Dagl1

Seeing as asymptomatic spread and general asymptomatic infection is quite a thing, the idea to only give such as device when they corona-related symptoms, or know that they have been in contact with a person that is infected/comes from an area (how large do you define area) to be infected, will lead to missing the mark quite a lot. How will you this machine test for corona infection?

I don't entirely agree with this, because if I would predict what would happen based on the laws of physics, then the part where I am telling you, must be part of that prediction. Because the environment and all other molecules are part of that equation, and thus if I could predict what would happen, then I would have to include all the information that includes telling you, and thus it 'has' to happen. If I won't tell you, but then I would have predicted that I wouldn't tell you since I predicted it based on the laws of nature. It seems impossible to calculate ONLY your actions based on the laws of nature and present conditions, because for that I would have to calculate MY and the entire (local) environment, right? Your thoughts? (Hope I am clear, only have a few sec before I have to leave, otherwise I will reiterate later).

Do you understand the argument that free will is something you feel like you experience, but in no way can your actions prove that you were ever going to do something else. Yes you may say that you can reason and think about other options. but that reasoning/thinking could just as well be something you were gonna do regardless of your choice. Your brain may just make it seem like you have any control. If you understand those arguments, then you also understand how your example of posting on this forum, does nothing to refute that argument? Additionally, from a physical point of view, if you don't invoke a soul, then your brain is made of neurons, with proteins, all of which undergo chemical reactions that lead to thoughts/emotions (of course your body also has hormones, but those too are physical things). So if molecules don't have free will, how could you have free will. (My apologies if this is already talked about in this thread, I just skimmed the last pages).

Ah ye, fair point, thanks for the link!

You called it bias, but now there are links showing potential ties. Do you deny the validity of those claims or? Sure, iNow (I think) said this before evidence had accumulated, based on previous behaviour of the US president, is that bias? Or are you agreeing with everything, but just pointing out that people are biased (because bias doesn't mean people can't be right)? Could you elaborate? In my country (Netherlands), we have added it onto our recommended treatment options, I personally thought some trials were promising, and others weren't. There is no conclusive evidence so far, is there? (I think you are referring to the article Charon posted: No Evidence of Rapid Antiviral Clearance or Clinical Benefit with the Combination of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Infection)?

It seems OP just wants to redefine the term 'speed', as Strange (and others) have pointed out, OP is changing the common definition of speed to his own definition, then saying that the 'speed*' is variable. @James What exactly is the point of that... why would we want to do this, why not just call it energy transfer rate, what great insights do we get from this? *OP's speed

I thought, but maybe completely misunderstood, that the issue at hand is that there is a force exerted from nowhere. OP asked how he could model this in a realistic manner, so (I thought) he would need something that exerts said force. So I thought for his (mental picture and) experiment, he could introduce something akin to a laser which pushed his object, thus making it more realistic. Did I completely misunderstand the issue at hand? My apologies...

Let your force be air or photons, 'shot' from a point a little away from it? Forces have to come from somewhere, so if you will apply force, then something has to apply that force. That thing (let's say a laser), will undergo an equal but opposite force when 'shooting' the photons at your construct. *Hope I didn't give bad advice here

Why just one? Can't we have Zeus, Thor, and another few? All asleep, not caring about creation except for getting some people, in some times, in some cultures, to write/talk about them...

Some things to note, but it would probably be more fair to take a longer time period for each month (multiple years), to calculate an estimated amount of deaths in March, there is a 7-8k difference between 2018 and 2019. A major risk factor for death is accumulated age (not only for corona virus), and ages are not uniformly distributed over all the years (there are not equally as many 40 as 60 years old etc.. Those things don't really change the focus of your post though, but I thought they would be good to note anyway. I do question why you feel that we should drop absolute numbers in favour of percentage of deaths, other than that it represents population and life expectancy (sort of)? Point two I don't really understand, should governments report deaths as a percentage of people tested, why? Assuming the minority of people is tested, this will lead to a much higher current morbidity than the actual numbers that we will be able to get after this is 'over' and do antibody testing.

Oh that is definitely true, I completely disregarded all other forms of biology other than eukaryotic cells;/ my bad. My list would give you, admittedly a spotty and extremely general look (I wouldn't call it detailed, at least not if you are focusing on eukaryotic cells). I agree with Charon, it helps a lot if you tell us what exactly you want to analyse and which things you want to focus on. What type of organism (prokaryotic versus eukaryotic), If multicellular, are you looking at a particular cell type. What type of analysis will you perform? Will you be looking at a specific metabolic pathway? Are you looking at different species and comparing them? Are you looking at a particular protein or mechanism, or look at the effects of a drug on broader data?

I am not a physicist, but you seem to be asserting something. So either this is mainstream physics, and then my question would be, what is that you want to discuss? If this goes against mainstream physics, you should probably provide some evidence.

Using a quick wikipedia search, I find that there are 5,450 species of mammals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal of which 130 are marine, living or recently extinct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_marine_mammal_species. sure 130 could be considered 'many'. Now if you meant aquatic, then yes there are many animals that are (semi)aquatic How do you determine, 'most viral infections'... there are many many more bacteria than animals, so are we just counting numbers, or do you mean that there are more bacteriophages than regular viruses (if so, please post a source, I'm interested). How can a virus be 'marine', as Studiot mentioned? Or do you mean that viruses can persist within the ocean. That seems to be true; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19475721003743843 link to marine specific viruses (bacteriophages specifically I think): https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/025544v1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_bacteriophage

I think we fundamentally disagree on this topic, at least in the sense of 'review molecular biology concepts overall'. If the OP's question was purely; 'I am working in field x, modelling y and want to find more detailed information on this' then of course a list/textbook wouldn't be complete. But he asked 'to review molecular biology concepts overall', and preferably in a concise manner (I don't find textbooks concise in any sense of the word, but that may also have to do with the type of education my university offered (barely any lectures, and mostly discussion groups with a staff member (specialised in that topic), whereby everyone had to look up everything beforehand, then discuss and fill in each other's gaps. This method basically forced us (at least me) to just search everything on the internet, which is why I feel you can basically learn most of biology (at the level the OP is asking) as long as you have a list of things to look into/explain). @Manel I would like to note that Charon has infinitely more experience in research (and I assume teaching for that matter), so definitely give more weight to his answer than to mine (although I do keep standing behind the answer I have given).

really quick search found this article: https://www.sciencealert.com/the-reason-you-get-a-runner-s-high-from-a-long-run-isn-t-what-you-think But it claims that the reason why runner's high could not be due to endorphins is because they can't pass the blood brain barrier. They then link a study that shows that there are mechanisms by which endorphins are cleaved and can then be transported into the brain (I don't know if they are active or not). But many endorphins are already produced inside the brain (although I am not sure if they are released into the blood (which then means they still have to go through the BBB to reach other brain tissues) or if they are released into the ventricles)... From the study they quote: https://www.pnas.org/content/112/42/13105.full Although running mice that received vehicle (P < 0.001) or naloxone (P = 0.004) exhibited increased latencies to react to the hot plate compared with nonrunning controls, AM6545 (P = 0.79), AM251 (1 mg/kgBW, P = 0.47; 3 mg/kgBW, P = 0.91), and AM630 (P = 0.52) inhibited the effect of running on thermal pain sensitivity. Thus, analgesia seems to be also mediated by peripheral CB1 and CB2 receptors. *AM6545 is a periphery-specific CB1 antagonist. So the reasoning in the sciencealert article is a bit meh (I think, but could definitely have overlooked something), but it does seem that there is evidence (based on this one study, didn't check anything else) that runners high (in mice) is mediated by peripheral endocannabinoid release. function (release can be somewhere else) Did not really read well enough, only pain is changed by peripheral endocannabionoid function. Anxiety-reduction is forebrain-related: These acute effects of running, together with a feeling of euphoria, were earlier termed a runner’s high in humans. In a series of experiments, we were able to show that the reduction in anxiety-like behavior after acute long-distance running depends on CB1 receptors on forebrain GABAergic neurons. Pain reduction, in contrast, depends on peripheral CB1 and CB2 receptors. Our data demonstrate that an intact eCB system is crucial for a runner’s high in mice.

I suppose it depends a bit on which parts of molecular biology, textbooks like the Cell are good starters (but not very concise). You could also work your way through a list and search stuff yourself. Receptors, transporters, ECM, Translation+chaperones, Transcription, splicing, DNA replication, Histones and DNA methylation, mitochondria ATP synthase, fat metabolism, sugar metabolism, hormone functions (works on receptors again), neuronal transmission (synapses and action potentials), apoptosis/necrosis, cytoskeleton. There must be quite a lot more, but I suppose you could read up on these things without a textbook. Hope some others can give you a better source (book/pdf/webpage)!

Morals are greatly influenced by societal norms, western societies still have stigma surrounding homosexual acts/relationships (especially for men), therefore men may be into something, and at the same time feel morally disgusted, and therefore possibly tell themselves they don't really like whatever they are into. Or the moral disgust is stronger than the amount they like something (liking isn't a binary thing, you can like something more or less as well).

What studies show that all people are bisexual, also see my previous points... Being excited by other guys having sex and being bisexual don't have to be the same thing, but if you do define homo/bi-sexual (from a male perspective) as any excitement when watching other guys having sex. Then maybe the definition bisexual doesn't mean the same as 'being attracted to (also) the same gender'. Next to that, plenty of reason have been given (social stigma>moral disgust, people lying, people not knowing themselves well enough). If you don't find these reasons convincing, could you maybe tell us why you doubt those reasons?

Choices are influenced by social factors, hormones and genetics... What about those things? Apparently what people like and dislike is out of there control. I don't get your questions, those scales are models for reality, they categorise people (and some people will probably fall not exactly in those categories anyway). What is your question? Do you find it weird that people may find other people or certain actions attractive/exciting, without them immediately being INTO them? Your initial question went along the lines of: 90% of sexual orientation doesn't change, how come that many people find certain actions exciting. But those two things don't seem to be very relevant to each other?

Maybe some lie, maybe some don't really understand their own feelings, maybe being attracted to the same gender and getting excited by watching other men and having sex are not the same? Just because someone feels excited watching something, doesn't mean they are instantly INTO that thing, in the real world. There is a large difference between reacting to seeing something, and doing it yourself. Although there probably is a subgroup of people that may not know they are homosexual/bisexual, or they feel moral disgust due to stigma/upbringing and therefore say they aren't sexually attracted? So many reasons.

Like to chip in on this one, although not entirely relevant to the language part (maybe): (this is from Behave, by Robert Sapolsky, but I don't think there was a reference with this particular statement) When you show people two colours that are similar to each other, whether that person's native language has two or one name for those colours, will for a great part determine the amount of similarities or differences they see. So if I show you two types of blue-ish colour, I suppose Cyan and Turquoise may do (?) and person A's native tongue does not differentiate between those two, then he will find them more similar than person B, who may speak English and knows his/her colours (Cyan and Turquoise). ano naniga, Strange wa tensai, ne ^^ (sorry I couldn't help myself, but can't type Japanese here (I am not very sure what the actual words are either, just heard people say nanga (?) whenever they had no idea what to say)).

I too would assume that it could recreate something within the same language as the training data, but I wonder (and that is how interpreted Studiot's question) if, as you said, eat banana and its Japanese counterpart would be both 'decodable' by a algorithm trained only for 'eat banana'. But as long as it is limited to just decoding individual words, I think we can assume it works for all languages (if trained in that language). Some languages must be harder than others, due to their internal logic (I think). Reading Studiots question now, I may have misinterpreted it

I don't think so, based on (Anecdotal evidence incoming: ) learning a bit of Japanese and studying Mandarin now (native Dutch speaker), the languages's usages of words/grammar is very different than that of Germanic languages. This study is super interesting though, but I wonder if this would work with using a non-Germanic/non-Latin-based language speaker and their words be decoded to English (in the article they do mention it only recognises individual words though, so maybe then it would work, but sentences seem to be off so far). I suppose it also depends on the training data itself. Either way, thanks for sharing!

What part do you disagree with? Do you not think that social rules lead to higher fitness on average? You don't think that cooperation (multicellularness) increases fitness? I am not sure I would completely phrase it like this guy (who could be completely random and does not have to present the scientific community at large anyway), but I also don't have immediate issues with it, you do it seems, so which parts don't make sense, please explain them in detail, so we can actually debate it?

I study/have studies biology, so just interested in the general mechanisms and links you might know of, it is also a question to test your knowledge. Is inhibition of 5a-reductase the only thing needed to initiate hair growth again? Aren't there many underlying epigenetic changes that will also be involved? How will you change those. For getting stuff into the cells, you probably need to get through the dead epidermis layer, then find a non-toxic way of delivering substances through the lipid layers, maybe you can look into topical drug delivery? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6637104/ Things like this?