CharonY

It is not a matter of feasibility. It is a matter of mushing together random concepts without providing any idea how they might be linked. It is like saying I want to introduce the concept of a recursive algorithm into a pencil. And as to how the genetic code works, as KJW mentioned, the complementary bonding is the key. First the genetic code is well known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code And second, as to how a triplet is linked to an amino acid, that is done by loading tRNA, which have the triplet corresponding to the code. In this image you see the mRNA and the incoming tRNA at a ribosome. I.e. the code is not realized on the DNA level, but ultimately at the ribosome and requires the interplay between mRNA (as template, but derived from DNA) tRNA and the ribosome. I.e. the DNA and its structure basically play no role here anymore. You can, for example change the genetic code by introducing tRNA that have a different (or even artificial) amino acid coupled to a given tRNA. The code is basically all in the sequence.

The genetic code is not as such coupled to the three-dimensional structure of the DNA. It is dependent on the order of the base stacks, where three bases are coupled to an amino acid by the way tRNA, another molecule, that is loaded with amino acids. As a matter of fact the double helix is a more inert form of DNA, when the DNA is transcribed it opens up, losing this shape. And ultimately the code really is read in the form of mRNA (which is not helical) rather than DNA at ribosomes. So essentially you are linking things together that are don't really fit and then try to extrapolate it to something else based on a connection that is not really there. As these things are so fundamentally disconnected, your approach really is more obfuscating than illuminating. You might as well argue that you want add crypto to DNA because green is your favorite color.

The premise is wrong. There single cells that are visible by eye, and even some that are larger than you. Egg yolk is the ovum, essentially a single cell. Visible to the naked eye and chances are decent that you have already seen it. Cells that are larger than you, include slime mold, where large cells up to something like 10sqm or some Caulerpa species, which are single celled and have a reported length of something like 2 m, I think. And the explanation is also easy. Big things are more difficult to maintain than small things. But also not impossible. I don't think so. What has been done is to crystallize DNA and then using X-ray crystallography to identify its structure. It is not done in cells. You are probably confusing it with something like unit cells, which are the crystal lattice units. The whole crystal is of substantial size, and growing them at decent quality is rather challenging (Franklin did the diffraction analysis, though I am not sure whether she or a student created the crystal). And yes, X-ray crystallography still follows the same principles and is still the gold standard for structure determination. But it seems to me that you are conflating things and try to mystify them to make them more in line with your understanding rather than try to understand and thereby demystify these concepts. (like the genetic code: 3 bases-> 1AA, not really cryptic).

Well, she apparently hasn't converted to MAGA ideology, either. Otherwise she would have known that in the new world there is no such thing as embarrassment.

The outward sense of tranquility is probably the main reason. The EU has banned export of these drugs under Torture Regulations (autopsies from executed individuals find evidence of pulmonary edema, suggesting that they will have a silent drowning sensation.

I think Gattaca is a good contrast. I really didn't like the movie and in many ways it did the opposite of Klara and the Sun. It was not only on the nose, but also needed the Hollywood-esque exaggeration (e.g. to anchor discrimination on being an astronaut is plain weird). Klara is a masterpiece how understatement can carry tremendous emotional impact. Of course a book has more space to create layers than a movie, but I think by making all the elements rather quiet (including grief) rather than bombastic, it makes it just so much more impactful (especially the exploration of grief).

It is not the lying I object to, it is the stupidity. And perhaps the fact that folks cannot tell if it is a lie, apparently. I am reminded of a quote by Bonhoeffer, a pastor murdered by the Nazis. As so many things from that time, it echoes very strongly today. Rough translation: Stupidity is a more dangerous foe to the Good than evil. You can protest evil, you can expose evil and, if necessary you can prevent it with force. Evil carries its own seed for self-destruction by leaving an unsettling feeling in humanity. We are defenseless against Stupidity. Neither protest nor force works against it; reasoning doesn't work; facts that contradict ones own prejudice can just be disbelieved-in these cases the Stupid actually becomes critical and even if inevitable, they can be just ignored as important exceptions. In contrast to the Evil, the Stupid is absolutely content with themself, and can even be dangerous and goes on the attack when provoked. Therefore one has to be more careful about the Stupid than the Evil.

Let's settle for biggest mistake in recent times, perhaps? Britain has quite a bit of history, after all...

The book was beautifully written, and one of the cases where you know exactly where the plot is going, and the theme is probably one of the oldest in scifi (essence of humanity). But it doesn't matter because it is just so well and seamlessly structured. I may have mentioned it somewhere, but even read it in small chunks due to time constraints, it was quite a treat. I also think that by only showing part of the dystopian system, the book invokes a more grounded feel of a future that is just off (a bit like the presence, actually). On top, many of the themes are extremely current (loneliness, search for spiritual answers, environmentalism etc.). Again, beautifully constructed without feeling constructed, which is just so hard to realize. Normally, I prefer books where I cannot anticipate where it is going, it is a bit of a distraction for me from my usual very structured reading material. But again, this was really a treat.

Even if it wasn't botched, I believe there is some evidence that lethal injections are not painless, but the induced paralysis just makes it so that the onlookers won't see the suffering.

Fair enough, though I also didn't mention the really big one: stupidity.

I think touches a thing in the American psyche that I have noticed. There is often not a lot of space for nuance. Europeans do recognize American contributions, but they see the good as well as the bad. Many Americans on the other hand tend to have more black and white view on things and the current government exemplifies that to an ugly degree.

Yeah also Americans also think as States as hugely diverse entities, comparable to Europe and it it was difficult to explain to them that no, just because they are next to each other France and Germany have very different identities and it is not really comparable to differences between, say, Louisiana and Michigan. Hmm hard to say. Beyond the aftermath of WWII and during the cold war there was always some ambivalence towards USA among the French and there had been of course various tensions because of war in Iraq and other issues. I would be surprised if they are not at an all time low right now, though. But of course, almost every non-autocratic nation has bad relationship with the USA right now. A bit related to that point it is also interesting how different generations of Europeans have assessed the role of the Allies over time and especially how the US sees themselves (which goes to MigL's point). Some historians argue that the idea of German identity started even later than that. The unification of 1871 followed significant efforts to build a national identity but in many ways was more structural than a true identity and there was a lot conflict between various groups (e.g., protestants vs catholics, Bavarian nationalist against everyone else and so on). While there have been nationalist movements in the 19th century predating that, they generally had limited traction and arguably only stabilized in shape somewhere in the 20th century using a "voelkisch", i.e. ethno-racial sense of identity. The Nazis (the original version as well as the current diet-version) use this idea of a German Volk to project the identity well into the past, before these notions existed in that form.

I think the form is that many Europeans notice. It is weird to have the American flag in residential homes for example or regular proclaiming to be the best country, national hymns at sport events, pledge of allegiance and so on. I suspect it comes over as willful lack of self-reflection, whereas other countries at least have the decency to pretend to do so. With a focus on "men". That part is currently also weaponized by European far right parties, especially in Germany. I.e. framing it as lack of pride in German history, and diminishing the role of Nazi Germany in the glorious (and fake) 1000-year history of Germany.

I concur. There are variations in other countries for sure. There are some differences for which there are reasons (e.g. education in Germany acknowledges other European countries more due to shared history and, at times, territories), but at least had been to other issues (e.g., the way colonialism is addressed was certainly fairly one-sided or even absent for some countries). The cold war had of course an entirely different perspective and impact, depending on in which region you were from. It is also not unique that countries have grand (and whitewashed) narrative about themselves. I will say that the one in the USA seems to be taken less critically especially in relation to the exceptionalism part. But again, I do see similar mechanisms elsewhere, under different guises and sometimes with somewhat different purposes. But in many cases this all falls more or less under the umbrella of social coherence and assimilation. One important aspect that US society has, at least as an ideal, is the relative ease to be accepted as a full American, regardless of your ethnic background, if you are in line with these concepts . It is a bit like patriotic chest pumping that makes you part of the in-group. In Europe it can be more difficult to become part of the social fabric because these concepts are often also tied with your heritage/ethnic background and are less superficial (and hence, harder to get accepted into). I.e. I see it as a different flavour that is perhaps a bit more obnoxious to non-Americans, but not really something unique as the description seems to suggest. Edit: reflecting on the title of the video specifically ("Why the Rest of the World Thinks Americans Are Brainwashed"), is because they want to feel smug and ignore their own particular brand of brainwashing. The US is a bit obnoxious and extroverted about that, compared to other countries and right now the USA is fracturing at its seams. At the same time, and perhaps uncomfortably so, Europe is experiencing its own issues, including the challenges with breaking from the USA, and considering them brainwashed just makes things easier (and hey, we are enlightened, so we can ignore all those far-right Russian-friendly parties in or near the seats of power).

Of course, this was mostly to highlight how misinformed folks were (and those were academics, albeit in STEM). Not in practice. Obama mentioned occasionally that he would be for single-payer, but he did not see a realistic path to that. In fact, a lot of campaigning against him was using that as an argument that he was a radical. To a European (or Canadian) that would seem rather ridiculous, but it was taken very seriously. Just as a side note, but some things are different than others, and I believe on sheer scale, I think the missing climate change has a lot of surprises in stores for us.

While more common in bacteria and archaea but it is not unique to this eukaryotic species. Specifically enrichment has or arginine has been long discussed in a range of thermophilic eukaryotes. There is the somewhat controversial Alvinella pompejana which was thought to be survive temps over 60 C, though subsequent studies placed it considerably lower. The genome of this species had a high proportion of positively charged residues with a high K/R proportion compared to less tolerant relatives, but I don't recall whether they resolved the bias on the domain level. In fungi I recall that arginine was enriched (over lysine) and here, the larger guanidium reside can form more flexible bonds. So while this amoebe might do it more extensively (I cannot say for sure), the overall concept is not species specific. Other strategies more commonly found include high amount of heat shock proteins (chaperones) as well as a higher proportion of hydrophobic domains. I.e. the stabilization comes from the core, rather than surface salt bridges. So this is a bit different, tardigrades survive extremes in desiccated form, but when they are active, they are not terrible heat tolerant. It is a bit like looking at spores which also can survive extreme conditions.

Must be geolocked. Here is a Guardian article on that, if it helps. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2026/sep/21/john-oliver-united-healthcare That being said, even without that I suspect folks from most countries have an idea how inherently weird and messed the US system is. I remember furious debates with my American colleagues when Obama tried to pass ACA, and one of the most common arguments I heard was: "but that would be socialism!"

The point is not only to list up facts but you also need the evidence connecting those facts to your argument, as @swansont pointed out repeatedly. Take just any one of your argument and show the evidence that they are linked to direct democracy. To be clear, in order to make that argument you would need to find a mechanistic link, e.g. some clear path between direct democracy and suicide or at least a correlation. E.g. you could plot suicide rates vs governmental system. The issue is that even a very cursory reading of the data you provide almost immediately invalidate your argument. If you think direct democracy is a driver for lower suicide rates, why is it that some countries with the lowest suicide rates are not democracies at all? Or even if we stay in the European context, why do other European countries without direct democracies like Ireland, UK, Romania and Slovakia have lower suicide rates or similar suicide rates? I.e. you cannot just look at one data point and then create a whole story from there without any evidence to substantiate that connection. Otherwise, as @TheVat demonstrated you can just take any random curiosity and make your story from there. E.g., I could claim that in Switzerland direct democracy is caused by being landlocked at high elevation. The evidence? It's average elevation is 1,350meters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_elevation If that argument makes sense to you, I am afraid there is little to discuss.

There are multiple hypotheses. One is that eukaryotes have intracellular compartments and organelles, which have to be able to selective macromolecules (plus there is a lot of veiscle trafficking to sustain that). It is assumed that this relatively active and leaky membrane system cannot be built in a heat-resistant way. Thermophiles have modified membranes with lower fluidity, for example.

The authors acknowledge it, but I want to emphasize that neat things about this paper is not the fact that there are thermophilic eukaryotes. But rather the 3-4 degrees in excess of 60 C. The reason is that key studies in the 70s looked at heat tolerant fungi and based on this and similar studies, it was reasoned that around 60C is likely the upper thermal limit for eukaryotes. This study pushes it a few degrees higher and it will come down to really fine nuances.

I think the plan would not be to repel an invasion, just to make it costly. The more important and in my mind likely scenario is a blockade to enforce capitulation. As you mentioned, reports have suggested that Taiwan would run out of resources fairly quickly most put a depletion of resources in less than 2 weeks. The downside however, is that it could put China in direct conflict with countries who trade with Taiwan. Japan, for example has stated in 20205 that a blockade of Taiwan would be considered a survival-threatening situation, which would essentially be a per-requisite to activate its self-defence force. Again, I think the calculus of the situation extends beyond whether the US will or will not interfere.

I concur with MigL and I think the Ukraine angle is more important here than US' weakness. I think for the most part Xi is a rational actor and he is aware of potential costs. Invasion of Taiwan really only is beneficial if it can be done at a relatively swift and demonstrate the overwhelming power of China. However, with Russia in Ukraine and the US in Iran, there are examples where inferior military is extracting a high toll on superior armies. The main question here is how effective Taiwan has been in recent attempts to draw up new defensive plans, including for example production of drones. If there is an obvious weakness that China is certain that they can exploit before Taiwan can address it, it would increase the risk. But in the absence of such evidence, a quagmire like Iran or Ukraine would be disastrous, especially as China is a somewhat precarious situation. A war that is not quickly won could add quite a bit to the woes.

Actually, it has done pretty well for extremists, historically speaking. I think the author of the substack is looking at short term perspectives in which at least some far right parties have gained, then lost power. But the bigger picture here is that fringe parties, parties that decades back were not electable, to a large degree because of their often fascist and racist views, have become mainstream and where they are not in the government, they are contenders and often are just barely held in check by a coalition of virtually all other parties. It is a bit like the boiling frog situation where the water dropping a degree or two is seen as a big relief. And the fact that much of their agenda is failed is because most really suck at policy. Yet instead of being laughed out of power, at best they lose just barely. You only need a handful of semi-competent folks within the apparatus and you can have the biggest idiots wield immense power.

Literally none of that has anything to do with the handicap model, nor with the fact that its core assumptions likely do not hold.