CharonY

A couple of things here. Generally, if you are not B12 deficient (i.e. have enough dietary sources), supplements won't do you much good. Another thing to consider is bioavailability, as generally speaking you only absorb a fraction of anything you ingest. Bioavailability is non-linear, and the higher concentration your given source is, the smaller the percentage becomes that you absorb. So for example if you take in 1 ug, you might absorb 0.5ug, while at, say 1,000 ug you might only get 10ug out. It is not about whether it is needed or not, but rather it is limited to what your body can take up in a given time frame from a given source (from certain foodstuff bioavailability is higher than for others). So why do folks making supplements put such high concentrations in? There are two reasons. One is marketing, a higher concentration might make you feel you are getting more bang for the buck (and in energy drinks they are entirely a gimmick with no benefits). The other relates to my previous comment. If your diet provides you with enough B12, you are literally pissing away your money (and vitamins). However, if you are in even mild deficit (as in your B12 levels are on the low end) you need to fill up your supplies and you need to consume more than you lose to get back to the desired levels. If they are really low, taking supplements won't be enough and you need injections to get your levels back up. But again, without being diagnosed with low B12 levels, supplements are not helpful.

There are quite a number of ways to predict and/or focus on specific drug-drug-interactions, but it is correct that generally a complete knowledge of all potential interactions is not required or even achievable. Very roughly speaking, a focus is on transporters, which determine the transport of substrate to and from tissues, as well as enzymes, that together determine when and where and how much of a given drug distributes through your body. If a drug therefore alters enzyme or transporter abundance, they can the pharmacokinetics of other drugs. One way to look at those is to use known index perpetrators (known substances that are either inhibitors or inducers for certain transporters and pathways) and see if a given drug has changed characteristics. Another way to priorize interaction studies if certain drugs are likely going to be prescribed in tandem. In order to predict issues there are also so-called physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models, which the gold standard theoretical framework to evaluate potential drug-drug interactions, though in recent times machine-learning approaches are on the rise (no idea how they are evaluated by regulators, though). And as you noted, sometimes interactions are only seen after they are already use in practice. In short, there is only so much we know and/or can predict when it comes to drug-drug interactions (and there is also the related area of drug-food interactions) and at least to my knowledge (which is at best peripheral) there is no perfect pipeline to assess those.

Thanks, we had flooring installed and it is now a bit higher than used to be, so we need to cut down the bottom in order to make it fit. All good suggestions, thanks.

Noob question: What would you suggest to cut down a door to size. Table saw, circular saw or is there something better?

It looks like unspecific amplification, especially considering how late in the cycle it comes up.

Well, that would be have been honest work now, wouldn't it? Don't think that is part of the skill set.

You forget that that it is not only about Trump. Rather he is ingratiating himself into the GOP ecosystem which allows him to get things like book deals, pundit and speaker jobs and so on.

Medium composition has a significant impact on the effects of antimicrobial compounds on bacteria. One of the most common effects is presence of salt, as they are assumed to alter uptake of certain antibiotics. Moreover, nutritional differences can affect how bacteria react/survive stressors including antimicrobial compounds. I.e. measurements of MIC or inhibition zones are highly dependent on the media being used and cannot be easily transferred.

I mean fundamentally it is about whether everyone should have a vote (which sounds, you know, democratic) or whether there one should limit votes to a select group (aka the "good" folks).

I mean, using the same metrics superbowl vandalism could have emboldened them. No you are right, they swallowed the lie, because they wanted to and to a significant degree because they think that creating an ethnostate would finally put them on top. The latter is the closest I can see where BLM could have played a role (I.e. black folks challenging the status quo).

The irony considering that you have not provided anything but your fantasy. As I mentioned, 96% were without incidence and you even as non-Trump supporter thinks that thinks went horribly out of hand. What would be your threshold? 99%? And then why would you think that Trump supporter would use the same threshold? There is not a lot of space there, you know? And considering that many of them think the election was stolen, I doubt reality plays a big role there. Except your claim was that the violence of BLM was ignored or even promoted by folks (without evidence) and that that was the mechanism contributing to Jan 6. Which, again is baseless and continues to reek of false equivalence. If you said, it happened that Trump supporter might believe that, despite it being patently not true, there might have been something to discuss here, but as stated your premise is simply false. I will also mention that in the BLM protests around 15k folks were arrested, mostly due to curfew violations. So about 0.1% of the participants were charged. The actual serious convictions (violence & damages) are much smaller fraction thereof. So again, the initial characterization is at best misleading.

You have not made a case that BLM protests in any way emboldened in any the insurrection. Your claim was that: Except that the degree was low (a tiny percentage of actions became violent), you have provided zero evidence that the violence was overlooked (many were arrested, and there were reports of police violence against protesters and reporters and you also have not shown that violence was encourage by media and politicans. Conversely, we know that the march on the capitol was in fact encouraged and orchestrated by politicians. So the only obvious parallel is only there if we ignore the facts of the matter. Now don't get me wrong, since we are talking about Trump followers, it is quite possible that they think that BLM and antifa are runnink amok and therefore they should do the same. But it should be highlighted that either way it is just a fantasy and they would likely have thought the same if the BLM protests were 100% peaceful.

Of course they were emboldened, by Trump and the GOP that made them believe that they were in right. Heck the BLM might have emboldened them, as they thought that the aggressive tactics against protesters and antifa showed that the police were on their side (and they were not far wrong, a lot of law enforcement were very pro-Trump). But it was not because of violence during BLM protests. In fact they believed themselves to better and therefore clearly did not see themselves in a similar position as BLM folks.

I have my doubts on that. Most reports indicate that despite the large scale of BLM protests (compared to Jan 6 for example), there were comparatively few acts of violence, with more violence directed at protesters than instigated by them. Reporters and bystanders getting shot by rubberized metal rounds by the police, were given as an example, which clearly shows that police faced with violence were far less aggressive during January 6th. In part it was because they were likely understaffed, apparently by design. Data from researchers (Chenoweth is widely cited) collected data from over 7,305 protests involving millions of participants (estimates are about 15-26 million). In about 1% of those police officers were harmed and one was killed (by a far right bugaloo member in California). Deaths were isolated events including Kenosha (where Rittenhouse shot three and killed one). Another killing was conducted by an anti-fascist protester who was in turn killed by the police. In about 4% of the protests some sort of property damage were reported. Considering the overall scope of BLM protests and the incredibly low level of violence (in Germany, soccer season often sparked more violence on a per person level) it seems to me that drawing an equivalence is only possible if one ignores the scope of the respective events.

! Moderator Note Similar threads have been merged.

The DNA is for the most part the same for most organisms (the organization is different between e.g. eukaryotes and prokaryotes, but that is not really relevant when comparing Neanderthals with modern humans). The only difference really is in the sequence. Much of the sequence will be very similar, but the areas where there are differences can be used to figure out relationships.

It really depends on how you define it, but here is something to think about: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/ I.e. the position of folks who think of themselves as moderates are actually more center-left than truly moderate. And another conclusion that came from various analyses including this one is that the positions are kind of all over the map. Is someone who has a strong conservative stance on immigration but a very liberal in of healthcare really left, right or moderate? If you think you can hedge your bet by simply taking the most neutral position possible (a bit like Biden is trying) then you are trying to appeal to an incredibly small fraction of the voters. Or to put it differently, putting out centrist policies is not going to win a significant group. If anything going economically to the left is more advisable to catch the centrist vote, the rest is rather more or less based on the flavour of the day (or whatever facebook decides, I guess).

In the case of Neanderthals it was the opposite way, they took samples from bodies that were clearly Neanderthal and isolated first mitochondrial DNA (around 2008 ish?) and later on other groups extracted more DNA from Neanderthal bones. They knew it was Neanderthal DNA because a) they samples were obtained from Neanderthals and b) they cross-referenced it to modern human sequences to make sure that the researchers did not contaminate it with their own DNA. The sequencing itself is relatively standard compared to other sequencing projects, the really tricky bit is to extract enough workable DNA. Again, this is something you can read up by looking at "ancient DNA" as keywords.

Well, you advocated for someone who is irredeemably centrist. Since they are a dying breed, you have to take what you can get.

DNA is a fairly new method, falling under the ancient DNA set of techniques and are certainly not the "traditional" way to identify the origins of bones. It is an emerging technique to use on certain bone fragments, as mitochondrial DNA can sometimes be retrieved even from them. But as things go, they are fairly new and not quite standard, I would say. Traditionally, identification can be done based on bone fragments alone, but requires some level of integrity. Especially highly fragmented bones are difficult to identify, but as long as key morphological pieces can be found, experts can assign them with a high level of accuracy.

! Moderator Note Off-topic discussions split to trash.

Because the strategy of the last few decades is to rile up your base against the other position (regardless what it may be) rather than being reasonable. If you follow the other thread regarding rationality vs logic vs reason, this seems like a situation where being rational (how to get all the votes) trumps reason (what do folks really want). Also while I am not a voter anywhere (for now) I will note that this trend is not unique to the US. It is employed with various success throughout Europe and it is an increasing trend in Canada (probably by diffusion).

I think that "logical" refers to essentially a narrow set of premises which are being evaluated. "Rational" refers to some broader assessments that will take a broader context into account and might dismiss unlikely (or untrue) premises. I.e. the latter is embedded in a broader body of knowledge. I am pretty sure someone with an actual philosophy background ( @Eise ?) can provide a more complete rundown, especially when it comes to the concept(s) of reason. The one I came across often add an layer of morality. E.g. a rational assessment is often utilitarian and is aimed at maximizing some kind of values. However a reasonable approach could take societal norms and their impact into further account (even if the norms themselves might not appear rational on their own grounds). Some have kind of married these two elements (I would think in the line of Kant's categorical imperative) but I realize that my familiarity with that matter has eroded a lot and I may be way off at this point.

As the article states, by keeping things uncertain, the effective result is that physicians are afraid to perform life-saving measures including in fairly obvious cases such as ectopic pregnancies. The creation of an implicit threat seems to be very much by design and aims to take out medical decisions away from physicians into a morality-based judgement system controlled by law-makers.

https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-house-2022-midterms Interesting summary on that topic.