CharonY

There is an article in the NYTimes talking about this topic, specifically the issues with free speech in a time where disinformation is rampant. The viewpoint is obviously US-centric, focusing on the first amendment. However, it also contrasts it is with European system. A pretty good read. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/free-speech.html

Yeah I missed that. And you know what? I feel pretty good about it.

So there was a townhall with Biden and Trump separately. Holy moley, I almost forgot that US politicians may actually be able to talk about policy. Or coherently for that matter. Obviously, I did not watch one of them.

Still not enough information. For short bursts, again, forgoing oxidative phosphorylation will produce more in a short amount of time. If you look at production over, say, a day, ATP will mostly be produced via oxidative phosphorylation. You are missing the part that there is no free energy: The Cori cycle costs 4 ATP per cycle (2 ATP are produced via glycolysis, but 6 are consumed for gluconeogenesis). So going through the whole cycle would mean a net loss of 4 ATP, or accumulation of lactate (for 2 ATP per glucose). Meanwhile full oxidation of glucose yields ~38 ATP, but is limited by available oxygen. I think you may confuse cause and effect. Because you seem to imply that sprinters produce more energy because they stop breathing, which is backwards reasoning. Anaerobic respiration does not stop because you have oxygen. Rather, it starts if you run out of it.

You are confusing different aspects here, and one issue is the way you think or define "maximum power". You have to think about what it means (or what you mean with it). Aerobic breakdown provides the most energy per metabolized molecule. It provides energy from glycolysis as well as via the respiratory chain (i.e. oxidative phosphorylation). Anaerobic glycolysis only takes the first part and misses out on the latter. Therefore aerobic pathways yield maximum power per glucose, whereas the anaerobic pathway does not. However, what the body does is ramp up glycolysis for short term energy generation and instead of further going down the oxidative phosphorylation, they miss out on that part (as oxygen becomes limited) and end up with lactate. I.e. the increase in energy is by increasing the front reaction, rather than having a more effective pathway. There is also the phosphagen system that can yield energy without oxygen, but again it is not as efficient as is used for short-term ATP generation. So in other words, for short bursts, oxygen becomes rate limiting, but as a whole provides more energy per glucose.

Yep, have tried both extremes for mass data storage. As a whole I found swansont's suggestion regarding tags with shallow folder structure most efficient.

Or for users. How likely is it that someone is specifically looking for a discussion on met-ethics but really does not want to encounter social philosophy on the way? Since we are a low activity forum we do not have that many active topics at any given point, so organizing them just to have a proper classification just does not make any sense.

Another thought, what about the triggering topic? Is being upset about high unnecessary COVID-19 deaths equivalent to, say , the fear of folks with more melanin?

Oh yes, absolutely. Forgot about that. As a matter of fact, I think that is the first thing you forget once you enter the system. Quickly followed by sleep.

As a whole almost all folks that have symptomatic cases of COVID-19 have certain long-lasting effects. Tissue scarring in the lung is pretty much a given (so much that it has been used for positive confirmation of cases when tests were running low). So there is a non-zero chance that those folks might also be vulnerable to future lung issues.

And of course, folks with a strong desire for public admiration probably do not choose academia in the first place. It would like being a monk because you like to sing and dance.

I am pretty sure that the definition of "triggered" could use some work. As a whole, mass and social media have heavily invested in an outrage industry as appeal to emotions has been shown to be an effective way to grab attention (which equals monetary value). As such a distinction into political leanings itself is meaningless as it is more about media consumption. Then one could ask whether there is a connection between political leaning and media use. I am not familiar with the whole range of literature, but I recall that a number of studies (I think one of the author was Guess) showed that especially older conservatives were more prone to share fake news (which mostly fall into the clickbait/outrage storylines). But it is a dynamic field of research and on some platforms folks found a higher impact of young users. Either way it appears that those on the extremes of either end are more likely to share and disseminate false information. However, it appears that numerical there are fewer liberal oriented folks (or Democrats, depending on how the study segmented the participants) falling for these fake news than their counterparts, which in part is probably due to the fact that within the liberal/democratic side there is a broader spread of opinion, whereas (at least in the USA) the conservative side is far more uniform (i.e. the group likely to fall for an disseminate false information is larger). Then of course one could take a look at the media landscape. Of course the Murdoch empire has for a long time manipulated opinion toward an alternative (conservative) view of the world and now with a number news outlets, podcasts and so on, a rather solid and influential outrage machine has been established, which does not only operate in the US. One example is how the US-centric QAnon conspiracy has spread to Europe. I am not really aware of something similarly powerful on the other side of the aisle.

I suggest you turn to literature, as there are quite a few papers on that topic. You could summarize some of the findings and discuss those here? Take a look e.g. at the recent paper here Salmi & Muñoz (Primates volume 61, pages225–235(2020). It may take a while to get through a paper, but I promise you, that you will find better information there than on any random internet forum.

Yeah, most academics I know would prefer it if folks would let them work in peace. Interestingly most attention-seekers I have seen do it outside their realm of expertise (i.e. if they stop being academics and, say enter the political arena). For the most part being in the limelight does little for the academics other than perhaps shine a light on issues related to their area of expertise (say in an ongoing pandemic). But that is more seen as a duty to the public rather than something one would actively seek. After all, creating a good message takes time, which distracts from your actual work.

I think there is little argument that both elements are important, though things like policy can mainly only address access whereas self-motivation is more difficult to achieve. However, it is important not to use issues of the latter as an excuse to not address the former. This happens everywhere, and generally speaking I have the feeling that folks are barking up the wrong tree quite a bit. Especially for underprivileged folks the issues start way before college and need addressing. Even simple things like counseling (if done correctly!) during high-school can make an impact. Obviously teacher quality is also immensely important, and I do not think that folks invest enough in areas which clearly need more support.

I think for exams that is for the most part not a huge issue. Typically there are so many that you do not spend a lot time looking at their names and in quite a few systems student IDs are used. It is getting trickier when it comes to say, admission in the first place but also later on for graduate student selection. But again, the socioeconomic issues do have other costs, too which can affect performance. After entry to college it might be too late to do anything, so measures have to be taken before that.

Sure, my point is that it is not an either or situation. And even worse, bad life situation can make it more difficult to put in an effort (or one could argue that it would mean that one would need to put disproportionate amount of effort which may or may not be possible). As such it is difficult to disentangle, unless some of the barriers are removed. I.e. if you compare attitudes among folks with similar standing. Not only that, but also because of overcriminalization. I.e. stronger and more frequent persecution for similar offenses than their white counter-parts. That being said while still disproportionate, there are more families with a black father than without out there.

I doubt that in order to study ethics one needs to be an ethical person. For the same way as studying infections does not require you to be infected. I have been a first generation immigrant in a few countries now (and the first time being a kid myself). As such I would like to try to add to your experience a bit. First, the salary situation has changed. While your (and my parents) were able to work themselves out of poverty, it is now quite a bit more difficult. Second, for folks that have been subjected to economic penalties (which includes African Americans, but also indigenous folks whom there were additional barriers, such as simple things such as getting housing) also are still catching up. It is pretty well documented that there is quite a bit of a difference between immigrants depending on when they immigrated (and where from). This is also the reason why e.g. African immigrants outperform African Americans as well as white folks in the US, for example. Many recent immigrants start off with a higher education level and are able to obtain bachelors with a higher frequency. However, that is not true for all immigration waves (there are a few studies looking at performance based on subgroups, which quite critically dissects the myth of overperforming Asian communities for example). The second and third generation issue is real, but you might be missing the reason. First generation immigrants expect that they need to work harder than their counterparts. However, kids being born into the system do not have any other perspective rather than being, say, Canadian or US American. But if they are still treated as immigrants, it causes a certain amount of disenfranchisement. I.e. they do not understand that they still need to outperform in order to be seen as equals. That can lead to downward spirals in performance. That all being said, I still do see a higher rate of entitlement among non-immigrant kids (though nowadays rich second or third generation immigrants are pretty close, so there might be some equalization...).

I am not sure they are the worst (though in some ways they may be), but growing up in an area where you have underfunded schools and little career encouragement has been shown to be a big hindrance. Especially in working class areas there is often the base assumption that the kids will not go on to higher education. Even if there is interest, the quality of the high school has been shown to be a determining factor in entering higher education. Often, students in poorer school areas are underprepared, may never of hardly had any access to computers or the internet etc. Even overcoming these issues there is of course the cost of higher education in many systems (such as UK or NA) is prohibitive for many (which feeds back into the thought process for lower-income folks who just do not expect to be able to afford it to begin with). Even after getting university there are additional hardship for low-income folks which especially now has become quite apparent. Some cannot afford a laptop or stable internet, for example. I think that if especially affluent folks which all the benefits fail, it is more likely on them. However, for the others, there are clearly barriers that they need to overcome and they are not always well prepared for it. That all being said, an inquisitive mind with willingness to learn is clearly an important element. At the same time, I do understand that this in itself is a luxury that not everyone can afford.

! Moderator Note This is clearly in the area of medical advice and we do not dispense it here. You need to find a specialist for diagnosis as well as treatment.

Well, the first thing is for the one writing this list to have it double-checked with someone else, ideally a professional. It is easy to project assumptions and perceptions on another person which then will clash with the experience and feelings of that person. If the person is already in therapy, asking for a couple therapy session might help.

One thing to add: the various constitutions are also historic documents and therefore generally do not address issues that a constitution written in this time might have included. Often, they try to provide universal guidance outlining what folks thought to be fundamental. However, the fact that older constitutions have been amended over the years clearly show that this is not the case. The obvious issue with determining constitutionality via plebiscite is that it undermines the idea of having certain rights that should not be easily overridden. Otherwise folks might get the idea to decide that killing a person is not a good idea unless they are called, say, Dave.

We generally only want one post per topic, unless your opening post phrases the question very differently. However, I would even discourage that as we are a relatively small community and chances are the same folks will be joining the discussion anyway. Making two posts would just unnecessarily split the discussion.

Interpretation of law is the whole point of litigation. If laws were complete in a sense that they cannot be challenged or interpreted in different ways, there would basically be no need for a judicial system in the first place. The other point of course is that any application of interpretation of existing laws must not violate the supreme laws of a given county (such as the constitution), which are generally much harder to change than other laws.

Perhaps. Though it seems to correlate with how much we is being leaked from the WH. The more we hear the more erratic it appears.