CharonY

I would have to take a look at the paper to be certain what they mean. However, often in these studies it is due to the marker they use for identification.

The naming convention can be a bit confusing as well as inconsistent, depending what folks are talking about. Roughly speaking, all multipotentcells that can differentiate to neurons, astrocytes and/or oligodendrocytes are typically called neural stem/progenitor cells (NSPC) or some variation thereof. However, often intermediate NSPCs (i.e. cells that are further, but not terminally differentiated) are also called NPC or NSPCs. Under the latter nomenclature, radia glia cells as well as basal intermediate progenitors (also called intermediate progenitor, or intermediate neural progenitor cells [honestly, developmental folks really should get a grip on things, especially those guys working mice/humans...]). From what I have seen use is somewhat inconsistent, but roughly speaking if folks talk specifically about neural stem cells (NSC) it is specific to the pluripotent stem cells and can then be distinguished from NPCs which are a bit further along and include RGCs as well as BPs. But hey, we also got neural precursor cells, which can be used instead of NSPCs.

Possibly, but in most professional environments that is the norm and in some cases policies are in place. It may depend on what you define as flirting. However, basically anything that can be seen as crossing the line is most likely considered not something that you should do on company time. The point there is that the company does not want to be involved in any possible personal drama that arises from folks not keeping it together. Also, I do not think that this: Is an apt comparison. The latter are two immediate consequences of the functions of a cafeteria, which may or may not be objectionable. However, flirting is not a necessary consequence of a work environment (at least most that I can think of). A better comparison would be banning clipping your toenails within a cafeteria. There is a time and place for things and the workplace just is not.

I do not disagree with that. However, the point is the flirting at the workplace proper is an issue. What one should do is e.g. meet for coffee or other functions outside of the workplace. I.e. flirting among colleagues is fine, but doing at the workplace is generally regarded as non-professional. Or to put it differently, only once both parties agree to take things outside of the professional setting should things like flirting be conducted. Within the workplace it comes with all that baggage (including more subtle power differentials, e.g. not the boss proper, but having access to key assets) and can lead to highly unprofessional situations. That at least allows deniability to either party (e.g. by not meeting up after work).

It depends on the type of work, I guess. However, in most professional settings I can think of, I do not see how flirting could not be viewed negatively, if not by the recipient then by colleagues, customers, etc. However, every time there is a power differential, that is a hard no-no at the workplace.

Sure. That is why you should not flirt at the workplace or an employee, for example.

I do not think these cases have to be or should be conflated. The case involving Allers demonstrates that Tyson does not have a great deal of respect for someone's body and would make creepy allegations more believable. It should be noted that only a few years prior, such behavior towards female colleagues is not that unusual, even among academics (and especially in male-dominated disciplines). Watson's allegations are already more troublesome due to the involved power differential and again, it is only creeping into public consciousness that as someone's boss there are certain lines one should not cross. It does not matter if Tyson did want to seduce her or not, you do no invite a lone employ to your place and put them into an awkward position. That is simply not professional and, again, a line that you should not cross as the boss of someone. And traditionally subordinates were supposed to take passes by their bosses as a compliment. And I think it is good that it has changed. What has been missed is the context of the misconducts. One was withing a professional meeting with colleagues, the other an interaction between boss and employee. Regardless of intentions, the actions were simply not professional and deserve at least a warning. They were not random interactions on the street or between construction workers or whatever else is being described in this thread. The rape allegation are quite a different matter and should be seen separately (unless a pattern of behavior is observed).

*Cough* I am pretty sure you mean 4th house, otherwise that would just be gibberish. Wat? Why would you invoke Chaac with a human sacrifice? It is not the PSU that is broken, is it?

Look Moon, that is some seriously bad advice you have been getting. A) Dirt does not help. The silica inside has to be blessed properly before you rub it in. If you already did that, I suggest powerwashing first and then try again. So, the chicken approach is fairly common, so I get why you would want to try that. However, for PC purposes, you really want a Santeria ritual and offer up the blood to an orisha. However, if you really insist you could try possession by Maman Brigitte. Just remember to use a black rooster and have plenty of alcohol around and chili. Perhaps also bandages.

This is akin to classifying senses based on the used organs (e.g. skin in this case). But as mentioned it is also arbitrary and useful in certain contexts, but meaningless in others. The point being that the number of categories does not matter, just the reasoning for using a certain classification.

A bit careful about that. CCleaner had been compromised and replaced with a malicious version last year. Not sure whether it is still floating around.

I admit, I have been flip flopping on this issue throughout my life. As a teen I was convinced that there are absolute things (like Nazi rallies) that should be forbidden. As a young adult, I was more of an advocate of the marketplace of idea things. But at some point I had the inkling that if we take the really bad ideas seriously, even if only to dismantle them, we actually do give it publicity and power. The latter thought was mostly driven on research how emotions, rather than fact sway emotions. The rise of populism but also radicalism seems to support that, and especially with the spread of new means of communication. So right now I simply do not see a good answer. Or to take a turn of your phrase, I am just not convinced anymore that bad ideas ever stay dead.

No entirely surprising, but here is an interesting report on gerrymandered districts. Some highlights, in NC Republicans got 50% of the votes, but won 10 out of 13 seats (or 77%). In Pennsylvania there was a court order to redraw the gerrymandered maps. Here, in 2016 Republicans had 54% of the votes but won 72% of the seats. In 2018 they got 45% of the votes but only gained 50% of the seats (i.e. the advantage diminished). There is a also some data showing how after the 2010 census Republican state legislators were able to massively increase their share of the seats whilst maintaining their share of the votes.

I agree with the over notion, though I will add the caveat that there is a good point of not giving certain folks a platform. The main arguments are that a) in public spaces populist appeal and personal charisma tend to have more sway on opinion than arguments and b) it can lead to normalization of radical views, if promoted sufficiently. Personally I am not sure about how to navigate this situation. At minimum I probably would like to see a discussion of the involved party pro and con the invitation of a given person rather than a reflexive protest. With regard to Bannon there are several thing of note. It is difficult to characterize anybody accurately what folks say, provided they are at least a little bit guarded. So it is possible that Bannon is just an anti-establishment populist with an unknown personal conviction. It is also possible that all his actions are strategic with no personal conviction at all. That being said, there are several elements of note. As already mentioned, under his leadership Breitbart turned further toward what he refers to as alt-right with distinct racial, anti-semitic and white supremacist undertones. Perhaps it is unfair to call Bannon racist, but hes is clearly comfortable in that environment. Likewise, in Europe he supported far right movements. If not a racist, he actively promotes far-right politics which are in fact centered on or at least adjacent to racism. His views also have a strong nativist streak with a sense that immigrants are a threat to Western civiization (and was instrumental in implementing the travel ban). Rather obviously he seems to have an agenda, but one that he does not clearly elaborate. The dangerous bit is that he uses tidbits that in itself are easy to agree on and uses it strategically to further his strategic interests. He described his strategy to win over disaffected white men as he realized that they felt threatened by identity politics (that is, any identity that does not include them). So again, he may be not a white nationalist (well, he actually considers him a nationalist), but he clearly instrumentalists folks that either are or can be swayed to it. In some ways that worries me far more than the Tiki-torch carrying crowd as, regardless of his own conviction, he can and wants to act as an multiplier for them.

Actually a better book (especially in the historic sense) to look at the becoming of new empires is "After Tamerlane" by John Darwin. While the rough outline in Diamond's book is fine, he gets the historic side of things wrong too often, unfortunately. A few things of note though. It is silly to speak of European dominance as if it was a somewhat united system. Though many folks with that kind of... ideology seem to think of the Roman empire and anything today as a direct line of succession (which, frankly is just silly). But even before the Roman Empire existed, there were perhaps a dozen or so empires that have come and gone. China (for which some folks also claim a direct succession to the old empire, which is just a bit less silly) has gone through four or so dynasty before the Roman empire and continued to exist in various forms. The Egyptian kingdoms at that time were already ancient, the Kingdom of Kush was for a time a great rival. Another ancient civilization was the Kerma culture, which was absorbed into the New Egyptian Kingdom a thousand years before the Roman empire then there were the various kingdoms in the Middle East which were dominating in their time, including the Median empire. The Achaemenid Empire, of course was one of the greatest of its time. This did not change during the rise of the Roman Empire. The Aksumite empire (located roughly where Eritrea is) had extensive trade partner with the Roman empire and so on. All these powers were dominating in their respective sphere of influence. Rather obviously the view of straight European dominance is based on a strongly Eurocentric view of things and ignores for the most part the times where it was touch and go as well as the dominance and influence of other powers.

I was quite confident that at some point this discussion is going to derail. Let's be clear about a few things. The current delay at the border is not due to an unexpected surge of applicants. It is the result of a rule set out by the Trump administration, which is currently facing lawsuits. Some points how asylum used to work: If someone tries to enter the US without proper documentation, they are subjected to deportation, unless they claim asylum. If they do, they are entitled to an interview with an asylum officer. If the officer determines credible fear of persecution (which is a defined term and has been further restricted by Jeff Sessions) , they can go ahead to a immigration judge hearing. However, that step can take years and asylum claimants can legally live and work in the US. Even if they are decided not to be eligible for asylum, but the asylum officer decided that they have credible fear of persecution, they can receive a withholding of removal that allows a stay in the US, but has not path to permanent legal status. Many Haitians were granted asylum under the latter category after the earthquake, for example. Note: none of these paths require detention. Detention originally was limited to folks that either have criminal convictions or other wise pose a threat to national security. And before anyone uses the same language as Trump to describe the process, the vast majority of asylum seekers appear to their court hearings. The Trump administration employed new rules to make this process more difficult and creates delays: Going back to detention. Typically, detention was not used in a blanket format. Folks passing the credible fear test were generally scheduled for release. Under Trump, the release rate dropped almost to zero and has faced a lawsuit this year. In other words, all the malaise of horrible detention conditions, and folks trying to enter illegally are the direct consequences of the policies of the current government. This includes the separation of children from their families, which has been reversed. But it is blindingly clear that the situation is not caused by external effects, it is not due to cost. It is part and parcel of a cruel strategy with the sole goal to curb asylum seekers and falls under the same vein as the Muslim ban.What is striking is the mix of indifference and outright cruelty towards those trying to claim asylum, regardless whether they are ultimately eligible or not. In fact the administration is actively working to revoke the Flores settlement, in order to allow for virtually unlimited detention until their status is resolved . And just to make it really clear, there is no material evidence that shows an increased need for detention during the asylum seeking process. The appearance rate of families, especially if they are provided legal counsel is close to 100%. The group most likely not to appear seem to be individual men with no legal counsel. Those are also most likely held in detention when they have no documentation in the first place. And while we are talking about deterrence, even with all the cruelty which should not baked into a process that was borne out of compassion, the actual asylum claims have been increasing. Let's make this part really, really clear. The policies that the administration enacts, specifically with respect to family separations, are targeted at those that usually have the strongest standing for asylum claims: family units with children. Apprehension of family units have been surging, by September 2018 the largest group consisted of family units with 90k total. This is the highest recorded number ever. So yes, the policy is not there to deter folks who may not have a claim. It is there to specifically reduce those who are eligible. And that is why tear gas on moms and kids was just a natural consequence in the progression of those tactics. Make no mistake, the immigration policies as created by the Trump-Bannon-Miller-Sessions strategies have been outlined early on and should not come as a surprise to anyone. It is not about a surge in immigration, cost, logistics or anything connected to that. The numbers clearly show that it is not the case. The policies clearly show that it is not the case, even if folks want to dance around them. It is all about keeping folks out from certain countries (Norway would be fine, though, so no worries) even, or perhaps especially if they have credible fear of persecution. By employing a tactic of making legal entry much, much harder and increasing the persecution of illegal entries, a home-made crisis can be presented to the public in an effort to outright undermine the right for asylum.

In that case I misunderstood you. So here my revised answer: a) I do not think so. The flow and ebb of asylum seekers seems to correlate better with economic hardships including famines and wars more than the ease to cross borders. b) Even if it did, it should not be used to steer or limit the ability of folks to request asylum. And addressing the topic of weaseling, why bring up the effect in the first place? Is there a point you wanted to make? The reason being that (and please correct me if I am wrong) the only reason why that argument seems to be relevant is if increased asylum flux would actually be an issue. Thus the mechanisms should also be limiting somehow. But if you meant something else, please clarify, since it is not my intention to mischaracterize your position.

No, you understand. I see that the WH is trying to use it as a deterrent. But if you look at the phrasing, I said "Here the argument is made that detention should discourage asylum seekers". This is meant as that the mechanism should incorporate that mechanism. And my argument is that the system should not. A couple of more things over what iNow already mentioned, the number of asylum seekers is perhaps around 10% of overall immigration, thus curbing asylum does do little to change immigration numbers. That being said, I have seen few non-emotional evidence for curbing immigration to lower levels. Most studies that have looked at economic cost in the US for example show a net benefit in terms of immigration (if we ignore studies from lobbying groups). A recent NBER study has specifically looked at cost of relocation of refugees for example. This group is supposedly the most expensive one to resettle due to lower education and language skills than most other immigrants. Nonetheless if we look at long periods (over 20 years) each refugee pays 21k over the amount of money over their initial cost. So based on the economic impact, yes higher rates are absolutely acceptable.

I disagree. The asylum system is there to provide folks who are eligible to escape from dire situations and to reject those that do not meet those criteria. It is not there to prevent folks from trying in the first place. As such, I think it is a horrible argument and an attempt to dismantle the asylum system in the first place.

Indeed. One specific thing of the Australian system seems to be the out of sight out of mind kind of thing. While there are far fewer folks in detention, their average time in detentions seems currently to be over a year (though they may have different streams).

Is is specifically what you stated above. The way I read it is that you point out as key differences: a) the economy, social life and government structure was much worse. b) the above opened the path for Hitler so that he could become ruler c) with comparatively little pushback . I challenged every point of this particular quote and I do not think that I have made any assertions that did not in that post. Especially a) alludes governmental fail safes and economic misery as prerequisites (I omitted social life as I am not sure what you meant by that). While your point may be more nuanced than you have written, I will point out that your post does not provide much to express them. Rather it is a straightforward list of what you think are the major differences. If you want to add nuance, you have to try to incorporate them better. You did clarify that you say that the mindset is completely different. However, you do not provide details in what specifically. As such some here (including myself) talk about trends and you seem to make categorical differences, but do not specify them.

I do not consider it placating. I see it as reducing their degree of freedom regarding their arguments. For example: Here the argument is made that detention should discourage asylum seekers. Incidentally the same argument as from the WH, especially exemplified by the threat of removing children from their parents. However, detention is not supposed a mechanism to curb asylum seekers. It is one to process them. The only reason why they stay so long is due to the backlog of processing, which, as others noted, could be curbed by sending folks to process them rather than soldiers. Thus, it is neither case of logistics (except perhaps for misallocated logistics) nor one of discouraging asylum seekers. Of course one could just say what folks in the WH and many others really think. They just do not want them and realistically, any number would, eventually be cited as too high.

Indeed. He has been portrayed as the strategic mind of the far right and the most extreme and biased reports would perhaps paint him as a white nationalist master mind. It goes to the broader point that some folks thing of hooligan, torch carrying, raving lunatics as racists. The average racist is more the seemingly reasonable folks who use economic anxiety and fear of open borders and crime as justification to enact policies that affect certain folks (never themselves) and get into position of power to make them real. Sure, in direct conversation they are polite, even friendly. And then they make their own website (such as Breitbart) and warp reality in order to get those aforementioned torch bearers out on the streets. Why would they rave or behave lunatics? They have tons of folks doing that instead.

I am a firm believer in the use of data to contextualize discussions. Sure, it would be nice of folks who ask the questions would also make an effort to dig out the data rather than wait for someone else to do it. However, I think I also demonstrate that such info is very easy to find, making harder to use ignorance a viable argument. If one simply claims things for a fact, even if it sounds reasonable, it is easy to push back. Moreover, while the numbers do not register much in the mass of detention, there is the larger issue that those privately run facilities are often in horrible shape with reports of suicide and abuse abound. It is not a good system and there is almost no desire to improve it.

Actually I have to correct myself. A year prior the highest average number of detainees was close to 45k in June. I do not have the time to dig through the data, but assuming an average detention of a month and using the averaged number of detainees, we are roughly talking about ~470k annual detainees.