CharonY

The smell is a mixture of small volatile molecules and are not very (or at all) toxic. The bacteria are sitting in and on corpses (and its liquids) and some of them might be pathogenic, but they do not swirl i the air with the volatile compounds. At least not without agitation. However, corpses do release liquids which can contain bloodborne and especially GI bacteria/viruses and if the corpse is bloated they can release gases where some may be around (probably not a lot in most cases, though). Fungi can also grow on corpses, potentially releasing spores (which again needs to be agitated to get into the air and lungs) but generally speaking if you do not get corpse juice on you, (and lick it) one should be fine.

Also it is funny to assume that a conservative group is supposedly going to do anything to change the status quo. Commitment to traditionalism is kind of a defining element.

I think it is fair to say that this forum is somewhat biased against convicted felons, has a dislike of rapists and is not particular fond of folks who have proclaimed plans to undermine democracy to establish an autocratic rule. Some folks are just biased that way.

I think you are on the wrong forum, then.

You are not arguing from a valid scientific perspective, then. There are many unique brains in the animal world, including larger and more complex in certain areas. You start from the assumption that humans must be unique and then build your classification around that.

This is a prime example of making up definitions. Yours is that you think humans are unique and therefore are a different category. All other animals are less (less what?). The scientific definition is based on relationship and has a fairly stringent basis that is not randomly pulled out of someone's posterior. Another hint: if you look broadly, all animals are to some degree unique. The idea that humans are entirely separate is entirely driven by ideology and religion.

And here again we have left any resemblance of science.

Yes, but the (rough) studies looking at folks with regular church attendance did not really see that (but in some studies the effects i found). My reading is that it might have an effect, but the effect size is small and there are many confounders who can erase any effects.

Yes absolutely, there is just a general finding of association, and the speculation of potential protective elements. I am obviously not an expert on this subject, but the few studies I came across didn't delve much into details or spent much effort into identifying confounding factors (the only one I came across was alcohol and substance use). Also, one could speculate that quite a few mechanisms available to struggling folks, are based on religious organizations (more so in the past). One argument made especially in earlier studies suggested that the community afforded by being member of a parish to play a factor, but some studies, including the linked one, found no such correlation.

There is some evidence that religiosity is associated with lower suicide risk, as most religions forbid suicide. The protective factor differed between religions, and I believe the strongest effect was found in Muslims. However, this is not the correct conclusion: The article suggest that in the study cohort, religiosity was associated with lower suicide rates, which is not equivalent to atheists in general conducting at a higher rate. Longitudinal studies who look at large cohort, track suicide rates and then investigate the religious affiliation found contrasting results, and one of the largest ones that I know of (9 yr- over 1 mio folks) found no difference between religious and non-religious groups (https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.128694) There are a few reasons why adherence to religions can have certain protective factors. For example, practicing Muslims do not consume alcohol, which can exacerbate mental health episodes. This would be the same for non-drinking atheists, of course. Other effects that are difficult to disentangle are age, but also overall religiosity of the population (or cohort), as religions can have very different manifestations in difference societies (e.g. in theocracies).

Exactly. Also, how would you ensure that the random person is in fact providing vaccines and not something else entirely? The process of injecting is not even the biggest issue here.

There is a report on pollsters that you can read here. While it does not cover all the details, they refer to sources where the information might be included (or not). https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2023/04/PM_2023.04.19_Polling-Landscape_FINAL.pdf

538 forecasts still put Trump slightly ahead of Harris. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/

This is also one of the relatively few examples where we can link a single gene to a fairly clear phenotype (it also affects ear wax consistency). However, I want to reiterate that only because we know one if its associated phenotypes, it does not mean that the phenotype in itself is the trait under selection. While it is possible that body odor is under positive in some and negative in other populations, it is also possible that it is associated with some else that we are unaware of that is being selected, or it could be co-selected with a different allele that we are not considering and so on.

Horrible idea. Think about the risks associated with getting injected with stuff from random people. Moreover, where is the need? Availability of vaccines is not an issue in developed countries, just walk into any pharmacy. Again, think about the issue surrounding administering drugs for a few more seconds.

Yes, but one can turn the claim around. For example, mutations in the gene I mentioned earlier (ABCC11), reduces reduces the level of odorant precursors in human sweat. In some populations this variant accounts for over 90% of the population and it was speculated that reduction of body odor might have been under positive sexual selection. This might be an example of such

I have not read the full paper, but based on a skim, I think the authors may have overstretched their claims. To be fair, most of it is in the discussions, which allows for some level of speculation, but this is (IMO) somewhat close to a wild guess. The bacterial enzyme might be an adaption to the human metabolite as it might provide them with a selective advantage. But the analysis would not allow to make any statements regarding this process also being a selective advantage for humans. The authors speculate that the human precursor have no purpose and then speculate on how further processing might have a selective advantage. This is a rather broad extrapolation and would require a much deeper analysis of the metabolic processes leading on the humans side of things (i.e. the precursor). The production of them might not be the primary role of the involved enzymes, but rather a side aspect, that are exploited by bacteria, for example.

I will also note that genetic variance in humans, e.g. the ABCC11 also contributes to body odor (and ear wax type).

I generally do not use precast gels, so I don't have first-hand experience. But I believe that manufacturer generally recommend (obviously) their own loading buffer (LDS). While it is generally recommended to use the same buffer as the running buffer, I believe that most LDS buffer composition are also simple Tris-HCl at pH 6.8. I.e. it shouldn't make much of a difference either way. For power settings, I generally run at constant current as I prefer controlled and more homogenous separation (mostly as I approach this from a 2D perspective). But if your gel are the same size, you can keep the values the same (i.e. 10-15 V/ cm). But depending on the buffer the run time would change.

I think this is exactly it.

It is pretty much srandard case of an expert talking outside their area of expertise. That being said, it seems the current convention of media is moving towards non-expert talking nonsensense on all areas.

Well said.

OK, maybe you can tell me what I am doing wrong. Measure twice, cut once. Measure again: darnit. Cut just a little bit more. Hold on, was it inches or cm? Measure again: doubledarnit. Go to Home Depot and get more material and glue. Measure again, oh I forgot the wood screws, why didn't I get them while I was there? Measure once more. Hold on, why is the line not where it is supposed to be? Maybe the pencil sucks. Anyway, cut once. Hold on, why is it too short again? Oh goddamnit, I screwed up the frame in the first place, didn't I? Off to Home Depot, return, forgot the stupid screws again. Just for reference, in the lab I have built devices with <5 micron precision. And they worked! Why am I unable to get 5 cms right? Does this measure tape actually have cm on it?

I am so envious of everyones woodworking abilities. And here I am arguing with contractors about about all the random things they keep destroying for no god reason.

At minimum, interference from that court would need to be more explicitly partisan. Though some might argue that that ship has already sailed.