CharonY

I think there are a few misconceptions when it comes to coffee. Fundamentally each extraction method extracts the various components of coffee with different efficiency, depending on contact time, temperature, but also the grind size and so on. However, a critical factor are the beans themselves. Many of the aromatic compounds are volatile, so pre-ground coffee can lose a lot of them. Some of the bitterness can come from the overroasted beans, and while one can mitigate them by the coffee preparation method, it is a bit like scraping off burnt bits from bread. If you cannot taste the difference between freshly brewed coffee and older reheated coffee, chances are that you have started with stale, potentially overroasted coffee as what you taste might are likely cholorgenic acid lactones and their breakdown products during prolonged roasting. Unfortunately, this process also destroys many of the more volatile components and coffee can lose some of their more complex flavour profiles. They belong to a wide range of different chemical compound of which only a few dozen have been identified to my knowledge. Strongly roasted beans are the typical method for pre-ground coffee as the taste becomes more standardized and many folks associated the bitterness with "strength" of the coffee. Cold brewing extracts polar components very well (which is why it also has a high caffeine content and also rich in caffeoylquinic acid ), but is somewhat inefficient for some of the more hydrophobic compounds. Still, it can retain some of the more malty, caramel or nutty flavours, but certain floral (as I found to be common in Ethiopian coffee) seem to be more muted. In general, complex flavours (i.e. wider range of flavour molecule) seem to get more effectively extracted with longer contact time. Espresso results in fairly efficient extraction (due to combination of pressure and heat) but significantly changes the ratio of compounds relative to immersion. OK I shut up now.

I think it should be acknowledged that artificial upwelling is at least technically feasible. The big unknown is whether it allows long-term carbon sequestration and whether that offsets all the negatives (including cost, energy consumption, release of CO2 due to upwelling of inorganic and organic carbon, temperature effects, local disruption of sedimentation and so on). Research on that matters does indeed show rather low effectiveness even under optimal conditions for carbon capture. In one paper the biggest effect seems to be caused by cooling rather than biomass production in the ocean, eliminating even the benefits of the best case scenario: See Oschlies et al. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL041961 As mentioned above, in many areas upwelling would cause a net release of CO2 (as are natural upwells).

Back in the day when we need low background coverslip it, we mostly cleaned them with with piranha and/or plasma cleaning and we mostly did PLL-PEG passivation (or sometimes using silanes). I don't think recall whether we did any biotinylation, though. That being said, the procedures are much less convenient and probably less reproducible than commercial sources. I do not know specific companies off the top of my head, but perhaps just talk to companies selling functionalized coverslips regarding your application. The few I can think of are (I think) specialized more in the area of AFM, so optical background is not a high priority there.

It depends a lot on the type of position and level, but these questions are fundamentally aimed at finding a fit with the candidate. In this question one can explore how much the candidate knows about the company and the ideally about the involved duties but also allows the candidate express their goals. So I agree that this is usually where both candidate and interviewer get a good rapport. This sounds a bit like an HR-type, assessment centre or otherwise "canned" interview process, which obviously exist.

I am astonished that this is a topic somehow. In the politics section no less.

Hold on, you are saying that the stuff on Boris Johnson's head is his actual hair? Also I think men are not mocked for wigs, but rather for bad quality wigs (which women more commonly avoid, I would think).

I think many (but not all) carbon capture ideas are a bit rooted in a similar thinking that also was shown full force during the pandemic. Folks prefer to do something after it is broken, even trying out stuff that was shown not to work (e.g. ivermectin) rather than doing something that prevents it in the first place and is known to work.

That is a general issue with these types of geoengineering approaches. The impact, especially long-term are often not understood and it is often rather costly to implement systems to study. So far, none of the limited studies show any game changing effects, so while research might be interesting, without evidence that the benefit outweigh the risks it is likely not going to fly.

Not sure whether that has been addressed, but circulation on a large scale has more effects on carbon sequestration than biological effects. Studies have shown that the decline of CO2 uptake by oceans in the 90s was driven by increased circulation of ocean water to the surface bringing carbon rich deep waters to the surface and thereby decreasing the difference between the CO2 in the atmosphere and the ocean surface. The reduction in this differential resulted in less CO2 being taken up. Conversely, around 2000 a slowdown in upper ocean circulation happened, which reduced the upwelling of deep waters, resulting in an increase of carbon sequestration. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21068 Now, if biological processes (specifically nutrient availability) were the drivers, we would expect the inverse trend in carbon sequestration as observed. If anything, direct fertilization (as has been tried in the past) is likely more efficient than trying to trying to replicate the oceanic circulations (though that has their own problems). That being said, it seems that folks have actually run pilot studies on it: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-015-5195-2 Especially regarding long-term effects, efficiency and environmental disturbance seem to be major unknowns. But skimming some of the studies it might result in net carbon sequestrations in some areas, and no effects in others. Most are too short term and probably not enough circulation to drive the above mentioned oceanic carbon sequestration effect. I have not seen anything suggesting vast superiority to terrestrial carbon sequestration attempts, though. Edit: crossedited with SJ

Assuming you are reporting a zone of inhibition, depending on journal you would at minimum report the radius (or diameter) of the inhibition zone with a some measure of variation (e.g. standard deviation) from replicates. Often a representative image is also requested for the supplement at least, showing that there was even diffusion and/or that inhibition war properly assessed. It depends on what you want to express and where you want to submit it, though. If e.g. the compound is to be tested against established antimicrobial substances, it would make sense to follow the scheme outlined by clinical lab standard initiatives (e.g. https://clsi.org/standards/products/microbiology/documents/m02/ , CDC standards etc.). For more technical work one can follow guidelines and protocols from societies like the ASM: https://asm.org/getattachment/2594ce26-bd44-47f6-8287-0657aa9185ad/Kirby-Bauer-Disk-Diffusion-Susceptibility-Test-Protocol-pdf.pdf I.e. if you want to publish in those journals.

I think it is impossible not to use the brain. But it is a matter of for what? I do think that reading ability has changed, on average. But not because folks are not reading, but rather what they are reading. The trend seems to go toward a lot but short texts, so folks may be very good in following many disparate threads, but struggle with more complex, in-depth texts, for example. I also have little doubt that basic arithmetic skills have degraded (getting the average student to calculate the molarity of a solution is a rather painful exercise). With age, things become less flexible, in part because our brain has been exercised in certain patterns. But thinking a bit more regarding habits of the newest generation (i.e. growing up with cellphones and the internet) there is of course always the risk that the older generation just doesn't "get" the changes and extrapolate things needlessly. It has happened with all new technologies, for example. On the other hand, looking at the generations of college students, I do think that I see several shifts, some probably accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

So far there is not even an inkling that this would work for biological systems. Critical reactions that we commonly associate with life happen at membranes. There are quite a few reasons for that. The most simple one is to counter diffusion. Molecules need to be in sufficient proximity for anything to happen and if important metabolites diffuse out of range, you are out of luck. In addition, gradients created with membranes are critical to create energy. Early life does not have the luxury of high-energy containing organic molecules. The formation of some sort of compartment is almost certainly a prerequisite to life as joigus mentioned.

I am not sure which article you are referring, to regardless of whether there are specific pushes, the general system nudges folks toward polarization in a self-perpetuating manner. The flavor of the week can change, but that does not change the system as a whole. Here is an article on that topic https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/radical-ideas-social-media-algorithms/ Here is a paper outlining how social media algorithms limit exposure to information to users: Levy, Ro'ee. 2021. "Social Media, News Consumption, and Polarization: Evidence from a Field Experiment." American Economic Review, 111 (3): 831-70.DOI: 10.1257/aer.20191777 And another specifically talking about polarization. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.07.013 In other words, conflict and polarization are in-built into the system. While actors can manipulate certain messages, it works based on the already manipulative backbone of the system. The papers might not be freely available, though. Also, due to the way social media works, it is difficult to really separate external from organic interactions to some degree. There is a whole system of influences whose role is basically doing barely disguised commercials and it is easy to assume that political influencing is part of the game, too. Of course, for a given country one might complain about undue influences originating elsewhere, but in an increasing globalized world and especially on the internet borders do not mean much. There are folks in different countries demanding "first amendment" rights, for example. Conversely, in the USA the GOP has weaponized the concept of wokeness, which originally referred to the awareness of systemic injustice. So even if external actors are pushing this conflict, it is not as if it was designed by foreign entities. The clearest and most obvious issue is probably data harvesting and use. But then the horse appears to have left the barn, and established its own ranch with blackjack and hookers and its own megacorporation (though I acknowledge that its abuse by an authoritarian state is more worrisome than by a company- at this point at least) .

I am not sure whether user preference is a any better, though. User engagement is the business model for almost all social media, so things that provoke and outrage are high on the list of content being pushed. These alone are enough to destabilize and radicalize, without the need of an external agenda.

That is something I am actually uncertain about. I.e. whether the response can be modulated in strength. The response tends to be on mild side with various release of e.g. dopamins, cannabinoids, opioids and so on. For some of them, we know that there is a release even from simple pleasurable interactions (e.g. talking to a friend). While the perceived effect might change in strength, I am not sure whether the measurable biomarkers respond in kind. Of similar interest are nocebo effects

The placebo effect is quite interesting, but suffers to some degree from bad data. It generally does not work well for extreme or acute conditions, but the effect is more pronounced (as expected) when it comes to chronic and more subjective measures (i.e. chronic rather than acute pain, for example). In some cases, it is not the placebo itself that has a positive affect, but the mere enrolment into a controlled trial (e.g. heightened interactions with medical professionals). Some neuroimaging strategies indicate that there are certain changes in the brain and it has been speculated that there is a connection to the immune and inflammation pathways. Animal studies have shown that deception might not be necessary for certain types of outcome (though in some cases it is the experimentator/pet owners that are deceived).

Well, you would not need knowledge of the DNA, just something containing the DNA. Yes, gene therapy is still something that is not widely available. Though once methods are more streamlined there is the a good chance that certain treatments will become more widely available (provided that the health care system is working somewhat). The rationale is that certain ongoing treatments that could be replaced by gene therapy treatment could over someone's lifetime be more expensive.

Not exactly my field, but the neutral theories of evolution have more or less become the base model. From my perspective it is largely driven by the observation that most mutations have little to no phenotypical impact on the molecular level. The functional sites (i.e. parts that are essential to the function) are much sparser and those are the parts that are usually conserved (i.e. there is selective pressure to maintain them).

This sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

In that case why not have a genetic algorithm create an AI-driven curriculum and finance system that incorporates sustainable efficiency optimization using big data ecosystems that drill down toward a holistic education with resilient feedback logistics that minimizes pain points and provides an optimized customer journey that synergizes with hyperlocal strategies, aligns with global retargeting and moves the needle towards fully realized returns on investments?

I will also add that Nobel Prices are not a good indicator of the quality of education, but rather of research and the ability to attract researchers.

Public schools publish their budgets. I have not idea why blockchains would be relevant here. You have noted issues of students getting loans for higher education, now you are proposing the same thing, just with the added volatility of crypto? Sorry this seems like a typically tech-bro approach. I.e. doing the same stuff but just at some trendy stuff and call it disruptive. Similar as with any complex topic one cannot just start with a proposed solution and try to make the problem fit the solution. The first step is to fully diagnose the issue. And there is a lot if literature out there to dig through. But that takes time and effort. Again, something that many proponents of fast solutions do not want to invest.

No one said that it should be. The question is only who is paying and what is the consequence of it. I think I have explained why having students shouldering the cost will drive down education quality. At this point you seem to have a certain thing in mind and keep arguing against that. I.e. you do not seem to follow the arguments being made, I am afraid. You are missing the point. In economic models, salaries increase naturally with productivity. However, in teaching there is a cap. I.e. each teacher can only deal with so many students. Your "perfect" student/teacher ratio would be a hard cap, for example. So let's say there is a linear correlation between productivity and salary. And let's say in the past a teacher teaches 30 students and the worker can produce 100 items. Now moving forward let's say new instruments allow the worker to produce 200 items in the same time. So the worker basically replaces another worker and doubles the salary. Meanwhile the teacher continues to teach 30 students (stagnant productivity) and does not get a raise. Now in yet another decade new technology doubles worker productivity again to 400. Now workers make 4x the salary, but the teachers keeps the same salary. Now, this might not appear to be a big problem, but if many sectors increase productivity (which is a general trend, due to e.g. automation), and therefore most folks make more money, then cost also tend to increase due to overall higher consumption (i.e. inflation). So either teacher wages will have to increase, too (though they tend to trail behind) or they will need to find another job to survive. In Universities professors are usually quite competitive in other job markets (to some degree) due to the skill sets they have. So either universities pay decent salaries (though they have been overall stagnant when inflation-adjusted in many places) or they just take different jobs. The reliance on faculty to teach and the restriction on how many folks can be taught (especially hands-on in applied fields) drives costs up. The one way to deal with it are things like online courses. But as it turns out, the outcomes with this type of learning is usually of low quality.

I remember now, it was called "cost disease" or the Baumol effect. Effectively it is because salaries in sectors without productivity gains see salary increases, because they are competing with jobs which do. That being said, there are ideological reasons (and stupidity) which maintains professor salaries still relatively low to their industrial counterparts. Though increasing dissatisfaction seems to drive more folks to seek industrial jobs, even among tenured folks.

Here you show a very narrow definition of education: a fiscal exchange for a career. However, education also has the role of broaden horizons, create thinkers, develop a space to solve problems that folks have not thought about, or things that one cannot monetize. I refer back to the competing goals I mentioned a couple of times. Realistically, if a shortcut to a job is all that is needed, the solution is simple. Get rid of education altogether and have corporations set up their own little education enclaves. That way, they can train folks to do exactly what they want. That, however, does not sound much like education to me. That sounds to me like yet another goal. Not only be suitable for a career, but better than another. So you are talking about competitiveness, which creates other incentives. To me a good education is supposed to make the student a better version of themselves and not just better than Dave. INow and I mentioned the complexity of the issue. It is not straightforward in terms of what education is supposed to achieve and therefore metrics are are often imperfect and create incentives that are counterproductive, as I mentioned in my previous post. Just because you measure something, does not mean that you understood the gist of the problem. Finding the right measure is a science in itself. Public funding of universities tend to keep cost down. I can throw a whole slate of data at it showing how private schools are more expensive and how tuition focused universities (even with partial public funding) are usually more wasteful than publicly funded universities. One of the reasons is simple and I mentioned those before. There is only a weak incentive to put or keeps bums on a bench (up to a certain degree). Therefore publicly funded universities have much less overhead in terms of recruitment, student services amenities and so on. In countries like USA and Canada which heavily rely on tuition, the ratio between faculty spending (i.e. cost for professors) relative to administration and support services is roughly 60 vs 40% (and typically worse in private schools). Conversely in public funded universities that ratio is about 70% profs to 30% overhead. In other words, you get more teaching per buck if spend publicly. While there is a "waste" as unsuitable student get into public funded universities, you then have the mentioned weed-out courses which drops the student count over the semesters. In tuition-dependent universities the incentive is to keep the around as long possible regardless of suitability so that they can pay tuition + dorm+ food +gym membership. In other words, it creates incentives that run counter to what folks might consider a good education. I do not think that loans are a good way to go, but instead I believe that universities should have a steady base-funding that focuses on its core mission, rather than just making students (or their parents) happy in order to get their money. Edit: Another piece of information with regard to cost of higher education: The cost will increase over time relative to regular products as there is a cap on how productivity can be increase in teaching relative to product costs. Having a lower ratio between students and teachers is therefore going to disproportionately increase cost, even if overhead is kept down. There is a specific economic term for this phenomenon that eludes me presently. Especially STEM education is therefore expensive and if paid out of pocket, will be prohibitive to low to mid-income families. Public funding is pretty much the only reason why we have an education system rather than education enclaves in the first place.