CharonY

The issue here is that we have got savage targeted murder of innocents on the one side and collateral murder of innocents on the other. Folks are suffering, while those responsible keep fueling the cycle.

How about you ask that the Israeli settlers in the West Bank? What emerges as a common thread through multiple reports is that Netanyahu's policy of enabling Hamas (and starving Fatah) in order to torpedo a two-state solution spectacularly backfired. It seems that the hope was the occasional (minor to moderate) threat from Hamas, to justify a hardline approach. That, would fuel the attacks and keep things looping (and at the same time, make things harder for the more accommodating factions) I will also state that folks tend to support authoritarian figures when they perceive threat. We see that happening even in stable countries throughout Europe. I can only imagine how much that is amplified with an actual threat present.

It might not be a bad thing. Was there a report that folks were using plastic surgery (not that I think that matters).

I mean sure, there is also that, because who needs representation when you can have a convoluted system that based on 200 yr old considerations. But as a whole not only the mechanism is silly, but also the fact that folks have a choice between someone old and unexciting and someone old and on multiple criminal indictments.

It is still a bit early, but general polls show that they are unfortunately very close (with Trump leading in some). Considering all that has happened, it is rather disheartening.

Depends on what you bake. When you start cold you obviously have a transition time when things heat up, which can be a good or bad thing. If you have something that is rather cold for example it can help to get the inside more cooked without scorching the outside (though you could achieve that we adjusting heat, too). For products where you e.g. have a lot of yeast, it can lead to over-proofing (e.g. spilling things out of your form). Very thin (and other) baking goods that need high heat for a short amount of time, are more likely to dry out before being cooked through.

OK, we should clarify at this point that we are all swansont (including yourself). Anything else is just delusional.

That is true, but this marginalizes the roles of supplements even more. Generally, you find little or conflicting evidence of benefits. There is the theoretical consideration, which includes poor Western diets with high energy but low nutritional value but even there folks were generally not able to show benefits in any consistent way. For certain groups, e.g. aging folks or folks with restricted diets might see more benefits, but again, that still is a bit more theory than evidence-based. Recent-ish reviews on that matter: https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.m2511 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18178897 And one on vitamin D (which is often supplemented) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-021-00593-z And here is an older discussion on the subject: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-159-12-201312170-00011 Ideally one would monitor the level and trends of an individual and also check the impact on supplements if the levels appear to be at the lower end (even if it does not go into deficiency territory). But unfortunately we are not where personalized medicine is really a thing.

It is important to note that the difference between groups is not larger than within (and depending on which groups you compare, can be smaller, depending on how diverse a population is). That is not quite accurate. The original assumption was indeed that that during the spread from Africa to Eurasia folks mingled with Neanderthals, and the back-migration would only contribute a tiny amount into African populations. So the estimates were that Europeans and East Asians have about 1-4% (or something in that order) of Neanderthal DNA, and only a small part of the African population had any or close to none. However, a series of investigations a few years ago have shown a much higher proportion of Neanderthal DNA in African population (though only about a third of non-African populations). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.01.012 The misidentification of part of the Altai Neanderthal genome has interesting implications on why the East Asian population were (potentially wrongly) associated with a higher Neanderthal proportion than European ones (essentially Neanderthals might have picked up DNA from modern humans based on a failed migration from Africa to the Middle East around 100k years ago and thus resulted in misattribution).

Ok, so it means that you got about 100 mg zinc citrate dihydrate (C12H14O16Zn3) per tablet, which corresponds to 30 mg elemental zinc (for details see exchemist's calculation). As the daily recommended dose of zinc is about 8-11 mg, this corresponds to 300% of what is recommended to consume per day. I.e. it exceeds the recommended dosage by a fair bit and unless there is a case of serious zinc deficiency should probably not be taken regularly. The naming suggests that this is based on EU guidance levels.

Sorry during deleting repetitions I removed the front end of my answer. The levels refer to magnesium, the second supplement, not zinc. Your values are the correct one for zinc. You are also correct with your assessment of supplements. Other than in situations of high deficiency, studies keep failing to show a benefit. I will state that nutritional benefits are difficult to assess in general, due to the huge range of individual differences and other factors that (again, outside of deficiency) have larger effects on overall health status. And heck, even defining good health measures to monitor can be rather tricky.

As others already commented while I was typing this up I'll just leave the stuff that has not already been explained. There are various concepts at play here. Elemental refers to the element (not vitamin) in question (i.e. zinc). However, elements are often hard to absorb by the body, so there are often used in forms of citrates or bisglycinates etc. to make them more water soluble. The reference value typically refers to how much the daily recommended intake is, usually in %. So 300 would mean 3x the recommended daily intake. For adults the recommended daily amount (edit:) for magensium for men is around 400-420 mg and for women around 310-320, for example. I also wanted to add that supplements are a bit in the regulatory wild west almost everywhere. There are often no requirements to have the formulations checked independently and studies have found huge variations even between individual pills of a manufacturer. Also, the design of the pills is sometimes really marketing (more filler to appear more potent) but can also be simply that the the factory only produces a single size of pills and just vary concentration of the active ingredient and fill up the rest.

Or for starters, books.

Naah, what is the point of making rules if you yourself have to adhere to them?

Not quite, viral remnants are less than 10%, a lot of the noncoding are variable in structure but duplications are fairly common (about similarly frequency as viral remnants). The biggest chunk, are the transposons are mentioned by Endy (maybe around 50% of the genome). One should also be noted that amount of coding regions have been increased with newer research, as some presumed to be non-coding areas actually do encode things like sRNA or small proteins.

Also, if you are the only user of the the laptop, you will be mostly exposed to what you are already in contact of. In shared use there is a bigger worry, if the person before you had some infections while touching it. But then washing your hands before you, say, pick your nose, should be enough for most scenarios.

Unless it is a Russian product, perhaps?

I think part is marketing, as folks are getting more health conscious. My guess for the p would be phtalates, which are common plasticizers. But I don't think that you would find them in typical pencils (mostly part of plastic products). I don't think they are banned anywhere, though and compared to other sources I would think that stationary are a very small exposure risk (unless you chew on plastics a lot). Faber-Castell is one of those old traditional companies who managed to corner a particular market, while they provide affordable products, they also produce really expensive high-end products. I think the family holds the majority of shares of the company, which gives them significant stability.

This probably falls under Occam's razor.

I think that might not what OP might talking about unless I am mistaken, this is a fairly old standard ink (at least I had in in grade school). I believe a German company developed an eraser which essentially disrupts certain dyes, rendering them colorless. OOTH, most of the really erasable dyes are not used for fountain pens, so there is that (i.e. not enough info). However, since then there have been a few developments, to create truly erasable dyes. One that I know of is a ink (I think made by Pilot) that is heat sensitive. Using friction with a hard eraser it renders the ink colorless (IIRC it was basically an acid reaction, but required a heat sensitive activator). Generally speaking the dyes themselves are often somewhat toxic as they often contain heavy metals, for example. But on the other hand you do not really ingest them in large amounts either. Chemicals in erasable dyes fall under the same category. Certain permanent markers use solvent (hence the smell) which are likely a bit more harmful as the VOCs can be inhaled. But again, unless one works in an environment that produces those dyes, everyday exposure is probably too low to be a concern either way (outgassing of building materials or cooking will be much higher). Edit: I remember now the other pen, it was called erasermate and contained a rubber cement (must have been over 30 years when I last saw/used them). So the rubber with ink would be mostly on the paper rather than incorporated in it and you erase it similar to pencil marks.

I think that time has passed. As you know, ID was a tactic to shoehorn religion into the evolution teaching debate and Behe's arguments (though faulty) could pass the calm and logical test. Mostly the premise was outright wrong, leading to wrong conclusion. But pretty much after it was shown that ID is not really science (in court no less), the arguments became much more ideological, as nothing else was left.

Regardless of the number of senses, sensation is generally interpreted in the brain. Thus stimulation of areas can create sensation without the involvement of senses. Conversely, there are literal blind spots in our senses and/or transmission of the information to the brain can be impaired, preventing signals from sensory organs to reach our brain. So sensing (or not sensing) something is not an ideal way to establish reality.

Great, thank you! Edit: I think I saw the Blocker paper earlier, and while it was interesting to see a historian's perspective, it was overall light on public health effects. This is not a specific criticism as in contrast to now, data was much scarcer to come by. But the vox article has provided an interesting paper.

Do you have literature showing the health effects of the prohibition?

Yeah you cannot do that easily anymore. I mean, there is a process you can start (and get the various levels of academic administration involved. And after a lot of time investment, they tend to pass anyway after a stern warning (i.e. nothing). Mostly because administration needs their money as government funding gets slashed.