CharonY

So all sciences have the same methodology and focus on empirical evidence (a very questionable claim) and also not every science has the same methodology. It would be useful if you defined things more precisely and then use it in a consistent manner.

Question: do you have any kind of background expertise? We don't give out medical advice here. This phrasing doesn't make a lot of sense.

If one is really philosophical about it, no one really dies from disease or even toxins. Typical causes of death are organ failure of some sort. The question then is why do they fail? And the answer is that the bacteria/viral infection cause shifts in the physiology that the body is not able to deal with. Some of the lethality of respiratory viruses is caused by triggering your immune system in a way that does severe damage to your body (e.g. cytokine storms). While you could argue that this is just your body killing yourself, rather than the virus, as Swansont pointed out, none of it would have happened without the infection in the first place. Also, there is no fundamental difference with regard to bacterial or viral infection when it comes to lethality (though some mechanisms differ). For example, the cause of death by bacterial sepsis is again the initiation of widespread inflammatory responses causing a wide range of damages, including shock, which interupts blood flow to organs, that than causes death. It is a bit like saying that a car accident does not kill you , but rather it is only due to deformation of your organs by a rapidly accelerating dashboard. Also while I still think that the argument is heavily flawed for the mentioned reason, many viruses are not dependent on secondary infections to kill the host, though it can accelerate the process. Rabies was already mentioned where severe inflammation causes brain damage, but even influenza and especially the delta variant can damage lungs by triggering severe inflammation in the lung. COVID-19 was also implicated in higher risk of severe blood clotting which can cause stroke and thrombosis related deaths. Many viruses like Hanta and Ebola damage endothelial cells and mess up the immune system resulting in far ranging damages such as liquid leakages in hearts and lungs and gut, respectively. While not asked, I will note that some folks tried to diminish the impact of diseases like COVID-19 for political reasons and are often making arguments that try to simplify pathophysiology especially of COVID-19 (though I see similar arguments regarding influenza) to make it seem that they are in fact not that dangerous. A poor motivation for rather poor arguments.

Aren't those simulation software? That does not seem what OP is asking about. Most simulation software I know (and it may have changed) you define the models, add the desired input and boundary conditions and let it provide solutions (or approximations of it). From how I understand OP the idea is to take actual data, generate a model from it and then run it.

I think a big issue is that increasingly political identity is tied to certain set of stances, regardless whether policies make sense or not. Neither liberals nor conservatives really want to curb immigration and the recent argument about tying it to housing, which does make sense, is just caused by a major blunder of the liberals (the sudden post-COVID spike). However, both conservatives and liberals have enacted policies that encouraged real estate prices to balloon. From what I can tell, both parties encouraged housing as an investment tool (as part of the Canadian dream, so to speak) which ultimately would have led to an increase. What is problematic is that folks only can remember intuitive mechanisms (such as immigration) and often not recognizing that housing would still have outpaced salaries, just slightly slower. It goes back to the overall issue that most folks are not good at dealing with complex situation and just want simple answers to complex questions. Identifying as conservative or liberal is just much easier than to dissect policies as a whole (or beyond wedge issues).

I would like to add some context here. One is that the report by the Verfassungschutz (Office for the protection of the constitution) does not trigger specific actions. It should be noted that prior, the AfD was classified as a potential danger to the constitution. At that level the Verfassungsschutz is allowed to use intelligence tools, including cultivating confidential informants and other actions. However, there are specific rules of proportionality. The difference now is that the thresholds for these rules are now lowered. I.e. for example surveillance could be intensified now. However, they the Verfassungsschutz has no say in outlawing the party. This can only be done by the legislative bodies (Bundestag, Bundesrat) or the Government, which requires a process initiated at the Federal Constitutional Court. Such a discussion was initiated last year. I think it is still moving its way through the procedural points. However, it is not about abolishing as such, but just to discuss if it the decision to abolish the AfD should come to a vote. Or I think that is where it is, German procedure is complicated, to say the least. Obviously, the new classification will add fuel to the debate, but some are rather careful. The reason is if it is unsuccessful, as it happened before with the NPD, it could trigger a huge political fallout. There are some folks who also argue that the AfD at this point is already too big too fail. Again, during the election they were the second-largest party with 20.8%. Now, have increased to about 25% are basically at the same level as the strongest party (CDU, conservatives). Things are bleak, to put it mildly.

From my read, they pretty much did exactly as expected. Polls projected something around 20% and they got 20.8%. The folks hating on Teslas are not those who vote for the AfD in the first place. You should also know that the AfD is not really trying to appear like a serious conservative with some mild Trumpism as the Canadian and Australian conservatives did. They went all in on 3rd Reich, and will not be dissuaded by US antics. The main thing is that they were somewhat anti-USA and pro-Russia, but now obviously the US is also in the fold now. The polarization is most extreme between West and East Germany, though the AfD is again slowly getting more support. The fact that they have not hit their ceiling yet is really, really worrying.

Not if we take evolutionary time scales into account. Considering the equipment of chimpanzees the selective pressure likely happened way before our ancestors thought of clothing. And in those situations they certainly were able to shop around.

Well, in Germany Musk, Vance etc. tried to boost the now officially declared extremist party (AfD). While it did not seem to improve their election results, it also did not seem to have a significant negative impact. And at least according to polls the AfD only gained support... I think the rules are that only certain foods are allowed to be fortified, but I am quite certain that there is no general ban. Labeling is one of the most common issues.

Well, this is the expected outcome, but the question is why that would be interesting, especially given the context of this thread.

Well your question keeps changing. But if your question is why are there gender stereotypes in jobs. Well these are often reflective of societal norms and stereotypes. Radiological techs are no different. A general trend is that jobs with more influence power tend to be more male dominated, even if the overarching field might not be. For example, radiologiacal techs are about 67% women in the USA. However, radiologists are only around 25% women. Same thing for nursing where you can find numbers between 85-90% women in the US but only 38% of physicians are female. Mammography is not an extreme outlier in that regard.

Why?

Because the issue here is that the mechanisms are different. A carbon tax on high emitting products would be an example of encouraging folks to buy low emitting products. However, a tariff would directly only increase the price for the import of high emitting products, but would not necessarily affect domestic products. One of the many (and contradictory) justification for tariffs was to increase domestic manufacturing. I.e., while it can impact consumption, it is not really an efficient tool to this goal, as it only impacts imports.

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.