CharonY

Biology is way more complicated than any of the It stuff. A single cell outpaces the complexity of even the most complex machines currently. So, this is very much expected. Even in biological sciences, technical developments have been massive. For example, when I did my PhD sequencing a simple bacterium was a multi-million, multi-year effort involving multiple groups and companies. Now, I can sequence on over the weekend by myself. And yet, our understanding of even understanding bacterial cells is developing slowly. There is a big difference in generating data and generating understanding. In that regard, it is also true for computers. Yes, we can do more fancy things way faster than we used to. Everyone has a supercomputer in their pocket. But can you honestly claim that this has somehow led to an equivalent increase in how everyone understands the world? Better tools are the easiest bit in everything. Better understanding is the rate limiting step. This is true for cancer as for many other things.

Relatively slow to what? For some cancers, prevention had the largest impact. Some of the biggest changes in cancer-related deaths are associated with air quality laws and reduction of smoking. Also, people are getting older on average. Which means, the likelihood to acquire and die of cancer at high age increases. But again, prevention is likely going to be the part that is way important than treatment. Recent work for, example have shown that certain cancer types have now increased in younger folks, especially in Western cohorts. Some risk factors are known (e.g., alcohol consumption and obesity), but others less well-known one might be contributing (sleep deprivation.. yikes...). It is usually better to maintain a car than trying to start repairs once it is falling apart.

Also, it is very different depending on the type of cancer type and country. As noted prostrate cancer has a 5yr survival rate cab that is above 90% in many countries. Improving that is going to be very hard from there. The stage at which cancer is detected is also crucial to this statistic. For lung cancer, stage I detection has above 60% 5-yr survival rate, which drops to about 2.5% at stage IV. Some cancer types are difficult to detect which limits treatment options. For these reasons, a general statement regarding cancer survival is mostly useless and can easily be misleading. It should also be noted that we obviously cannot expect indefinite increases and the older one gets, the more likely it is that some form of cancer will present. Depending on how aggressive the type of cancer is folks might die do to other reasons and cancer might only contribute or even only be incidental to the cause of death.

I don't think it was ever about business. Twitter never made a huge lot of business sense. It was mostly a vanity project (also evidenced by the rebranding).

If so, probably just one of the 450 things on their social media feed before breakfast. I think many/most young folks struggle with the input they get. Information-wise, they are almost catatonic. Simplified (but wrong) messages might indeed have a calming effect. We are doing a very poor job in training them to filter and process information. It would be interesting to see how the lawsuit goes. Ultimately, advertisers would look at cost-benefit of the situation. If the reach via Twitter brings more revenue than lawsuits or other potential costs, they'll be happily advertising there again. Also: So even if the lawsuit is not successful in court, it is successful already in effect and highlight the issue of using money and legal proceedings to shut down thing you don't like.

There are a couple more here https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm23y7l01v8o Currently, 3 under 20 and 4 over 50.

Yeah, I randomly had the thought because of the the change of the naming of his companies. But since I don't know the name of his other children, it was likely totally unrelated and I draw a comparison where there should haven't been one. So apparently without being a CEO one might have the delusion that random thoughts could be post-worthy. Shame on me and I'll go sit in the corner for a while.

What is up with this guy and his obsession with the letter X?

It doesn't help that food is a rather sloppy term (as opposed to either "carbon source" or "energy source"). But on the other hand, the rest of OP is not much better, so in a way it fits.

I think the tricky bit is to figure out the temperature for a volume. I think what I remember was to start with 2l per 454g package, add salt, set to high or medium high and then wait until it boils, turn down temperature to simmer and check how long it takes. Depending on how long it takes to boil I am guessing that the whole process might take up to 20 minutes, with probably less than 5 minutes of boiling. I have never tried that myself, to be honest. I have got Italian friends and I want to keep them.

A potential advantage is that depending on what kind of stove you have and the size of the pot, the time to boil soaks pasta and cuts down on total cooking time. I know chefs who do that to cut down time for freshly cooking (dry) pasta, but they have optimized their workflow for that. It probably won't work if you do that with fresh pasta, though.

A) wants to get on the right wing grift, B) aligns with his own values, C) thinks that every stupid thought he has is gold. I wished there were, but ultimately I doubt that that they will.

Exchemist has mentioned the most important point, dropping pasta into defined temperature creates the most reproducibility. Now there is quite some chemistry related to pasta cooking and generally speaking, the first process is controlled by water penetration, starch gelatinization and protein coagulation. These steps are all temperature dependent but not all aspects are impacted equally (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.03.018). For example water penetration occurs at low temperatures, but protein coagulation generally requires higher temperature for homogenous coagulation. Yet, that is also dependent on the way the gluten network is developed during the production of pasta (https://doi.org/10.1080/10408390802437154). Another aspect is the rate of starch gelatinzation to protein coagulation. If coagulation dominates and is done faster than than gelatinzation, starch particles will be trapped in the gluten network resulting in more firm pasta (which is usually desirable). Conversely high starch swelling with an incomplete network allows starch to escape to the surface (and cooking water) which results in soft and sticky pasta (https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/foodmicrostructure/vol2/iss1/2). As gelatinization starts at lower temperatures, cooking from cold will release more starch. That all being said, for dried pasta it generally does not matter unless it has a large surface (e.g. fettucine) where the released starch can make things rather sticky and where cooking in boiling water accelerates protein coagulation. Otherwise, one can do the opposite for example soak pasta at low temps (before starch gelatinization, so <45 ish or so C). This takes care of the water penetration part while gelatinization and coagulation does not occur yet. You can then then just heat it up (e.g cook in sauce) to rapidly induce coagulation without the release of excessive amount of starch.

I think the influence of libertarian ideology on modern politics quite fascinating. On its face, libertarians seem are seeming fiercely individualistic, which often puts their influence at odds with certain programs that could be considered common goods (e.g. health care, infrastructure etc.). And I originally thought that most arguments in politics would be centered on economic disputes. Yet, strangely libertarianism has over the decades increasingly merged with authoritarianism, which always seemed contradictory to me. Other streaks are very visible in the US, where on the one hand we have the call for small governments and individual freedoms, yet want to micromanage which books kids are allowed to read or what sexual orientations are deemed acceptable. Looking back at papers in the 80sor so, researchers argued what seemed logical, libertarian and authoritarian attitudes would be on opposite sides of a social scale. And while this might have held true for a long while, especially in recent times (Trumpism being such an example), assertions of individual rights were fused with authoritarian demands. During the COVID-19 pandemic, anti-vaccination has turned from individuals not wanting to get vaccinated, to demands to abolish vaccines and masks, for example. A colleague pointed to an interesting chapter in The Palgrave Handbook of Psychosocial Studies" which asserts that in modern individuals there is an inherent ambivalence. Personally, I am always sceptical regarding this grand theories, but it at least tries to resolve how folks can keep these different tendencies aligned (emotionally, at least).

! Moderator Note Is there anything to discuss here? If not this thread will be locked.

I mean, we all do. Some parts of us more effectively than others.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg- the whole document is a manifesto of fundamentalists ideals and identity-based restructuring of society.

More likely than not this is also a default stance. Folks arrived at a given ideology somehow, unlearning that is going to be difficult no matter what.

Yes and fornicate with the person they presumably do not like...? I should probably add to my previous comment that there are obviously bad actors promoting such labels. Bannon's openly said that his strategy was to push identity politics and we can see something happening on that front from Russia, too (or perhaps it is the same strategy).

It is tricky and in open discussions we can also see that some labels are getting outsized attention. But ultimately I think everyone uses labels knowingly or not, because that is how humans think. This does lead to a certain bias, as some groups will use different codes and labels and these are then considered identity politics, whereas the categories oneself uses are most invisible as they are part of the way we see the world. The issue is that one needs to make a conscious effort to not remain on the superficial level in public discourse, but the increasing reliance on short bits of information makes it increasingly difficult. And while there are folks who weaponize it to spin, I am increasingly worried that folks are also just less well trained to go beyond these superficial aspects. I.e. it is not necessarily a well orchestrated manipulation, but more a general lack of competence in processing, understanding and presenting information (and I say that as someone who is working on a regular basis with the next generation of thinkers).

Perhaps, "Trump is a real man, he does all the harassment and rape himself".

There is a bit of grumbling regarding a settlement for sexual harassment in Shapiro's office. As the perpetrator was an aide and no himself it might not be that critical, though there is a (highly hypocritical) vector of attack.

Just putting things next to each other is not drawing parallels or informative. You need to establish a) what you think the link is and b) provide context and interpretation. Rather than providing a long list of such things, how about just taking one aspect out and elaborate on what you mean and try to foster a discussion on it. For example, how is it different from other calls for ethical AI implementation? Is there anything that we can discuss. This here is a discussion forum and not a "here is my random thought" forum.

A couple of good points mixed with some not so good points. Generally speaking it is not binary, but a matter of grade in terms of prediction. Even something like a simple mechanic model (throwing a ball) can be difficult to use if the situation is sufficiently complex. Not everything is a spherical cow in vacuum. In psych, the idea is often to develop categories and use large observations in order to identify patterns. As such, it is not that different from other complex sciences. But what is true is that because things are complex, reproducibility is often an issue. But to various degrees that is true also for natural sciences, depending on the complexity of the system. Empirically, we have seen that even imperfect models yield results (medicine is such an example).

This is a good example how erroneous and/or simplified assumptions invariably lead to wrong conclusions. As mentioned above, there is a difference between link and active causative agent. Infections can trigger certain (long-term) issues down stream, but there are two things that are important and you seem to have missed. Especially the loose use of all (i.e. generalization) is very problematic here). a) just because infections can trigger some potentially unrecognized issues, it does not mean that all of these issues are in fact triggered by them. So while it may be fabulous that all diseases are caused by infections, we know that it isn't the case. b) you confuse trigger with the active cause. The reason why some folks (myself included) think that some chronic issues are related to infection but have not recognized as such is because certain symptoms manifest after the infection is cleared. You need to read Ewald in the context of Koch's postulate more carefully. If there was an ongoing infection the link would be far more trivial to establish. However, we are aware of conditions like post-viral syndromes (such as long-COVID). Just based on this, the argument of antibiotics does not make sense. First, depending on the pathogen and their interaction with the immune city, the trigger for later issues can arise early on in the infection process or at symptom onset. Therefore, antibiotics would be too late to the game. Second, even if they weren't some of the best understood interferences with the human immune system are viral (some bacteria also do odd things, mostly intracellular ones, but they seem to be fairly different as a whole). Antibiotics don't work on viruses. Third, your argument that we just need to develop new antibiotics itself is problematic. We are running out of them as resistant bacteria (which again as a whole are likely not that relevant to the current discussion), are taking over. In the last ten years only 20 or so antibiotics have been approved and they have been very long in the development pipeline. In some cases, within months, resistant bacteria against new drugs have been detected. Far from being a panacea, we are increasingly unable to treat simple infections.