CharonY

If at all possible (and depending on your paygrade and how much they want you) I would try to negotiate an option for obtaining a degree while you work for them. That increases your value for them and also shows some level of commitment to you from their side. If they do not fund it entirely, even making allowances for part-time study could be an option.

Partially. There is a slow rethinking going on in academia. While there have been attempts of rule of conducts in universities, academics tend to be on non-conformist side of things. But that has also resulted in quite a number of issues at universities which, especially with the age and power profile, can be highly problematic. Traditionally that was kept more or less under wraps but I do see a change coming. To put it bluntly the rule until recent was basically, don't, but if you do don't let anybody know. Now, folks are more willing to speak out which is amplified for academics you have a high public profile.

Let's talk about that for a bit. Having a degree a few years earlier makes basically no difference for competitiveness for a job. If anything, being too young could worry some people (whether that is fair or not is a different matter). You also mentioned that you are going for an online degree. I hope it is from an established university that also offers an online program (rather than an entire online university)? Even then, those degrees can have you at an disadvantage compared to peers. Regardless, you should inform yourself about admission, as GED are not perceived or even handled the same way as traditional GPAs for admission purposes. You mentioned that you cannot afford a physical college. You may want to look into scholarships. Technically, a GED does not hurt that much as it is associated with non-traditional paths (e.g. if one had to drop out due to financial reasons) but that does not apply in your case. In the end, what I see is that you make things rather more difficult for yourself with little tangible benefits (i.e. getting out faster is not giving you an competitive edge). The only reason where I see this path to be useful if either a) you immediately get accepted into (ideally prestigious and funded) a college program, or b) have a certain career path laid out that you can leverage. But from your description alone that seems to be uncertain. Edit: the only thing in question that I would see is whether the company you are looking to work for has a future career path for you and support you getting a college degree. Things that you keep in mind, are things like how likely is it that the company will keep you for the next 5-10 years, are there any advancement paths, what are hard limits in improving your position within the time period. A startup, for example would riskier than an established company. Certain positions internally are less stable than others etc.

And despite all that folks wonder why you did not finish your degree. GEDs come with a stigma and since without a college degree you are likely not competing on specialized skills, it means that you will compete with plenty of folks which do have it. Of these there will also be folks that have had part-time jobs with positive recommendations. From here it really looks like you are limiting your options with no obvious benefits. Also, if you consider college at a later point, it could make things harder.

I am eminently not qualified for that.

Alternative history and speculations are virtually the same thing. Events alone are not really historic sciences per se and biographies are a small specialization. The Schlieffenplan was an "Aufmarsch" (Deployment)- and not an operational plan. Van Moltke ran into operational and logistical challenges. The claim that von Moltke messed with a glorious plan costing certain victory was basically a myth or narrative created by German historians (and officers) to deflect blame. Only post WWII historians have started to revise that narrative, though it has stuck in high-school classes for a long time.

! Moderator Note I will reiterate swansont's note above, since it was missed. Even though this is in the Lounge, I'm going to request that first-time posters stay away. If you are joining just to advertise your YouTube Channel, your links will be removed. We are not here to advertise for you. IOW, you can link to other peoples' youtube channels. If you're new, we aren't going to bother verifying if there's a question about who owns it. We will just disappear the post

If you look at the error bars you'll note that the range for each group is fairly large. When folks write "significantly" it refers to a statistical test conducted on the data. In this case the means may looks somewhat different, but the data overlaps to such a degree that a test does not reveal a significance in the difference between the groups.

Native gels are more difficult to run starting from the need of knowing and maintaining charge of the target protein during prep, sensitivity to conformation changes and oligemerization as well as generally lower resolution. So usually you do not do it unless you need it. Moreover, antibodies typically only recognize certain epitopes and denaturing the proteins may actually make them more accessible.

! Moderator Note Posts discussing a history forum have been split as there is already a thread discussing it.

It is actually a tad complicated. The Breslin group has shown that a group with higher amylase concentration had lower blood glucose responses. They speculate that this is due an earlier insulin response leading to an attenuated blood sugar increase (The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 142, Issue 5, 1 May 2012, Pages 853–858). Other papers have indicated that lower amylase levels are associated with a number of metabolic syndromes and obesity. Though the mechanisms seem still to be unclear. So the data may support what the MD was saying (though I am not sure whether studies have been conducted specifically on diabetics), but the mechanisms are (to my knowledge) not resolved.

I think it boils down to why a case is heavier rather than just the weight. More importantly is how the content is suspended within the case to minimize impact damage. When dealing with delicate equipment, for example, it is often packed in foam coupled to a suspension system (i.e. shock isolation system). So in that case, a rigid container can be used as the kinetic energy is transferred and (hopefully) absorbed by the suspension system rather than by the outer case itself. That being said, many high-quality cases can be made with lightweight materials, provided it is properly shaped to have a high strength-to-weight ratio. Often, that is the difference between cheap cases and expensive ones, even if both use the same polymer. I realized that I did not remain in the confines of OP. In that above scenario the first answer is unknown as it depends on the material as well as its structure how much impact is delivered to the inside. However, for a number of reasons polymers rather than, e.g. a rigid metal is preferred as they can be designed to transfer less impact but still be reasonably strong. For the second question the real answer is that it depends on the and how cushioning it is installed. What you typically want is the cushioning to sway, not your instrument.

If I may wade in a bit here. Both of you are somewhat correct. RTS,S/AS01 is indeed a vaccine that is toward the end of the development pipeline. It is the only one to pass Phase III and next year it will be rolled out. It is distinctly different than how we consider standard vaccines, which includes efficacy (less than 40%). It is also limited to children and infants (so it could not be used for adults going on vacation, for example). The reason why it is being used at all, is essentially due to the massive risk of malaria, coupled with a complete lack of alternatives. I.e. one could consider it a an emergency vaccine of sorts. Also, it is only available within a pilot project in selected areas in Africa where Phase IV will be conducted.

Yes and no (though maybe I am misunderstanding your point, if so, apologies). There are now plenty of studies that show that even entirely randomized peptides (i.e. random amino acid sequences) can result in enzymatic (i.e. functional) activities. They tend to be weak but it shows that very simple structures are functional. Over time mechanisms such as selection can lead to improved activities, of course.

agreed. Since the topic was.. rather obscure to begin with I am going to lock this thread. ! Moderator Note Going forward, I suggest to give your threads a little bit more thought and perhaps a dash of coherence?

Well, yes. It has been pointed out that his behaviour was questionable for a variety of reasons. For most persons that would not have any consequences unless it becomes a pattern and HR is getting involved. And even then it has to be pretty bad, folks typically like to keep that contained. But the point is that he is a public person, with plenty of media presence. Folks in these positions traditionally have to at least project that they are good persons, otherwise their value for mainstream media is limited (think Fred Rogers). This is to various extent true for most celebrities, depending on what they represent. And gossiping about celebrities seems to be an extremely common pastime.

Actually no, searing does nothing to keep the liquids inside (it is a rather common misconception, even shared among chefs). Searing first or last generally works equally well. However, cooking a steak in the oven at low temp is difficult as it tends to dry out the meat. An alternative is to use an uniform water bath (sous vide) to get the desired effect.

I think that is a fair assessment, considering that our society is not really 100% symmetrical when it comes to how genders are perceived. A part of the issues that Tyson is running into is that there are ongoing shifts on what society perceives to be acceptable.

Instead of voter fraud, which is pretty much an allegation without evidence, there is now growing suspicion that in North Carolina, district 9 there may have been incidences of electoral fraud. That is an allegation that has to be taken more seriously as the damage to the voting process is much higher than individual cases of fraud.

Ah, but sexual harassment is a very specific claim and really only applicable to the assistant. Most articles go for the more generic misconduct in this case (and my guess is that others are just careless with wording). Yes absolutely. If you want to see, you ask. I should add that for the most part folks are less troubled by same-gender physical contact, though there are of course massive individual as well as cultural differences in what is considered acceptable. But especially in a professional setting or even out of general politeness touching folks you do not really know aside from social accepted forms (e.g. handshaking) which are specifically there to build rapport, it is frowned up on.

I have edited my post above and I do agree that his conduct was poor in this situation. I can kind of understand it, as I do observe such or similar behaviour quite often in conferences, most often conducted by older folks and often by some sort of bigwig or another (though it does not mean that some of the younger folks are not creepy, either). It is honestly more indicative of a change in how we interact with each other if we are frank, it is mostly driven by women who assert their right to be treated as equals and colleagues.

Oh I see, you mean the flippant style of the author? I found the source from Tyson So yeah, it was a hyperbolic description of the events. That being said, Tyson's own words do indicate that he apparently does not have a good sense of personal space. While the style of the reporting that you quoted is questionable, at least they did not change the essence of his words. I.e. due to his interest in Pluto, it is not weird (in his mind) if he wants to trace tattoos beneath clothing (without being offered to do so). Now, with regard to the term "guilty". I think it should be added that this is not a trial of legal misconduct. Rather, if you will, there is a public discussion on whether these actions are considered a misconduct within a professional setting. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that he was entirely oblivious to how his actions were perceived. Assuming these were the only times that it happened, chances are that folks will tell him to be more sensitive next time. This is generally what happens, though being a figurehead of sorts can be problematic in these situations. And this also goes back to a previous comment of mine that mind sound too clinical for some, but to me it is fairly obvious why his behaviour (regardless of intention) could be seen as somewhat crossing the line. And again, there is no guilty or innocent here. As mentioned, the actions were pretty much in agreement on all sides. What we are talking about our ever-shifting standards of acceptable behaviour between colleagues (not friends) as well situations with power differential.

While there are jobs available at the Master's level, it is rather unlikely that you will have time for a job beside your PhD position. In fact, if you go for a PhD, you will have to do active research rather than just studying a subject. On the flip side, graduate students do get stipends as part of their PhD. I am not familiar with the details, of forensic psychology, but for example in clinical psychology in many countries require to take additional clinical training after their degree.

I am a tad confused, do you mean the quote as an example of "fake news". The reason why I am asking is that the quote seems to quote a post made by Tyson. Or do you mean that it was misquoted?