CharonY

! Moderator Note Thread is locked. Please do not bring up topics from a locked thread. As already mentioned, the onus is on you to learn about physics. If it appears to be magic to you, it may be be a good idea to read up more, before complaining about it.

That is a fair point, too. The big issue here is that there are not a lot of good ways to properly test the impact of peer-review and perhaps as a consequence there are a lot of different models out there in the publishing world. So far, single-blinded is the most prevalent one, but others have been around and there is no conclusive evidence (to my knowledge) that any is superior to the others. Editorial preferences have a big impact on how peer-review is evaluated and there are also a lot of field-specific differences. That being said, OP mentioned a lot of points that quite a lot of researchers will find themselves in agreement to, either as author or as reviewer. A couple of points perhaps to the suggestion, as these are more difficult than the criticisms. It has not been shown that open reviews are inherently better. It does seem that in some cases referees are a bit "nicer", which does not inherently lead to better quality of papers. Ideally, reviewers should help improving quality of publications rather than doing handwavy suggestions or only demand more work. However, that often takes more time commitment than one has as a reviewer. A reviewers guide is provided for pretty much all journals I have published in (in different disciplines). Most reviewers provide references, if not one can attack that in a rebuttal (which e.g. is usually not available for grant reviews). Well, I doubt the authority bias plays a role here. However, quite a few folks I know accept all review request to bolster their CV but let a postdoc (or even just a grad student) have a first read. In my mind this should not happen. I do not necessarily disagree, however depending on topic finding suitable reviewers can be difficult enough.

! Moderator Note Considering that OP tries to deduce everything using guesswork and assumptions rather than, say, mainstream psychology, this thread is moved to speculations. Please note the rules in posting in this section.

OP makes good points. I'd like to add that for grant reviews the situation is even worse. During grant season panels have often to look easily through dozens or more applications. They have to evaluate things that are only proposed. There is generally no means for a discussion or rebuttal between applicant and reviewer. Reviewers can be from the wrong field or in some cases even direct competitors for the same pool of money.

So, to muddy the waters a bit, the British military (esp. the deputy commander of the US-led coalition forces Chris Ghika) said that there was no increased thread from Iranian-backed forces. However, British and US Intelligence seem to agree that there is a heightened risk. It could be down to differences how the different groups assess risk. However, Trump has backpaddled a bit and seem to be less enthusiastic about an attack as parts of his administration. That in turn is indicative of some level of infighting with no shared message, which makes it virtually impossible to see the overall strategy, should one exist.

In all honesty, who knows? The administration's behaviour is so detached from any fact-based frameworks that it becomes impossible to ascertain any strategy in anything. It could be a planned distraction. It could be something he saw on Fox and now thinks it's real. There could be the assumption that straight threatening (without counterpoint) is actually a viable foreign policy. There have been so many times were Trump and his administration are contradicting each other (and then claim the opposite) the overall strategy seems to be to create as much smoke as possible to cover up the fire. I give it a good chance that they have no idea what they want, either (with each faction having their own, probably uninformed ideas).

That is not the same. Most of the revenue, especially if only looking at the private sector are connected to satellites and similar services. Space colonization has no sustainable revenue generating stream that I am aware of. There are side benefits as some (typically public funded) projects may generate IPs that, in turn can result in revenues. The main customer are still governments, though.

All kowtow to iNow!

... why?

Well, learned something today.

I may be misunderstanding things, but the NYT article claims that: Together with his payments to lenders I assumed that this would indicate personal liability of sorts, but perhaps I am misunderstanding some of the mechanics of it.

He has not declared personal bankruptcy. However, according to the NYT article his companies were set up as partnerships. As mentioned, he had to turn over personal assets, including his yacht, stocks etc. to pay off lenders. (He did manage to avoid personal bankruptcy seemingly by various windfalls that are somewhat unexplainable, but that may be a separate question). But even before the NYT report came out, it was known that Trump had to sell off personal assets as part of the agreement with lenders which shows that he actually had to pay. I.e. the bankruptcy declarations were not a way to avoid personal liability (again, as the businesses were not set up as LLCs to begin with).

In addition the report indicated that assets were turned over to lenders prior to declaring bankruptcy, indicating that he was making substantial losses leading up to the various bankruptcies.

He does not release anything that he can get away with not releasing. Actually seeing his finances laid bare would reveal how much of his business is based on fraud and deception (remember how Trump faked to be someone else to praise himself to Forbes?). The major question is whether only his father bailed him out or also someone else.

It depends on the overall control of the system. Typically you'll find transcript levels to decline along the operon (again, for somewhat obvious reasons). However, posttranscriptional control can still yield stochiometric protein expression, if the system demands it. On the other hand there are ample examples where cells exploit non-stochiometric protein production by having elements that have to be more abundant at the start of an operon.

! Moderator Note Considering the narrow scope of the question provided by OP, it would be great to stay on-topic (though asking for clarification is fine, just try not to stray too far off). Thanks.

I am not sure if you read my earlier post. They have a strongly regimented diet. If they had hyperthyroidism, they would be too sick to compete. It is work to stay lean, not a condition.

Yep that was a typo on my account, thanks. I have edited my post accordingly.

Also for the record, Galileo was not killed, he died in a fever.

The connections are formed via stimulating signaling affecting dendritic (and axonal) growth. As Strange indicated, their expression is dynamic.

Please re-read it. I said anything "competitive goes right out of the window". This is because folks that have a significant calorie burn due to hypo hyperthyroidism are and feel really sick.

It should perhaps be noted that having publications can be seen as a positive, especially if otherwise there is not a lot of distinguishing features with one's peers.

Nope, you burn a lot of calories, but you also feel awful and in fact, especially after a prolonged time the patients often feel appetite loss (most likely connected to extreme fatigue). As a whole, the calorie burning aspect is not what is relevant for competitive eating. It is about how much you can cram into your stomach in a short amount of time. If you have hyperthyroidism you simply won't have the energy to compete in anything. Imagine the following: you got a tremor, tachycardia and palpitations just while your are sitting around. The fact that the muscles are feeling sore and you feel weak does not help, either. You are too tired and cannot sleep. Just getting up is hard, going to work is almost impossible. Does that sound like someone able to compete anywhere? Again the calorie intake plays almost no role in the competition itself and diet is the major aspect relevant to maintain shape. If your thyroid levels are high enough to burn sufficient above your regular level, you are too sick to compete.

There is no need for that and in fact, it is quite unlikely. Slightly elevated thryroid hormone levels do not increase baseline metabolism enough to make a significant difference. At levels where it does make a difference, you will experience rather nasty symptoms (elevated pulse, insomnia and so on) and doing anything competitive goes right out of the window. What those competitive eaters do is typically a combination of exercise and diet. After a competition they often resort to a extreme low calorie diet (water, protein, vitamins) in order to get back to a normal state. At the highest level there is a lot of similarity to bodybuilding (though stretching the stomach with fluid and fibers is an additional requirement).

Remember when we joked about the GOP hopefuls last year? I think reality is just taking all the jokes and runs them to the ground.