area, for example. Or the rationalist view on optimisation, where some think that because there are systems that can outperform humans, it is not efficient and useful for humans to engage in those processes. It is a very myopic view in the world and while this tension always existed (e.g. between theoretical physicists and biologists) they are now a template for the young folks who struggle complex issues.

Here is an interview with the mathematician Terence Tao on this matter for a bit of perspective from that side. The link is a NYT gift link, but it is quite possible that they changed their system requiring an account: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/16/us/math-ai-terence-tao.html?unlocked_article_code=1.JFE.2wk5.5qGqYHZf1tLe&smid=url-share It is interesting that one of the impacts of AI in mathematics that it might become more similar to other, more technical fields, which rely more on collaborations already.

No, but populist for sure. And he was Fidesz member until 2024. It is likely that he has changed his mind on things and his action do show some more alignment with conservative liberal (and nationalist) values. But, the issue with populism is how principled these stances are. I.e. if there is another wave of immigrants, how much will it again shift public demand for a strong man. IOW I would be careful to interpret the loss of a wannabe dictator as an ultimate win for democracy. Just look at Trump 2.0. Moving towards democracy is a slow climb, as it often include limiting powers. A move towards tyranny can be a fast slide.

That is not very accurate on a couple of accounts. First, the mere mechanism of hermaphroditism makes the concept of sexual dimorphism not terribly useful, so this claim in itself is tricky. The second part is that humans are by any measure on the extremes of sexual dimorphism. Anglerfish are an example I like to use, where the male essentially becomes an appendage to the female. However, even among apes, humans are among those with the lowest degree of sexual dimorphism, for example if we just go from average build. And ultimately all of the question are, of course fantasy. Transition has been documented in fish, for example, but you won't find them in humans. That being said, there are intersex cases in humans which will tell you a bit about sexual organ development and how intermediary forms could look like. But you are confusing a lot of primary sexual characteristics with things gender (not sex)-associated parameters. I think it boils down to a very specific view of sexual dimorphism you might have, that simply does not translate well in cases of hermaphroditism (or intersex) where those categories mostly break down. Similar situation with reproductive species definition in ring-species.

It is interesting though that Magyar was member of the Fidesz party up to 2024. Apparently a pardon regarding a cover-up in child sexual abuse scandal was one of the triggers. It is also interesting that some of the main messages were similar to Fidesz, with a focus on patriotism, anti-corruption, common-sense politics and overall national renewal. These are quintessential populist talking points, and pretty much the same that led Fidesz to victory. There are signs for a willingness to return democratic institutions, but those were not the messages that brought him victory, especially in the rural regions. Also important, re-establishing democracy is difficult and folks rather easily give up on it if things get tricky. In Brazil Bolsonaro's son is poised for victory, for example.

I would probably say populist. Nationally, she does project post-fascist roots, including strong elements of Christian nationalism, she does engage in power grabs, anti-LGBTQ-rhetoric and restricting academic freedom and so on. The other side is that she has been pro-European, which, in theory should limit these excesses. That being said, I think that she belongs to the group of likely more clever right-wing groups which are just stupidly ideology- driven (which are also strangely pro-Russian) but in the tradition of post-fascist movement, aim to move the center more towards their ideology. Not in a brash unsubtle way as, say in the US, but more by normalizing fringe rhetoric. That way, she can play both sides and eventually EU-norms might catch up some of their ideology.

I think that Meloni is a bit of an odd one, as it is not quite clear to me how much of her is posturing vs real ideology and real desire to remodel the country. She always had a very different inward, vs outward-facing side. I suspect that she is not an ideologue, but mostly interested in keeping her far-right and neo-fascists base satisfied, while also clearly seeing the benefits of the EU. However, with far-right rivals rising, she did toughen her language, including suspending Schengen agreement with Spain. PiS and Fidesz remain the second strongest party, but in a more broader sense, what has really happened is that the Overton window has shifted over the last two decades that extremists now have become close to the centres of power. That in itself is concerning, regardless if they are in power or just very close to it. The idea of pro-fascists and mostly fear-driven politics (all connected via immigration and dubious fear of the the perceived demise of Western civilization) enables politicians to do and claim ridiculous things, as long as they show somehow a strong stance to immigration. This includes restrictions of freedom and related to that, kneecapping of scientific institutions. Science and investigative media used to be gatekeepers of something resembling reality. Investigative media has been crippled by private companies, especially social media. Meanwhile, science was always under some political influence due to the way funding works. However, traditionally both were seen as a public good and cutting funding or exerting control was generally seen negatively by the public. But that perception has also shifted (and I will point again to the outsized role of social media) and especially in the US we see an active effort to cripple independent research as a whole.

One thought is that this forum is mostly used by a bunch of regulars which have been around for a fairly long time. And perhaps one of the issue that I am grappling with is that IRL politics has functionally overwhelmed science. There was always a tension here, where politics at best ignored science, if it didn't fit agenda, but over the years, the outright hostility has pretty much won out. Almost all structural elements of science, be it funding, education, its administration etc. is now struggling with issues of political control, lack of trust, and now also new technologies. The latter is new, as usually technology enabled science, but now it does benefits and harms at multiple levels. But I do feel that science is increasingly taking a backseat. Right now it seems to me actually worse than the creationism situation around the 2000s. Fundamentally, we have unlearned the art of public discourse as well the art of learning. I think with the overwhelming influence of politics and associated issue on virtually every aspect of science, I don't think that science can or will continue as it had for the last decades.

Fair, though from a German perspective French governments barely control anything. That being said, things have changed and losing control nowadays basically just means a straight run to fascism (including Germany).

I am not sure how much of riots really destabilize France vs just being a very French way to express themselves. It unfortunately seemed to have been a bit overblown. But we can dream, can't we?

I think, and I am not saying that to be mean, this only looks that way if you have only a very superficial understanding of these terms. Very superficially, any two things can look kind of alike, if you are view of them are very hazy. Again, the code is not hidden. And if you want to highlight one specific piece, it would be tRNA. I invite you to go to wikipedia and read them. It is simply a molecule that has three bases on one part of it and carries the corresponding amino acid on the other, as outlined a few times already in this thread. We know the processing really well, and there are studies up on studies showing how it works. We have manipulated the system to a large degree, too.

And of course, folks would clap: https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/11/politics/video/trump-in-tennessee-i-could-say-the-stupidest-thing-and-youd-clap

Absolutely. The UK PM mentioned something like that on Brexit https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6jdm3zggl0ko They are needed to undermine democracy so that his dream of mecha hitler becomes reality.

But are you? I can't see your hands, so can't tell ;) I may misremember, but I thought that the peace Nobel price is presented in Norway, but the others were handled by a Swedish committee.

Well and also biology was not really well established as a discipline. However, the price for economics was established in the 60s.

Hmm it was supposed to be a gift article. Anyway, not a ton of details:

OpenAI apparently released some more stuff. What I wonder is how much of that effort hinged on human input and how much it cost. The Navier-Stokes work was, IIRC in the order of 15 million and I wonder if AI was strictly necessary or whether a group with other methods (including perhaps cheaper and lower level AI) could have advanced it similarly on that budget. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/08/science/mathematicians-respond-openai-release.html?unlocked_article_code=1.HVE.VzAG.bgDC5hrDf8cb&smid=url-share

And now, you are going to be detained at the border for that post.

I am wondering, is it Pay-per-view? Because there must also be a grift somewhere. The USA is not built on holding powerful and rich men accountable.

What you propose is not computational biology (which is a field). You said you wanted to add crypto to genetics because somehow DNA is a helix and there is a genetic code. And as mentioned, the links you tried to make in terms of genetic code and helical shape does not exist. And there was no explanation what elements of crypto you envisioned. Just because there are fields like computation biology or bioinformatics, it does not mean that you just mushing terms makes something real. If I put a blender on my head, I am not a Borg. The patterns are known to a significant degree, but there are multiple levels with open questions. However, the pattern, or sequence is probably the easiest problem, we had a lot of algorithms to look into those, including machine learning approaches. The bigger challenge is the functional characterization and at least so far, AI has been pretty bad at it. The reason is because we lack the biological information which currently is only provided by experiments, which is a rate-limiting step. So staring at the sequence won't yield much additional information regardless what you throw at it (there are ideas to address it, which basically boil down to add more data, but I am highly skeptical based on past evidence).

Well, disgusting and gross. So pretty much on brand.

Oh, I am just silently protesting the lack of a Nobel for biology (but then, I am no real chemist).

Of course. As you know, the US military only wants well-groomed manly men. And there is nothing more manly than to manly use a phallic instrument and use it to shoot something, very manly, at high speed into another human being. Especially after snorting testosterone. For being extra manly, you know. But no beards!

You know, the older I get the less attractive the idea of a hoverboard becomes. But as swansont said, obviously you can speculate about virtually anything, but that doesn't make it even slightly feasible.

It is part of the general them vs us narrative that he and the far-right has been running on. Not precisely a new and he keeps inventing such things and basically uses his rallies as focus group to see which one gives the biggest cheers. But he also needs to keep escalating, so that he ends up in press.