CharonY

I did not expect the US to be run by a bunch of 12 year old bullies. Beside the point, but is anyone else surprised that the US government is not using or do not have an internal tool for communications?

That would make a lot of sense. Like vaccinating folks against, you know, measles. Or perhaps not. I don't even know anymore. USA turned into North Korea. A brain worm seems to be leading health agencies, and folks consider one of their children dying from a preventable disease worth it to not vaccinate folks. I am fairly sure something is pranking us all, but I cannot figure out who.

They would eat a mirror to own the libs.

Also, to further flog the dead horse on the GOP's commitment to merit: Hegseth accidentally texted war plans to a journalist https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/ https://apnews.com/article/war-plans-trump-hegseth-atlantic-230718a984911dd8663d59edbcb86f2a Apparently putting a white guy in charge does not make things automatically better.

Disagree, it was like this for perhaps two weeks. But there were plenty of folks who decided that it was not real, and even those dying from it claimed that the it is actually the hospitals that is killing them.

I think microplastics wouldn't be my biggest worry. While I would agree that acute toxicity is likely not an issue, common materials such as PVC can leach plasticizers, such as phthalates. The immediate health impact is low, though accumulation over time is a worry here. I think typical water filters are certified to NSF 42 and 53 (and sometimes 401) which don't test for phthalates (I think). There are PVCs sold as fish or food safe, but not sure whether they are actually compliant to any standards.

I tried getting to provide a kind of review on the topic but it tends to be too narrow or ends up being list with with often dubious relevance.

I have tried the tools on a topic I am currently writing on. They tend not to synthesize findings very well I found, either it is a list or just a highlight from a handful of usually recent publications. The area is somewhat cutting edge, though. They look better when asking specific questions, but the best answer is basically just citing one paper over and over.

Sorry, no he didn't (yet). I was being, well, I am not sure what that was. He did however declare the right to designate anyone as terrorist or invader as he so chooses and defied court orders for the deportation of folks without due process (by simply designating them gang members). This would be the second constitutional crisis (the first being the dismantling of USAID by stepping on congressional powers). Considering his other unconstitutional desires (including birthright citizenship), it would not be a huge stretch that he could try to revoke citizenship. But again, he didn't do it and I apologize if anyone thought he did. For now, at least.

Mighty optimistic for you tho think that the Canadians (except perhaps Albertans) are allowed to vote. Quite optimistic for you to assume that a Kenyan national (as determined by executive order) is allowed to run.

There is also a broader issue that you do not want to have uncontrolled bacterial growth in your products. If it is not safeguarded against "safe" bacteria, they may also be vulnerable to harmful ones. And generally speaking, it is better to prevent issue rather than letting it run its course until someone is harmed. That is, unless the penalty is cheaper than safeguarding, which then would be a regulatory issue.

Methane is also produced naturally and for some reasons we still worry about it...

Except again, he is business man, but not a scientist. Bezos founded Blue Origin, but no one calls him a scientist because of that. It is fine to say that one admires his entrepreneurship and his business sense (until recently, perhaps). But I don't think it helps your argument by describing him as something he isn't.

! Moderator Note This is not the place to share really really bad advice, especially not medical advice (if we want to call it that).

I don't disagree, autocracies have an inherent challenge related to successors as well as challenges to a centralized power system. But that being said, it would also depend on the underpinning support system. It again depends a bit on how specific one defines autocracies, but certain feudalistic and burecatic system have been known that stabilized society. An example is perhaps the Zhou dynasty, which survived for about 8oo years. Though the latter part was characterized by a reduced centralized power.

Generally speaking, sweeping generalizations and simplified connections are rarely leading to any insights. It tries to reduce complex situations into an one-dimensional element. So this sentence is already highly problematic as it doesn't really delineate a specific era nor does it specify who you mean. You also do not mention what you mean with "dominated". Do you mean direct conflicts? Or stability of the given group? Who do you consider democratic? Some ancient societies had more or less democratic elements. But taking one of the largest one, the Roman Empire, it lasted roughly from 500 years (ca. 500 BC to 27 BC, starting with Octavian's sole rule). In contrast the mentioned Persian (Achaemenid) Empire started at a similar time (550 BC) but ended 330 BC after the mentioned conquest by Alexander the Great. So the Roman Republic outlasted it by a fair bit. And there is an interesting interconncetion with many groups in the area, including Macedonia. Macedonia was a Persian vassal and fought alongside them during the battle of Platea (which happened just before the mentioned battle of Salamis). Afterwards Alexander I of Macedon had peaceful relationships with the Greek, but his successor started conflicts with Athens. Ultimately they part of various conflicts, often with shifting allegiances. But ultimately suppressed and finally ended Athens' dominance. In that regard, it is perhaps relevant to note that the governance system of ancient Macedonia is (afaik) not really known. Evidence points to an assembly of groups around the King, but there is disagreement if the power is concentrated with king or whether the power is shared (which again, makes arguments based on democracy vs autocracy difficult). And this is interesting because Macedonia was also a check on the then dominating power of Athens in the region. Also one should add, many pre-modern democracy failed, but so did autocracies so to draw a links specifically to the governmental form to their failures does not provide a lot explanations to what happened.

I think the article is missing other developments, which makes it even worse. Universities in North America are increasingly run like corporations, where students are considered clients and professors service providers. Freedom of teaching and research is kinda hanging on, but a lot of power has shifted to administrations. This, however, puts in question how independent universities can be to external pressures. This is especially problematic considering the funding situation. IMO, the situation has been worsening over the years and is now basically accelerating.

I think the public opinion of him changed once he got more public exposure outside of product announcements. Such as when the kids were trapped in a cave. I also think we had younger and more impressionable members for a while here back then.

Now that is efficiency.

That seems like his business model. Provide a promising prototype, but heavily oversell future potential. Use "iterative development" to continuously filch funding. Leverage the sunk cost fallacy and promise a solution just around the corner. Once it becomes too obvious that it is a non-starter, distract with another stretch goal (let's build robots, or just go to Mars) and start all over again.

There is a reason why almost all economists warn against tariffs and trade wars. Moreover, one can look an analysis of the tariffs imposed during the first Trump administration. Regarding manufacturing: https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/ There is no evidence to believe that this time around things won't be even worse.

It basically shows their hand. It is not about diversity or any related policy. It is about establishing white nationalist values and erasure of anything that counters it. This includes history, academic inquiry or common sense (not to mention, common decency). This is also highly questionable. The issue is not so much putting one's own country first, but the way it is done. As folks like Trump and quite a few of his cronies are apparently not very knowledgeable on economic matters, the things they are doing, including dismantling government structures and starting trade wars, are actually weakening the American economy. This is especially noticeable as the USA following the Biden administration had one of if not the best post-COVID recoveries and was the envy of much of the world. Turns out, slogans are not necessarily true. Edit: I should also add the specifically "America First" is a slogan used by America Fascists prior to the US entry to WWII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee). And in a way that is a more accurate reflection of what the Trump government means. Not a strengthening of the US based on objective metrics. Rather, a strengthening of white America. It was discussed at length during Trump's first presidency whether his affinity to white nationalism was a means to galvanize his base, or whether he would actually enact related policies. And now we have an answer to that.

I assumed that in this forum this topic would not lead to any arguments, but some of the posts in the DEI thread lead me to believe that potentially there are different opinions on that matter. As mentioned in the other thread, the Trump administration has been censoring topic they deem DEI, including the Enola Gay, black medal of honor recipients (now reversed https://www.military.com/history/highest-ranking-black-medal-of-honor-recipient-erased-pentagon-dei-purge.html) and used it as a pretext to censor research, via NIH freezes and so on. That alone should be chilling sign to all free speech advocates, but they extend things further beyond the governmental systems. He threatened investigations into Democratic members of congress for criticizing conservatives, had a permanent resident (Mahmoud Khali) arrest for pro-Palestinian protests on campus (they originally though he was on a student visa, which he was not). In a broader sense the Trump administrations has threatened to cut funding for universities which do not comply to their vague DEI and antisemitism directives, started investigations and lawsuits against press and media for coverage he didn't like (some already resulting in million dollar bribes, er, settlements), targeted private law firms to scare off attorneys to take cases that challenge the administration. In short, the administration is doing everything that they accused the "woke" left of potentially doing. I would then be interested to hear why folks might think that these might not be examples of First amendment violations and how precisely the (often weak) implementations of measures such as DEI can lead to to folks to turn to the right, whereas actual policies targeting free speech is suddenly acceptable. Or do we just simply have to accept that world has turned irredeemably into an asylum, where everyone lives in their own reality? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-campaigned-as-a-protector-of-free-speech-but-critics-say-his-actions-threaten-it

I suspect it depends on the specific context (e.g., if it is food additive) and the specific labeling requirements in a given jurisdiction. Fundamentally autolysis refers to self-digestion by existing enzymes (as opposed e.g. to adding further enzymes to break things down). So yeast extract without the autolysis could refer to the same thing but leaves the door open for addition of other enzymes, and other processing methods.

Well Musk had at least something. The other one doesn't understand the concept of a concept of a plan.