CharonY

While I am hesitant to add rather vague information to the mix, there are neurocognitive studies indicating that political leanings may have neuronal correlates. Liberalism was found to be associated with higher activities in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), which surprisingly has been somewhat replicated in different studies (see e.g. Amodio et al. Nat. Neuro 2007). The ACC is relevant for a number of functions including sorting and evaluation information and error detection. That alone poses some interesting questions which I am not going to address here (and which is beyond my realm of expertise). But why am I mentioning it here at all? Well, in patients diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia this specific area has been showing poor functioning and/or abnormalities in the ACC. While it is a bit of a stretch, if anything it appears that traits associated with schizophrenia may be more structurally related to brains that are deeply conservative (or at least the same brain area is less active). But I want to emphasize that IMO (which, again, is not based on actual expertise, but only on a superficial reading of the literature) these connections between neuronal structures and political leanings are not terribly informative. Brain activity has been shown to be very plastic and as such thinking a certain way is going to alter these structures. Nonetheless, it is interesting as it is possible that liberals and conservatives may to some degree learn different thought patterns that eventually lead to divergence in certain neuronal correlates (but again, the effect is not necessarily huge, just detectable with imaging techniques). That in itself is perhaps not too surprising as your activity reflects its usage. I should also add that the ACC is seemingly involved in dealing with cognitive dissonance and it has at least been speculated (IIRC) that altered or lower activity may be relevant for believing in conspiracy theories in the face of contrary evidence. But again, one has to caution against overinterpretation of what can only be considered to be very preliminary data.

Good find. There is a bit of follow-up, but it is interesting to see that the majority of use is related to cannabis, most likely due to availability (esp. in college). Also interesting was that while drug use was higher in men than women, the association of drug use with IQ was higher in women than in men. There is not a lot of follow-up to look deeper into the association, though.

Unfortunately the website you used did not cite the origin of the claim. As such it is not terribly useful. A quick look at drug use and IQ does not yield obvious literature in that regard, other than a report that claimed declining IQ with increasing cannabis use (though the effect looks weak on first sight). Unless you can find the actual source (i.e. an actual study) I would treat the assumption with a lot of caution.

What is the expected RT and have you tried a targeted scan for your mass?

! Moderator Note A hijack was hidden. BillNye123, you have been warned not to hijack.

For live cell imaging tag-based covalent (self-) labeling is quite useful. There are range out there, including SNAP and Clip.

To pre-empt comment regarding the internationality of the data, there is also the US public policy mood indicator. That being said, at the voting booth, party affiliation often trumps personal convictions.

There are a couple of wrong assumptions regarding genomic differences, but before that, a basic mistake is that your calculation assumes a genomic transition from human to chimpanzee DNA. However, the distance that you should calculate is that from either of them to their common ancestor, which diverged ca. 6 MYA ago. Another fundamental issue is that genome re-arrangements are not based on single nucleotide exchanges alone. Quite a lot of larger scale changes are based on duplications as well as deletions, predominantly in intergenetic regions. You will note that the genome size is actually different and if you align the whole genomes of the two species you will find sizeable gaps in either of them. So depending on how you actually count those gaps (and/or perform the alignment) you will find similarities between human and chimpanzees as low as ca. 80%. If we focus on actual genes, that shoots up close to 99%.

Well so does everyone else. Politics is pandering to a large degree. Pandering to a the majority is sometimes not recognized as such. That is fair, though I would say it depends on what level the criticisms are. E.g. if her politics against African Americans are worthy of criticism (I am not really certain about her record) it could be leveraged legitimately. If the criticism is aimed to demonstrate that she is somehow not American (can you imagine- a Canadian even...?) that reeks of something else. So you think it would be fair to implement and maintain policies that negatively affect certain people? Or divert funds away from them for political gain? You see, it is not about that certain folks are overtly racist and implement anti-black strategies that we need to worry about. It is about having biased views that can influence policies in perhaps unintended but really harrowing ways. I have met plenty of well-meaning and empathic folks but even they can have misinformed views. For example growing up in the 80s I have met quite a few folks who one would consider progressive, but were under the assumption that blacks only turn to criminality because they cannot help it, after all it is their higher testosterone level. They did not think that black folks were bad persons, they just could not help it. So they would support something like stricter policing and re-education to counteract their unfavourable biological background. None of the steps involved were borne of malice but just by thinking that the bad outcomes (folks in Europe had a certain opinion about "black ghettos" back then) require addressing in an ultimately fatal way. A similar though was behind the residential schools in Canada and many colonial and colonial-style policies. Only recent research has helped showing a clearer picture of what these policies and thought processes lead to. While public discussion especially in North America, and now also slowly in Europe (though much slower in certain areas) have shifted away from that thinking, you will find it still quite prevalent especially in older folks. Much of the discussion in the US right now is about rectifying these things instead of ignoring them further. But note that Europe has a similar issue, albeit with quite different flavours. Immigrants were seen as failures and underclass, which initially included many Europeans which are not feasibly or desirably integrated into society. Of course the issue is here different, as African Americans have been part of the society (and literally built it with their hands) since the country was formed. But going back to the same playing field: I have worked with some health-related data and one pervasive issue with US data sets is that even when accounting for economic status almost every time African American appear as outlier (in a negative way). This is scary as it indicates a serious public health problem. Even with the ongoing opioid and suicide epidemic, which affects especially white men, their dip is still minor compared to the enormous gap within the African American community. Infant death, child birth death, chronic disease, preventable complications are all higher. However, targeted health initiatives specifically for these communities have started to decrease this gap (again, while still accounting for economic differences). An untargeted poverty approach as conducted in the past would most likely had little effect.

Here is the thing, as long as the experiences can be delineated that harshly along racial lines, it will matter. There are differences in the experience between new African immigrants (who have much better jobs and experiences) than old African American families. Historically that was attributed due to their failings or race. It has become apparent however, that there are a lot of mechanisms that specifically kept them in poverty. Even worse, even seemingly race-free legislation resulted in African American communities being targeted more harshly. So the worry is that if one continues without taking these things into account, certain rules, regulations and laws may further result in systemic inequality among racial lines. It is really only recently where this information has seeped from academic studies into political reality indicating that policy needs to have more fine grained approach. Ideally, it would go deeper than just race but that is generally down to the municipal level. For many the idea to create an even playground for everyone and pulling out folks from systemic poverty should not be controversial. However, the big pushback is the assumption is that if black folks are lifted, it ignores white folks. At the same time it has been shown that measures to address poverty so far have disproportionately helped white folks (as even poor white folks generally have access to more support or live in areas where more social mobility is more likely). So we have country where certain group of people have health outcomes and other objective measures that approach those of certain developing countries, which in turn is a negative for the whole society (in terms of public health, crime rates etc.). So even from an egoistic viewpoint it does make sense to address the issues. That being said, it is of course never quite clear what works and what does not. And some measures (again) have resulted in devastating effects (such as the response to the crack epidemic). The idea to take race into account is effectively short hand for recognizing these disparities which cannot effectively be targeted by a "neutral" approach. But since that is very controversial in a certain crowd, it results in massive (and in my mind disproportionate) backlash. To answer your question, I think most of the issues would end once folks get on even footings. There will always be something, but it would fade more into the background and mesh with other "standard" animosities.

Why should she? After all, it is a right-wing talking point that: After she shared her story regarding busing in Berkeley. It is a clear attempt to discredit her. If that was only a comment on a random forum it would not matter, but it has become part of a twitter campaign.

The Spanish was indeed cringe-worthy. I feel that the post is unfortunately not really an attempt to be funny (other than the Taco bit) but rather trying to propagate a number of right wing talking points. Especially the bit about Harrris (which was apparently further spread by a network of bot accounts) insinuating that she is not black enough enough and the bit about Muslims. A number of outlets have mentioned that this reeks of another constructed birtherism moment (i.e. when originally they asserted that Obama was not American). TBF the rest seem just regular cheap shots by someone who is not a good comedy writer (I mean, other folks made plenty of fun about the debate, but then those were professionals).

I think OP had (among other things) trouble with distinguishing between DNA and genes (the latter being the part of the DNA that are responsible for the production of RNA and ultimately proteins). Quite a bit is down to semantics to various degrees. The DNA does not proximately control all of these processes. However, from an information perspective, the DNA does integrate cellular signals (via regulatory networks formed by proteins and metabolites) and modulates cellular function by adjusting protein levels according to this information. As such it is accurate to say that ultimately control is exerted via the DNA. However, I am not sure how useful such a view is (except for providing simple narratives for students). That being said the OP makes the whole simplification even worse by adding woo to the mix.

Inexplicably I have actually seen the US confederate flag in Alberta, which is odd to say the least. However with regard to the flag in question, there are some links to the identarian movement and some white supremacists group, mostly to signal a link to the good old days of American history. It is much more obscure than the confederate flag and with less symbolism, but outside of that context the flag is pretty much not in use, which makes it as a sticker on a mass product a but iffy. Now whether this controversy actually elevates it as a symbol to those folks is a different story.

! Moderator Note Closed due to the lack of constructive discussion plus a topic that could run afoul of our policy regarding hazardous devices (pending moderator review).

Nitpicks incoming: Note that not all viruses are RNA viruses. Also, prions are spelled with an "i" and they do not cause misfolding in random proteins, but rather if they are misfolded a certain way, they then can result in conformational changes in other prions, creating a snowball effect of these types of proteins. However, they have no means of replication as the prions to be misfolded have to to be present to begin with. That being said, I agree that we have pretty much a post hoc definition of life, based on shared characteristics we observe in entities that we consider to be life forms. But for for the topic in this thread I think this has very little impact as such. As ultimately we are asking how a specific type of life (the ones on Earth with the shared history pointing to a singular origin).

The thread went into the direction as JC asked why some Dems were running on an extreme left platform. Some, including myself have explained that many if not most are essentially mainstream positions rather than extreme, which is why they are so common among the candidates. That explanation was mostly ignored which prompted me to ask which of the candidate's policy would be considered extreme. This was especially puzzling as JC's favourite, Yang, is one of the more progressive candidates (e.g. advocating for MD only decision of abortion, UBI, medicare for all) with clear social democratic messages (and just btw. how the heck did he manage to blow the core question of his central platform on live TV?). Thus, in order to further a discussion I believe a clear positioning would be helpful to assess what we are talking about. Without any clarification everyone would just write in their own code. This is especially true as binary positioning within the political system is not terribly helpful. And while it is true that it would be more important to convey that to American voters, I would add that we are still a discussion forum and not a political advocacy forum. As such discussing matters regardless of the nationality of the participants. Seeing how many followers Williamson has I wonder what the relevance of twitter followers is. I really hope they amount to little (also I would have thought that someone with a tech background would do better, but then I am apparently wrong on a lot of things).

Which basically means that folks can be convinced not to vote too easily (presumably). The issue of modest propositions is that it may not shore enough enthusiasm. One early analysis indicated the loss of white working-class voters. For the most part there are two major areas which targets this group of voters. One, that was tapped in successfully by the Trump campaign is racial resentment. The Dems are not going to use that. The other are economic in nature (though in the last election they were far weaker than expected). These are addressed via taxation schedules and healthcare access. There is also an effort to target younger voters (UBI, free college, climate change). There is a lot to say specifically to the electoral system but my guess is that the aim here is to shore enough support to overcome that specific obstacle (which basically requires a pretty much overwhelming victory rather than a safe one). After all, Clinton's victory should have been a safe one.

Indeed. And the campaign was a supremely moderate one and we see the outcome. I.e. riding the moderate lane is insufficient to shore up the additional votes needed to get the electoral vote. It appears that most Dems seem to think that at least so they campaign on what the majority wants rather than what appears to be more moderate. That is not how you can read the data. It shows that the democratic platform as a whole is perceived as mainstream. Not just the moderate proportion of the democratic platform. That being said, could you list what you precisely understand to be far left positions?

Ultimately the split is (with a number of exceptions) less about the policy goals but more along party affiliation and rhetoric. It should also be noted that as a whole, the Democratic positions are less, well disingenuous. I mean, single-payer or medicare for all, are indeed mechanisms that would lead to universal coverage. Challenges may be cost though in the long run may be cheaper. The other position is basically dismantling ACA and ...magic? Suddenly everyone is covered?

True. To be fair though, the US primary system is ... weird. That being said, I think the in the first debate there was an overall more solid performance from all involved. There are not many polls out yet but generally speaking Harris, Castro, Booker and especially Warren performed well.

I cannot say what specifically their strategy is, of course. However, there is some speculation that against a populist such as Trump, a moderate candidate (such as Clinton was) could backfire. Now obviously Clinton got more votes, but was due to the electoral system that just was not enough. In swing states they need to either mobilize non-voters or grab the swing voters. And in that regard, certain left wing propositions (such as access to health care, taxing rich, UBI, climate change) are things that can sway the undecided voters (rather typically, Reps are going to vote for their candidate and Dems for theirs). I think what you believe is that the majority of undecided voters neatly line up in the middle of the positions of the respective party. I believe we discussed this earlier, but the position of the independent voters is actually quite different. In many questions they line up far to the left of the public positions of the party. For example, universal health care in one form or another is actually supported by up to 70% of the population, for example. When asked more carefully and specifically invoking federal involvement there still a solid 60% in favour. I.e. it is only far left from the view of the political party. But from the population view point it is solid majority.Likewise higher taxes on the rich, are (predictably) quite favoured by the population (again, with support of 60% or higher of the population). In other words, you should not confuse moderate political propositions (that may find support among the politicians) with the view the population holds on certain questions. Thus, adding these elements to their platform is a good way to increase their voter base, whereas when aiming straight at moderate propositions, basically misses them entirely and risk losing out. Note that even the Reps campaigned on these left agendas (ensuring everyone gets health care; get money out of politics) but their actual proposition of course have the opposite effects (such as actually reducing access to health care). It is up to the voters to decide whether they believe the simple "everybody will be take care of" promise while health care access is actually been slashed (potentially one of the reasons why Reps lost the House) or whether they buy into a "left" platform that actually tries to deliver it.

Oh sure, but as you know in the silly electoral system the distribution counts. I.e. Democrat candidates have to shore up a higher turnout than their Rep counterparts.

Reminds me of how well Jeb performed against Trump. Or the narrative that Clinton was not charismatic enough.

Or seizures.