CharonY

The dark ages are a common misconception in which science and scholarly developments were on hold just waiting for the Renaissance. There were economically and social challenges following the decline the of the (Western). In the Western empire kingdoms established themselves with significant social restructuring. And it is true to some degree that access in that area to sources of information became more limited and there were not that many Latin translations of Greek sources so scholarly learning became more concentrated. But that does not mean that it vanished somehow. It is, for example a myth that in the middle ages scholars believed the earth to be flat. Moreover, the Eastern empire persisted, which continued to contribute to science and who were crucial in dissemination the Greek classics to the Muslim world.

Except, when people start looking.

Do you maybe mean elements or elementary composition? There are a host of different mas specs such as ICP-MS with which you can look at metals or various MS and MS/MS with soft ionization suitable for organic compounds. Typically (but not exclusively) the ionization source determines what you can analyze, where as the analyzer itself determines how accurate you measurements (in qualitative and quantitative terms) are going to be. But with complex compounds the Id becomes more and more complicated, especially in mixtures.

Interestingly quite a few in the top 20 or so are countries with relatively low income. I assume you mean in the top 10? Potentially there is some commonality rooted in former parts of the British empire. Or maybe not.

I doubt one could find a single reason. For example the most charitable nation according to the world giving index is Myanmar, followed by US, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Canada, Indonesia. I.e. there is no obvious similarity between all of these countries. There are also differences in the type of help rendered, i.e. monetary donation vs volunteering or just helping a stranger. Religiosity can play a role, as in many religions donations at certain time points are expected, but are not necessarily the main or even sole factor. Differences in the social systems, could also contribute. In some countries, welfare is carried almost entirely by taxes, whereas in others donations may be the main source of income.

Maybe to make things a bit clearer, we have three types of cones that are used to encode our colour vision. If there was a perfect shift, it would most likely happen in the brain, but would only make sense if she had normal vision before. I.e. in order to notice perfect inversion the perception has to change. Any other aberration on the detection level (i.e. on the chromophore in the cones) changes the perceived palette, but does not cause perfect inversion. Rather they have problem telling colour apart. In your example if she can't see a yellow number on a green background it means that she is likely unable to tell those apart. If the sight was inverted there would be enough contrast for her to distinguish those regardless what she calls yellow or green. However, it also depends quite a bit on lighting and the specific hue, so online tests may not be terrible accurate as monitors are usually not colour-corrected. That being said, you could compare it with your perception and see where the potential issues are. Take a look here http://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/types-of-colour-blindness/ where the various effects are nicely described.

That too. The indicated concentrations were based on direct collection of sweat.

Well, it is difficult. Who would have thought (or read some studies)?

The ultimate composition of sweat varies quite a lot and is the result of various absorption and reabsorption processes. However, the salt concentration should be roughly related to plasma levels. The concentration of sodium in plasma is about 140 mmol/L, that of sweat is somewhat diluted to ~40 mmol/L on average (exertion/ hydration level etc. change this value. Glucose on the other hand tends to be roughly in low mmol/L (1-5.5, depending on paper) in sweat as well as plasma. So it tends to be proportionately higher, actually. This discrepancy could also be explained by different methods used in different sweat studies, but it is clear that there is not an enrichment of salt in sweat (also note that the other salts, also found in plasma contribute to taste).

Or they will do it in China.

There are a number of counterpoints to be made. The described narrative is indeed one that has been proposed by a number of scholars (although ancient Greeks and Muslims did follow recognizable scientific pursuits). However, there are others that are not convinced. One key points is actually part of the narrative: Here, the influence of Greek and Muslim learning is, paradoxically seen as both instrumental yet gets kind of dismissed in the same paragraph, while highlighting the influence of Christianity. The issue here is, as some argue is if Christianity is the key element why was there a lack of significant scientific pursuit before the 12th or 13th century (i.e. around when Muslim naturalism based in Greek thought were established). I.e. the issue with that particular narrative is that it implies that the conditions were all set in a teleological manner to start a scientific tradition and only required the right ignition. It is a bit of a tunnel perspective where every other factor becomes a secondary element, and I am deeply distrustful of those simplified explanations. After all, what would have happened if the Arabic translations and developments of the Greek classics had not existed? What would have happened if the established universities in the various areas (Europe/Middle East/China) were under more or less religious or political control? I think a likely more accurate reading is that it is a confluence of factors, which does include political/religious/economic elements that have allowed scientific science to flourish in the West.

It is in fact literally called paper chromatography (a variation of thin layer chromatography). If done correctly it is actually not to shabby for quick purity assessments. Though obviously one should have an idea what is going on there...

Ultimately no one really knows what they are doing, if some do, it is often with the wisdom of hindsight. Even adornments like having an ivy league degree does not change that a bit. If you always try out to figure out the perfect path, you may risk not taking any at all. Besides, interest is an important motivator but you will also have to be honest with yourself in knowing how sustainable it actually is.

There is also a trend in having longer work hours but have an additional day off, instead.

In the end it depends a lot on what type of career you want to pursue. Outside research, the precise topic may not matter much in some areas, a bit more in others. Being a product or process manager is easier if you have at least familiarity with the overall process. But if mid-term stability is high on your list I would look for industrial jobs that interest you, and go from there.

Because they don't. Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, that's it. More specifically their (our) catarrhines ancestors split into the sister groups Apes (Hominoidea) and old world monkeys (Cercopithecidae). Also note that race denotes a classification below the species level.

Some things are better buried in the middle of the night in the backyard.

To be fair, I see relatively few posts that just claim racism and usually there is at least on person trying to argue the facts. For the most part (and this why I generally like this forum) people let those guys dig their own holes before they start piling up. I also disagree with that part. There are a few with a genuine question, and you will notice that people here refer to a diverse range of lit or websites to read up. However, those that are eventually locked are usually starting off from a wrong viewpoint: "obviously there is race, you can see it with your own eyes" followed by a straw man, "there is biological diversity, why do you insist that everyone is the same" supplemented with a fatal lack of knowledge in science "if we fully sequence everyone race would be clear as day". Unfortunately, the latter is far more common than the former.

The trouble is with a racist standpoint is that few actually make a good point, since the preconception is based on faulty assumptions. They try to give it legitimacy but tend to ignore counterpoints (such as those provided by citations), which makes a discussion pretty much meaningless. Even worse many of their points have been rehashed so often ("blacks are inherently more criminal, look at the crime statistics") that it becomes tiresome to refute them (especially as they are getting ignored). What I am saying is that context is important. It is one thing to discuss why certain differences between populations exist, but if everything you say is trying to boil it down to "because of their skin colour/culture/whatever" it pretty much sets the tone of the discussion in very unproductive way.

Indeed. Also considering that many policies take a while to demonstrate an effect, it may take well past his presidency until one can figure those out.

Yes, that is standard procedure to create freezer cultures.

Note that in many cases the cell count in yoghurt is far lower than used in studies showing benefits or probiotics. I.e. it is not clear whether the number of bacteria surviving the passage have a net benefit. However, freezing will further reduce the number (as well as storing it at room temperature, for that matter).

1) Yes. Up until relatively recently some fields in engineering were doing pretty well. In part, because more go straight to industrial jobs rather than staying in academia, compared to other disciplines. However, some data suggests that it has slowed down quite a bit, too. 2) Referring to academia there are two issues. Permanent positions are limited so people hang around as post docs. However, while up to 4 years of postdoc is encouraged, pretty much anything beyond that may start to count against you (i.e. there is a perception that you just were not successful). Even worse, in industrial jobs academic experience is often seen as a negative (unless you happen to specialize in an area that is rare and which they are looking for). 3) Honestly, there are relatively few jobs in which you have a permanent status and exclusively engage in research. Sometimes, there are facility management jobs in which your job is split between helping others doing research and pursue your own. However, more often than not those can also be non-permanent (and often paid only at the postdoc level). 4) Pretty much. Most of the time you need PhD + postdoc and then you need to get lucky (if you network sufficiently).

If you got the PhD-academic research route be aware that a) it is a long haul with a lob of uncertainty (far less than 20% of STEM PhDs obtain permanent jobs in academia), b) if one is successful it is going to be relatively late to other careers and c) much of the job is not actual research anymore, but split between teaching, administration and group management. One could also aim to become staff scientist, but there are even fewer positions out there.

Not my field, but typically with a MSc job opportunities in research are more technical in nature. Typically to engage in research (which in the long term often means leading a research group) requires a PhD and job security is very uncertain up until rather late in the career.