CharonY

Also from the article: However, I would agree that wild assumptions without even having the basics right are by definition speculative and as a method not scientific. For a proper scientific inquiry you have to start and end with accurate data and provide evidence for any assertions made. This takes time and effort, something that only few are willing to invest (including RFK Jr. and his foundation). But one of the big issues associated with a range of chronic diseases is obesity. And the reason for that is not precisely a mystery (though somewhat complex).

Also, some folks (as I think this statistic refers to) are mostly immune to symptomatic outbreaks, and are passive carriers but can transmit to vulnerable persons (think Mary Mallon, or Typhoid Mary). Aside from factors mentioned earlier which could promote colonization and invasion, an important factor in terms of symptoms and severity is how the immune system reacts to them. Sepsis can be facilitated by triggering pro-inflammatory cascades via lipopolysaccharides of the bacterium (Neisseria mengitidis) for example. I.e. much of the damages are in fact caused by the immune response (including subsequent endothelial damages, necrosis etc. once it reaches the bloodstream). I haven't followed the recent UK outbreak, but I don't really see clear information whether there is something special about this one, or just a confluence of factors that are causing this spike. Some have mentioned that potentially infected folks were sharing vapes, which not only exchanges infectious saliva, but also damages mucosal surfaces and might promote spread. Or there could be co-infections, with respiratory diseases which are still around. Some have speculated regarding a difference in virulence, but there is no evidence for that yet, either.

They can be, especially in cases were bacteria are growing slowly (so can be undetected for a longer time) or are highly dangerous. I.e. folks may be free of symptoms, but already carry the bacterium, and/or are at high risk of being infected. Early treatment can then prevent the bacteria from further proliferation and then cause symptoms. It is generally only done in high risk situations, as overuse of antibiotics is a big issue. In this case, I believe the reason is that there is a high risk that folks are already unknowingly exposed.

You know the answers. All adults were fired and all that is left is the Kindergarten and a ghoul.

Judging by various discussions as well as overall media consumption trends, I would not hold my breath. There is a reason why politicians are emboldened now and have no problem contradicting themselves within the same sentence. The ability to properly lie to your audience used to be a prerequisite for a politician. Now you can bank on short attention span to get away with murder, if you can SQUIRREL!

Note the absence of the word "intelligence" there. The import bit to understand for studies that look measure these things is that they use the baseline of the person. So they take for example two groups, give them tests, then have one of them do an exercise regimen whereas the control group does nothing. Those doing exercise may improve their baseline a bit from wherever they are, but they do not necessarily perform absolutely better than the control group. And intelligence is also a complicated term and it depends again what you measure. Many tests are aimed at finding invariate elements, which is quite a bit controversial as we do not know what is being measured. Another form of intelligence includes actually tests knowledge, where workout won't help you if you don't hit the books afterwards (or before).

Well, and bodybuilders often have a high protein diet, which is not precisely super-balanced. But really the text is more of a hodge-podge of general health advice. Also brain power is not a thing and certainly not the same as intelligence, as MigL indicated. I had to look that up. And now I regret it. Deeply. Maybe it is a good thing if AI ends humanity as clearly, there is not bottom to stupidity.

I think it started with the Safavid conquests during the 16th century during which Sunnis were also forcefully converted to Shia.

My apologies, I think I misread your argument. I think you meant that as example that despite being conquered by Macedonian empire, the Persians did not give up on Zoroastrianisms despite persecutions. And hence the end of the Sasanian empire was no different. However, there a few issues. The first is historical accuracy. While there are later text claiming the deed you mentioned, at least those texts I read a long time ago stressed that there were no contemporary sources to substantiate that. And at least one text have referred to how Persians (like everyone else) often embellished stories to make a point. Also, in the successor state (Seleucid Empire) there was I believe no evidence of persecution or other oppression of Zorostrianism. In contrast to Abrahamic traditions, conversion was not much of a thing, rather Hellinization was the process through which Greek culture spread. And then of course by 247 BC the Parthian Empire established itself and they and especially their successor (the Sasanian Empire) made Zoroastrianism a central religion. So effectively one cold see the Greek period (486 BC-247 BC) as an intermission in Persian Empires. However, the fall of the Sasanian Empire was the end of the chapter. As a side note, the islamization of the fallen empire had also the interesting effect of a "reverse Hellenization". I.e. Persian culture started to spread through the Muslim world during that time period.

You have to think about different levels of organization. On the smallest scale, muscles are made out of specific proteins. They form the fibers allowing to do contractions. One step up, we have muscle cells (or myocytes) that is a contractile cell type that has a lot of these proteins organized in a fashion, that allows the cells to contract as a whole. Then, another step up, we have muscle tissue, which contains a large number of cells, forming what we often talk about when we talk about a msucle (there are many forms which different functions, such as in the lining of our intestines and blood vessels, which are very different from e.g., the biceps). Fat also have multiple levels of organization, from the molecule (lipid) in each of our cells, to organized fat deposits, which are formed by specialized fat storage cells. So it is correct that a protein molecule can be converted to sugar and lipids (and vice versa) via our central metabolism, but that is not what bodybuilders mean. Rather they an increase in the mass of muscle tissue and a reduction of fat tissue. There is no direct conversion, as the increase in muscle mass is not directly linked to an equal reduction in fat. With that as basis, it is also clear why organs generally cannot turn into something else: most cells in our bodies are specialized (differentiated) and cannot suddenly become something else. There are minor and very interesting exception, where a cell can be become less differentiated and switch a role, and it is most frequently observed when e.g. there is a need for tissue repair. This is an interesting area of research (and funnily, has been observed in adipocytes) but again, this is not what folks mean in exercise-related contexts.

Well, I know some who call themselves independent but are Joe Rogan fans are critical of "woke" etc. They just don't like Trump and likely would vote in Vance, if they could. Not sure whether I would call that independent. I mean, in a way that is the brand for the GOP. As opposed to "I like to punch myself in the face" Dems. I think the key point here is "genuine" which always has been dicey in politics, but in recent times has been shipped off somewhere to be never seen again.

Folks doing silent reading the article can be read in about 20-45 mins, i.e. less than half the time needed for listening. But of course it depends on practice and other factors (such as legasthenia). But an important advantage is that you can much easier skim through parts of it and focus on the parts one might be interested in. In a video that is quite hard.

I think it would be tall order for something to have such a dominant cultural role for over 1000 years and not have it absorbed into the fabric of society. I.e. I find the hypothesis that somehow the Iranians were only ruled by Muslims but didn't become Muslims not terribly convincing, unless you have some evidence to support that. I am also not quite clear regarding your Alexander the Great story. Zoroastrianism was well and alive during hist time (he died 323 BC) and continued to do so, as I mentioned well beyond the fall of the Persian Sasnian Empire (around 650 AD). The Islamization dominantly happened in the 300-400 years thereafter.

The context was the Iranian Government. Also the person making the comment was Ali Vaez. He worked on the 2015 nuclear deal. He also is Iranian, and in his discussion he has been discussing some common misconceptions on how folks see Iranians. But I am not sure where you think it is ambiguous. He said, that the Iranian government has taken up the Palestinian cause and funded multiple Palestinian groups, including Hamas, but when asked whether that is due to ideological alignment or a means to deploy a strategic threat to military superior enemies, he mentions that it is more the latter- they would happily sacrifice Palestinians if it strengthens their position. Again, a strategic, rather than ideological decision. I will also add that the history of Persia/Iran with Islam is way older and one could probably point to the fall of the Sasanian Empire and the subsequent purge of zoroastrianism. By around the 10th century the majority of Persians would be Muslim. This would be a far cry from being alien to it. He also does talk about the different between the leadership and the Iranians. I also found a video from the discussion, if you are interested (I just lack the patience when reading is so much faster).

Strange. But a couple of passages I remembered to be interesting: In a way Ali Vaez (the guest) paints a picture of weaponized fundamentalism. The pragmatism was evident from the moment Khomeini took power:

"Have you listened to any good podcasts lately?"

There are folks who think that while there are fundamentalists in Iranian leadership, their actions have a very rational, geopolitical core. There is a diversity of articles about it, but a recent transcript of a podcast was actually very good in synthesizing a fair bit of different opinions. I thin it is worth a read, if only to have a better perspective on things over there. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/14/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-ali-vaez.html?unlocked_article_code=1.TVA.VRxD.dL5_cBX2un2a&smid=url-share

yeaaahhh about that. Let's just say take shallow breaths in my walk-in freezer.

No, it is coming mostly from the leadership and a loyal rural core. If you talk with Iranian students, you might be surprised how modern and westernized (not really the right term, but I can't think of something fitting right now) they are, especially the women and especially relative to some of their peers in the area.

Hold on, do you really think all we do is masturbate horses and perhaps dissecting dolphin clitorises https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(21)01544-X ? Sometimes we have to do non-fun stuff, too you know?

I don't get it. If he was wheelchair bound, he wouldn't try to get up. This description is absolutely unrealistic. Also this, is not how mutations work. Finally, I am pretty sure that ceiling fans are designed to randomize the number of pulls.

Why do I feel that that one explains why I am never called to initial strategic meetings and only get put on committees which fixes what others have messed up?

That is a bit of an understatement.

Actually I think that is a good thing, as this is why they are wiser in the first place. That being said, the doubt should not be a reason not do anything. Instead, it should be an incentive to build error-correction measures into their actions. That being said, it is also clear that the simple story usually wins out, as we generally are not well equipped to deal with complexity.

This is also very present for example in university administration. To some degree it might be present in all in-groups as jargon can be used to mask lack of expertise, but also to minimize their own voice. Even worse, it is my contention that higher compensation for decision making should only be afforded if there is also accountability. Yet management has a whole system to avoid or redirect blame (and I feel that nonsensical corporate speak is part of it). It creates a system where the decision-maker are entirely divorced from what the company/institution is about. I think part of the telling parts when corporate thinking is taking over, if the way they describe their services/products in the most interchangeable way possible. E.g. students, i.e. folks we are supposed to educate are now "clients" or anything sold is now a "product". This way management can take any corporate role without really understanding what they are supposed to create in the first place or demonstrating any tangible expertise with it. Meanwhile, experienced techs are getting replaced by teenagers with a phone, because, why not?