CharonY

As it turns out, the investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion was not kicked off by the Steele dossier. Rather it was because Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat that Russia had dirt on Clinton (article):

1) if you look at the ions involved in the process where are each found (i.e. inside or outside of the cell) and at which concentration. Focus on the concentrations before and after the potential. 2) it is correct though the reasoning is the other way round, it is not commonly defined as part of the TCA cycle (though pathways are intrinsically connected). In 5) you got a hint to which gene is affected. Reading up on the gene will provide the answers. I will say that the answers in 4) are very strange .

Also, ribozymes are clearly not the ancestor of eurkayotic life but fall into the category of the RNA world hypothesis, which is far from an established fact. More specifically though, how do you define "only once"? There are obviously plenty of ribozymes and their early origins are still unclear. Also chromosome re-arrangement has been observed in many species and is clearly not an unique event either. Forgot to add, endosymbiotic events related to formation of eukaryotes also happened more than once. Mitochondria likely originated from aerobic bacteria, whereas plastids likely evolved from cyanobacteria.

Most commonly it is due to promiscuity on their active site. It is assumed that early enzymes had little substrate specificity and were accordingly less effective. Specialization increased both, specificity as well as catalytic activity. In addition, there are compounds (or even just parts ) who are structurally similar and would not be distinguishable for the enzyme (depending on the specificity of the active site).

That would be my guess. Or a similar resin. Sometimes there are cheaper versions out there whose refractive index is less than optimal.

The pipette has already been mentioned, and to the right is a needle probe. I doubt it is an immersion oil as that is only required for immersion objectives (not for the specimen as such) and I suspect (based on the material of the accessories) that the microscope does not have that. Also it looks rather viscuous and does not appear to be optically clear. My guess is that it is some resin that is actually used on the specimen (i.e. do not put in on the objective unless you are really sure that it is, in fact, immersion oil).

So we agree on the first part, which is the crux of the situation. Law enforcement seem to make judgement calls based on the morality of the victim (not just the behaviour at the specific incidence) to decide whether they prosecute. Second, while it is a good idea to mitigate risk in general, if it is being codified in law we will get into situations where burqas become the logical consequence. Also, since it has not come up, the large majority of rapes and sexual assaults are carried out by acquaintances which includes settings generally assumed to be safe(r). Thus, in many cases what is commonly perceived as risky behaviour does not actually increase chance of rape or sexual assault. Attire, for example has been shown to influence outcome of rape cases, but there is no evidence for a correlation with increased rape risk.

I agree that my argument was not well laid out. My overall point was to look into gender specific differences, which are consistent in all ethnic groups. Adjustments are required for each group. Thus, the reasons for race specific differences would require a different analysis. There is not a huge amount of research out there that I am aware of, but I could name a few papers who start looking into those differences. But again, in all ethnicities and races the completed suicide rates are higher for men than for women. If you want to talk about changes in rates the situation becomes more complicated as it is very difficult to link these statistics with specific causative events (and it is especially deceiving is the initial rate is low to begin with) and it would require significant amount of digging to figure out whether something has been reported. With regard to income levels there are studies that have established higher risk at low perceived or actual socioeconomic status. Specifically for the US it was found that relative status seems also to be a factor (see Daly et al. Federal Reseerve Bank of SF, 2010). I.e. being of lower status than the rest of community increases risk. Also income lower than 34k increases suicide risk, likewise unemployment). I should also note that in other countries different social structures offer significantly different demographics on suicide.

Good point. I will also add that the baseball example is horribly inadequate. After all there you would sue for negligence not for intention to harm. If someone threw a ball straight at you with intention to harm it would matter little whether it was at a game or in the backyard. Likewise, you would expect law enforcement to act if you are robbed, regardless whether you flashed money or not.

Yeah, no that is not related to conjugation. And just as a side note, while the images themselves may be nice, they are quite distracting from the actual point. Which is that the origins of meioisis are apparently not quite clear and one can definitely not state with any level of certainty that they originated from conjugation.

Yes, that is an interesting concept and it Japan the rate is a bit higher than the USA (15 vs 12 /100,000). But at the same time, I feel the concept of face is often misunderstood or its effect overestimated. Rather it seems that high suicide rates are more strongly associated with financial woes (they trend followed the Asian financial crisis) and also break down of familial structures. In contrast, China has similar concept, but only half the suicide rate. I do think that it is more a mystification of the concept in the Western world that leads people to draw direct link from the concept of face and suicide. A more generalized and arguably more useful view would be looking at societal and financial pressures in general. For example, in South Korea, the suicide rate is even higher (about double that of Japan) and there it is strongly linked to poverty among the elderly.

I am not sure about the relevance at all. If someone flashes money in a dangerous area and gets robbed. Does it mean that police won't prosecute the crime because he had it coming? I mean sure, folks could say that was stupid (though still different from a women visiting a bar) but I do not see it being dismissed outright. After all, sexual assault cases have some of the lowest prosecution rates. I.e. some guy flashing money and getting robbed has still a higher chance to have his/her case followed up then a young woman with the wrong clothes at the right bus stop.

I was referring specifically to this claim: In your link the libertine bubble clearly refers to a parallel development, not one from conjugation as you suggested. AFAIK the origin is still unclear with a number of parallel hypothesis. However, conjugation is a well-developed specialized apparatus and it would be quite difficult to imagine a path from conjugation to meiotic processes. If there was a developed hypothesis indicating how that may have been the case, I would be quite interested in reading up on it.

I am aware of the thread in speculations, but a body of literature around this subject has been formed recently and I did not want to use the speculation thread (which went on various tangents as they do) to discuss current literature. A difference across racial lines does not necessarily mean that race in itself is an explanatory element. This is especially important as suicide as a whole is a relatively rare event. In other words, being white, is a bad predictor for suicide as (rather obviously) most do not commit suicide. The question therefore is what are the risk factors? Known risk factors of suicide are mental health issues as well as lack of support (including access to mental health care, suicide prevention programs etc.). While it is likely not the only reason, it is the best researched part. There is good statistical evidence that this may be the result of poorer mental health outcomes in men, which, as already mentioned, correlates with increased suicide risk. One interesting aspect is that many suicide prevention programs are aimed at younger people (who traditionally were more prone to suicide) but now the risk has increased in middle-aged people. So one factor is a lack of mental health support. Another observation is that especially middle-aged men often do not seek mental health support. Overall poor mental health outcomes, connected with inadequate support appear to be important, if not dominant drivers related to suicide. We will revisit this point later. A number of researchers have then asked the question what are the causes of this situation and why are men more vulnerable? One hypothesis states that at middle age people get more introspective and if they consider their situation to be hopeless, suicide risk increases. Risk factors here include lack or loss of partner, low-income and/or social standing and especially loss, poor health and drug abuse. In some cases the factors may not be independent, as e.g. drug abuse can lead to poor health and job loss, or poor health can lead to addiction. But then the question remains why is successful suicide more prevalent in men? The meta-study that I mentioned earlier is part of a large body of literature that deals with perception of men and associated mental health which leads to interesting hypothesis. Wong et al looked at characteristics that are generally associated with masculinity and looked at respondent's attitudes to it as well as their mental health status. It is based on the observation that there is a gender-distinct set of traits and norms that people are expect to conform. For example competitiveness and suppression of emotions is typically seen as masculine traits. Non-conformity (i.e. men not being competitive or women being competitive) are often perceived negatively (or at least more negatively than conforming to these traits). In psychological studies a number of these classes have been inventorized for further analyses. Further studies have revealed that strong conformity to these masculine ideals is associated with greater psychological distress. It is not so much that the individual traits may be the cause, but the failure to meet those ideals. In addition, certain ideals can be seen as harmful when expressed (e.g. violence) or limits ones ability to improve a bad situation (e.g. self-reliance). Thus there are certain masculine traits that in itself or due to strict adherence can be harmful to men when they try to be "real men". These are sometimes referred to toxic masculine traits if they are ultimately harmful (mostly to men but in some contexts it extends also to women in such relationships). In contrast, there are masculine traits that have not been associated with negative outcomes (primacy of work for example) or which are not negative when present in moderation (e.g. risk-taking). Going back to the meta-study I mentioned, the authors looked at several dozen studies to identify traits that are specifically adversely associated with mental health outcome. The strongest predictors here were: self-reliance, playboy (defined as lack of emotional involvement in sexual relationships), power over women and another one that I forgot. These traits were found to be robust in a survey of a few dozen studies. In other words, folks that express strong conformity to these traits are at higher risk to suffer from distress or other negative outcomes. And if you recall, these are traits that are also associated with higher suicide risk. Obviously it does not mean that it is the sole or even prime reason. Moreover, most other masculine factors except for two (primacy of work and pursuit of status) were also negatively associated with help seeking. In other words, conforming to masculine norms inhibits folks to actively seek help. This is exacerbated by traits that may limit ones ability to form meaningful partnerships. In fact there is data indicating that men in healthy relationship are far less likely to commit suicide but more likely to seek support (everyone who has his SO drag one to the MD can attest to that). While the data does not say that this leads to an increase in suicide, it is offers compelling evidence that these traits are important risk factors by adding distress and limiting the ability of affected men to seek help. This is in contrast, to women, who are far more likely to seek help when they have suicidal thoughts. As a side note on the racial element, some of the studies involved non-whites but the added challenge is that conformity has to be weighed differently. For example, while emotional control is considered a masculine trait in all analyzed groups, in a number of Asian cultures the overall expected level of restraint is higher than in other groups. The conclusion here is that finer-grained analyses are required to figure out the significance of these differences.

That is a rather bold claim, as the mechanisms are pretty much unrelated. Do you have any sources that claim that? I guess you may have overinterpreted some online articles which may have described it as some primitive form of sexual reproduction. That, however, is also inaccurate as horizontal gene transfer does not result in replication.

In a number of posts male suicide have been cited as a counterargument of sexism and it has even been suggested (ridiculously) that women's right are a potential cause. While there is still a lot of unknowns regarding the recent increase especially in the US, I'd like to lay out some of the things that we know so far. - male suicide rate is higher than female, though attempted suicide rates are higher in women - men tend to act faster on suicidal thoughts and are less likely than women to seek help - men are more likely to be socially isolated, which is a risk factor for suicide - men are more distressed when encountering financial troubles and suicide rate is more prevalent in men in lower-income groups - male suicides are more likely to occur in relation to drug substance abuse than female suicide There are a few more factors that I could list upon request. However, this is a decent basis to start asking of why men react differently to women. One of the largest studies to look into these effects was conducted by Wong et al (2017 , Journal of Counseling Psychology) and it traces it down to essentially toxic masculinity. After a short break I will elaborate on what it means.

The issue under discussion is that it does not even come to court. Prosecution is not only based on forensic evidence, but various studies have concluded that that a number of extralegal factors influence whether a case is being prosecuted or not. There are for example racial components when the assaulter is a stranger (highest rate are for white women assaulted by black men). Age is another determinant as younger victims are considered less credible (Spohn 2008). I a study in Detroit The same author (Spear&Spohn 1997) found that these characteristics are stronger predictors of eventual prosecution than forensic evidence or witnesses. In other words, it is more about the victim than the evidence surrounding the act. The most relevant factors were questions regarding moral characters (including e.g. whether the victim is in a stable relationship or had changing partners, but also alcohol or other drug use). In many cases I am pretty sure that the defense will attempt to discredit the victim. But if you really want egregious examples, there are cases where judges actively questioned the victim's behaviour (there are a couple of reports on US, Canadian and UK judges, if you want to look). One that comes to mind are the statements of a Canadian judge who asked victims to keep heir knees together and one from Montana who sentenced a teacher for raping a 14 y student to 31 days because "she looked older and was "as much in control". Obviously, that indicates that there are likely deeper issue within society with this.

It is not actually that. If you look at the molecular level it is more that the mobile genetic elements carrying the resistance genes (often in form of plasmids, but also transposons) move rapidly between bacteria. Under non-selective conditions they often get lost as they add cost to the host. However, when selection kicks in (i.e. presence of AB) they are maintained and spread further. The bacteria themselves have no advantage per se for sharing resistances (except in cases where the gene product can actively destroy the AB, such as beta-lactamases perhaps). In some bacteria, natural competence (i.e. active uptake of DNA) under stress conditions could also play a role, though again, mobile genetic elements are the most common source of resistance transfer.

So it is not an outright ban, but rather it is an adaptation to the new system: Which is not really much better. I.e. not mentioning evidence-based research to get funding.

I find it surprising that they found it surprising. After all horizontal gene transfer of resistance cassettes is a well-known phenomenon. To make matters worse, it does not only happen in guts, but also in the environment, as we deliver significant amounts of antibiotics via effluents or manure to free-living bacteria. AB resistance are therefore also spreading in soil bacteria, for example.

It is interesting that when it comes to sexual assault the victim's behavior and circumstances are questioned, whereas in other cases, such as "regular" assault it is more focused on the act itself and the evidence level.

First, that is a horrible stance implying that only certain people are worthy of protection. Second, it is not even true that those groups you listed are better protected. Just taking an example of Arapaio's office again (as this one was one of few that had a thorough investigation) we find there was a pattern of ignoring victims of sexual abuse, including minors. Police should never decide whether to follow up an investigation based on their (no doubt biased) opinion of the victims. As it stands, it is obvious that if you are from a low social group and/or are perceived not morally pristine (whatever that may mean) you are denied the protection that you are entitled to. I would think that it would be trivial to agree that the system has to change but apparently there are folks out there who still put the blame on the victims. That is beyond silly. The rate of rape has dropped to about a third to the rate in the 70s. Religiosity offers no protection whatsoever, especially considering that serious abuse has happened in religious institutions. And also let me be clear: if you look at historic rates we see that rape and sexual abuse rates have, at best, an inverse relationship with female participation in the workforce. Again, you are trying to shift blame to victim's choices.

Ah yupp. Yet another attack on Science from the white house. How about burning books next?

Moreover, you could ask yourself what is the biological basis of feeling in tune with your sex. In addition to what Arete posted, there is not a lot of information on the biological basis of gender perception and its potential plasticity. But considering that even the mechanisms determining sex are not as dual in nature as often assumed, one can extrapolate that gender perception is likely even less rigid. Also note that while certain aspects are constructed it does not mean that all aspects are flexible or even arbitrary. For example, associating gender with certain colors or clothing is clearly learned in a societal context, whereas mating preferences are far less flexible (though they also have a learned element to it).

Several reports hinted at and in this report the findings regarding Trump voters have been summarized: As such, it is small wonder that Trump fans the fires of racial resentment.