CharonY

In that context, do you agree with the budget cuts to limit research into climate drivers? Even if we assume that reducing the apparatus (such as e.g. personnel) would be desirable, do you think that research funded by EPA, DOE and other agencies is a good move (note that a chunk of the respective budget is used to fund industrial and academic research)? Or do you think that research in these areas should be reduced? More to the point, do you think that the proposed changes are evidence-driven with the goal to meet certain metrics (and if so, any idea which they might be?) or do you think it is more ideology-driven, with trying to reduce overall involvement of Government in research? If one thinks that reducing government funding is a good idea, who else should do it? Especially considering that various studies indicate a huge net revenue for each research dollar spent. On that note, what do you think about the overall propositions in terms of research and research funding? There are deep budget cuts that threaten many research programs and may put USA's role as science juggernaut in jeopardy in the long run.

Thanks for doing that, I think having different views represented is quite worthwhile. However, I do think that outlining your primary reasons (or maybe a pro and cons-type of list) for voting Trump would be a good starter as there are so many bits and pieces there. Two questions though, do you feel that he is on the right track in the issues that are relevant to you (and which are these). Are you at all bothered that he puts people in charge of agencies such as the EPA that are rather obviously trying to dismantle the organizations whilst ignoring or denying scientific consensus?

Yep, OP is describing something else (e.g. trehalose or maltose).

Well, since it was brought up a few times (even if only as a sidepoint): Carl Jung has a historic relevance to psychology and was influential in certain areas. However, his mostly observatory theories do not mesh well with modern psychology sciences which has moved towards more evidence-based approaches. Even in more theory-oriented areas, Jung is mostly seen as a historic figure rather than having relevance. So overall, his theories do not have a lot of relevance in the area of psychological sciences today. However, in other areas which have a more pop-psy approach to these things (assessment centres anyone?) it is still quite popular.

Things are actually not that straightforward. For starters WebMD is not really a medical authority on anything, though they do base their articles on decent consensus. The issue really is that of a cost-benefit calculation, including ethical consideration. While there is evidence that it confers health benefits, they are more relevant under certain conditions (such as in conjunction with phimosis, as already mentioned) or in certain high-risk populations. That is, the actual beneficial effect can vary significantly. For example, the benefits of protection against HIV was mostly found in high HIV areas, the benefits are likely to be far lower in societies where primary route of infection are needles and where condoms are more routinely used. The situation can actually be worse if people believe that circumcision is an effective means of protection and forego condoms altogether. It should also be mentioned that while speculations have been made how circumcision could be lower risks of STIs, it is not quite certain how it actually works. As such it is still possible that other coavariates may play a role. Either way, the observed benefits, as observed from epidemiological studies, are clearly population-dependent. Accordingly there are conflicting recommendations. While the American Academy of Pediatricians now for the first time think that the benefits outweigh any risks, the Canadian counterpart (CPS) is more critical and would only endorse it in high-risk populations. However, neither recommend universal circumcision. But as John rightly commented, for these benefits, adult male circumcision would also work, which would clear the ethical issue. One exception is probably urinary tract infections, but then lowering a low incidence may also not be worthwhile in most situations.

Specifically regarding the recovery: there are estimates that by eliminating ozone depleting substances (as outlined in the Montreal protocol) could result in recovery within decades. The publication highlighting potential recovery was published last year in Science, such as smaller areas of large depletion and other findings.

Unfortunately, nowadays there are so many Bachelor's around that they have become disposable. Actually, to some degree it is even true for PhDs in many areas. In life sciences I cannot even remember if they were ever competitive with engineering salaries. But if money is a concern, you can count yourself lucky that you did not go for an academic career.

Well that is a bit of an oversimplification. Many processes can be constructed as cycles (even often in an arbitrary way. However, it is not terribly useful to assume an universality to it or, even worse, to assume that it has any explanatory power. Also, even cyclic reactions do not necessarily need to reset itself to initial conditions (as we see with global warming).

So if you think about energy cost, isn't maintaining high copy plasmids more costly? If you think about your answers you have actually two somewhat separate elements to consider.

The issue with stereotypes is that it strips the individuality. A person is then evaluated/perceived based on parameters they have little to no influence over, rather than merit. The issue is amplified in competitive situations, in which minute things can be the reason for someone to lose out. Thus, the individual has to overcome stereotypes on top of demonstrating merit, whereas the "default" population is more likely to be seen as individual. The "default" can vary depending on context, of course. As such, it matters little whether stereotypes are (somewhat ) true or not. Even positive stereotypes come with barbs. For example, Asians being good at maths is one stereotype, but usually is accompanied by other traits such as being unimaginative, hidebound, to name a few. Ultimately, any kind of stereotype basically means that you somehow have to overcome pre-existing assumptions and present yourself as an individual to be accepted by peers, which basically means that you have to do additional work to be perceived the same way.

Can you elaborate on this part. What do you mean with energy saving in that context?

Now thinking about that, actually thinking that Native Americans may be upset about something without asking them in the first place is quite patronizing, isn't it? I mean, it goes into a similar mindset of actual cultural appropriation as one just assumes something about a different group and runs with it.

He is somewhat right. There are at least three things to consider. 1) the level of education you are willing to obtain, 2) the salary you envision and in which time frame you want to obtain it and 3) level of competition. Generally speaking, degrees in engineering and computer-related degrees ticked all the right boxes. Even with a low level degree very good job opportunities were possible. Most would not be in research, obviously, but even in academic areas (where you would need a PhD) it is easier to get a position compared to life sciences. However, while the situation is still better than in life sciences, the competitions has become much tighter. That is, getting another degree may not make you terribly competitive on its own. Looking at progression, nowadays it is difficult to get very far in the science track of most companies. But even so, the managerial track is usually far more desirable in terms of progression, but also in ceiling. However if one desires to get a PhD to get a bump, one has to consider that a grad student salary or even a junior postdoc salary is likely to be lower than what you are making. Another issue is that the life science job market is very crowded. One of the reason is that, depending on the precise area, graduates from the areas of molecular biology, biochemistry, pharmacology and others roughly fit the profile. On top of it, quite often there are enough applications that companies can fill jobs with Master's degree that used to be Bachelor's. Connected to that is that it may be difficult to compete for managerial positions as there are good chances that there are people with higher education levels crowding in. So what can you realistically leverage to make you competitive? The one thing I can see is at least you are gaining industrial experience. You'll have to see, how many responsibilities you may realistically get (usually easier in smaller companies than larger ones) and use that to get a higher position in another company in company. In some cases, if become a key person, companies are willing to finance further higher education to let you rise higher within the company. However, a key element is that you take on larger roles and that you fulfill those without fail. At the Bachelor's level the role is usually very limited and is more about doing things and self-management rather than planning and managing others.

That is part of it, certainly. There is often also the assumption that for cultural relevant aspects someone outside of the group is by default not as able to grasp it and it takes significant effort to demonstrate that this is not the case. Often that is mixed with certain stereotypes to makes things worse. Funny bit is that these criticisms are pretty much just distraction. I mean, considering all the issues and how often they got the short end of the stick, I doubt that they will take particular offense on that. But hey, I guess some people rather like to tackle that, as reading up on actual societal issues does seem like quite a bit of work.

Yes, cor syrup would show up there, after all it is the US' favorite (subsidized) sweetener. It is true that it is literally everywhere, and coming from a elsewhere it is hard not to notice. Even things like sausages are often disgustingly sweet. Sometimes it is even worse if you buy a product that you think should be the same as in Europe (as in the Ketchup example) but even things that are supposed to be sweet (e.g. chocolate) are made sweeter and creamier in the US. That being said, it seems that the sugar content is slowly increasing in Europe, too, from what I heard. The highest levels were ~125g/day, whereas Germany is around 100 and UK about 93 g. In comparison China has about 28g daily intake and India only 10g.

Actually, this is the part where the asymmetry comes in. Assuming the English are a dominant culture, emulating them is more seen as trying to fit in or integrate. The reverse would only make sense in certain sub-populations where e.g. other accents or dialects are more prominent.

As usual, it is a matter of context, as Phi pointed out. Sometimes it can be used in malevolent way, sometimes just out of cultural insensitivity. Blackface has a bad history in the US due to the minstrel shows in which white actors would use blackface and portray black people in an... well, unflattering way. As its background was specifically to mock black people and foster certain stereotypes its use is frowned upon, even if the background may be lost to people doing nowadays. Similarly, you could expect wearing swastikas and talking with a fake German accent not going too well with Germans, outside of select situations. Now, obviously perceptions and cultural meanings change over time. However, often they do not just vanish. The biggest issue is probably when a dominating population utilizes cultural aspects of minority populations to propagate stereotypes. On the other hand, it can be difficult to distinguish these issues with innocuous use without understanding the background. Making another example, I would say there is a difference if non-Chinese people learn the lion dance and try to make an effort in authenticity, in which case criticism would be silly, vs someone just getting a costume and jumping around in it (just as a silly thought).Using the African American vernacular without being exposed to in in the actual environment (such as solely among white kids) is also a bit odd, like faking a dialect which also has its connotations. I should probably also emphasize that in case of uneven dynamics the aspect of dominant culture cannot be underestimated. If the dominant culture appropriates traits of minority culture the issue is that they may start to define the meaning of said traits. This can, effectively, diminish identity properties of the minority population. For example, the public portrayal of Native Armericans is dominated by Hollywood or similar portrayals and as an identity much has become a caricature (the various mascots with war bonnets and all in sports teams for example) or defined exclusively in the context of the dominant culture (either enemies or victims of settlers). As such, these portrayals have often superseded their actual identity and have diminished many cultural aspects (such as the importance of the certain headdresses).

I will have to dig out some books to be sure, but now that I reflect on it, I am likely (and embarrassingly) conflating events surrounding the spurt of Latin translations in the 12th century. Especially Aristotle's work were translated, circulated and maintained in the Middle East (but also Egypt and Constantinople), together with Greek manuscripts as early as the 8th century (via the Abbasid caliphate). To this point only few books were translated into Latin (of that I am fairly certain). At the same time few Greek works existed in Western Europe. However, as you rightfully pointed out, that does not mean that the books survived exclusively as Arabic translations. It would probably be somewhat more accurate to state that the works survived to a large extent due to contributions of Islamic scholars at a time when the ideas fell out of favor in the West. So yep, after writing this I am now quite sure that I was wrong. Which again demonstrates the importance of coffee as a part of as breakfast. Good call, btw. We cannot have something factually wrong be on the internet now, can we?

In that context it is perhaps interesting that much of the writings of Aristotle that we have now is based on translations made between the 12th-13th century. Most of it based on translations of Arabic texts, which effectively saved his writings (and quotes) from vanishing from history.

It is not that straightforward. The deaths associated with overdose are varied and a significant amount is due to obstruction of the upper airways (i.e. choking on vomit). In that case drug boosted one of the lethal effects of alcohol. Another effect is that alcohol reduces the clearance of certain benzodiazepines such as triazolam, increasing the effective does in the body. So that goes together with potentiating the biochemical effect.

That is actually quite interesting and from a rough look at the data, the link seems to have more explanatory power than the earlier mentioned cancer rate.

It is a false dichotomy. The choice is not between lashing out and repressing anger, but looking at ways to deal with anger. Ed and String have given examples for ways. I forgot where I read it, but IIRC lashing out or certain anger therapies where you vent your anger at an object has the issue that you feel good afterward. Why is that an issue? Well, you unconsciously learn that hitting things or lashing out gives you a positive feeling and you increase that that behaviour rather than addressing the source of anger. This can lead to a spiral of problematic behaviour.

The background is that height is strongly dependent on nutrition during infancy and childhood.

The really contentious part is the DNA-damage aspect, as to my knowledge there is no link. Size, on the other hand has physiological consequences.

The short answer is that they generally have low toxicity. We are talking about concentrations of more than a hundred grams for humans. It would be close to impossible to ingest that much orally.