CharonY

I found it interesting that in Europe there are varying limits (as indicated above), quite likely due to the range of methanol generated in the various traditional production processes. Spirits from a selected list of fruit species have an allowable methanol content that is higher than the general limit for fruit spirits, for example (see European Parliament and of the Council (EU). 2019/787 Definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks, the use of the names of spirit drinks in the presentation and labelling of other foodstuff. Off. J. Eur. Union 2019, L 130, 1–54) Conversely, other countries, such as US and Australia have a flat limit for all spirits, which is higher than the EU limit for wine spirit and brandy, but lower than the EU limit for fruit spirits. So in these countries it appears to be more a simple balance of safety vs process probably with less consideration for adulteration.

I do not have any expertise in that field, and my knowledge if pretty much limited to talks I heard from colleagues who are work in fields related to invasive species. But from my limited understanding there are various definitions for invasive species, which can vary in use, depending on context (e.g. depending on ecosystem, whether it is a research vs policy vs conservation, etc.). Roughly speaking, in policy terms certain non-native species can be categorized if their introduction has potential to cause economic, environmental or human health harm. Factors can be highly artificial, as for example certain form of agriculture, animal husbandry etc. can be highly sensitive to even somewhat moderate influences, which might not be a factor in a pristine ecosystem. There are a few studies that show reduced biodiversity in forest sites. Not sure about the effect size, though. Another issue with these evaluations is that for risk assessments a variety of factors might be used, e.g. growth rate, behaviour in other habitats, similarity of ecologic niches compared to native species, and so on. IOW, it is difficult to be certain of the damages until at least some damages has been done, at which point it might be too late. To complicate matters, literature often discusses invasiveness outside of these policy definitions, for example if a non-native species spreads into a new habitat, regardless of short or long-term damages to the system (which can be difficult to assess for a wide range of reasons). So what I took home from the these talks is mostly that a) it is important to check carefully the context in which invasive species are discussed b) that often (but not always) proactive strategies are good a idea as in some cases the impact on biodiversity can be rather massive, but c) data is often sparse and there is almost always at least some (necessary) level of extrapolation going on.

From the looks of it, the measures are a fair bit different. I have not read up much on it, but it seems mostly restrict supply, but does not seem to e.g. criminalize private consumption. It is obviously early to tell what the effects are going to be, but considering that the smoking rates have dropped quite a bit in NZ already, there is a decent chance that the smoking rates will decline further just by making it more difficult to get to them.

Generally speaking a larger volume allows more constant temperature and less temperature drop when you add ingredients. Also it results in less crowding, less surface effects and related geometric issues.

That part really seems like procrastination to me. Essentially it is the tendency of folks to seek out activities that makes them feel better right now and putting off tasks that could make them feel bad. This is especially problematic for long-term projects, as the expected reward is only to be found at the end, whereas playing a game will make you feel better right now. There are few ways to handle these kind of things, which can include changing you mindset. But simpler method, e.g. rewarding yourself by setting yourself certain rules can also help, too. For example, you could say set yourself a rule that only after working for a certain amount of time, you get to reward yourself (say take break, have a treat but something that does not distract you too much). Set yourself milestone for the day and if you get to the point you allow yourself to do something you like for a set amount of time.

I would assume that the main issue here is the financing source. Everything else seems to be fairly accepted practice at this point.

Generally speaking, it is not safe to be in close proximity to any predator. Crocodiles are mostly opportunistic hunters and can go for long stretches before feeding. Unless folks have fed them or have observed them feeding I would guess that there is no easy way to predict potential attack pattern. I also doubt that scientists would get into close contact with them without security measures. Jumping into the water with them would not be studying them, it would at minimum interfere with them.

Indeed. Basically any folks with extended contact with animals are at risk of zoonotic spillover. One very common zoonotic disease is toxoplasmosis. Around 11% of the population 6 years and older have it in the US. In Irish farmers that level is around 70%. Farmers are also exposed to many other zoonotic infections with high frequencies including Coxiella burnetii, Borrelia burgdorferi or Leptospira interrogans. Also with regards to gain of function research, the term is not that well defined, and in the broadest sense could include any genetic manipulation of pathogens (animal or human). In that sense almost all microbial and virological lab, including the one in Wuhan would fall under it. In the strictest sense, which is under more scrutiny is to do specific manipulations which are expected to allow or enhance pathogenic interactions with humans. That type of research was not part of the research done in that lab (according to NIH reports, that is).

If I remember correctly the issue is that cotton actually does retain water rather well. Once wet, they do not provide thermal insulation. In contrast, contrast, wool can wick moisture due to capillary actions fairly well. Also, hydrophobic materials do actually work well as undergarments- a lot of thermal underwear is made with synthetic and synthetic mixes. I think one of the things we were told was to slowly warm up persons, starting with the core (not the extremities, due to the reasons you mentioned).

You are not my boss, you cannot tell me what to do! I think most good ways to maintain temperature are actually the obvious ones (wear layers, cover exposed skin, shelter from wind, etc.). Many others things offer temporary relief, but once we are past the -20C (and wind chill!) things get rather complicated (or easy, depending on perspective).

In addition, carbon production is a decent indicator of resource use, which in turn in related to things like habitat loss. Moreover, often habitats are not destroyed to fulfil the immediate needs of the local population, but in order to produce goods and food items for rich countries. The average US-American consumes 20 times the amount of meat as the average Ethiopian. So following this logic The most effective way is to abolish lifestyle and reduce populations of affluent nations first.

Often these arguments are just a poor excuse not to do anything. E.g. the thought that any reduction of emissions is meaningless, as China is producing so much. Often sprinkled with bigoted sentiments (we are not the problem, those folks are). Thereby we are repeatedly shooting ourselves in the foot in an effort to sit an on an issue up until we are forced to do something. Seems to the modus operandi for a lot of population-wide issues, including the pandemic, for example.

Missing a bus and waiting for ~30 mins at around -35 C was fairly unpleasant.

That does not work. DNA/RNA does not provide information on the cellular environment as such. I.e. you cannot use genetic information to create cells. You will have to start with whole cells to begin with (if we want to ignore some sci-fi element that makes it magically possible that is).

A few things here: as TheVat mentioned, birth control is not the sole issue, improving standard of living is one of the drivers of reduced birth rates. Also, the number of people will continue to increase due to demographic momentum. The only way to reduce the number of folks is to actually kill people off. And also the focus on population alone is very misleading. Countries that have positive population growth tend to use much fewer resources than their counterparts with declining or stabilizing populations. Each Canadian has the CO2 footprint of about 200 Somalians, for example. Sorry to hear that it happened to you, too. Now talking to folks from way back, these types of gaslighting were shockingly common. There is a bit of a momentum in various health system to combat that, but despite improvements, there are still rather horrific cases out there.

I think this looks like extra privilege as it lacks the added context why it is important to show being inclusive. The issue is that studies have shown that in many countries the health system underservices minority patients. Especially, but not limited to indigenous persons. These issues also overlap with socio-economic factors so by paying that extra care the hope is to raise the level of health outcomes to at least something approaching that of majority patients. If we are talking about anecdotes, I have somethin to share specifically in that area. When my father fell ill and was extreme pain he was diagnosed with home sickness and the MD told him that he just wants to get back to his home country. While he narrowly avoided losing the use of his legs, and he managed to continue working until retirement, he is in constant pain. The disease itself is easily diagnosed if just the same level of care had been given as to a majority patient. Also, it was not just one MD. After the first made his ridiculous diagnosis it was impossible to get a dissenting second opinion. Now, this was quite a long time ago, but these attitudes were extremely prevalent. So the course correction you mentioned there is not extra privilege. It is a countermeasure to be being treated extra-shitty.

There is even more to it. You need basically a kind of cellular environment for it to its proper thing. You can (to some extent) throw together RNA, ribosomes, enzymes, amino acids and the proper buffer together to produce proteins, but those would not do much. They need other proteins, all kind of metabolites membranes etc. to sustain function. So it is exactly right that we actually need functional cells to actually do something.

Exactly.

Absolutely. The problem with these types of questions is that they are very difficult to test. Therefore, narratives alone are pretty much worthless, which is why folks advocating thermoregulation created some models to check whether they make sense (and there has been some back and forth). But as always, the situation is highly multifactorial and a lot of things can play a role, including stochastic effects (e.g. drift) or something that occurred during that time, but for which we won't find any fossil evidence for. For example, one could speculate that at some point there was some extremely severe skin disease or parasite where somehow loss of functional hair provided a benefit. We cannot prove it either way, but clearly it does require some level of substantiation. Similarly, sexual selection has been mentioned by some, but as these also do not leave records, it is not a terrible useful model.

So based on your hypothesis, the orangutans who are able to shield themselves form rain would soon be naked? Each species history is unique and comparisons would only make sense if we find equivalency in critical aspects. One argument for heat sensitivity of humans is that the human brain is quite large and is very sensitive to overheating. Quite a few animals have for example a carotid rete, which helps cooling the brain especially during bursts of activity. We don't have that, for example. And I will again point to folks living in savannas who often only cover their lower body parts and somehow are still alive. Many animals in that habitat reduce activity during the day or have some other physiological adaptations to deal with heat.

External parasites are indeed one of the hypotheses. Another one is sexual selection. The others have been previously mentioned. By taking into account where our ancestors (australopiths) lived it was suggested that heat load reduction is more important when foraging in tropical habitats. There is also a suggestion that bipedalism evolved because of thermoregulatory benefits (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.02.006). These were more important to our ancestors as they moved from forest environments into more open habitats. Conversely it would mean that clothing likely only became more relevant when moving out of tropical climate zones. There are a range of suggestions on what behavioral adaptations might have occurred to protect from cold, but they appear to be fairly minor, especially concerning our physiological abilities to deal with heat. So far the strongest evidence we have point toward thermoregulation as one of the major influences.

That is a good question and which is why it is necessary to gather information, such as - what is the timeline of hair loss? Was it rapid, or gradual? - how much fitness loss is associated with a given loss? - what kind of protection was feasible at any given point in human development (in terms of tool use and needs, hunting behaviour etc.) and how much of it could it offset the above fittness loss? - what are the benefits of mutations? If it requires so much effort to counteract its negative effects, why did it became dominant in the first place? Again, coming into a situation where certain traits are not needed does not make them magically disappear. As noted, the evidence so far to not seem to support the development of clothing before hair loss. I.e. hypotheses need to conform with existing knowledge. In that regard, persistence hunting was one of the hypotheses that tried to explain benefits of hair loss. I will also note that tentative evidence for man-made fires seem to predate tentative evidence for man-made clothing. Also, I note that the San people referenced earlier often wear very little clothing (up to somewhat recently) so it certainly does not seem to be that detrimental in climates where our ancestors lived.

I think the issue is that it is very easy to make some sort of grand hypothesis in terms of evolution just by conjuring a scenario that somehow provides some kind of selective pressures that seemingly make sense. Things like the aquatic ape hypothesis are rightly criticized because of those. So if we think that we can come up with something better, at lease some level of evidence should be provided that whatever we come up with is in line with what we know (or at least have some sort of evidence). Fundamentally I find narratives that some species did this and this is why the lost a particular genetic trait problematic, as it conjures the idea that once a species did a thing, it resulted in genetic changes. The reality is the opposite of course. Mutations for hair loss occurred, likely somewhat frequently, but their frequency only increased when they either were not detrimental or became under positive selection. I was typing the comments below, when I noticed that joigus provided a similar reference so I am just keeping it brief and just state that the timeline when changes in hair patterns happened predated any evidence of potential tools that could be used for making some sort of warming clothes. So things like simple shelters or rain protection obviously had low impact on those mutations as all our relatives are still fairly hairy. But what the drivers are to keep hair loss around is still up to debate and as joigus pointed out, far from resolved.

It is a bit funny to start with valid criticism, but then falling into the pit of, well, making things up. For example, if loss of hair was due to the wearing skin cloaks, then why did our presumably hairy ancestors start with that practice in the first place? How would they prepare skins to wear and is there any evidence to that end? I doubt that they would just wrap themselves in putrefying carcass (at least non of our cousins are doing it).

I am not sure whether I understood the instructions, but I am licking coffee from the whiteboard now.