CharonY

I am not sure whether it has been posted yet, but I came across PPP's national polls with rather, ehm, interesting findings: -67% of Trump voters say that unemployment increased during the Obama administration, to only 20% who say it decreased. - All Americans: 41% increased vs 48% decreased, 10% uncertain Note: it decreased - 41% of Trump voters say that the stock market went up during the Obama administration. 39% say it went down, and another 19% say they're not sure. - All Americans: 60% went up; 23% gone down, 17% uncertain Note: it went up, massively. - 40% of Trump voters think he won the popular vote, 49% think it was Clinton, 11% unsure - All Americans: 73% Clinton, 19% Trump, 7% unsure Note: Clinton won by ca. 2.7 million -60% of Trump voters think that millions voted illegaly for Clinton, 18% don't think so, 22% unsure -All Americans: 32% (!) think there were illegal votes, 55% don't think so, 14% unsure

Depends on what cells you are storing and their requirements, as well as amount and budget. Cryogenic freezers in various volumes are typically used for wide range storage. The simplest are isolated tanks into which you lower the racks. However, they require relative frequent refills. What racks you use depends on the vials with which you store the cells. Also note that many cells require controlled freezing and won't survive flash freezing.

That is quite off topic. though constructive advice can be helpful. Unfortunately, the comment I see has little bearing on OP. The CV template is pretty standard and there are a few reasons for that. Headers are very useful for the reviewer. Most only spend a few seconds going through a CV and being able to quickly scan relevant points such as education or prof experience without hunting makes it faster and annoys people less. CV as a header is useful as it often comes as a multi-document package (e.g. including research and teaching statements in academia). Contact info is critical for obvious reasons. You have to consider that in all likelihood you are not going throug one or two applications, but closer to 100-200 in many areas. But again, none of this is on-topic, but I would be careful not to mess up tried and true formats when it comes to applications (also note that in North America a photo is not desired).

Nope, it is a name for the classification system that was discovered in rhesus monkeys. The protein involved (RhD) may have some cross-immunity (I am not sure about that) but it is not identical.

Rapid evolution refers to significant changes in a gene pool in a relatively short amount of time. It does not even require strong selective sweeps (though they may be one possible means), but also simple e.g. by having a small population. Minor changes from one generation to the next can result in significant changes in a few generation, e.g. simply due to genetic drift.

It is only required that they have differential reproductive success, which may include stochastic effects and not necessarily be under selective pressure.

Maybe. It requires the presence of some pattern, which I can see in dome areas (music composition for example, even story telling). But I do not quite see it in the area of scientific discovery quite yet.

The examples show how systems can do info synthesis, but I have not seen examples of generating new approaches, ideas or knowledge.

The assertion is quite different from OP. Yes menial jobs and some knowledge based jobs may be replaced. Though it is strange to assert a direct connection with sciences. Moreover, it seems that the basic premise is that creative jobs are safe from automation (somewhat). Science is clearly one of them.

Knowledge in isolation will have far less impact. Also many of the categories do not make much sense to me...

Maths is sorely needed in most biological areas. However, for better or worse they tend to be introduced in advanced classes. I also agree with Hyper that the assertion is nonsense. For example, a part of environmental science can be the simple enumeration of species found in an habitat. But that is only the beginning. The goal could be for example to reconstruct food webs, or to figure out drivers that influence biodiversity. In all cases some level of statistical modeling is required. But again, it tends to be a bit of an advanced topic (which I personally find a little bit unfortunate).

I think it is more because font selection is not deemed important and most just go with the default.

Precisely. Also easier for spotting typos and similar. As I said, final type setting is done afterwards.

For papers journals usually set their own fonts and formatting. Your manuscripts for review should be easily readable, which means sufficient font size, a standard serif font and 1.5 -2x spaced in most cases. Almost all that I receive are times New Roman.

While the specific fear appears unfounded, what is the benefit of uploading selfies?

If your main strategy is just memorization it would explain why it feels harder rather than easier after a while. Memorization gets you through quicker. Understanding gets you through easier.

Eh not much of the large stuff is used in biochem. It is all very small volume (usually). A book should be best. I'd have to take a look and ask around whether there is something good around. Problem is that the cutting edge stuff needs some basics to be understood. And then it might get boring. If not, congrats/condolences, you may have an academic.

Yeh, seems to be a re-occurring theme.

Well, that takes care of that, I suppose. Mind you, being the wife of Mitch McConnell would probably not be a huge issue in itself, considering the latter is certainly GOP establishment (and it is kind of expected that the cabinet would be stocked with people with ties to the GOP. Wells Fargo is more of an issue and definitely runs counter to the drain the swamp narrative (and which I was not aware of). However, given the amount of conflict of interest in the other cases it still looks to me that it is one of the tamer choices (unless it becomes apparent that she actually encouraged the fake account thing). Unless of course, it turns out that she got her hands in companies that would potentially benefit from potential actions as transportation secretary.

After a review of the latest appointments things look kinda bleak as even in cases where he appointed mainstream politicians he seems to put them into the wrong roles. Such as putting a climate change denier and anti-EPA activist Pruitt as director of the EPA... So far it seems to me that Elaine Chao as Transportation Secretary is not at least somehow problematic (to my knowledge). Is there anyone else? It seems that that list is going to be considerably shorter.

Except that it doesn't happen. Unless you think that firebombing is counted as criticizing. Actually, that comment was so mind-numbingly stupid that it warrants further comments. Germany never wanted to have immigrants per se and compared to US or Canada there are very limited options to immigrate (as a non-EU citizen) to begin with. For the longest time there was Byzantine system and basically only "guest workers" could get in to fill the labourer shortage after WWII. People coming were allowed to stay but could not get citizenship (initially). The latter part was changed for their descendants. De facto there was no obvious way from someone from the outside getting into the US without having extensive contacts that are able navigate the system. And even then it was pretty random who was allowed to get in. The background is that until around 2004 Germany considered itself not a country for immigration. I.e. immigration was considered to be a special case and not part of regular policies. That did leave those that came in as e.g. guest workers kind of stranded as legal in-betweens. The system was revamped in 2004, but with a specific view of actually limiting and regulating immigration. I.e. only then did the politicians officially acknowledge that people coming in will eventually become part of the population. Before that it was political suicide to say anything positive about immigration and there was always the sense that immigrants are something apart from proper Germans. The only other route has been asylum, which is entirely different. The right for protection is enshrined in the constitution and often due to an official route for immigration, many opted to claim asylum as an alternative. Bottom line, few Germans want immigration and almost everyone criticizes the policies, mostly because they are stupid. If all that criticize it were imprisoned, there would be more people in prisons than outside.

Another thing to consider, which may be slightly abstract is the fact that evolution basically means that the genetic composition of a population is changing over time. Everything else, like speciation is a consequence of this. For example, if two populations are separated so that there is no genetic exchange over time they may diverse genetically so much that they become different species. This does not necessarily take a long time, as it is dependent factors such as generation time, population size and so on. We can observe evolution in bacteria, for example, as they replicate that fast.

Just to address the claim that the wording has changed due to failing models I have plotted the number of publications with either "global warming" or "climate change" (web of science) and it is quite clear that climate change has always been used more frequently (in fact. increasingly so) which makes sense as warming is just one of the aspects of climate change. It does demonstrate that Adams did not bother to try to understand the issue, which is fine, he is not a scientist but it basically shows that it actually takes some effort to at least try to understand complicated matters. However one cannot just dismiss the facts based on that. You cannot dismiss cancer because it is complicated and poorly understood. Well, you can, but you will have to face the consequences. I will also note that it is a bit weak if one publicly states a strong opinion and then immediately claim the victim role if one gets criticized for it. Obviously criticism should be fair and one should not hold a comic book author to anywhere near the standard of a climate researcher. But stating that one does not understand the subject is fair. And in this case, it is rather obvious, too.

I think psychology would help more in that. But then most psychologists I know are at least slightly insane...

1) No one changed anything. One is referring specifically to temperature increase, the other in overall changes in the climate, including e.g. precipitation changes. Both terms have been extensively used independently in the past. 2) Meaning that anything that is complicated and is not intuitively understood it must be wrong? Goshdarn, there goes basically every scientific disciplines. Do you know how complicated biology is? 3+5) are related and assume that you can create models doing things if you fudge the data. Thing is, that climate models depends on a number of assumptions that can be verified. I will let someone more familiar with them address specifics however. 4) Is there any data to substantiate that? Considering that the fossil energy industry is heavily pumping money into research and think tanks to publish things running counter the argument, considering that said industries are still quite influential and considering that the now dominating party in the US subscribes to that notion, it is hard to reconcile it with career suicide. 6) That is not even an argument.