StringJunky

Transgender Laurel Hubbard NZ didn't beat the top cis-girls in the weightlifting in Tokyo.

The plasmablast response to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination is dominated by non-neutralizing antibodies and targets both the NTD and the RBD Fatima Amanat, Mahima Thapa, Tinting Lei, Shaza M. Sayed Ahmed, Daniel C. Adelsberg, Juan Manuel Carreno, Shirin Strohmeier, Aaron J. Schmitz, Sarah Zafar, View ORCID ProfileJulian Q Zhou, Willemijn Rijnink, Hala Alshammary, Nicholas Borcherding, Ana Gonzalez Reiche, Komal Srivastava, View ORCID ProfileEmilia Mia Sordillo, View ORCID ProfileHarm van Bakel, The Personalized Virology Initiative, Jackson S. Turner, Goran Bajic, Viviana Simon, View ORCID ProfileAli H. Ellebedy, Florian Krammer doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.07.21253098 This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice. AbstractFull TextInfo/HistoryMetrics Preview PDF Summary In this study we profiled vaccine-induced polyclonal antibodies as well as plasmablast derived mAbs from individuals who received SARS-CoV-2 spike mRNA vaccine. Polyclonal antibody responses in vaccinees were robust and comparable to or exceeded those seen after natural infection. However, the ratio of binding to neutralizing antibodies after vaccination was greater than that after natural infection and, at the monoclonal level, we found that the majority of vaccine-induced antibodies did not have neutralizing activity. We also found a co-dominance of mAbs targeting the NTD and RBD of SARS-CoV-2 spike and an original antigenic-sin like backboost to seasonal human coronaviruses OC43 and HKU1. Neutralizing activity of NTD mAbs but not RBD mAbs against a clinical viral isolate carrying E484K as well as extensive changes in the NTD was abolished, suggesting that a proportion of vaccine induced RBD binding antibodies may provide substantial protection against viral variants carrying single E484K RBD mutations.

Legs will evolve to vestigial appendages. :)

I noticed an article on the BBC website that Spain has a very high level of faith and compliance with their medical institutions and vaccines.... shame it's not everywhere.

I'm waiting for 'Rollerball' or "Death Race 2000" to become a real game. Competing is evolutionarily progressive behaviour.

First time I saw one of them, probably 3 or 4, I thought my grandad said it was a 'giraffe excluder' and kept out giraffes! The joys of deafness. "How's a giraffe going to get under that little gap?"

The most efficient, I think, is to have the fire place projecting into the room where the metal roof is exposed above it. Much more high quality convected heat will pour into the room instead of predominantely radiant heat of a typical open fire. You'll find that the hot zone is not just local around the fire as well... it's all over.

Without warp speed they ain't gonna get far in space. The Pioneer/Voyager spacecraft are just on the edge of the solar system after nigh on 50 years... just another 3ish lyrs to the nearest star. This is the technology we have to go on.

I would think larger logs are less amenable to to turning over if it's relying on a hot core to keep burning... once you open it up it could cool too much and lose flammable vapour production.

Warp speed.

The main point being that they require extra-ordinary skills that lie outside known physics. I think until physics can derive a feasible possible path to speculating about it, it's just empty wondering...

Another problem is assuming ET's are cleverer than we are. The biggest obstacle for me is transiting light-year distances in reasonable time.

It's apparently used in flexible pvc products, like wire insulation, to reduce cracking. As long as you aren't chewing said products, that's California going overboard.

Your profile pic is your avatar. As you can see here. I'm sure a mod can sort it. Have you tried putting the picture up, then logging out, then in? It might need to do that to update the threads.

Click on the little icon bottom left of your profile picture

That probably explains it. Thanks.

I'll have a look. Cheers.

Interesting. Thanks. Yes, it would seem logical for the seller to be obligated because any query by the buyer to the carrier results in being told by them to take it up with the seller to query with that carrier. I felt too that Amazon were probably trying it on.

I could pass it onto CAB to query it. I've read the exact point when risk passes to the buyer is a contentious and complex subject in international sales

I'm confused. I wonder if the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2014 have superseded it.

AFAIK they aren't allowed to create a contract that breaches the law. Here's the UK law on it: Sale of Goods Act 1979 Previous: Provision Next: Provision 32Delivery to carrier. (1)Where, in pursuance of a contract of sale, the seller is authorised or required to send the goods to the buyer, delivery of the goods to a carrier (whether named by the buyer or not) for the purpose of transmission to the buyer is prima facie deemed to be a delivery of the goods to the buyer. (2)Unless otherwise authorised by the buyer, the seller must make such contract with the carrier on behalf of the buyer as may be reasonable having regard to the nature of the goods and the other circumstances of the case; and if the seller omits to do so, and the goods are lost or damaged in course of transit, the buyer may decline to treat the delivery to the carrier as a delivery to himself or may hold the seller responsible in damages. (3)Unless otherwise agreed, where goods are sent by the seller to the buyer by a route involving sea transit, under circumstances in which it is usual to insure, the seller must give such notice to the buyer as may enable him to insure them during their sea transit; and if the seller fails to do so, the goods are at his risk during such sea transit. [F1(4)This section does not apply to a contract to which Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies (but see the provision made about such contracts in section 29 of that Act).]

Got a new terms email from amazon, and I read the terms but came across this: RISK OF LOSS All purchases of physical items from Amazon are made pursuant to a shipment contract. This means that the risk of loss and title for such items pass to you upon our delivery to the carrier. Given that the law, on both sides of the pond it seems, say that the contract and responsibilty lies with Amazon and their delivery partners until delivered, does it look like they are imposing terms that contravene applicable US and UK/EU consumer protection laws?

What is the chance of that, and is it our place to police it?

Isn't it a mass spectrometer what's needed?

Can't it all be virtual, in software, and following the rules of neurons?