CharonY

Even in the politics forum I do feel that relevant data and studies should be incorporated to the fullest possible extent. The alternative is an utterly belief-based representation of events. In the case of the original thread some of the misgivings in OP were based on the completely different procedure and mechanisms. Of course there is leeway in terms of interpretation of events. E.g. whether folks found either BK or CBF was more believable. However, I will note that only one party was fully accused to be a liar on the event in question with apparently quite a few folks immediately agreeing. That is presumably down to a rather simplicistic black/white attitude on events where apparently it is important to take a full stance with no room for nuance. E.g. it seems inconceivable for some that one can find someone's testimony believable but still be uncertain what actually happened.

There is also the case when provided references are completely ignored and a position based on no data and/or faulty premises is vigorously defended. This seems just lazy to me and after a few attempts I feel that a negative rep is justified to express displeasure at the colossal (though admittedly self-inflicted) waste of time. I do have noticed that whenever I get a negative rep usually someone else nullifies it. The notification system makes it a bit more annoying than it used to be, though.

Typically RT is not used in the same way as STP is used. RT defines a broader range of temperatures and can vary on the application. Standard lab work generally refers to the mentioned 20-25 C. In the pharmaceutical industry the range can be down to 15 C or between 20-25, depending on standards. Similar norms are used for regular storage of chemicals or other goods, for example.

If you look at overall health outcome, it does not seem to matter (much). The precise exercise is more important to improve performance in specific areas though even then studies are not clearly consistent (with some exceptions, but I this is really outside my expertise). When it comes to overall health benefit regular exercise of any sort has a huge benefit especially on cardiovascular health and the benefit then kind of tapers off. Some studies have shown that higher intensity provide higher benefits over longer but lower intensity exercise.

There is a huge body literature looking into health effects on diet to a plethora of health related outcomes. The organization are for the vast majority universities and some national labs. With regard to links between diet and mental health, the majority involve epidemiologists and are in effect association studies. For the most part studies indicate that a healthy diet and exercise are associated with mental and physical well-being. Though it is often difficult to clearly separate those effects from co-factors. For example studies often account for income but even among a given income segment access to good food can be different (e.g. due to distance to quality grocery stores). On studies regarding the impact of gut biota, it is a bit of a free-for-all. I have seen folks ranging from medical researchers, microbiologists, down to environmental engineers working on it. I feel it will take a while longer before the evidence provides a clearer view on the matter.

In lab protocols it typically refers to a temp range of 20-25.

While research is well underway looking at role of the microbiome I urge caution of overinterpretation. The connection is still being examined and the link to complex traits such as behavior is still far off from being figured out. There are generally two basic issues with the question in OP. The first is we do not really understand the biological basis of the mentioned conditions. The second is that we also only have a rough understanding of dietary effects in general. Even basic things such as impact of diets on body weight and fat distribution is often not clearly understood (notwithstanding the confidence with which dietary recommendations are made). Thus, drawing a direct line between condition at diet, is simply not possible with the level of current knowledge. As a reference, studies with clearly toxic compounds such as lead took a long while to correlate it with neurological issues in populations (due to lead paint, for example). And even there it is difficult to quantify precisely the impact.

I may have misunderstood it, but it seemed that you were dismissing these allegations outright. If I did, I apologize.

Excellent point *sigh*.

Ok, so I googled the reports and unless I got something wrong the gist of it is that the accuser filed a police report which resulted in a settlement which did not allow her to speak about the events. Der Spiegel has published reports, initially based on leaked documents and apparently the current lawsuit is aimed at dissolving the initial agreement. So going back the initial event. Here, the accuser has presumably done all the right things as folks here demanded (file police report, rape kit, not making public accusations). And the reaction is that she must be obviously lying. Notwithstanding the low false accusation rate, what precisely has one to do in order to be taken seriously?

One could go back further, Mendel was instrumental in cementing Darwin's evolutionary theories, for example. It is important to keep in mind that church has funded scientific work. Not to mention that many if not most scholars were religious, of course. I.e. there is no a priori conflict between being religious and being a scientist. The schism seems to be of a more modern event which is arguably connected to the rise of secularism.

To be fair, the catholic church recognized BB and evolution as early as the 50s, quite a bit before it got mainstream acceptance in the population. In the US at least the evangelical side took a much stronger stance against evolution.

Sure, I just wanted to note that it should not have any bearing on the trial itself, based on the defendant's claim.

Well, his claim was that was a misfire. But even then (and I understand that parts of the USA have really silly laws in that respect), a warning shot after someone (a kid no less) who is running away? What would the warning be that is not already conveyed by a guy running after you with a shotgun? agreed.

That has been around for some time. There are two different lines of evidence. One are population studies (which are difficult to control) and the other animal studies. The latter has contradicting results but some evidence indicate that the animals just consume more of fructose, if not carefully controlled. If controlled, the differences become minor in some studies. In others the differential effect of fructose could be replicated, however only when supplemented at very high levels. How that translates to human diets is unclear. Bottom line, however, is that high consumption of sugar of any sort is an unhealthy. While there may be some that are more unhealthy, the additional effects only appear to kick in when you are already in unhealthy levels. There may be more nuance to that, especially for human physiology, but as a whole I do not think it is terribly helpful to think in term of good or bad sugars, for example.

The content is supposed to reflect the totals, which includes added carbohyrdrates. What is connected to obesity is less the type of sugar, but the amount. There is none that, if consumed at a given amount does not promote obesity. Eating fruit only helps in controlling weight is you consume it instead of higher content food. Physiologically, sugars can be interconverted and are metabolized along similar or identical pathways. While there are some differences in effective utilization, the overall (energy) consumption plays a much larger role than the individual type of metabolizable sugar (among the ones you listed).

It would entirely be dependent on the overall ecological niche. One big issue here is that since we do not have any living velociraptors or gorgonopsia, it is very difficult to ascertain what their precise physiology is. For example, they may be vastly different successful depending on what prey they face. Or some of them are better in conserving energy, which would be a selective advantage if food is more limited. Dealing with changing temperatures may vary, and success could be dependent on which climate you throw them in. They may be susceptible or or resilient to particular diseases and so on.

Well, all I can see is that the literature I have seen portraits a very, very different view. There is of course the challenge to assess biodiversity based on fossil records. However, at least in the scientific community, typically we rarely use the term primitive, unless we talk about e.g. specific physiological structures, but even then it is more the distinction between simple and complex (and often the simple structure works very well in many systems). Considering the time frames some dinosaur fossils were found plus the fact that their descendants with very similar body features survived are ample evidence that they were extremely well adapted. So, as a whole I do have a hard time following your premise, but I guess it may be because you may gotten your impression from things that I have not read (and as it seems, agree with).

More specifically, it is not a proper litmus test as it does not challenge judicial procedure. At all. On a broader scale, perception of folks have never been been under any rule even close to the judicial system. There is no due process involved in forming the opinion of one person. In addition, harmful claims made in public are not protected by free speech laws. Thus libel or slander laws can be applied. So while metoo has gotten a lot of press, there is no indication that a) baseless claims of assaults have increased meaningfully in number and b) that folks faced legal consequences without due process. So either way, the answer seems quite clearly and resoundingly that no, there is no indication that #metoo has caused any of the claimed effects. However, it did contribute to a shift to what we as society consider to be decent behaviour, especially with regard to harassment with power imbalance.

Could you elaborate on that? I honestly have never heard that claim, nor does it make any sense in my mind. I may be wrong, but it sounds almost like as one would view evolution on a developmental axis, which is clearly wrong. Of course they are not. But extinction happened not necessarily due to catastrophes or direct competition. Event can split populations and drift or different selective pressures can have one population survive and another getting extinct. If your overall claim is that evolution is not a directional or strictly competitive mechanism, you are clearly correct, without the need for the thought experiment.

As per your own link due process protects individuals from the powers of the state. That above example is a specific law that allows legal discourse in cases of discrimination. I.e. it would be the same as claiming that non-stealing is part of due process due to the existence of anti-theft laws. It just does not make sense. Please take a look at your own link: It is a protection of liberties from the actions of the government. Here, we have a Senate hearing with no legal consequences. How does due process get involved here? There are no civil or criminal proceedings at all. There is no prosecution from the state or the feds.The call for due process and presumption of innocence sounds good, but both have a specific meaning in relationship to the judicial process. Otherwise we may as well claim that cutting line at a fast food joint is a breach of due process.

No it hasn't. It was not a judicial process and by definition he may be subject to senate proceedings and rules but not to "due process". There is no rendering of verdicts just, at best, an evaluation of the candidate. The rules are entirely different from judicial rules in a trial.

According to some posters you just ruined his life, you are a liar (given context that seems actually to be the case) and you should be put in jail for the same sentence as someone having conducted assault. Either that, or you missed the entire point. Just as a note, in case you are unaware. In a job interview you can talk to folks that have interacted with a candidate. Often it is supervisors and/or colleagues. From their statement you get a view on the candidate that you can use as you (or the committee) sees fit. There is no need for them to present evidence for their claims (positive or negative) there is no requirement for due process and there is no legal procedure involved.

Well, obviously the ability to compete or adapt is entirely independent on complexity (if that is what is implied with primitive). Rather obviously "primitive" bacteria will be the last survivors long after everything else has died out. Again, it depends on the ecological situation, the available niches, the ability of the organisms to adapt to said niches and in cases of direct competition, the relative ability to utilize the niche. Also note that these are not necessarily stable conditions. For example a species can outcompete another one in a particular niche by extremely effective adaptation. However, that niche may vanish and with it the adaptive advantage. Evolution is best not seen as simply a competitive survival experiment. Probably something like adaptivity.

Seal the bottle, increase the ventilation in the room and get fresh air..