CharonY

Any shred of evidence for that? Note that for example Intelligent Design has arguably far more proponents. Yet in court it was successfully challenged (Kitzmiller et al. vs Dover) as it clearly not science. Creating new laws specifically to what you propose would arguably be a much higher hurdle to pass. So, do you have anything other than youtube and gut feeling?

The way I see it there are two questions. First, how much do we see it as the role of society to diagnose and fix people's mental health issues. One problem is the clear definition for certain issues, of course. But even if there are diagnoses, typically treatment is done by professionals (not the society) and, unless harm of self or others is involved, has to be initiated by the affected person (or legal guardian). Also, society has traditionally viewed diverging views in a negative light (thoughthere are a lot of subgroups with different levels of acceptance) but has done little in "fixing" things. What is probably meant is whether society should "accept" these divergent views. But that seems to be a different discussion. In fact you could ask, how much should society care what folks think and at what point does society want to penalize the individual. Note that this runs counter to the idea of personal freedom. We could reasonably roll out the discussion to the whole gambit of evidence-free things that people believe, including that they are different species, that astrology determines their future, flat Earth, creationism, homeopathy etc. Note that I reject that the equivocation of trans-genderism (though I do not think that it is a uniform thing, either and requires careful evaluation of each case) and e.g. trans-speciesm (which by all accounts just sounds silly). The traditional approach has ranged from ignoring, ridiculing, to persecution. I do think that the internet has made things trickier as a lot of different aspects are now rolled into large meta-narratives, that blur a lot of different aspects. I.e. using youtube videos I can create a totally parallel world, in which, say Europe is a Muslin Caliphate, the US a totalitarian Wasteland and Canada provided health benefits to dragons. And then we can all be outraged about it. The real issue is then the codification in law . There, it seems that there are clear definition of what is protected, making the whole point somewhat moot.

I sincerely doubt that a legal framework (other than freedom of expression) exist for any of it. Vision and dental are unfortunately two rather important elements not covered by many health care systems (you also pay additionally to those in the US on top). Medically it does not make a lot of sense, but fiscally apparently it does (to the insurers at least). Also from what I understand sex reassignment requires approval from health care professionals. Well, apparently it is important to find out things on the internet and be outraged about them.

From my reading the FBI culture was always heavily conservative. Appointees from Democrat presidents were not really an exception. However, one could specify that it is more about conservative and pro-establishment values, as the posts were also assumed to be apolitical (though it has to be mentioned that almost all directors were either independent or Republicans).

It is really strange. Traditionally the FBI has been a very conservative organization and in that regard some questionable track records (e.g. during the civil rights movement), which have put them at odds with a number of progressive movements. Trump apparently has flipped the playbook.

What is this based on? More than when? Since last year, 20, 50, 100, 200 years? Also fractured on what? It gets thrown around a lot, but from my personal experience it just seems that debates are just far more in the open and with larger participation (at least in part due to social media). In the olden times you just don't hang out with folks that you disagree with if you can. Now, everyone has to make their opinion known (as I just did).

Well, unfortunately that is what people do. If folks who are in power or at least in the majority blame minorities for the state of affairs (as an example), it is no wonder that there will be fringe groups who do the same. I am pretty sure that you can find parallels in many violent radicalized groups where certain others are to blame for whatever state they are in.

Yet when has politics not been about some form of identity? Traditional parties have been organized along social classes, religion, or other ideologies. Moreover, since time immemorial folks were not happy with society for a variety of reasons (justified or not) and in some cases it can result in violent actions (e.g.terrorism an/or revolutions). This is clearly not a new thing. I am not really sure what you mean. He will be lawfully punished as it should be. In fact, I would be rather shocked if would get away with it. But how else do you think he should be made accountable? Should he have been punished for his views before he did something? Should we e.g. punish misogyny even before actions have been taken? It is worrisome that groups form that amplify these destructive views rather than trying to better their situation. But do you mean to punish that? And if so, what about freedom of expression?

That makes sense. Just too many things to keep track of.

Strange, I could have sworn that I have read something about that about a decade ago. Though those I remember where indeed nm sized, which would insufficient for organelles. hmm.

Well, that should not be the lesson from it. Almost all pathogens (that I can think of) are reasonably well killed by autoclaving.

That would only work if there was established science that the MD could convey (most are not researchers). Unfortunately there are not a lot of properly controlled studies and those that exist have contradicting results. As a whole, the mechanisms are still somewhat unclear. A study has looked at metabolic disturbances due to ethanol exposure (such as blood sugar levels, fatty acid concentration, acidosis etc.) and found that fructose or glucose administrations had an effect on these metabolite levels. However, they had no effect on the the signs of intoxication, including hangover. Well, the aldehyde part at least has one flaw. Ethanol is converted to acetaldehyde, i.e. it does not need to be present prior to consumption to exert toxic effects. Many East Asians have an enzyme variant that converts ethanol to acetaldehyde much more efficiently, resulting in transient accumulation of that compound. Interestingly, there are not a whole lot of properly controlled study on the effects of additional metabolites in drinks on hangover. The few that are out there suggest that the amount is more critical, though those congeners could have an additional effect, though it is unclear to what extent and how.

Just to make sure, it was not supposed to be a criticism, When one starts off learning something completely new, everything may seem new and weird. But usually it takes some deeper knowledge to figure out what differences are relevant and which are superficial. My comment on immersion was aimed at a priori assumptions about interpretation of cultural norms without actually understanding them. There are concepts that I feel are overrated or misunderstood (the concept of "face" for example). It does not mean that it is wrong to be sensitive (especially at the beginning). Rather, what I meant is that one should not come with strong preconceptions and use those instead of what the interaction with the folks actually tells you ("no I am pretty sure that you are offended by this, I read it in a book"), if that makes sense. As a silly example, I remember from my time in Poland ,that it was impressed upon us that stirring ones teacup loudly was offensive and we have to take great care not to do that (without further explanation). Only to find out that no one really cared about it unless you are kind of obnoxiously playing around with it. Edit: the context of the interactions are also relevant of course. Meeting someone's parents-in-law in a different country would require a different approach than interacting with co-workers or student, for example...

I would always be careful with those stereotypes, even if they are positive. These assumptions often lead to some kind of unconscious assumptions, which may not be harmful, but generally are not useful, either. Specifically one could easily argue that the Eastern area covers a wide range of diverse cultures and from that alone one can deduce that the viewpoints are likely to be vastly different. In addition, while certain philosophical viewpoints may be more dominant, their effect on the individual are going to be coloured by individual experiences. As an example, in the West it is undeniable that Christian teachings have a massive effect on Western history, philosophy and culture. But how it manifests is very diverse, ranging from literal adherence to a vague recognition. It is a lesson that I learned from teaching students from very different backgrounds, trying to be sensitive to cultures does not work well usually, since unless one is immersed in it, much will be based on these types of stereotypes. From self-observation I realized that I thereby assume the students from other backgrounds to be, well, different which did not help the teaching process at all. While one can be cognizant of differences, commonly agreeing to some ground rules based on individual preferences rather than assumed cultural ones were far more helpful in establishing a good mentor relationship. This is not to say that there are no differences, especially when one starts to discusses worldviews (or philosophy). But on most specific, narrow topics or events (as the description of a park for example) the context will be more relevant than the cultural background.

I am not sure. If existing it is at best a highly subtle difference and probably more on a linguistic than a perspective level. If you talk to Asians or Europeans regarding their observations there is generally no difference in their recounting if they explain their observation and their position in it, at least if both speak e.g. English. However, if you are talking about general philosophy, then yes, there is a difference in perspective with regard to nature. That, however, does not necessarily translate down to individual behaviour.

To me it looks more like shearing rather than degradation.

Some of them, yes. That being said, autoclaves are routinely tested with spore standards (usually heat tolerant Geobacillus and Bacillus) and under controlled conditions they do die fairly effectively. But if you have complex media (e.g. environemental samples) or some of the hardier bastards in them, it can be challenging, mostly as a single germinating spore can mess up things (especially for long-term experiments). Realized that I said that spores survive quite well. Should read "some spores".

It depends on the bacterium (and even strain), buffer composition and a few other factors. Luckily clostridia are decently killable for the most part, but especially thermophiles can survive multiple autoclaving attempts (yupp, tried that). But even in more common bacteria such as Bacillus you can find that occasionally spores survive and mess up experiments.

Spores (esp. bacterial) survive autoclaving quite well (as well as UV radiation).

And other relevant aspects are that in Israel schools have guards (as mentioned) for terrorist protection, and not to protect against students. As a consequence they are not checking students for weapons or have metal detectors to this effect. Teachers are not armed (or allowed to be armed, IIRC). The population has a higher rate of firearm training, yet fewer private citiziens own guns and they are tracked (as well as bullets). As a whole, despite higher risks due to the political situation, Israel seems to have a more moderate approach to the whole situation. Other than having guards around (for different reasons) how is it even comparable to what folks are afraid of in the US and their reaction to it?

Yes and is the rationale the same as the one proposed in the US? How about take a look at the security situation in Israel, how gun ownership is regulated and how many are in civilian circulation.

You are missing the broader picture here. If the administrations puts forth suggestions that teachers should should be armed and trained for defensive purposes, the next time something happens and there were no armed teachers around, it allows them to put the onus on the teachers ("why weren't they armed?"). It goes beyond allowing teacher to bring arms, which has been (mostly) a passive proposal and only locally implemented. Only recently Florida has approved a program to actively train and arm teachers. In many other states there are no reports for any schools (despite being allowed) to have armed teachers, partially because in some cases insurers would increase their rates as response. Also note that in California a recently a bill was passed to bar school employees to bring guns on campus. Beside safety concerns in case of broad implementation, there is also a societal issue where an atmosphere of fear is being created. Some schools have fortified schools with metal detectors, buzzers and essentially turned them into a fortified bunker of sorts. What I am wondering what that does to the psyche of kids who grew in an environment that teaches them that threats are everywhere and that fast and weaponized responses are the norm, rather than the exception, which they really are. As already pointed out by others, for some reasons the US has a disproportionate issue with gun-related injuries and death compared to other developed nations, including those with relatively high gun prevalence. I have doubts that teaching folks that more guns are the solution is a good idea, but goes into broader societal issues.

Pretty much. The discourse on where the gun was left was a bit on the silly side as it really was not the point. Rather, as pointed out that with increased prevalence of weapons, accidents due to negligence (such as the one described in the article) the likelihood of harmful incidents will increase. And at some point the overall morbidity may be worse with more weapons around than with less, considering that actual school shootings as a whole are rare events. If guns are brought to school every day, there is a cumulative chance that something happens at some point. The other part that IMO requires more discussion is how this proposal in itself adds even more burden on the teachers, who, as a whole and especially in poor districts have too many responsibilities already. They are woefully underfunded and often underprepared to deal with the more extreme situations, badly paid and now on top should provide protective services. Some already have to deal with violence and neglect on a daily basis. Adding that burden on top is just incomprehensible to me.

I doubt that the democrats have forgotten his role in the election (Clinton sure did not). He was a political actor, but arguably not for either party, but rather on behalf of the FBI. However, given Trumps subsequent actions, it does make it highly improbable (to say the least) that the firing was the result of mishandling the Clinton probe and resulting effect on the election. Trump pretty much himself has revealed the actual reasons.

To avoid hijacking I have left a comment on the other thread.