CharonY

The title at least seems to be designed to facilitate ragebait clicks. Will have to read it later. But I have noticed natural scientists venturing out into the realm of social sciences without a lit of knowledge (though there is also a fair bit of questionable methodology among social scientists). Generally the more certain folks are (on either side of an issue) the more likely they are uninformed).

That is actually not quite true. There was the notion that fully differentiated adipose cells never die and since the total number of adipose tissues stays roughly constant, it was consensus until around 2005 that no new adipose cells are formed in adulthood (or more specifically that adipose cell progenitors do not proliferate anymore). However, a hallmark study by Cinti et al. showed evidence of dead fat cells in obese humans and rodents (https://doi.org/10.1194/jlr.M500294-JLR200). This suggested that there is some kind of cellular turnover to keep the cell number constant. Other important studies include a paper from the Karolinska institute ca. 2008 (the author eludes me) showed that there is a slow turnover of fat cells (cells die, get cleared and new cells are formed) but it is a tightly regulated process which maintains the total fat cell number constant, even after weight loss. In other words, it is a quasi-steady-state situation. That being said, I have no idea what the impact of liposuction is on this regulatory system. It is kind of an interesting question, actually.

An interesting bit that is especially apparent in language models is that they can make up responses, which is not based on the data. In various articles folks refer to it as hallucinations and there are a variety of reasons that could cause them, though it does not seem to be fully understood. https://www.wired.com/story/ai-has-a-hallucination-problem-thats-proving-tough-to-fix/ Data is data, it is only false or correct relative to a given context. Issues can arise on the collection level (are we measuring the correct variable for what we want to do?), as well as the selection level (which data set do we think should be added or omitted).

That sounds like increasing productivity.

Can I take coins out of the bags?

Well a lot of things (including lead, asbestos, PFAS ) have been used for a long time and it took a long time to figure out what damages they caused, so this is not a good argument. Working outside only would help, though. I am no chemist, but I would think that the organic solvent would dissolve most additives. Moreover, I don't think that viscosity would affect evaporation much. The latter should be mostly governed by volatility, but again, there are chemists here who have a better understanding of it. I am better informed in telling you about the biological effects of inhaling that stuff.

I have also read reports that HIV positive inmates were promised antivirals, if they enlist. So, not a huge surprised if they are used as cannonfodder, all things considered.

So the best advice is probably a don't do this. Methylene chloride is banned in many countries as it is rather harmful with a slew of issues including damage to the central nervous system, carbon monoxide intoxication (metabolization releases CO) and I believe there is also some level of cancer risk. If you use it inside a house, there is a high likelihood that you might reach potentially harmful levels pretty quickly. Basically, if you can smell it, it is already too high for safe work. Also, if it is very old paint, it is best to test it for lead. You do not want to inhale that, either.

The organization of the Wagner group is quite muddled and it appears that at least some speculate that it is in fact a branch of the Russian military. At least there are significant dependencies. Moreover, the group originally had a small core (a few thousands, most likely veterans) but reportedly are now being bolstered by convicts and contractors. That obviously is unlikely to happen if it was fully run as an independent company and makes it more likely that they are at least partially under governmental control. It is more than likely that the convicts at least are considered expendable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group

Your mistake is assuming that there is some magical energy rather than if there is one. We know that humming creates soundwaves. You kind of dismissed that. So now you believe that your humming has properties that are based on something that no one has ever documented. Which makes it indistinguishable from magic at this point.

I have got friends who are chefs and I worked in a couple. It is not a quite place. So magic. I think good chefs are magical so there is that (note: same level of evidence you provided so far).

If soundwaves affect food in a measurable way, then the food of most chefs would be lethal. Do you know how much shouting and swearing there is in a typical kitchen?

Mutagenesis is not the primary outcome of acuter mercury poisoning. In fact, genotoxicity is still somewhat being discussed. Primary issues include neurotoxic effects and kidney damage. As others also have mentioned, atherosclerosis is formed slowly via a range of different mechanisms. Mostly it is a chronic inflammatory process, which is associated with lipid accumulation and invasion of macrophages (and somewhat more disputed, smooth muscle cells). It is nothing that happens even after weeklong ingestion of eggs or other foodstuff. Generally speaking, long-term exposure to harmful compounds or diet can increase risk of atherosclerosis, though the exact mechanisms are not clear. The most obvious pathway are inflammation pathways (which are also triggered e.g. by stress, certain components often found in processed food (sugars, saturated fats etc.) and so on. Eggs, interestingly enough are generally considered to be anti-inflammatory (we had a discussion elsewhere where we discussed the effect of LDL:HDL ratios which are not precisely part of the inflammatory cascade per se, but influence influence lipid deposition at the intima, which might then be associated with inflammatory responses).

I don't consider it subterfuge, it is just a form of non-verbal communication. However, as any form of communication it can be misunderstood. Apparently I look sufficiently uncomfortable that folks started to ask me whether it was alright.

I think it is because the plates tend to get too hot. When held at moderate Temps the change is slower (though oxidation continues).

Sorry, I think I started with one thought and then veered off in a different direction. So the stuff that is mostly stable includes (IIRC) things like chlorogenic and ferulic acids, which tends to stick around. However other components including acetaldehydes, pentadiones actually increase, resulting in what some consider a rancid aroma. You can test that by measuring the pH over time. This is less pronounced if you start off with burned coffee beans in the first place (which often has less of fruity notes) but in certain (e.g. Colombian coffee) with citrus notes it becomes quite prominent after a little while. I think it is less about re-heating, but rather how long it oxidizes (and at which temperature). So warming up a fresh coffee should have little impact (unless heated excessively) but let it stand for a day or more more would (at least with decent beans). One can prolong the time by reducing oxygen and putting it in the fridge. Edit: actually I think I have read something taste profile changes after re-heating but I forgot if folks actually looked at the metabolites. I'll have to check. Edit2: I recall that there were taste tastes of coffee holding time on hot plates and I think the how long and how much heat it gets affected flavour rather rapidly. So likely it also depends on how you reheat it (and how hot). But again, that is rather murky memory territory now.

I think there are a few misconceptions when it comes to coffee. Fundamentally each extraction method extracts the various components of coffee with different efficiency, depending on contact time, temperature, but also the grind size and so on. However, a critical factor are the beans themselves. Many of the aromatic compounds are volatile, so pre-ground coffee can lose a lot of them. Some of the bitterness can come from the overroasted beans, and while one can mitigate them by the coffee preparation method, it is a bit like scraping off burnt bits from bread. If you cannot taste the difference between freshly brewed coffee and older reheated coffee, chances are that you have started with stale, potentially overroasted coffee as what you taste might are likely cholorgenic acid lactones and their breakdown products during prolonged roasting. Unfortunately, this process also destroys many of the more volatile components and coffee can lose some of their more complex flavour profiles. They belong to a wide range of different chemical compound of which only a few dozen have been identified to my knowledge. Strongly roasted beans are the typical method for pre-ground coffee as the taste becomes more standardized and many folks associated the bitterness with "strength" of the coffee. Cold brewing extracts polar components very well (which is why it also has a high caffeine content and also rich in caffeoylquinic acid ), but is somewhat inefficient for some of the more hydrophobic compounds. Still, it can retain some of the more malty, caramel or nutty flavours, but certain floral (as I found to be common in Ethiopian coffee) seem to be more muted. In general, complex flavours (i.e. wider range of flavour molecule) seem to get more effectively extracted with longer contact time. Espresso results in fairly efficient extraction (due to combination of pressure and heat) but significantly changes the ratio of compounds relative to immersion. OK I shut up now.

I think it should be acknowledged that artificial upwelling is at least technically feasible. The big unknown is whether it allows long-term carbon sequestration and whether that offsets all the negatives (including cost, energy consumption, release of CO2 due to upwelling of inorganic and organic carbon, temperature effects, local disruption of sedimentation and so on). Research on that matters does indeed show rather low effectiveness even under optimal conditions for carbon capture. In one paper the biggest effect seems to be caused by cooling rather than biomass production in the ocean, eliminating even the benefits of the best case scenario: See Oschlies et al. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL041961 As mentioned above, in many areas upwelling would cause a net release of CO2 (as are natural upwells).

Back in the day when we need low background coverslip it, we mostly cleaned them with with piranha and/or plasma cleaning and we mostly did PLL-PEG passivation (or sometimes using silanes). I don't think recall whether we did any biotinylation, though. That being said, the procedures are much less convenient and probably less reproducible than commercial sources. I do not know specific companies off the top of my head, but perhaps just talk to companies selling functionalized coverslips regarding your application. The few I can think of are (I think) specialized more in the area of AFM, so optical background is not a high priority there.

It depends a lot on the type of position and level, but these questions are fundamentally aimed at finding a fit with the candidate. In this question one can explore how much the candidate knows about the company and the ideally about the involved duties but also allows the candidate express their goals. So I agree that this is usually where both candidate and interviewer get a good rapport. This sounds a bit like an HR-type, assessment centre or otherwise "canned" interview process, which obviously exist.

I am astonished that this is a topic somehow. In the politics section no less.

Hold on, you are saying that the stuff on Boris Johnson's head is his actual hair? Also I think men are not mocked for wigs, but rather for bad quality wigs (which women more commonly avoid, I would think).

I think many (but not all) carbon capture ideas are a bit rooted in a similar thinking that also was shown full force during the pandemic. Folks prefer to do something after it is broken, even trying out stuff that was shown not to work (e.g. ivermectin) rather than doing something that prevents it in the first place and is known to work.

That is a general issue with these types of geoengineering approaches. The impact, especially long-term are often not understood and it is often rather costly to implement systems to study. So far, none of the limited studies show any game changing effects, so while research might be interesting, without evidence that the benefit outweigh the risks it is likely not going to fly.

Not sure whether that has been addressed, but circulation on a large scale has more effects on carbon sequestration than biological effects. Studies have shown that the decline of CO2 uptake by oceans in the 90s was driven by increased circulation of ocean water to the surface bringing carbon rich deep waters to the surface and thereby decreasing the difference between the CO2 in the atmosphere and the ocean surface. The reduction in this differential resulted in less CO2 being taken up. Conversely, around 2000 a slowdown in upper ocean circulation happened, which reduced the upwelling of deep waters, resulting in an increase of carbon sequestration. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21068 Now, if biological processes (specifically nutrient availability) were the drivers, we would expect the inverse trend in carbon sequestration as observed. If anything, direct fertilization (as has been tried in the past) is likely more efficient than trying to trying to replicate the oceanic circulations (though that has their own problems). That being said, it seems that folks have actually run pilot studies on it: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-015-5195-2 Especially regarding long-term effects, efficiency and environmental disturbance seem to be major unknowns. But skimming some of the studies it might result in net carbon sequestrations in some areas, and no effects in others. Most are too short term and probably not enough circulation to drive the above mentioned oceanic carbon sequestration effect. I have not seen anything suggesting vast superiority to terrestrial carbon sequestration attempts, though. Edit: crossedited with SJ