CharonY

I afraid that this is the wrong forum, then. We are interested in scientific discussions and not in baseless speculations.

There were a number of developments before humans were able to create settlements none of which requiring magic of any sorts.

I do not follow and I never said "need". Humans are more adaptable in devising strategies than most other species, if that is what you mean.

Extinctions have happened all the time. In fact, most species that have existed at any time point on Earth have become extinct.

There would be no anthropogenic pollution- by definition. However, large-scale changes have and will continue to happen, including extinction. The major difference is in fact the time frame, which is only possible due to industrialization. Also, note that that the split between chimpanzees and humans occurred more than 6 million years ago. So a few centuries is nothing. So no, we are not aliens. We are not even the only animals that change their environment for their purposes. As mentioned, time and scale are the main differences.

It cannot be a true allergy (as in an immunogenic response) as water is the literal matrix in which biochemical reactions occur.

That does not make a lot of sense. Photorespiration is predominantly the action of Rubisco where it uses O2 and produces CO2, thus undoing the fixation of the Calvin cycle. C4 is an adaptation to reduce this loss and therefore increase fixation with the C4 cycle.

Which one? There are many steps and some variation...

Not at all. Up to 23 the economy was struggling, however following reforms under Stresemann (Schacht should also be mentioned in the context) the economic situation improved. While one could argue how much it recovered, the situation was very much improved in many metrics (stop of hyperinflation, increasing wages, increased production, increased exports etc.). The economic growth during that time coincided with continuation of reparation payments (under a new plan) and the overall growth (fueled in part by US loans) exceeded those of France, for example. At the same time housing and education programs and other welfare programs were initiated. Prior to the crash, homlessness was reduced by more than half. In other words, things were getting way better before the NSDAP got hold of power. In fact in the 1928 federal election the NSDAP fell below 3% in the votes. So clearly, it is not possible to draw a direct line from the hyperinflation years to the success of the NSDAP following the financial crash. I think the issue is that many folks conflate the hyperinflation times with the rise of the NSDAP and are unaware of the development in-between. My suspicion is that it is because it makes such a simple, compelling story, whereas the reality was far more complex. Also, the struggle up to that time were not exclusively or even predominantly due to reparations (much of which was not paid anyway). The impact of the Treaty of Versailles has been taken apart by historians quite a bit. It was propagated as early as in 1919 (Keynes) but since then several differing viewpoints developed. One is that Germany could have actually honored the reparations (and again, note that they did not) but wanted to make a show out of their inability to pay in order to get a better deal. Documents to this extent are part of regular history curricula including shelving of the autobahn system, as folks were worried that the allies would want to see reparations paid when it becomes obvious that Germany could afford such infrastructure projects. According to some historians, this strategy at least in part has added to the hyperinflation following the war. There is a lot (and I mean a lot) of discussion out there but yes, modern historians (which basically means after the 60s or so) have done some revisionism of the prevailing historiography, but much of it is due to the integration of more information that became available and with increasing distance to the actual events. I will say that I am not knowledgeable enough in the subject to unequivocally claim a particular historic consensus. I will say that the impact of the reparations are not quite as trivial or obvious as some make it to be.

I disagree with that sentiment to some degree. While it is true that the loss of WWI resulted in a rise in resentment, it was not specifically used by the NSDAP. The myths around the loss of WWI (which typically included anti-Semitic propaganda) were heavily used by pretty much all rcenter- right-wing groups and parties as well as to some lesser degree by left groups (though less consistently). What I am saying is that it was not just a poor, traumatized population that got brainwashed. The sentiments were there (rather strongly even) and these sentiments were leveraged by various groups, including the NSDAP. Populism is not brainwashing. It is supporting what folks think/feel in the first place. Even from a historic timeline, the post-WWI brainwashing scenario is a bit of a myth (as well as the often repeated myths surrounding the treaty of Versailles). After all, before the rise of the NSDAP the Weimar Republic has gone through a phase of relative financial stability. If one wants to fault economic development, it is not so much the immediate post-WWI time, but rather the Wall Street Crash of '29 that gave them a boost. In fact, in the years preceding the crash, folks like Gustav Stresemann has rebuilt much of Germany's international reputation and renegotiated reparations. Internally, the economy was in decent shape, hyperinflation was stopped, wages were rising and there was strong pro-Weimar support in the '28 elections. However, it is again important to note that the KPD (communist party) was also on the rise following the crash, which prompted the other right-wing parties to support the NSDAP as a counter balance. One could argue rather than dazzling everyone with a great and shiny ideology (which had relatively little traction as a whole), one big issue was that the ideology became mainstream and socially accepted, due to the support of the established groups. That, together with anti-democratic sentiments following the crash were ultimately elements that propelled the NSDAP to prominence, rather the events immediately post-WWI.

The conflicts leading up to the rise of Hitler were anything but that. It was a time of clashing ideologies and one of the thing that the establishment feared was the rise of communists movements, especially after the Russian revolution. There more things, but much of it was related to the rise of new social ideas, and the eventual clashes arising from them. Hitler's view were anything but fringe and it is not that folks just let it happen. Support was given from conservative circles for many reasons, but one of them was their ability to gain control over workers and an attempt to diminish communist parties. It was also not the exploitation of a helpless system. It was something that at the core folks sympathized with, even if there were unsavory elements. And it should be noted that these views were not unique to Germany and the war was not predominantly a rebuke of the repugnant ideology but rather fueled by power political considerations. An as we can see, the ideology was never eradicated, just removed from power. Though there are ways where it begins creeping back. This time around packaged in more digestible packaging, but with the same turd inside.

Sorry, barring an entirely new breakthrough in our understanding of higher level organization in detail, you are more likely to have undesired effects, I am afraid.

Functional changes require integration on many levels in different places (cells, tissue, limbs, brain etc.). To do that deliberately from the bottom up is impossible with our current knowledge. Think fine tuning a PC with a sledgehammer and a chisel as the main tools.

I think it is more a discrepancy between textbooks, which keeps things simple and the ongoing research. While mine is only peripherally related to it, we found plenty of evidence for extended crosstalk, which basically surprises no one in the field.

I am a bit confused here: So if using the background signal as threshold would eliminate your signal, it basically means that your signal is not above your background. Or to but it differently, your signal to noise ratio is too low. So how do you know that it is actually a weak signal and not just background? The other relevant question is whether your background noise is uniform in your image.

! Moderator Note There have been a lot of assertions that the phenomenon described in this thread is somewhat unusual. As they all have been very speculative the thread is moved. Going forward I request that folks put a bit more thought and reading into it and contrast it with related effects, e.g. due to meditation/yoga/exercise/whatnot before claiming strange superpowers. See the sticky in the thread for general guidelines.

For the most part such discussions are a bit meaningless or perhaps, are only meaningful in very specific contexts. For example, the view of C4 as a downgrade does not make a lot of sense in most contexts. For starters, C4 is a newer development, records place it ca. 24-35 million years ago. However, it is also incredibly divergent and arose more than 40 times in over a dozen families of angiosperms. Many (predominantly dicots) were rather recent additions (< 5 million years). So from a historic sense it is simply an adaptation to low CO2 conditions (as Rubisco also uses O2 and thereby at low CO2 levels carbon fixation efficiency is low). A second aspect is that C4 pathway is not a singular pathway, rather it represents a range of adaptations, including structural ones that use a series of enzymes to concentrate CO2 locally to enhance the actions of Rubisco. To this end there are also structural changes to form the Rubisco-and CO2-rich compartment. However, the net fixation of CO2 still depends on the same enzyme as C3 photosynthesis (i.e. Rubisco). So it cannot evolve easily as it really needs established C3 mechanisms as basis. I think it is better to think it is a modification to deal with increasing O2 concentrations (in geological terms), essentially by adding a layer on top of the basic C3 pathways, which are fundamentally integrated into plant metabolism. If you really wanted to create a hierarchy one would generally consider C4 photosynthesis as more complex, not because it evolved later, but rather due to the added functional and structural layers. Note that this is based on introductory level of knowledge, I am not a plant researcher (though have some familiarity with metabolic pathways and their consequences as a whole).

There were a lot, and despite the efforts of denazification of Germany quite a few become members of the new democratic order. Ultimately, only a handful were convicted and many that were deemed to be collaborators were allowed to pursue careers in politics, police and so on. Perhaps around 1% of all cases resulted in ban from public offices or worse punishments. Not entirely sure what your point is here, to be honest as no one lost their citizenship in the process. In fact, due to ius sanguinis there were quite a few folks from the former Soviet Union with German ancestry who were allowed to return to Germany and assume citizenship.

That is not the typical definition of matriarchy. The latter defines a system where structurally the power (can be socially or politically) is held by women. For women to be able to achieve power. In the Western world (but also historically in most other places) current systems were borne or developed from patriarchic systems though some structural elements (but not all) have eroded, it is still very much so in practice.

I was the one closing the thread and considering the subject it appeared to me a rather obvious decision. The reasoning being rather precisely what StringJunky and rangerx mentioned. While OP may have been harmless, the revival of the thread could lead to problematic discussions and paired with the increased sensitivity of the topic, there is little good to gain from it. Moreover, an anonymous site is not a good place to actually teach safety procedures. At best we can make folks aware of issues (which includes discouraging folks from making explosives) and direct them to local safety officers. The reason is precisely the same as for medical advice, they may be well intended (and even correct) but without accountability it should not be given.

! Moderator Note Agreed. No boom with your pee .

In a similar case, Ireland decided to go a different way, though a major difference is that the person in question has single citizenship from the looks of it. Edit: awesome post, iNow.

Well, consider the fact that most cells do not possess mitochondria, for starters.

No, it is about connecting people and their friends. And then their data without asking.

Yes, the difference is really between producing one (or even few) proteins vs trying to create a functioning pathway without fatally disturbing existing ones (not to mention the prerequisite understanding of either). Also it is good that folks generally do not have access to pathogens. That would be a very, very, very bad idea.