CharonY

And yet it is still conjecture. Just because some connections make sense, does not mean that there are evolutionary origins. That is why we need actual research. So what does that say? So let's start slow. In rats a commonly observed effect is that mice prefer warmer water. So, at least we can assume that bacterial growth is not a major determinant in all mammals. So let us concentrate on humans. What does data say? In fact, the literature shows quite a range of values, most obtained from people after physical exertion. The interesting trend you will find is that most find colder temps more pleasurable. However, actually ingestion rate peaks at 12-16C. I.e. at values at which bacterial growth actually occurs. While it may be slower, in most waters you will assume that they had plenty of time for bacterial growth. There are far more relevant aspects at play. For example, in warm water minerals and other deposits have a much stronger taste and depending on what is in the water (such as chloramines) it may be less pleasurable than at lower temperatures. Moreover, if we talk about beverages in general, we also find that taste preference is strongly connected to expected taste. For example, red wine was more pleasurable at RT than cold, whereas for soft drinks the opposite was the case.

To be fair, folks are making it far too easy. Remember the war in former Yugoslavia? Folks were losing their minds about refugees back then, too. Politicians were quick to ride that wave of animosity, as they do today.

Well and like many evolutionary stories they are just that: stories. I am quite certain that lower temp preferences is especially seen during physical exertion and/or high ambient heat, as others pointed out. Hot beverages (especially coffee) are the second most popular beverage in the US after water, for example.

A) Structurally and chemically very different. B) Different pathways in uptake C) Different pathways in metabolization (though interconversion is possible via central metabolitic pathways) D) Different physiological effects (e.g. of high/low levels).

I'll just leave this one here. https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17525860/nazis-russell-walker-arthur-jones-republicans-illinois-north-carolina-virginia

That is a horrible example as they are just different stages of the same organism.

In that case, how about a perfectly even distribution for everyone typically eligible for benefits, including documented foreign workers after one year of employment? Perhaps with a cap on high incomes. Alternatively, how about a negative income tax as a similar tool?

So technically you are talking about disadvantaged segments of the population and the impact of BUI on them, which, does not seem to be a different discussion than the overall pros and cons of BUI. As noted, the impact of BUI on them would dependent a lot on how it is implemented what levels are being proposed etc. Of course you could in theory propose a model which would systematically disadvantage certain folks (like many current policies still do). But again, that would be a criticism on the implementation not on BUI itself. It is akin to saying that the criminal justice system is enforced unequal and thus we should not have one.

I think you are conflating a huge set of very different issues here. You seem to imply that only or predominantly undocumented immigrants are taking over these jobs. However, this is only true for certain sub-sectors. As a whole, the majority of low-income jobs are filled by regular immigrants. Also, you seem to be under the impression that they are stuck in these jobs forever. In fact there is generational increase in income among immigrants (documented as well as undocumented). The limitations are less about citizenship, but rather legal status. Documented immigrants can have decent jobs without ever getting citizenship. What really is happening with regard to immigration and low-skill worker is that over time the children move up to better jobs (as indicated by higher educational attainment and higher average income over time) and the pool is replenished with new 1st gen immigrants. DACA would not change that aspect. It is true that undocumented immigrants face barriers that will pose hard limits, but I do not see a possible connection to UBI. Yes there should be a solution for undocumented immigrants in good standing but it looks like an entirely different discussion. In fact, I would think a separate thread would be far more beneficial to an ordered discussion as it seems that this thread is jumping from topic to topic with only the most strenuous connection (other that it is all about economics).

If you wanted to enact policies to counteract that, you would effectively have to ban or severely limit immigration. Let me explain: according to research on the impact if immigration, including unskilled labour, the effect was not a direct competition in the job market. I.e. immigrants are not taking away jobs from citizens or even depressing wages (at least not universally). What ends up happening is that there is a) an increase in the overall job market (due to demands of a larger population) and b) there is a re-allocation of the citizen workforce. Essentially immigrant workers take over the low-paying jobs but seem to open up other opportunities for the citizens (including immigrants that became citizens or PRs). I.e. the effect that you fear that would come from UBI is already happening as a direct consequence of immigration of unskilled workers. It does not seem like a good argument against UBI specifically. Moreover, it seems that you assume that UBI would only go to citizens. However, if it is used to replace welfare income, it would most likely have to be available for all legal residents, who would otherwise be eligible for benefits.

Well, UBI is expected to have only a moderate effect in this regard. After all, typical models have a fairly income. It does provide an incentive in seeking better education, though. However. what you describe is already a reality. If you look at low-income jobs, especially physically demanding ones, you rarely see non-migrants doing the work. The best example is probably in agriculture, which has ca. 77% of immigrant workers. In Qatar, most of the immigrants work in construction. In the US the rates are lower, but in e.g. Texa or California well above 40% of construction workers are immigrants. Perhaps UBI could increase the rate, but it would be only one of many aspects. As a matter of fact, it is more likely an effect of full employment and resulting lack of labour, combined with having access to low income labour pools.

I was referring to this. I.e. you seem to assert that because of Government incentives Qataris have incentive to work (please clarify if I got you wrong). My counterpoint was that that Qatari are basically fully employed. Importing (and abusing workers) is therefore not due to government incentives (for which I have difficulties finding details on, other than education, health and other subsidies, so maybe you could help out there) but rather a means to grow their economy. The only other scenario that would be consistent with your point is if a) Qataris do indeed receive UBI and b) are still not listed in unemployment statistics. However, a cursory glance at the number of Qataris in working age, it is very close to the number of unemployed citizens. What is true, however, is that for Qataris the government is the biggest employer. However that is different from receiving welfare or UBI.

I would have to check it out in more detail, but I don't think that is an accurate description of the situation. Qatari unemployment rate is close to zero, i.e. they have deficiency of workers. The large amount of foreign workers is not due to Qatari not being willing to work, but rather due to rapid economic expansion. Also, a quick search did not reveal an universal income system, so maybe you could elaborate on that bit? Note that in limited experimental studies implementation to something like UBI has as a whole not shown to be an disincentive to do work. It has, however, resulted in folks getting better jobs by going back to school, for example.

I think most macroeconomic papers seem to suggest that the net impact of automation on the overall labor market is either small or may have a net benefit. However, automation will be disruptive for many jobs and there will be growing pains. The short to mid-term effects are dependent on a number of factors, including penetration speed. A study put out by McKinsey looked at an aggressive automation rate and predicted an overall decrease of ~13% of the workforce to maintain productivity. Traditionally, similar shifts have been already observed (e.g. in agriculture business) and have been eventually been absorbed by the overall labour market. Much is still speculative, of course, but some projections indicate that jobs requiring interpersonal and certain technical skills are likely to be favored in the future. These shifts could be movement to other sectors, or a shift of responsibilities within a sector.An already existing example within a sector are ATMs. Rather than eliminating banking jobs the result was A) that opening became cheaper, and more branches opened and B) bank employees did less money handling but had more customer interaction roles. Similarly, there are predictions that due to automation but also demographic shifts, there will higher employment in health sectors, but also education, for example.

Funny that you mentioned that, one common contamination that ruins reproducibility are detergents if folks run them through the lab dishwasher, for example.

If you talk about ATP production from sugars, you should be aware of two mechanisms. One is substrate-level phosphorylation (e.g. direct transfer from a phosphate group to ADP to form ATP) and the second, major component, which is respiration. The former happens for example in the latter steps of glycolysis (i.e. from 1,3- bishphosphoglycerate and PEP). If fructose is introduced via Fru-6P or glyceryladehyde-3P (both of which cost and ATP) the pathway is exactly the same at that point as when you started with glucose. The latter requires synthesis of NADH. which happens mostly in the TCA cycle. Thus substrates that enter it, can contribute to ATP production via that pathway. For possibilities of substrate level phosphorylation, see above post. While not related to ATP production per se, the formation of glyceraldehyde is another deviation, which often branches of to tracylglycerol synthesis rather that phosphorylation (which costs an ATP) and introduction into glycolysis.

Liquid temperature has almost no effect in absorption. Gastric emptying is the first step a and temperature influence on rate is very small. The liquid temp quickly equilibrates so that overall absorption in the small intestine is pretty much the same. However, gastric emptying is dependent on volume and it is possible that one can swallow a larger volume of liquid in one go that is not too hot or cold.

This is totally off-topic, but I was at a talk a while back that discussed child bearing in different societies and through time. Interestingly, menarche (onset of menstruation) is highly dependent on nutritional and other life factors. Thus, in modern society menarche (and thus the possibility of pregnancy) is earlier in modern times than before the industrial revolution (though at the beginning there could have been a dip as early urbanization was associated with higher morbidity). In Roman society it is estimated that menarche was expected around age 14 with pregnancy typically 2-4 years later.

You would have to ask yourself, what is optimization in that context? Evolution essentially just means a change in the gene pool composition over time. What would be more optimal in this context? Faster change? Slower change? No Change? You may be thinking about fitness, instead, which is the ability to reproduce under a given set of parameters.

This is one of the maps from Sebastian Muenster and is one of the early versions of the new world. You see "India" located in the upper left and Zipangri, which likely refers to Marco Polo"s naming of Japan (Zipangu). I.e. it is a map of the Islands (i.e. North and South America and the Caribbean Islands) of the New World which were presumed to lie by India, based on the knowledge available at that time (maybe 50-60 years after Columbus" journey).

A) There is nothing that benefits evolution, as there is no optimization involved (other than adaptation to current conditions). What parasites do is to potentially exert selective pressure on their hosts. Conversely, interaction with their hosts also affects their own trajectories. B) Benefiting ecosystems is probably a more reasonable question. But the question is here what is defined as benefit to the ecosystem. E.g. improved resilience or robustness? Biodiversity? Specific input/output parameters ?

It would be really strange if it was done that way. Even with inept management, instrumentation requests usually comes from the units, not from the top. In really top-heavy systems the request would got through many, many levels with a lot of requirements and paperwork (e.g. ensuring that equipment is needed, is compatible what is there, is the cheapest available etc.). As a result there are often huge delays, or the equipment may not be ideal (e.g. because one had to get the cheaper one as the request did not outline all the requirements for tendering). There may be rare situations when stuff suddenly comes in (e.g. donations), but I would think it was really strange if it happened on a routine basis. As such I am really curious about reports of that level of mismanagement.

I assume "kit" refers to equipment, rather than consumables? Do you have a report on this? It sounds weird that in the UK hospitals would not put in their own requests. If it is an actually consumable kit, it would be even weirder.

The literal translation (I am not really familiar with old German grammar): The new Island so/such as behind Hispanica against/towards the Orient by the Land India/Indies lie/are located.

Morbidity is dependent on many factors and as such is rather difficult to disentangle. However, if a singular factor was a driving force as proposed in this thread, it would be much easier to identify. Based on the 2004 survey In the UK there are marked differences between the health of Black Caribbeans and Black Africans, indicating that skin colour does not seem to be a driving force. Also, while in the US African American had lower levels of vitamin D, the usual risks found in white population (e.g. higher osteoporosis rates) was not found to be relevant on African American populations. The reason is not quite known and some speculate that there may be adaptation to the lower vitamin D levels. Whatever the case may be, there is no strong evidence of selective pressure based vitamin D levels.