CharonY

Just like enrolling at Trump University while eating rotten Trump steaks and drinking Trump wine.

Evolution has little do with it but domestication and cultivation, not to mention the invention of techniques to actually create fabrics out of them. The fact that these invention were made a long time ago does not mean that it is fundamentally different from any other material made in more recent times.

Darnit. He was one of the few in the world who could make stats genuinely fun.

That is certainly true. I would extend that even further. Even aspects that seem to conform to empirical evidence have to be scrutinized. After all phrenology was assumed to be a hard science. And in modern terms, spurious correlations are sometimes heavily extrapolated. And sometimes it appears that our appetite for "hard" sciences and categories may lead us astray. Take for example the simple statistic that black African-Americans have a higher incidence of cardiovascular and immune issues. So from there it is easy to assume that there are biological differences that may explain this phenomenon. One could (and to some degree some have) develop a whole research and medical program based on genetic differences between white and black populations to improve health outcome. Yet research from epidemiologists found that strangely, this effect is mostly found in black people from low socioeconomic backgrounds AND who show strong indicators of long-term aspirations (such as believing in hard work for success, having strong indicators of self -control etc.) and who generally reach better socioeconomic status later in life. In white populations and affluent black populations this effect is absent. Molecular studies indicate a strong association with stress-related phenotypes indicating that for poor black people, but not for poor white, there is added stress when they strive to better their position, leading to health issues later in life. Thus in this case looking at "soft" parameters (i.e. of psychological nature) has the potential to better explain an outcome than merely molecular or health outcome studies. And taken in context of society, this provides a quite different outlook on population-wide differences in health outcomes.

Also it is meant to address an inherent conflict of interest. After all, a broker would benefit most from selling high-commission products, regardless of performance and risk.

I would add that this is the hallmark and ambition of modern natural sciences. After, some of the things you mentioned were justified by scientific racism which, in itself, was born from enlightenment school of thought.

What cut-off do you mean? Even when talking about mostly passive accent-free language acquisition it is usually closer to 5 or 6 years (and even then it depends quite a bit). And of course many learn languages successfully far later in life (though it is true that mechanisms are a different by then).

It helps if you get a general sense of what the prof is doing by looking at his website and publication list. Do not focus too much on that, though, as they may have moved on. It is more to get an idea of what they may be up to. Unless the prof is starting off with some general chit-chat I would straight ask whether they would be willing to take you up for some lab training. Note that it is quite a time investment on their part and if you can make the case that it would be worth their time (i.e. that you are willing to learn and work hard, and that you can demonstrate interest in the field), you are already halfway there. Throwing out your specific interests is usually not that helpful as in your first semester you are unlikely to have any depth of knowledge in a given field. Often, they may ask you about your career plans, but again, in first semester there is usually too much uncertainty.

Stop that.It makes brainy hurt.

So here is the thing. PFCs (such as PFOA, PFOS and so on) are literally everywhere. Take the blood of any random person and you will find there. The levels have been dropping in recent years but you can still find it. It accumulates in wild life as well as water. Likewise, you will find trace amount in most food. There are two reasons for that. A) they bioaccumulate and B) our measurement sensitivity has been improving massively. So the real issue is the following: how much is leaching out? In order for it to be an acute concern would need a concentration above the background exposure. It should also be noted that while these compounds have been associated with adverse health effects, much less is known about low-level continuous exposure, or the mechanisms of toxicity, for that matter. So again, we know it is there, but we really need to figure out how much there is and establish an idea of how much is harmful.

This is kinda off topic, but as an STEM academic i had to laugh. And throw up a little bit.

I assume OP wants to limit the question specifically to abstract and exclusively food-related communication? Or is the question even more specific to the ability to code directions? This is highly specific, and I am not knowledgeable enough to provide an exhaustive answer. However, ravens, monkeys and apes have certainly been shown to indicate type of food with calls. Inherently it also indicates location, though not by the type of call itself. For most animals it would not make a lot of sense as they may not have fixed reference points (such as a bee hive). Instead it seems more common for them to show where food sources are and/or use pheromone trails or markings. For example, naked mole rat foragers bring back food and encourage others to follow their trails, presumably by smell. Arguably, this is a more efficient and precise way to indicate food sources. That does not mean that they are not able to convey spatial information. For example, a variety of monkeys give warning signals from predators that indicate not only type, but also distance.

That is what many use. One should also make sure that the inner lining can survive the temp shift.

One has to be a bit careful though. If one seals them tightly, they might shatter.

Well, that is the thing, isn't it? Domestic violence in the West has gone down (9.8 victims per 1000 to 3.6 per 1000 between 1993 and 2010)., but has been around forever and is certainly to stick around. Only in the 90s domestic violence was codified in the US and the ongoing need can be seen in the Istanbul convention 2011. According to WHO, the lifetime prevalence of domestic violence is lowest in high income regions (including Western countries as well as Japan and South Korea) with 23% prevalence, but is not much higher in the Western Pacific region (24.6, includes China, Cambodia, Philippines, Samoa, Vietnam) or low-income Europe (Albania, Turkey, Ukraine, Romania, Russian Federation etc., 25.4%). The really shocking part is the obvious regression by legalizing (limited as it may be) physical abuse, where the rest of the world is marching in the opposite direction.

So by your logic you should have gone back to your own country and make it better so that you would have the quality of life you wanted and thereby negating the need to emigrate?

The species concept is indeed a fuzzy one and even the criterion of successful interbreeding is not quite as simple as it seems. Specifically to hybrids I'd like to add this: while there are fertility issues, ligers, for example are not always sterile. Others, such as the Beefalo are actually fertile. And the situations is even more complicated once we move to plant species. Looking at neanderthals one has to note there is data suggesting that male hybrids were most likely sterile, as DNA analyses showed a dearth of neanderthal genes on the X-chromosome.

That is unfortunately true, and there is hope that more will be open in the future. This does not discredit the research, though. More importantly, have you noticed that the two papers by researchers who may have competing interests are actually reviews? I.e. assuming your claim is true that many of these studies are exclusive funded by pharma, those reviews should have an over representation of pharma-funded research. So all you have to do is to show that the authors are skewing research by doing so and point out how the actual research that is not pharma-biased contradicts it (note: check out what the NIH has been funding, it may surprise you). That is not to say that research has been a bit on the slow side due to legal restrictions and is likely to gain steam in the near future. I.e. one will have a more complete view on benefits and risks following that research. Also, following new legal rulings, pharma is now actually highly interested in pushing the benefits of cannabinoids as there is a billion dollar market for them to exploit. It is not a novel thing, as there have been approved extracts produced by e.g. Bayer almost a decade ago. However, the potential market has been expanding since them. So it would be kind of silly to play down the benefits, if they try to develop drugs based on them. So for sake of fairness I should add that in this particular case the pharma companies producing those drugs could facilitate (internal) research easier, as they usually have licenses by the respective government allowing them to cultivate and research cannabis and derived therapeutics. But again, it would be against their interest to overestimate risks.

Could you kindly list which of the mentioned authors were funded by pharma companies?

Well, it depends. The most important work of scientist, which is usually the first major work that cemented their reputation are made roughly at the equivalent level of mid-late assistant professorships (i.e. when there is some level of independence). Depending on discipline and decade this translate to roughly the early to mid-forties (with notable exceptions, of course). Whether that is considered pretty young, is probably a matter of interpretation. Things are likely to get worse, as over time there will be less and less basic discoveries. Instead one has to dig on the extremes, which is usually more time consuming and especially in experimental sciences, increasingly expensive. The latter is especially true if one wants to compete with well-funded cutting-edge labs. For young scientists (that is, tenure-track or equivalent) this is a double whammy, as they have a harder time to get funding.

My suspicion is that it actually runs counter to their business interest (the institute is heavily funded by the Koch empire). While they heavily pushed agendas such as cutting welfare, they were quite fond of immigration. Still, they were quite significantly involved in promoting, supporting and influencing GOP policy. Now they actually turned directly against the an Republican president.

Unfortunately, populism is neither novel nor unique to the USA (see Brexit, various populist parties throughout Europe etc.). It is rather surprising that the think tank is making such a radical turn.

It is rather telling when the otherwise conservative Cato institute publishes this:

Could you give examples of the problems you wan to be solving? Is your job in developing new kits or more toward quality assurance/certification? It has to be said that timely and cost-efficient fulfillment of a project is of highest priority more so in industry as compared to academia. If a pipeline exists, you'll have to come up with something fantastic to make anyone even consider replacing something that actually works (and often with good reason). In academia the students are supposed to learn and are thus allowed to "play" more (assuming that funding does not run out). Also note that students are mostly insulated from actual politics (issues inside a group does not really count). The real politics starts much later but is at least equally vicious. On that note there is another thing that may play a role. You are likely very junior in the job and with a BS it is most likely a technical job. If you are not good friends with your co-workers they may just be completely disinterested in talking science with a junior (assuming they have higher positions and degrees) or are not interested in science per se (if they are technicians). In academia even senior scientists take time to chat with undergrads as we are interested in foster individual growth as part of our job. In companies that is usually not the case, or not to that degree at least.

The injection volume does matter to a degree, as it can affect peak shape. Two things to consider, the first is the effects of the solvent. If it is different from the mobile phase, large volumes of it can distort the chromatographic run to different degrees. The second is the volume itself. If you are within 5-10% of the column volume you will generally not see a lot of differences. However, with increasing volume your peaks will start to widen. Another thing to consider is that your injector may be more or less accurate at a given volume range. If you need the highest reproducibility, it is good practice to keep the volume constant (as well as all other parameters).