CharonY

Yes, but that is not what was proposed. OP speculated that DNA damage favours child birth at young age. Tbf, the statement in OP was also slightly confusing, i.e. that folks are able to produce offspring once puberty hits. That, of course is the definition of puberty, so I take that OP meant "at a relatively young age" or before "full maturity". What I was hoping to achieve is to direct OP to a more careful framing of the thought. Specifically the testable aspect would be whether there is evidence that children of teenage parents are less likely to have health effects that can be traced back to DNA damage than adult folks. The complicating factor in health outcomes is that in modern societies, teenage pregnancies are more common when other factors that may adversely affect health are also present, including socioeconomic status (especially in the US among Western countries). But to make a long story short, there is only relatively weak evidence for increased risk past 30, which becomes more apparent hitting ~35. Between 15-20 there are no reliably detectable effects.

Ooooh I know. Since you are from the Netherlands, I am sure you have heard about the the rivalries regarding the various German dialects (and traditionally the outgroup is made fun of as being fake or drunk German, whichever it is). I like to make fun of it, especially at parties because, well, I do not look German at all but am a native speaker and used to have the ability to somewhat convincingly mimic a number of dialects. It is terrific fun to see people start to take offense if someone makes fun of certain dialects and then get visibly confused when they see me. But of course, the subsequent peace offering is beer and then we all make fun of Frisians (sometimes) or folks from Saxony (all the time).

Thoughts that are untestable are usually not conducive for getting insights.

I think the statement as quoted from the Muller report is a careful framing of their finding. The issue as iNow pointed out is that without the context of a fuller report the summary is open to interpretation. E.g. the mentioning of lack of exoneration could mean what you mentioned. Or the juxtaposition in the summary maybe a consequence of how Barr created the summary. What is certain is that there is certainly not enough meat to for criminal persecution. Though whether that is more an acquittal or an exoneration would highly depend on the overall substance of the report.

I think a coffee shop is somewhat safer than some of the seedier bars. But then this is such a common situation (or used to be) that I doubt much would come from it, besides more beer (incidentally, that is how Dutch was developed as a language).

I was wondering about that, the Netherlands were much flatter in my memory. Assuming still being in Europe it looks much more like a different country which speaks fake German (among other things) ;p

The issue with such predictions is that obviously we do not have a real idea on what would be possible. Subcellular regeneration on that scale would be akin to immortality for example, so not sure how far one would want to expand the scope of OP. Actually very few larger animals can do that. The water bear is a tiny organism, and certain frogs are a different example. But after that there are not a lot who are known to survive prolonged freezing time. Not so. Development is highly dependent on environmental cues, both pre- and post-natal. The genetic information is expressed dynamically, depending on the situation it finds itself in (which is the role of regulatory circuits).

I would not try to derive it from such individual basic principles. More often than not, you will have wild speculations that are difficult to test, especially as humans have a wide window of procreation. You could think about in terms of a simple optimization, i.e. having the broadest window of opportunity whilst still having a sufficiently high survival rate to be competitive.

Depends quite a bit on the industry you are interested in. A problem that many fresh graduates have is that their resumes almost all look fairly identical. An important aspect is to highlight evidence for transferable and applicable skills rather than using the kitchen sink approach.

Not quite, or at least a grey zone. The quote was While open to some level of interpretation, it stops before actually stating that there was no evidence. Just insufficient to establish a conspiracy. I.e. it would be closer to an acquittal than an actual exoneration, though without details it is not clear what is meant. OTOH I would be surprised if the choice of word was not carefully crafted.

It clears the ethical issues, but not necessarily the environmental ones, at least not until someone figures out a more energy efficient way to produce it.

The crux is that there are convenient answers and responses to black on black crimes, including draconian measures. White issues are handled far more carefully, traditionally (other examples include how addiction is handled for each community). Now that folks ask for a similar recognition and handling for black communities some folks cry PC this and sjw that. If folks mention that this is disruptive or inaccurate, one gets accused of playing the race card or excuses it that some folks allegedly silence other folks by calling them racist. IOW there is a double standard at play and even acknowledging that seems to be troublesome.

Nope. I say that this is part of the parcel. He can condemn, or better make fun of PC culture (as he does). It is his job. And in all actuality I do think that he is using that as a shtick, he is quite aware of how to navigate it. I would just find it surprising if a stand up comedian was genuinely offended by folks taking offense by their routine. On the one hand it is only a routine, of course. But on the other hand for many comedians finding the cutting edge of society is their thing and they push buttons. That is how some have made a name (like Pryor or Carlin). But rather obviously if you do that, there will always be folks who do not like it, regardless the topic. You could make a routine about gun violence, and if do it right you could offend both 2nd amendment folks, liberals and (perhaps the worst target), gun victims. It is just a consequence one has to accept when one works on this type of routines. Jim Jefferies has discussed quite a bit how you pull off offensive bits but come off terribly if you don't. I.e. there is a certain acceptance that folks would not like, and it is not a PC thing. It is that society always had several lines that certain folks find unacceptable. PC is just a convenient excuse to accuse others of.

Here is a thing that I find silly. Comedians often push the envelope of what is considered socially acceptable. In some ways, it is their job. And it was always a risk that they risk backlash, be it making fun of certain people, use of obscenities and so on. As long as authorities are not involved (which happened far more in the past than nowadays) I am actually surprised that comedians have a problem with it. After all it is somewhat of an expected element of their job. Really? So explain to me how it was significantly worse than the other contestants in the area where it won, please? And I wonder whether you think that all the other winners have clearly won with BP as the sole exception? That being said, I am glad it did not win best movie (though the one that won was almost as disappointing). BP had good bones and the world building was the single most interesting aspect (though I did not like it at first, it got me thinking after a little bit). Perhaps to avoid further confrontation, my overall point is the double standard. Crap traditional (aka non-minority dominated) movies win and it is just a misjudgement. Crap minority movies win, and suddenly it must be a PC conspiracy.

That is indeed amusing to me. So a movie with predominantly black actors gets gets best Music Sore , Costume Design and Production Design and your first thought is that conflate it with political correctness? I do think that this perception is part of the problem.

Without reading the article, it seems like a rather trivial observation, though (hopefully) clad in proper math. But considering how big our knowledge gaps are, I do wonder whether their models are fundamentally useful.

Assuming for now that this statement is true, how do you think should engagement be other than educating folks regarding the reasons? Such as the vilification of black folks, increased incarceration for similar or lesser crimes etc.? In effect what you describe is a popular stereotype-based narrative which requires some deeper analysis to understand. However, barely anyone proceeds beyond that first step (which typically is the erroneous assumption of a deadbeat father) and puts the blame on the disadvantaged community. So, how do you think should one meaningfully engage this complex situation? Specifically, how do we address the imbalance of perceptions and power? I.e. we have strong opinions on the failures of the black community and have no trouble implementing policies with, as we know now, rather devastating effects. On the other hand, if we want to address these issues we have to carefully engage, probably everyone but the black community (because they probably have a better insight on how the system is biased against them), as the "average" American is apparently deeply misinformed. The issue with that, of course, is that African American communities again are on the short end of the stick, and get told that their experiences do not count for much at least up until we can correct the misinformation. Meanwhile, of course right-wing media still beat the drum of black on black violence, drug abusers deadbeat dads and so on.

Nope, that is not how it works. The issue while it is contentious is that those statistics were used to implement policies that ultimately were found to solidify institutional racism, plunge predominantly (but not exclusively) black communities into deeper poverty and overall increased rather than decreased crime and incarceration rates. It is not the blanket issue of racism, rather because folks used those statistics carelessly (some would say that they knowingly weaponized it) with devastating results. With the knowledge of hindsight, most rational folks know that this issue needs contextualization for a discussion in good faith. There, however folks who still use this issue as a cudgel. Basically they are either misinformed or use it maliciously. Especially for policy makers the latter is a reasonable assumption as it would be their job to inform themselves before offering opinions, considering the power they hold. In other words, topics are not off-limits. But it requires careful investigation of the data and contextualization. Too often folks make simplified assumptions with far ranging devastating consequences. Equal standing going forward would be great. However, how would you do that considering that African Americans (but not so much for example recent immigrant Africans) have been systematically disenfranchised? Moreover, now that a conversation about it starts, folks are immediately afraid that it would turn into a race war (and it does fuel resentment and thereby the influence of the far right. Or rather, right wing groups have successfully stoked the resentments to make it part of regular policy). It do find it odd that there are calls acknowledge the worries of disenfranchised white voters, even if they are based on erroneous assumptions (e.g. immigrants taking their jobs). However, if black folks make some noise, everyone has to be calm down and pretend to be colour blind. Precisely that part I find rather disingenuous and I have a hard time seeing it anything else but belittling the issues plaguing certain minority communities. In many ways reparations are dead on arrival. The public support is pretty much nonexistent. However, I do find the discussion surrounding it, as well as the misunderstandings of the interconnection of race and class in the US system quite fascinating.

So, there is an interesting book by Metzl that just been out that explains to some degree how politicians manage to maintain these policies (though not necessarily why). The provocative title is "Dying by Whiteness" and the author argues that certain white folks are voting against government health programs, gun control and tax laws that would actually benefit them and actually hurting their own health in the process. The way politicians convince them to do so is by selling them as countermeasures against what they describe as criminals, lazy government moochers and Big government. In other words, they sell these measures as ways, to safeguard to position of white folks in today's society. Politicians tap into the fear that redistribution of resources may endanger to their privilege. A barely veiled implication that is sold heavily is that these social measures will take away from whites and benefit minorities. Metzl is a psychologist but has taken an epidemiological view on these policies and demonstrates that they actually hurt (poor) white folks as badly as the minorities against which those measures are supposed to be leveraged against. The interesting bit is that while policies were shaped by racial tension, the individuals do not necessarily have an explicit racist world view (and aspect that he highlighted in interviews), but politicians heavily tap into the fear of loss and the use of scapegoats. I think despite the issues Canada may have, there a bit less fear that someone undeserved may come up. Though I am pretty sure instances likes this where folks work against their interest may also be present (I guess that is something to read up on).

Where is the description about blistering of the throat after drinking? Your link only indicates lip swelling (which is actually unusual and seems to be a rather unique case). But it still a different surface than throats (which are mucous and have a lot of liquid on the surface). As you said, if that was a reaction to water , saliva would do the same. In fact in folks with aquagenic issues, saliva and tears elicit the same response as tap water on cutaneous surfaces. The most likely explanation is still that it was something else.

I hope you realize that this does not further your point? It was already mentioned that there are certain aquagenic reactions of the epidermis (including urticaria, pruritus and acrokertoderma as the most common forms, though all being rare). It is also unknown what the mechanisms but the response is cutaneous and not an allergy to water molecules itself. Rather obviously as if water was eliciting a response, adding things to it like in juice or milk would not suppress it as others have mentioned. I have found an open access article that you may want to read: Wang et al. 2017 (JDDG Volume15, Issue 6 Pages 602-608).

Especially as the part regarding the shock was not described at all. The rest (blisters due to tears and saliva) are typical for aquagenic urticaria. The inability to identify supporting sources with actual details makes further discussion rather futile.

In a different thread posters mentioned the excellent article "The case for Reparations" by Coates. Here, I urge everyone to read it. While there are points were folks are going to disagree, the overall article is excellent and provide important perspective. It is far more than only an argument, but rather an exquisite mix of historic and sociological characterization of a group interspersed with individual accounts. A summary would not do it proper justice, so again, I suggest folks to read it in whole. While not specifically this article, many of the contents and studies described within the article have over the years changed my mind on many things (including affirmative actions). Done? Good. Then I would like to provide a quote that seems to be at the essence of it The key issue here is not slavery in itself, but also the consequences of the time after that, Jim Crow, racist (intentional or not) policies and policing, economic sanctions (such as redlining) which resulted in black folks facing entirely different socioeconomic situations, even if they have the same income level as their peers. It is also about the acknowledgement of these injustices, too often they are brushed aside by focusing on the abolition of slavery or that everything was in the past. The effects are here and now and while there is increasing recognition of this fact (now by some of the US presidential candidates) it still faces severe backlash, especially from the right. This includes measures that try to directly address these issues (if imperfectly) such as affirmative action, that are seen as unfair to non-minorities (and often implying that black folks are given an unfair advantage). In many ways similar arguments, though with a different historic and sociological background could be made for the situation of indigenous people, who currently also suffer the consequences of historic actions and they too are often blamed for their current situation while all the mechanisms leading to that situation are often misunderstood or ignored. So for those interested, I think this is a good place to discuss the case for reparations or perhaps more generally, a reckoning between how a nations sees itself morally and how its action have affected folks in a targeted way (even if unintentionally).

In general complexity is difficult to assess. But if your description is accurate, it is especially incorrect. I would ask specifically for the pathways in question. And again photo respiration is generally not beneficial.

I' d request a case study before explaining anything.