CharonY

Same here (minus Sopranos, have not watched that). In both cases the slow start meticulously paints a picture of the world that was vaguely familiar but had interesting undertones. I was more interested in the view of the society than the underlying mystery, at first. I think one of the first things that got me interested in the Expanse was the use of the Belter dialect, hinting that it would go deeper beyond the typical good society/ bad society tropes. In many ways the main protagonists are not that interesting, compared to the world building that is present in the series. Though it may actually feel more interesting because there is mostly explained indirectly.

Realistically in college you will learn why the goal in OP is likely not achievable via genetic manipulation (i.e. because of complexity as well as the disruption of essential processes).

I think the discussion is a bit misguided if one focuses on safe and unsafe groups and try to figure out how the job market is going to look from based on that. The reason is that disruptive technologies upset the job market and forces a re-arrangement of labour. In the short term it results in loss of jobs in the "unsafe" category. It implicitly assumes a zero sum game with a net loss in case of displacement. However, this is only true in the short run, where fast deployment of disruptive technologies cannot be absorbed by shifts in the labour market. We can understand part of this change in term of increase in productivity and we do not need to wait for the future to see the consequences. Most industrialized countries have suffered massive declines in manufacturing jobs, which the current administration likes to blame on trade deficits. In truth, manufacturing sectors have produced more over the last decade, but have lost jobs due to increased productivity (i.e. automation). While this resulted in short-term in losses in jobs, as a whole, the economy benefited from the increase in productivity and also forced reallocation of jobs to different sectors (in the long term, unemployment declined). Thus historically the disruptive effects of automation and technology has resulted in reshuffling of the workforce, but has not really created a decline in employment per se. Whether the future labour market can absorb the changes it would depend on whether new jobs are being created, the workforce is flexible enough to be reallocated (e.g. education, location) and the rate of existing jobs being displaced. That being said, there some issues that are most likely going to happen, which include the aforementioned short-term unemployment increase, but also increasing inequality. The squeeze is on low-income workers, which have also higher barriers to obtain skills that make them more flexible (and thus benefit from a shifting labour market). Another possibility is (e.g. by minimizing worker's rights and powers) higher productivity may not be associated with higher wages. That would exacerbate the inequality between wage income and capital income (the latter of which would benefit greatly from higher productivity).

From my viewpoint, which is heavily biased due to the fact that I started work with microbes, I would say that in itself it is impossible to make clear and universal delineations. That being said, it is not the same as to say that existing categories are not factual. There is certainly divergence that we can measure using different tools (which may yield different results), but since everything is on a continuum, we won't find an universal measure to be applicable for every species with the same level of usefulness. I.e. while we could arbitrarily say define a certain amount of genetic distance as the threshold, it will most likely lead to categorizations that are not terribly useful in certain cases. E.g. using thresholds developed for bacterial species would probably lump almost all primates into one group. Doing the reverse would fragment bacterial phylogeny to an incredibly useless degree. So while certain groupings can be debated, they are not merely based opinion, at least no in an arbitrary sense. But the justification of one categorization vs another may depend on viewpoint, or more specifically, the objective of a given study leading to certain categorization.

OK, this is quite a bit more difficult and actually quite advanced. I can only give a short answer which hopefully is not incorrect as I have to go from memory quite a bit, which is basically over ten years old at this point and may be out of date for the particular bacterium. What you need to distinguish are carbon assimilation processes (i.e. ways to get C into the cell to create biomass) and energy conservation/production processes, which generate energy (or allow energy production processes to work). I often found that even college students sometimes get confused at this step as there are some overlaps. Specifically fermentation, is a process that allows regeneration of NAD+, so that energy generating processes (such as glycolysis, which is also part of carbon metabolism) can occur. Now starting from the bottom, Methanosphaera (just as a reminder, genus and species are italicized by convention), utilizes acetate as a carbon source by converting it into acetyl-CoA and subsequently pyruvate. The second step, the conversion of Acetyl-coA is where CO2 is consumed (Acetyl-coA + CO2 + Fd(reduced) + H+ -> pyruvate + coA + Fd(ox) Now the important step here is that methanogenesis is not part of this particular pathway, and that its main purpose is carbon assimilation in the form of acetate. Methanognesis is part of the energy generation process, via oxidation of methanol which goes over several steps from methanol -> CH3-S-coM and from there (again multistep) addition of hydrogen to CH4. While we could discuss details of it, the key is that these are technically two processes. Where there are linked, however is the CH3-S-coM, as the carbon there is derived via multisteps from the pyruvate formed earlier by acetate assimiliation.

First, you need to find out which metabolites are responsible for the respective taste. Then a few years of work (depending on complexity) to figure which pathway produces these metabolites and how they genetically genetically connected and regulated. Then after a longer time you try to insert the pathways into your target organism. Depending on complexity it can be a lot of work or an incredible amount of work.

- carbohydrate is a broader term and glycans are a form of carbohydrate. - a significant part of the gut are low are devoid of oxygen. Even in areas that are somewhat oxygenated it is often consumed fairly quickly. - I assume you mean Bifidobacterium infantis? Yes they can ferment. That is a slightly difficult topic, but I would advise you to think about the function of fermentation (with a special focus of regeneration of NAD+). - fermentation is not necessarily linked to hydrogen production. Bifodobacterium is mostly known for lactic acid fermentation, for example. - I think you may be a bit confused regarding methanogens and methylotrophs. Perhaps it would help if you explain what you know of each group and how you think what the respective pathways are.

I think actually that it was always designed to work the way it does today. However, it was more about promoting a certain type of conservative worldview (which did clash with the reality early on) rather than protecting the presidency as it does now. That part is indeed new. However, the overall design was always to have a serious news arm to provide legitimacy and then surround it tightly with pundits for opinion dissemination. While they provided welcome ammunition for the GOP, they were not quite as intertwined with the administration. The reason for that is that probably for the first time they realized that they exert direct influence over the president himself, rather than indirectly, via their voter base.

The good news is that some of the folks involved in racket of poisoning kids and sick people have been sentenced. But the sad news is that folks promoting that crap are getting off free.

Yes.

Also not everyone's mother has a house.

I have occasionally seen the same. That being said, I think it is a bit the other way around. I.e. folks who wish a partner but do not consider the "partner" aspect tend also to be socially awkward. On the other hand there are socially inept folks who found partners, sometimes awkwardly but with common hobbies, unusual they may or may not be (such as pen & paper RPGs, for example). After all, social challenges are not uniquely a male problem. A mistake folks in the first category make is not understanding that persons from the opposite gender have as much depth as oneself and there is a lot of potential to find common interests. Those folks also a lot of presumptions, which makes it difficult to start a good interaction. OP does make the same mistake, the interaction is framed entirely one-sided in the ideation of the interaction as well as the example being provided. God, being surrounded by young folks just reminds oneself how things were...

It may seem like an odd concept, talk about things that folks (regardless of gender) are interested about? An engaging discussion is rarely about the talker. Also: "girls I like?". I think you misunderstand some aspects of fundamental human interactions here. A topic should be raised when the occasion arises and you can create a situation where folks you are communicating with engage and enjoy themselves. If you enjoy a topic, find folks that enjoy it. Independent of gender or whether you like them (the latter only realizes themselves later. I mean, how much can you like a person if you have not had really talked to them yet?). If you go in with the desire to present yourself in a kind of socially awkward courtship display using big, half-understood words... just don't.

I wonder about the lack of normalization. In some cases (e.g. sliding doors, perhaps tank design?) there may be simple mechanical reasons. Or perhaps different sides optimize the use of filling stations, which can be easier be used from the opposite sides? I wonder whether there are statistics on which cars have the tank on either side, or perhaps trucks vs sedans and so on...?

A) Wrong topic, that has nothing to do with evolution (though understandably the nomenclature here is a bit all over the place). B) No. Without precautions the freezing process itself leads to tissue degradation. One would need at least to avoid the formation of water crystal, which usually requires the involvement of some sort of antifreeze, but that, in turn, is usually fairly toxic itself. There are exceptions such as wood frogs who have cryprotectant mechanisms, but it goes beyond just dipping the in liquid nitrogen (which they don't survive). Also, if already dead, the freezing won't really help.

! Moderator Note Please read the rules regarding speculations. Speculation on this site is supposed to be supported by evidence or at least an established theoretical framework. It is not a place for a freewheeling exercise in fact-free nonsense. Locked.

Perhaps hindsight is 20/20, but there was always the issue about how the massive amount of information is being distributed. The idea of the internet was that of democratized information, but without curation, how would could one distinguish between crap and real info? Wiki was an effort in democratized curation though it was always thought to be vulnerable to agendas. Then social media came along and it served as a massive amplifier for misinformation. A basic issue is that emotional responses have far more impact than factual ones. This makes it a great space for fringe ideas to sprout and spread. Marketplace of ideas. Folks love cheap junk (incidentally the whole thing does make some aspects of the values of free speech more difficult).

I think there was always quite a market for that. I remember from my childhood folks discussing earnestly the benefits of homeopathy or "mental healing" of cancer. The real difference is that there are new platforms now that can amplify those views much further. On TV the relative relevance was determined by the time slot.

There are quite a few examples. Often they fall under the general term of mixed cultures or mixed fermentations. A sourdough is such an example as it generally involves entierely different species (typically yeast and lactic acid bacteria). Some craft breweries use mixed yeast strains to obtain differences in taste as another example. Here it is the same species, but using genetic variations to expand the metabolic profile. However, in large industrial processes pure cultures are preferred, if possible as they are allow for more controlled and reproducible results.

These question regarding souls and afterlife are not biology- moved.

Off-topic, but it is the first time I saw someone using beakers as stoppers (presumably to allow gas exchange without the expensive filter-stoppers?).

What is interesting from that testimony is that in contrast to the seemingly amateurish twitter outbursts, Trump does seem to be far more circumspect when it comes to potentially incriminating actions:

I think what JC meant is that by seemingly throwing Trump under the bus, Cohen tries to make himself more trustworthy and while actually hiding potentially new and perhaps more damning revelations. While this sounds like a cheap soap opera twist, it admittedly seems to be the theme of this administration.

I think the defamation laws in the US require the demonstration of harm and actual malice (as they are public figures). I think demonstrating harm is a bit difficult in that regard.

What you are missing is that CSIS agents have violated Khardr's rights in various aspects. The Security Intelligence Committee highlights several of these, including the fact that they were obligated to take several aspects into account before deciding to conduct the interview. These include the fact that Khadr was a youth at that time, the fact that there were allegations of abuse in Guantanamo bay. I.e. it remains the fact that according to Canadian Law, CSIS has to operate within the framework of human rights, even when operating under intelligence operations. Since CSIS failed to act that way. As a whole the Canadian government denied Omar, a Canadian citizen, the right to due process. There was no extradition, process and the trial conducted by the Americans were highly suspect. According to the Charter, the Canadian government should not have let a Canadian to be tortured by the Americans (or "dispense justice" as you call it). Note that sleep deprivation and other torture preceeded the interrogation and CSIS were aware of it. In addition, when Canadian officials interrogated him, he should have had legal representation (again, he was a youth). So again, Canada messed up by not following their own rules. With regard to OP, it also really depends on the legal situation, which, on a cursory view does not seem to be quite settled. After all, if the government can suspend due process only by labeling someone a terrorist, we are going to be in deep trouble.