CharonY

So is that a perpetuum mobile of resentment?

Sigh, I will never understand how the pro-virus lobby got so strong.

The extent of change could be conformational, but it is not necessarily a full on alteration of their regular structure or function. So "change" is mostly on the activity level. Those "changes" are also generally transient (with exceptions).

IIRC epidemiological lit also shows a stronger correlation with humidity than temp. In medical lit (or at least those that I remember) tend to focus on mucosal damages, rather than viral stability, though. Edit: I think one of the papers I read on that matter was this one:https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1607747113

You know, it struck me that the development of all these things just shows how tech is helping us to be even more disconnected from each other. I mean, one could have a system which where actual humans are checking on the elderly.

I wished only Americans would be susceptible to that type of magical thinking.

Who are you calling a senior? I generally only use my phone during travel, the rare field trip or engagement events. Rest of the time I assume it is on the charger, though about 30% of the time it is not. But that being said, I have heard of emergency toilet that integrate emergency systems. The old implementation are emergency buttons or similar (e.g. if folks cannot get up) but from a CES report, there is now one that detects if it hasn't been used for a prolonged time and can make calls for wellness checks. In a way that makes more sense, as toilets are more of a necessity than a cell phone (though I guess some folks my disagree). Edit: found a link: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Vovo-Neo-smart-toilet-monitors-health-usage-and-safety.1183171.0.html

Access to safe water, water treatment and management are AFAIK the biggest determinant of cholera outbreaks. Point taken. I would however advise caution to take the data from the study as protective. The effects are modest, which might (or might not) be clinically helpful when exposed to low levels of vibrios. But it wouldn't protect form unsafe water sources, for example. I would put it in somewhat the same category as eating a balanced diet. It might have positive effect (certainly better than, say meat only or highly processed foods) but I don't expect specific protection from diseases from it and it shouldn't induce risky behaviour. The image that comes to mind is RFK Jr swimming in sewage, because he believes that his diet protects him.

Isn't anyone else doing cell cultivation? One thing I would check is to make sure that the culture medium is still fine (and has all required additives) and that the incubator is up to spec (especially check the that the CO2 is steady and at the correct level). Based on your description I also think that you might be treating the cells too harshly. While I haven't got MLE 12 specifically in my lab, lung cells have a propensity to clump up if agitated and they do not like it if you mix them too much. They are not as stable as, say, HeLa. If detachment is difficult, it is better to incubate a bit longer at 37C and wait for detachment. You will have to be a bit more patient with lung cells. You have not provided trypsin concentration (or flask volume), but instead of PBS washing (which could be too harsh, if not done carefully), I would just rinse the cell with trypsin/EDTA solution to get rid of inhibitors, before adding additional trypsin/EDTA solution. PBS is also frequently used, but I generally like to ensure a fixed concentration of trypsin as the detachment kinetics is a bit more controllable in my hands. Detachment happens usually within 5 mins (so observing it is important). But if it takes longer, instead of agitating rather place them in 37C in give them another 5-10 mins or so before (and again, observe the process so that you get an idea how well the protocol works). Once larger detachment happens, I interrupt the trypsinization by adding about 2x volume of the complete medium. Also, I do note generally recommend centrifuging lung cells but if you do, use low g. 13,000 (regardless whether you meant RPM or g, even if it is really a tiny rotor) would be too high. If they grow to confluence within a day or two (which seems to be the case?) I would increase the passage ratio a bit.

So basically it might help but at least it doesn't harm? If there are no downsides, I don't think it is a bad thing as such. The main worry I have with these things is that especially in recent times, they tend to get a life on their own and suddenly there will be trends on folks binging on casein (or whatever the hype of the week is). In a way I think it has become more important to work out the nuances as the internet has become a horrible amplifier of really bad ideas. Not that I am accusing this thread of anything like that, it is just a matter of professional struggle I am having.

I don't think that this conclusion can be drawn from the outcome of a single study. One of the issues is that FlrA regulation is highly dependent on multiple signaling cues as well as energy status. In many cases, the study trying to figuring out their role in infection have a hard time to distinguish effects of their expression with other changes to things like energy status and other factors that are not directly measurable.

I am pretty sure that they are highly competent. After all, in the past they have sent out their plans to random journalist to vet in real time. And the briefed the oil companies, who apparently don't want the oil for that price, after all. Well the US Department of Labor tweeted with an ominous video (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trump-administration-posts-echo-rhetoric-linked-to-extremist-groups) Gleichschaltung is progressing smoothly, though apparently they (or possibly Grok) cannot come up with new slogans (replacing Fuehrer with Heritage doesn't really count).

Regarding this bit, extremely low cost keys (that work) are likely OEM or surplus volume licensing keys that are resold (perhaps there are other sources, too). Technically, they violate the terms of service, as those keys are not supposed to be sold directly to user and could get deactivated. But I don't think it happens very often, unless the reseller is selling the same key multiple times, or perhaps a whole bundle gets somehow flagged.

On average, the prices are still lower in the USA compared to UK (or many other European countries). But affordability can be an issue as income inequality is higher in the USA, as well as e.g. educational and healthcare costs. Even if things are cheaper, if you have less money in your pockets it might still be beyond what you can afford. As an additional factor, in Europe the high energy cost have created incentives for more energy efficient systems on all levels. In the US, this is not necessarily the case.

As mentioned, side effect is a bit of a misnomer, drugs have effects, some beneficial, some less so. A more appropriate terms would be "desired effect" for a particular treatment. Sometimes, a side effect for one treatment, can be a desired effect for another condition. Not quite, what most medication does is to interact with molecules in your body (including proteins) and change activities. They can inhibit or activate functions and thereby alter biochemical processes in some way. For example, let's say your body doesn't produce enough thyroid hormones, you can supplement your body with medication. However, normally your body modulates the synthesis rate depending on internal signaling so that it remains somewhat in homeostasis (depending on your activity diet and other factors). If you take the drug, the dosage is fixed, i.e. after you take it, the levels are high and then go down over time until you take a new dose. Depending on how well the dosage is dialed in, you may have higher or lower metabolic activities than you would like as a consequence. The results of that (e.g. increased or decreased appetite, weight increase or decrease) could be considered side effects, but are in fact the primary effects of the drug.

In that regard it should be noted that flu seasons are not universal and different patterns can provide overlapping contributions. For example, in tropical regions seasonality of flu is often less pronounced, but might be driven by other areas as Grenady said. Similarly, areas with high levels of travel can have similar flu patterns, even if weather patterns are differently. In either case the main driver is the increase of infected people driving further transmissions. So even if absolute humidity might not be a contributing factor in one area, travel eventually leads to a global spread each year. There are also local influences that have been described in literature. Examples include waning immunity from prior exposure as well mutation rates (and presence or absence of non-human reservoirs), but the associations tend to be weaker, especially on more global scales.

Funny, I was told the same. But the doctor was a geologist!

Generally I would believe it to be true, but I think it is a bit hard to tell as personal cults and a general dismissal of facts seems to have taken hold. I have little doubt that traditional stakeholders will still look at value, but I suspect at least some will also consider fanatical devotion of non-traditional stock buyers. I guess we will see. Some reports suggest that this year price corrections are expected.

This seems to be a moral justification angle, which can in itself be quite complicated. That would be the international law aspect I mentioned above. The reason why I also included national law is that in my mind I use it as a test whether a country is indeed governed by law. They may or may not follow international law, which in itself would be an issue. But if they don't even follow the laws that they themselves created for themselves it (i.e. which should perfectly reflect their values without outside interference), it does suggest that the country does not follow the rule of law at all.

How about limited strategic strikes, like using drones or perhaps special forces to take out a head of state? Edit: wanted to add, that those actions also require Congressional oversight, though they are a bit more obscure and for obvious reasons are not put to House votes, if I understand the process correctly.

I am curious about the reasoning of this distinction. Is it the involvement of local groups? And if so, is the argument one of sovereignty? Say for example, that they decided to kill the leader of a country, would it make a difference if that was coordinated with a local group? And can it be just any group? I am trying to figure out the boundary conditions a bit here. It seems to me (and correct me if you are wrong) that the argument might also be a bit procedural, i.e. how things were done to achieve the goal. I.e. covert vs over operations, for example. My thinking goes into a slightly different direction. I am mainly concerned about violations of international and national laws and what it ultimately means to the justification of actions and the projection of power. Using these as metrics, major differences here are a lack of congressional approval (national law), though their past actions have plenty of examples of at least likely violations of international law. The Iraq war, regardless of some international support, was based on flimsy (and ultimately false) justification and has been legally challenged. The Panama invasion had some on-the-ground justification, yet was conducted without congressional authorization and has been condemned as an act in violation of international law. These are different ways to look at the situation, though none of them make the current actions look good. That being said, I do think that the US had similar issues in the past and there have been voices condemning them then. However, there were also many voices that tried to spin it in a positive light (like the aforementioned coalition of the willing). The fact that this time around there is almost unanimous condemnation could mean that this violation is qualitatively different, but it could also reflect how the Trump administration has managed to piss off their allies.

Except, of course, none of the Canadian provinces will really join the US. They are socialist scum (with healthcare and such) so at best will become territories. You misspelled the Kingdom of His Holiness the God Emperor. BTW, there is a non-zero chance that they want Canada because the heard of the "Great White North" and they thought that they would get an inflow of white folks. Considering how they talk about immigration in Europe they likely would be quite shocked to see Brampton or Richmond (or areas like Iqaluit for that matter).

Panama was one of those I had in mind, but I was thinking more broadly in terms of destabilization of countries over a range of different interest. Other examples were coups either directly or US support in Nicaragua, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador and Guatemala, just to name a few. In terms of economic interest, the textbook example was Guatemala, where the United Fruit Company lobbied the US government (with key administration folks having a clear conflict of interest) for intervention against breaking the UFCOs monopoly by the Guatemalan government. That overthrow, incidentally is also associated with the Monroe doctrine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine), which effectively calls for an American hegemony. The Trump administration has alluded to that by calling their current actions as part of the "Donroe Doctrine".

While I agree, I would add that this is how the US did act like that (directly or indirectly), especially in South America, and they have been criticized for that on grounds of legality, too. Some of the differences are the assumption (whether justified or not) that the US were ultimately the good guys (e.g. under the banner of enforcing human rights). This time around, however, no similar justification were presented and rather than at least pretending to support self-determination, they outright said the quiet part loudly.

I am taking bets that he will claim that he solved the drug crisis.