Split (1)

train · 6.74k rows

subreddit stringclasses 11 values	text stringlengths 246 28.5k
science	> Please, tell me how that title I said would be inaccurate instead of calling me sexist. Starting from the back up: It's vulgarly phrased and accuses women of sexualising themselves. An accusation commonly and consistenly used by people who engage in victim shaming. Its in no regard a superior title because it's disrespectful and speculative. I don't care about calling you a sexist. But the title you suggested is, whatever your intentions. > That, if the study really does hold water, its not illogical but extremely logical?? If the study "hold water" as you say this is still only your interpretation of the findings since the women have not disclosed their own perspective on their self reported judgment. > They put the makeup on, knowing that’s the perception (in their own mind at least) and choose to foster it. Another speculation which assumes perception of others is the same as self-perception. > It’s FASCINATING, because women proceed to do something which contradicts their own intention, This is not a "womens habit" it's a well known human habit that people do/can not always consider the enitre scope of their actions. It's not huge at all.
science	I'd be interested in seeing studies looking at women's motivations for wearing makeup. Sure it would be subject to the same flaws all self-reporting is, but it would at least give us somewhere to start with regards to how many women do what for what purpose. Just personal preference, but if it were up to me, girls wouldn't wear hardly any makeup. I understand the art form behind some of it, and I understand wanting to hide blemishes, but some girls put so much on it's like they're wearing a mask....
science	We might actually have an answer to that if the photos were available :) If I'm doing a ['no makeup'](https://gabrielcosmeticsinc.com/media/2018/04/GC-No-Makeup-Tips.jpg) look, for instance -- man, I'm going to be wearing a lot of makeup. That's not a photo of me, but it is a look which took considerable time and required seven individual makeup products. Would men and women feel that such a look signals 'gimme some casual sex', though? Are most guys even going to think she's wearing makeup at all? I imagine that when most men think of makeup, they're picturing something more like [this](https://images-production.freetls.fastly.net/uploads/posts/image/161636/what-happened-to-nikkie-tutorial-brother.jpg) -- and I strongly suspect the dividing lines between those photographs involved how evident the makeup was ... not necessarily how much of it was being worn.
science	I'm not saying that anyone's dumb. I'm saying that most men can't, for instance, tell whether I'm wearing brow pencil and a spot of concealer today unless they've seen me wearing none of either. That's not stupidity. It's just unfamiliarity. A lot of people wear makeup in a manner designed to appear absolutely, indistinguishably natural. There's no reason to expect that someone completely unfamiliar with that stuff would notice a thing that's designed not to be noticed :)
science	We won’t get any traction if we keep using words like “could” or “brink” as we will always assume the next generation will fix the problem. We need to make sure we get enough scientists in one room from every nation to agree to the same point so we can move forward with the solution. We need to always remember there is a solution to the problem but are we willing to do what it is going to take to accomplish it.
science	Most of the scientists DO agree, but just because they agree on it, and tell people about it, and urge governments to make changes, and try to get companies to change their practices, doesnt mean they're going to change anything. We've known about this problem for a VERY long time, at first it was controversial, but even now that most scientists agree, almost nothing is happening. And the reason, is because businesses exist to, provide a product, and make a profit off it. And changing their ways to help the planet would reduce profit margins. And governments dont want to make large changes, because it would upset a LOT of people, despite the evidence that it needs to happen, and it would cost a LOT of money to implement the changes. Not to mention, even if a few countries do decide to change their ways on the level that is required, what is going to make the rest of them care? If renewable energy wasnt actually cheaper than things like coal, it wouldnt be getting the attention it currently is.. And now that the permafrost is melting? We would have to put in 3-4x the amount of work we thought we needed to put in, and wern't even putting in enough for THAT. It's so bad that even if everything changed overnight, and there was almost no co2 production, we would have to go PAST that, and start sequestering it, because of that melting permafrost. The amount of methane stored there is STAGGERING, and puts everything that humans have done EVER to shame.
science	This isn't true at all. Globally, ~~21%~~ 23% of CO2 emissions are from transportation, and it's a rising share that will only grow bigger as emissions growth in other sectors (e.g. electricity) decline. Edit: 21% was 2010, [the 2014 IPCC report says 23%](https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter8.pdf) - proving my point. Edit 2: Because people keep bringing up air and sea transport, I'll reiterate my response to them here: [road transportation is 72% of that 23% (Figure 8.1)](https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter8.pdf), so even taking that into account, we're still talking about 16.6% of the total. And again, that share is growing. And sea transport's share will likely decrease with the IMO phasing out bunker fuels. Sorry, you're all getting electric cars. :P
science	We're a long way off being able to drastically reduce the pollution due to the internal combustion engine. But you know what you can do right now that has a much greater effect on your personal carbon footprint that what car you drive? Stop eating animal products as the livestock industry accounts for more greenhouse gases than all the cars, ships, planes etc combined. Not to mention the number one cause of extinctions, ocean deadzones, deforestation, and many health issues.
science	I'm not trying to deny that those other gases are problems, just disputing the notion that transportation isn't important. Methane, for what it's worth, really depends on the time horizon, since it has a much higher warming potential but a much shorter atmospheric lifespan. NOx is really potent, but not nearly as much is emitted. For example, [in 2016 in the US, 81% of effective GHG emissions were CO2, 10% methane, and only 6% NOx](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#colorbox-hidden). But again, that all depends on the time horizon you use to compare CO2 with other gases.
science	This is sort of right. Diesel vs. gasoline is actually pretty complex. Diesel engines naturally give off more NOx however modern diesels in developed markets have aftertreatment systems to remove these gases. This makes them more expensive, but actually cleaner than gasoline. The same goes for particulates, which are suspected carcinogens within cities. Diesel exhaust naturally contains more particulates but modern diesels are required to have filters which actually makes them cleaner than gasoline in this regard. Gasoline particulate filters are on their way in the EU and perhaps the US, political-situation depending. Particulates also contribute to smogs. Sulphurous gases are a chief cause of smogs and these have largely been eliminated in both diesel and gasoline; ultra-low sulfur diesel came later hence the misconception that modern diesels still cause smog. Another problem with pollution is that trains and shipping in coastal cities are also a contributor.
science	Cars are still a big issue with respect to air quality, even if their contribution to climate forcing maybe isn't as big as other sectors. From a public health perspective the ideal is that people walk, cycle, or take public transport, but that isn't always an option if you live somewhere with bad city planning (e.g. a lot of places in the US I'm told have no options other than driving, which is sad and ironically anti-freedom/choice).
science	> Honestly, cars are a small fraction of the issue, factories, power plants, agriculture, all dwarf the impact that cars have, not to say that cards dont contribute, but even if they were all converted to electric in a snap of a finger doesnt mean that suddenly all the electricity they now require are from non-polluting means. > > It also doesnt change much at all. Clearly you have never lived directly adjacent to a major interstate highway. Having lived for two years right next to a super busy highway, I cannot believe how dirty things got around the house. Even more amazing was the negative effect it had on my lungs and sinuses after two years living/working right next to the road. I never considered automobiles to be a major contributor of pollution until I experienced life next to it. Not saying factories and power plants aren't a major contribution to pollution. But I seriously believe converting to electric cars will have a noticeable quantifiable affect on the people living near highways within several years of the switchover.
science	> or as a side effect of the games they played This is so underrated. Dancing, sports and other physically active playful activities have existed ever since humans became conscious. That’s why I can’t understand why repeatedly picking up heavy stuff and putting it down or getting on the human equivalent of a rat wheel has become the default suggestion of getting some movement into one’s life, when most people hate it and only do it as a means to and end, while there are tons of genuinely fun activities that you can actually want to do, and getting fit is a pleasant side effect.
science	Said by a man who needed tools to build his "perfect" shed. Tools to farm his "perfect" food. And tools to use, understand, and write the maths he was so good at. He'd never have had his manifest in any form if everyone decided to live his lifestyle because he'd be too dumb to even formulate the thoughts. He'd also have been dead in his 30s. If he survived childbirth. I don't disagree with the basic premise that a person with a car has to work harder to maintain the car so he can get to work. I don't agree with the premise that having the car creates the bad cycle. It's the person's bad choices using that car by getting a job too far away. Or that pays too poorly causing extra hours or another job. You can say, "well, society should pay a living wage, yadda, yadda." But none of that is the car's fault. Technology isn't bad for people. People's choices are bad for people.
science	I pretty sure most the research says otherwise. When Europeans came over to North America, they thought the natives where lazy and did nothing all day. American Colonies, by Bob Sour covers this extensively. Guns Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond covers many old human societies and cultures as far back as we have data on. Sex at Dawn covers many modern day hunter gathers societies as well as old ones and Bonobos and Chimp societies to compare evolutionary traits across the board. Peoples natural state is to conserve energy. Do nothing until some driving factor compels one to move; ie sex, food, danger. Many societies never had a need to develop much advanced technology because resources where so plentiful. Only those who were struggling, were forced to be innovative in order to overcome challenges. Then resort back to default lazy mode.
science	I wonder if something like what you’re saying (and many others are saying) relates to war veterans and how they feel when they come back to civilian life. I know a handful of veterans who saw combat and while they said it was the scariest thing ever, they all would love to go back. None of them have ever been able to explain it, but they talk about struggling so hard to adjust to civilian life, not being happy and that they were actually happy when in the war zone. I’m sure it’s not all soldiers obviously, but I would be curious if they are related.
science	>How do we know if hunter gatherers suffered from depression and anxiety? There are still plenty of people living on this Earth who are pretty far removed from what we perceive as normal, living mostly without electricity or any of the modern things we have that we can communicate with. Most of the people that live in that type of environment all have a purpose in their community that is meaningful. They have to be productive because they will suffer in some way if they don’t, just by making it more difficult for their people by not pulling their weight. Their lives aren’t like ours where one person can work 40 hours a week and make $400 while another can work 10 hours and make $10,000 They all must put in their work fairly equally. I’m sure someone can find the interview it but basically they laugh at the idea of depression because they have no room for it in the way they live their lives. Our modern lives allow us to continue on living with very little effort with very little risk and nothing really forces us to get through it because we can sustain it even though it isn’t emotionally healthy Their lives are much more at risk every day just encountering random animals or a small cut getting infected because of their very limited health care. So I think they have a lot of more respect for each other and sense of purpose for themselves We’re competing, they’re surviving
science	It tends to be less that they're happy in combat but more that they're uncomfortable regardless of where they are and being in a combat zone gives you something to focus on and a reason for feeling paranoid. If you are always looking for a threat and always primed to react you are an asset in the field and a liability back home. It's not a normal human condition, more of a symptom of PTSD, and eventually the pressure and stress will get to them in other ways. The solution isn't going back to combat, it's relearning how to relax so you don't need constant simulation to not feel uncomfortable.
science	> they thought the natives where lazy and did nothing all day. Lots of people think lots of things. That doesn’t mean anything. No civilization survives being lazy. Even in the modern age. >Peoples natural state is to conserve energy. Do nothing until some driving factor compels one to move; ie sex, food, danger. My point being this state of energy conservation was rarely common. When it did happen, it occurred during times of famine.
science	no, you're talking out of you ass. what makes you claim any more legit? because you're being insulting and condescending? even in times of plenty, you had to spend large portions of the day foraging. in addition to that was the constant need to keep a look out for threats, like from rival tribes or predators. and then not to mention the social responsibilities the tribe members have to each other.
science	your books were not related to the topic. >American Colonies, by Bob Sour covers this extensively. >When Europeans came over to North America, they thought the natives where lazy and did nothing all day. the opinion of Europeans is not a fact. especially considering the Europeans intended to purge the region of Natives. >Guns Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond covers many old human societies and cultures as far back as we have data on. and says nothing on the risks and downtime of pre-settles cultures. it's a vague book that covers many topics, and does not focus on paleolithic lifestyles in which humanity evolved. >Sex at Dawn covers many modern day hunter gathers societies as well as old ones and Bonobos and Chimp societies to compare evolutionary traits across the board. this one may be valid, but I haven't read it, and simply pointing a book doesn't mean the book agrees with your point of view. you'd need an excerpt, page number, and source the book refers to in order to have a valid point. anyone can point to any book and say it says anything they want.
science	...I'm trying to not brag here, but I'm not sure how to give my perspective otherwise. I have pretty severe depression. I also got screened for autism a few years ago. When I was screened, the doctor screening me told me that while I scored extremely high on the screener, ultimately whether you're autistic or not depends on how well you function, and because I function well enough, I'm not autistic (and apparently they're trying to get rid of the high functioning designation). &#x200B; That obviously doesn't make me neurotypical, but it's at least kind of relevant where functioning can be high enough that you actually aren't even autistic.
science	Yes, I think so, I believe they just wouldn't feel as comfortable with that. For a neurotypical person, it's comfortable to be that way. For an autistic person, it would involve a lot of pretending and conscious effort all the time, resulting in an exhaustion. Of course, you can just deal with that exhaustion somehow and have a "normal life". But it would just be more comfortable if things could be more acommodating for their needs. (I'm not a professional in the area or anything, just someone who believes has aspergers and is seeking for professional help)
science	No. They are orthogonal. Both my son and I are autistic. We both have high IQs, we both suffer from depression. While we are intelligent, we are impaired socially. We are "high functioning" in that we are smart enough to get through school, learn all of the necessary life skills, and be gainfully employed. However, socially we are on the outside looking in. Being autistic means that things such as tone, non-verbal communication, boundaries, situational awareness (to name a few) are different. We interpret (or miss) these things differently from neuro-typical people. This often results in a feeling of isolation which can lead to depression. My wife is neuro-typical and coaches me. Over time, I have learned to function pretty well socially. I still miss cues and make mistakes, but I do much better now than 30 years ago. We are proactively teaching my son these things as well, so he can be ahead of where I was.
science	We used to identify different subsets of a wide range of symptoms of autism and diagnose Asperger's, classic autism, PDD-NOS, etc. All those symptoms together are 'the spectrum', like all colors together can form a spectrum. This is also why people sometimes refer to one's 'place on the spectrum', meaning what 'area' of symptoms that person falls into. The autism spectrum is not a scale or something that you can indicate with a percentage. That doesn't mean autism doesn't come in varying degrees, just that the spectrum and the severity are different things.
science	I disagree. The primary measures used to evaluate autism symptoms all use a continuum, with a score of 35 and a score of 42 both meaning "autistic" while a score of 19 and a score of 4 are both "neurotypical." But those are four totally different people, and they don't even represent autistic people who are unable to even complete the test. 35, 42, and Untestable might all have autism, but at entirely different levels. And 26 may be labeled autistic by one clinician but considered neurotypical by another.
science	The other answers to this are skirting around the issue. High functioning refers to your ability to function in society. Someone with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (aspergers was absorbed into this diagnosis) may 'pass' for neurotypical but it's like playing a role in a play. A good method actor will look like, sound like and may even believe they are a doctor or soldier, for example, but they are still an actor. 'Passing' requires a lot of mental effort and is exhausting. Someone who only has one or two mild traits associated with autism doesn't have ASD. I hope that helps.
science	I am in the same boat except I only have the one son. He is 18 months old and is showing some of the early signs. I don't see autism as a disease but as an extremely valuable genetic trait, with a few negative side effects. That said I want to do the most to help him cope. Do you have any advice? Did you try anything that helped? Did you try anything that was a waste?
science	I agree that autism is not a disease or a disability. In some ways, it is a positive. My son refers to it as "The gift of autism". That said, we still have to live in a neuro-typical world. In our case, we got my son involve in social skills groups (in school and out) when he was in elementary school. He also had occupational therapy for years (although not all of this was due to his autism). I believe it all helped, although it took time for him to apply what he learned. As a parent, you will have to be patient. If you are not autistic, communication can be challenging. For a long time, my wife had a hard time communicating with our son. Expect to be surprised when he does stuff in public that seems out of place. Be prepared to offer guidance. If you can anticipate situations where you think he may be unprepared socially, offer strategies that he can try. Explain propriety. When he is missing cues, wait for an appropriate opportunity, and explain to him what he missed. What was a waste? When he was finishing elementary school, he was given the opportunity to go into a special program for autistic kids that was offered at a different middle school than the one he would have attended. It was highly recommended so we put him in it. Properly run, the program may have been a help. In our case, his case manager did nothing but warehouse him. They treated him like he had a low IQ and just tried to move him along with as little work as they could do. I had to push to get him into the normal math and science classes (which he did fine in). They did nothing to help him with regards to executive functioning (in which he was severely behind). He was bullied relentlessly for being in special ed and the administration did nothing about it. So be careful about those kinds of programs. If you do put your son in one, pull him out if it's not a good fit. We didn't and I regret it.
science	You're confused about what's being measured. Individual symptoms can be evaluated and given a score, which is what RAADS for example does in the form of a questionnaire. But the actual diagnose for autism is just based on suffering from a certain amount of symptoms, no matter how severe. Like I said, there is a severity scale, you're not wrong about that, but that's a very different thing from the spectrum. The spectrum is nothing more than an arrangement of symptoms and the place in the spectrum says nothing about severity or amount of symptoms. It's not even really defined what the spectrum looks like or which symptoms go where, it's definitely not a scale ranging from normal to Rain Man and beyond. So in short, yes you can say that someone is a little bit autistic (few symptoms or low severity) or very autistic (many symptoms or very severe), but that has nothing to do with that person's place on the spectrum. To give an example, I have what we used to call Asperger's syndrome, it means I have trouble with taking things literally, planning, giving my life structure (and trouble dealing with no structure) and one on one social situations, I have great eye for details, but seeing the bigger picture takes a lot of effort, I'm also intelligent enough to compensate for a lot of things so I'm not weird until you get to know me. All these things are autistic symptoms, they belong with each other on the spectrum. Many autistic people have this specific set of symptoms, which is why we used to have a name for it. I've lived in group homes and attended special needs education where I met many other autists, some of which had the same set of symptoms I have in varying degrees of severity, those people were on the same spot on the spectrum, but some of them were more autistic then me and others less. It's becoming more and more silly to talk about the spectrum at all anyway, it's much more useful to look at what a person has trouble with, rather than try to fit them into a definition. You either suffer from one or more symptoms of autism or you don't, and if you do there are people who can help with your specific needs. DSM-V made a huge push towards this by getting rid of the old categories and just calling it ASD, meaning literally nothing more that "you have some autistic symptoms". This also brings the diagnosis more in line with other disorders that have an effect on personality and behaviour like BPD and BD. Finding out what exactly makes your life harder and how severe that is relative to neurotypical folks is up to you and the psychiatrist treating you and has nothing to do with how severe your autism is.
science	Yes! But there isn't. We'd know if there was. That said, it might be possible, with stupidly unimaginable advances in tech, to make it a binary system. Jupiter is just sitting there, all hydrogen, and a bit (a lot) more mass in its atmosphere could make that collapse and start burning as a star... Certainly make its moons a nicer place to colonize if they orbited their own little space-heater star.
science	It's theorized that Jupiter is the "second star" that just didn't gather enough mass, and there's a theory that there is a second star that makes a like billion-some year long trek to the edge of the Sun's gravitational influence and we just can't see it cause it's a brown dwarf or similar, which may be on it's way back to mess up the solar system in some millions of years (Of course my source is an almost 10 year documentary that I can't remember the fairly generic name of)
science	I'm pretty sure at that point and when nuclear fission takes over it produces extra pressure which pushes the outer bits of the planet/dwarf towards the vaccum of space. Also the fact that Jupiter did not form into a star yet is as massive as it and in combination with the precise size of our moon plus us being in the Goldilocks zone is why we have a stable axis for the Earth's rotation, and not so many asteroid impacts, and generally why life has become the way it is throughout the seasons here on Earth. TBH I recently watched a TED talk by Stephen Webb and his argument went along the lines of the fact that even if there are a hundred billion planets in the habitable zone of their stars that there are so many incredible barriers to entry for an advanced civilization to form that it is almost impossible how low the odds are that we would see civilizations out there in space which are advanced enough to colonize or otherwise leave observable evidence of their existence.
science	That website is mistaken. The 85% statistic is actually the percentage of stars that we can see with the naked eye that are at least binary. However, the vast majority of stars are low mass (K and M) dwarfs, and low mass stars are much more likely to be single. But since low mass stars are so dim, we cannot see many of them from Earth. So the majority of all star systems are single, but the majority of all star systems we can see without a telescope are binary.
science	Not an astronomer, but from what I read in another article the main star behaves more or less like our sun would whereas the other stars orbit each other much further out in space. I am welcome to any correction. When I read about astronomy I always try to reconstruct things like this three dimensionally in my head and this was what I thought I was going on. EDIT: Re-reading your question, you were asking about the planet itself. I am not sure of the effect on the nature of a potentially habitable planet's orbit. Again, using my brain to try and visually make sense of it; I would think the planet orbits 40 Eridani A more or less like we orbit our sun whereas the dwarf stars 40 Eridani B and C orbit the main sequence star (A) much further out in space. I am sure they have some gravitational effects on any planet in the system, but since they are smaller and much further away it may be negligible?
science	That's hard to do because it very heavily depends on distances and masses of the planets and stars and how they move with respect to each other. The planet could be weaving all over the place; or it could primarily orbit one star with a bit of a wobble; or in theory, if the stars were rotating around each other in exactly the right way, you could have the planet sitting apparently stationary in between the three of them. I'm sure possibility of that happening is astronomically low, but it goes to show that any visual representation would only be specific to that arrangement of stars.
science	The only information we have is dips in brightness. Basically, if there is a small dip, a planet is enough, if there is a dip, then there’s another star. I assume what happened was they found 2 big dips and 1 small dip every couple of days, so now they think it’s a three star system with a planet. You can’t really get their movement from just knowing they are there, kind of like if you heard 3 different car horns outside, you know there are 3 cars, and some are further than others, but the precise location and arrangements are unknown until you look at it, and no technology can zoom onto another solar system so far.
science	It means that there's no easy formula to spit out where things will be at a later time, like you can do with 2-body systems. A common approach is to instead perform simulations. Basically, if you know where everything is and how fast everything is going, you can approximate how far they'll all move in a tiny timeframe dt. It's not perfectly accurate, because as it's moving during that dt the gravitational forces change, but the smaller you make your dt the more accurate your simulation becomes. There are also formulas to determine a range for how far off you might be-- so you can say things like "it'll be at location x at time y with error R."
science	Sir you are very wrong. A three body problem is a chaotic system meaning that small errors will propagate over time leading to large scale errors. Computers by nature will store values as discrete numbers leading to rounding errors. I’m sure this is the very least of such an example of small errors within the model. Also, there will be small errors even in measuring the initial conditions of such a system which is one of the reasons the trisolarians give up the game of predicting the motion of their own planet. At best, the simulation will only be accurate for a small period of time
science	Yeah, except that the way I learned it the original was actually supposed to be a weather model. It got plugged into a supercomputer, ran for a few days, and spit out a string of numbers showing the system over time. Then the researcher wanted to study one part more carefully, plugged in the conditions at that time as the initial conditions, and got totally different results because of the rounding errors. It's like balancing a ball on top of a hill, except almost every point is the same.
science	You may find topics such as [Perturbation theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_theory), [Taylor series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series#First_example), and [Numerical Analysis of Differentials](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_analysis#Interpolation,_extrapolation,_and_regression) interesting; we have much better tools than just first-degree iteration. Chaos in initial conditions is not as much of a brick wall as people think it is, and neither is [error buildup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_significance), especially when dealing with only a handful of celestial bodies. It has its imprecisions, but a good scientist is [aware of such problems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_accuracy) and can understand when numerical approximation is appropriate. &#x200B; Also, the discrete values encountered with [float imprecision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating-point_arithmetic#Accuracy_problems) can be easily avoided through [alternative numerical representations](https://www.daniweb.com/programming/software-development/code/216587/python-can-handle-very-large-numbers), and there's no reason to assume they're only storing the iterative approximations and not dozens of other useful values like approximations of the first few derivatives of position, empirically derived Taylor initialization constants, error bounds and many more, nor that they aren't running the numerical analysis multiple times with slightly varying initial conditions to account for the error inherent in our observations of celestial bodies' properties and building a more statistically significant prediction from statistical treatments of the data. &#x200B; So while yes, n-body problems do exhibit chaos from varying initial conditions, it's nowhere near as dreadful as you make it out to be. &#x200B; Source: degrees in both Mathematics and Computer Science
science	Based on some other comment I saw linked on this thread, it might not be that hard for a planet to be “stationary” in a triple star system. The only way a triple star system can really be stable is where two stars orbit each other, and the third orbits their collective center of mass at a greater distance. Since you basically have two masses in this system I don’t see why you couldn’t have a planet sit of one of the systems Lagrange points. I’m not an expert so maybe it’s possible a planet would be too large to ever realistically be in a stable orbit at a Lagrange point but it seems like it should work.
science	The planet is in an ordinary elliptical orbit around the primary star in the system (40 Eri A), 0.22 AU from its sun. This is closer than Mercury is to our Sun. The other two stars are a white dwarf (40 Eri B) and red dwarf (40 Eri C) that orbit each other 400 AU away. They don't have any significant effect on this planet, and would look just like a pair of bright stars in the sky from the planet's surface. 40 Eridani B, by the way, is the first white dwarf ever discovered. William Herschel discovered it in 1783, but it wasn't until the early 20th century that we knew what it was.
science	Oh shit dude you got me. So if you haven’t read the three body problem they are trying to predict the course of their home planet in a system with three stars so that they can determine how long their planet will be in a stable orbit so they know when to emerge and return to their bunkers essentially. Would it be possible for them to predict that they are about to enter into a stable period where they are only orbiting a single star and that this period will last for a hundred years?
science	Not just with religion. Many of the civic, social and fraternal organizations that adults used to join are dead or rapidly dying. There used to be large dinner clubs that people would join. There were numerous social groups for women, often involved in various philanthropic pursuits. For men, there were dozens of civic organizations. Freemasons, Odd Fellows, Kiwanis, Knights of Columbus, Eagles, Moose’s, etc... many of which are now extinct or very close to it. All of these things used to provide a sense of community for their members (not to mention that, with fraternal organizations, they used to provide a way to get group life or group health insurance without having it tied to your job).
science	Sounds like a job for the local Park District to be honest. Child, family, and adult activity programs. Fundraisers, drives, etc. A park district can be like a church to the community in that way, minus specific group identification. Park districts aren’t run on crazy amounts of donations and a seemingly endless budget though, most are taxpayer driven, but volunteers can make up the difference. Much like how church programs are volunteer driven.
science	This is probably where religions have greater value than anything that might replace it. It gives people regardless of status or wealth an excuse to get together and interact with each other, if they want to. It’s a lifeline for at risk people. To replace it you would need something that was essentially religion. Otherwise you end up with small isolated communities that live and die by the charisma of a few people - the people who most need attention from others or who may be undesirable or difficult might be discarded or shunned altogether by a society that doesn’t teach moral obligation. Religion obligates you to gather, to look after the poor, the weak, ill and disagreeable in a way that civil government does not, however well run.
science	They’ve been on a steady decline since the 1970s. Basically, the parents of the Baby Boomers were the last generation to be involved. The Boomers largely eschewed these things. And GenX and Millenials are eschewing them even further. I have no doubt the economics play into it for some. But there are a lot of people who, financially, are doing well that aren’t joining such groups. And it’s been that way for decades. And, especially prior to the growth of the social welfare state post-1930, those groups still had rapid growth and strong membership, even those times were economically tough for many, many people.
science	You’re kidding right? Not everyone has family and close friends nearby, not by a long shot. There are tons of older folks whose favorite support networks have simply died or just aren’t close. When you work and have good mental health, you have a social network built in. But once you retire, if you aren’t good at making friends and getting people to care about you, you can get totally shut out and no one is going to come looking for you when you need it. The local church can be a great support network.
science	That's true... I am not religious and I actually very much dislike the role that religion plays in politics, but as with all things there's nuance... I remember as a kid going to a very liberal church where I learned a lot about acceptance (particularly LGBTQ as there were a few openly gay people on staff at the church), we had a community theatre program running out of the church, and I got to play bass in the band when we put on performances of Godspell and other musicals... I played in the handbell choir... it was actually a positive part of my childhood even though I turned out to be non-religious.
science	I don't believe in putting this on government. A community is built by people who have the drive to rally others and get things done. It seems this has become a much more rare quality as the necessities of life have become easier. Only decades ago, the struggles to survive were much greater and that created opportunities for a lot of people to find their leadership ability. As easy as life is now, people just frown at lifting a finger to get anything meaningful done. How can we get people to wake their capacity for leadership, passion for organizing events and getting others enthusiastic about participating in them. That's become much harder too since everyone has such an abundance of entertainment at their fingertips, you have to somehow make community events more attractive than staying home with Netflix.
science	Many of those organizations you mentioned had religious affiliations which is partly the reason they're dying. They also have weird membership rules, and if the membership is dying out, it's a sign of their failure to adapt to modern society as well. If they're unable to recruit new members, it is absolutely the fault of the organization for not adjusting their recruiting methods. A few of those groups are thriving - I see advertisements for the Rotary Club and Toastmasters around here all the time.
science	>The whole social dynamic of our society is totally different I mean, yeah. For those not in church it's pretty much nonexistent Sure, I'm "socializing" online right now but it's cold, calculated, and I'm prepared to be attacked by the nearest person who disagrees with me. Reddit will, and always has been "arguing for sport" rather than socializing (i.e. It's probably not healthy for it to be a staple of how you communicate with others)
science	Besides cost, it probably has something to do with how many activities people's kids are doing now versus the last generation and how involved parents are in those activities. That takes a lot of time that might have previously been spent with those organizations. Not that spending more time with you kids versus random people is a bad thing. Probably there's some sense of community with the soccer parents, hockey parents, etc, but it's not so formalized. Then if you don't have kids, you're kind of shut out of those groups and your options for community are way more limited.
science	I mean even basic stuff like how people text rather than make phone calls. We shop online instead of going into stores. We bury ourselves in the huge variety of streaming services and video games instead of going outside. In general I think our face to face communication and engagement with the outside world has decreased quite a bit. Not for everyone of course, but on a pretty wide scale I'd say that's probably the case.
science	It's not the only way to get people with privilege to care for the marginalized, but I hear your point. And I mean "care for" in both senses: care about, and help meet needs in some material way. Also, not all service springs from duty or obligation. Ask anyone who volunteers a lot or works in a "helping" profession. "Rewarding" is too transactional a term for my liking, but helping helps the helpers, too.
science	Because segregation causes divergence, and divergence leads to disagreement, and disagreement leads to resentment, and resentment leads to conflict and the break-down of society. People tend to reject full integration because that means they lose their other group identities, but people often forget that they can still be a part of multiple groups or that they already share a greater grouping with other communities. The ultimate goal is that we should all integrate slightly because we all identify as members of the group, the human race, and therefore should treat our fellow members with a basic level of respect. Too often we allow smaller inter-group conflicts overrule that. I’m not saying segregation is a bad thing though. It creates social resilience for humanity. If everyone mindlessly integrated into a group that believed in ritual suicide that wouldn’t end particularity well for humanity. Also, beneath all these groupings you should always strive to remain an individual and not let your grouping define who you are. That’s how you avoid getting trapped in one group and ending up as an enforcer for segregation.
science	it was just as bad in the 90s when we all flocked to "Places -Chat" on AOL . todays "pro trolls" and "social media managers" are the folks with deep internet arguing experience stretching back before most of todays internet users were alive. Trolling has been a thing since day 1.. and back then it was trivial to track down a user and "pay a visit", there's a reason reddit launched with a no doxxing rule.
science	I think a lot of those are being replaced by different kinds of clubs and circles though. Like, what benefit does any of these organizations: > Freemasons, Odd Fellows, Kiwanis, Knights of Columbus, Eagles, Moose’s Actually give me? A group of people to hang out with? I already have sport clubs, friends, and special interest events that I can socialize and engage with others over shared interests. My favorite local dive bar feels more like a brotherhood than anything I've ever seen going on a Knights of Columbus or Kiwanis event. I bet a lot of these older organizations sprang up out of sheer boredom. Now? Things are accessible, both physically and digitally, so much much more.
science	I guess it would depend on the religion, ... and whether you care. Plenty of people get dragged to church who don’t want to be there as well as the reverse. In any case, if deity worship was the more important factor, then you could worship at home and never set foot in a community church and that should be adequate for the heretic set. Belief and faith is independent from location. Having a physical church at all is a definite community construct, and an expensive one at that.
science	Churches were started as a way to support and be in community with other believers. When you look at the demographics of many churches you see people of all walks of life with often only their common faith bringing them together. You can be religious without church. You can have a faith in God without church. It just won't be very good without other people to share your highs and lows with as you grow and develop your faith.
science	What's the deal with this American obsession with communities? Isn't the goal to become more united? Then why are you so quick in dividing every single damn thing into small communities that hate each other? The intention could be good, but whenever you isolate a group of people into a "closed club" it's a way of saying "we're not like others". It was so bizarre when I met an American girl at the climbing gym in a major European city and her first question was: "Is it a community gym or for everybody?". Like, the fuck that even means? Sounded so out of place, you buy a ticket, you go in, you climb. People will be friendly regardless, nobody cares about your stupid community or fake "club" badges or whatever you invent to convince yourself that you need this segregation.
science	I'm an atheist as well, and I have a few close friends who regularly go to a community atheism meetup thing. It's a once a week deal with monthly cookouts and stuff, I'm sure there's something like it near you. Now I did go to a few meets back a year ago, and honestly it came off as a "religion for the areligious" at least in this case, there were sit down talks that were reminiscent of sunday school except insert atheism instead of catholicism/etc. Personally it wasn't for me since I'm atheist as the definition states, I don't believe in any of the above, nor would I enjoy trying to convert others to my cause. So YMMV with these communities, but I'd check around and see, they can't all be like the one I experienced.
science	The good thing is that kids tend to be anarchist with established social habits and I am optimistic that some new generation will make it popular to put down the devices and spend actual time with people. My 3 year old son will straight up tell me he doesn't want to watch TV, and I take that as a sign to teach him to interact with the world. And also to reteach me to do so as well. It's humbling.
science	That's most likely a result of parenting and education systems failing. Every kid was taught they were special and the smartest, bestest whateverthefuckest and that can get everything they want. What kids didn't learn was how to deal with pressure/stress, losing, how to force themselves, how to take criticism, how to work towards a long term goal. Add social media and self esteem is flushed right down the shitter. Depression and anxieties galore. These kids are now grown up millenials.
science	trolling was far more innocent id blame the new arrivals verses old internet users. we never saw any reason for it to be malevolent which is why people my age (40) poured our hearts into livejournal and facebook never thinking we had anything to fear until they turned it into a tool for evil. my younger brother and his wife were warned in school about social media. conversely my generation was writing the first websites in the era that links on yahoo were picked by hand.
science	Summed it up perfectly, I'm a young guy who's a developer but when I get home I socialiseon line in a VoIP channel with some irl and none irl mixed friends because it's easier and cheaper than just meeting up. Less anxious, no bad feelings about leaving whenever etc, online is just easier and nicer day to day and do the cool stuff when you have the time. Calling Reddit socialising is obviously odd, to me it's just my favourite curation system with some funny comments in it that I usually like to lurk in.
science	I don't want to get into the same long argument that always comes after I share what I'm going to share now. I have zero problem with most Freemasons. They are truly kind, great people that want community and serve their neighbors so to speak. It's certain ones 32nd degree or higher that are troubling. People normally don't believe me yet I've learned not to care about the disbelief. I was Satanically Ritually Abused by my Worshipful Master grandfather and his Freemasonry "friends". I have Polyfragmented Dissociative Identity Disorder. They split me on purpose. Same thing happened to my sister.
science	Learning about the different belief systems practiced around the world can be a valuable element in a child's education. However, instructing a child that one way is right and all others are wrong is indoctrination and inhibits the individual's ability to make an informed choice about which, if any, is right for them. Hence why the use of the word "failure" in the title is problematic, as it intrinsically assigns a value to the indoctrination of children by religious parents, as opposed to a secular religious education.
science	Pagan parent in the UK here. Came here to say the same, and to laugh at the similarities between the the term used to spread religion and viruses. I’m not forcing my beliefs down my children’s necks, unlike my experience of Christianity as a child. I am also not actively suppressing their awareness of any other religion either. When we talk about the big questions like life and death and creation, we discuss different viewpoints and I encourage them to see it however they want to see it. If my kids came to me one day and said they wanted to be officially introduced to a given religion, I would make sure we support their choice to do so, after all it just saves them the bother of doing it later in life after having resented a set of beliefs they have had given to them
science	If you teach your child that one religion is right and one is wrong, you've missed the whole point of religious values no matter what you call them. Don't be ignorant towards the fact that the whole point of religion is to accept others and all your doing is point out those that follow their religion blindly. Half of the science we see today is taken at face value, it takes courage to trust and put faith in something that you cannot see, but feel. I applaud those who see through the politics we've placed on religion. Only those people can appreciate what it is to love a God based on faith alone. One cannot argue on faith because there is no factual evidence to place on the table. People get scared and run to science for answers, where they do not find any, then proceed turn away from faith.
science	> If I type slower maybe you'll understand better. Certainly doesn't seem as though you are practicing love and compassion and understanding, nor reason. &nbsp; > People get scared and run to science for answers, where they do not find any, then proceed turn away from faith. What makes you believe that the scientific method cannot produce answers to the questions that people ask? &nbsp; > there's good religions and BAD religions Care to provide examples? &nbsp; > We all have something called a brain which allows us to be able to decipher between the two. Are you sure? Tried cracking your skull open to check?
science	> I'm glad you learned how to break it down into paragraphs, makes it easier to grasp huh? Go live your life get off reddit and be happy kid 😂 Perhaps you ought to try answering the questions instead of resorting to pitiful ad-hominem. 1. What makes you believe that the scientific method cannot produce answers to the questions that people ask? 2. Care to provide examples of "good" and "bad" religions? 3. Can you confirm that you actually have a brain? Have you seen it? Touched it? Taken a photograph? Seems like you respond to a request for evidence and argument with an immature defensiveness.
science	from the article: > "The findings of the new study add evidence to the idea that social behaviors have a long evolutionary history — going back much farther than we ever believed. The electrifying results could significantly impact what we know about the evolution of brains and why MDMA-assisted therapy seems to be such a useful tool in treating post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety." The use of MDMA in a controlled setting continues to impress me but I wonder, and this isn't in the paper, were the octopuses depressed for a month after the study like humans are, because there was no more feel-good brain juice (serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine) left in the proverbial tank?
science	That's outdated. It comes from old research which gave a very rough estimate, which was reported with caution, the best they could do at the time. This is from the "chemical imbalance" days. We know a lot more now. You don't need all of your serotonin to feel normal again, and it comes back much quicker than previously thought. Your mood is fixed quicker than your gut, and those last bits don't matter much anyways.
science	you're forgetting that the serotonin system is a LOT more delicate than any other neurotransmitter in your brain. this is why antidepressants affect the serotonin system differently to how stimulants affect the dopamine system despite the medications functioning very similarly on the systems they manipulate (i.e SSRIs and DRIs both just being reuptake inhibitors). there's the phrases "blue Mondays" and "suicide Tuesdays" that refers to the delayed (latent) crash that happens days after consumption. this is because you "run out" of serotonin after getting through the little serotonin you had left after the MDMA high. like I said serotonin takes longer to build in your body so you kind of "catch up" to your serotonin reserves and run on what you can produce in that moment. while dopamine on the other hand can be quickly and easily produced, which is why the day after a coke or adderrall binge you're mostly back to normal.
science	I like how you question my statement but not the parent that flippantly claims you'd "have to have AIDS" to not recover in a day. There's not a great deal of research to cite on MDMA given its absurd Schedule 1 status, but ALL of the research that you will be able to find indicates that it takes far more than a day for the brain to come back to baseline.
science	There's a series of vitamins and such you can take 20 minutes prior to the MDMA that are precursors for building serotonin. You'll also want to take something afterwords to stop the serotonin burn as well, since that continues past the part where you "feel high". Here's a good link on the topic: https://thedea.org/mdma-ecstasy-molly-users-guide/mdma-molly-preloading-and-supplements/ Personally, I think it's fine to use them right before, though that link suggests a day before.
science	Drink 50 litres of water two nights in a row and call me in a month. &#x200B; Your example is silly so I made up my own. You can turn mere water into something deadly at ridiculous dosage. &#x200B; Take a normal 100mg dose recommended by people who advise on recreational use, or less, recommended by therapists when MDMA was still a medical drug, and you certainly won't have a month long depression like OperaDonor seemed to imply humans do.
science	I'll respond to this one. Very interesting, assuming you tested your Mdma and took sensible dosis etc. You're not the first anecdotal report I've seen of stuff like this, some people seem to be able to solve the problem with supplements etc, but it could just be that your brain chemistry is slightly different from the norm that mdma combines well with. Wish there was more research available to discover what it is exactly that make up these changes.
science	All tested, sensible doses, and I took supplements like Vitamin C and anti-oxidants. I think it just depends on individual brain chemistry, like you said. Every person I know who also did it had different reactions. Some had afterglows, some had just a hang over the next day or next few days, some had nothing. It did seem that my hangover lasted the longest out of people I knew. The last time I rolled I felt out of whack for 3 months after. That was when I said "no more".
science	I'm convinced a proponent of the after-effects is just a psychological placebo. Basically, people tell you you're going to have a comedown, so you expect a comedown, and then you treat simple exhaustion as a comedown. Wallowing in self-imposed emotion. Once I realised this, I stopped having any comedowns at all and just felt sort of Spacey and tired the next day. I suppose it could just be me though. I've not conducted any experiments on others to test my theory obviously.
science	Post MDMA depression is a very real thing that is documented in scientific literature. Maybe it was more placebo in your case but I can guarantee you it is very real for lots of people. I had experienced it before I even knew it was a thing and the effects are so profound that it simply could not be placebo. I'm talking about this indescribable feeling where simply existing feels so horribly empty and painful. Luckily the worst of it only lasts for a day. Then it's just moderate depression and a feeling of being frazzled for a week or two after.
science	MDMA is most notable for serotonin but it also produces a brief but powerful dopamine high with a long afterglow. However the pills that were popular in the late 90-early 2000s in my area were a mix of several substances including MDA, MBDB and MDEA, sometimes with ketamine, and there were rumours of traces of heroin. Depending on how long or hard you went for you got different effects and different pills had different blends. Almost always however the initial 'come-up' was quite intense, like getting ready for and doing a sky-dive. You get that rush only from amps, of which MDMA is one. I haven't touched pure MDMA in years and branded pills for even longer but I know that Ecstasy left me better than it found me. &#x200B; &#x200B;
science	That's not what they mean - they mean that drugs that should be predominantly being used in non-white populations are being tested in white populations, with the effect that efficacy and adverse effect profiles in non-whites aren't well-known - even though they might end up receiving it. Conversely, a drug that fails in whites could be more effective in non-whites - but the negative trial would probably stop or pause development.
science	Not really. The reason why scientists overwhelmingly reject the idea of inherent intelligence or temperament differences between races is that those traits are some of the most complex traits you could possibly pick at- they are controlled by a huge number of genes. Meaning that it'd take a very long time for two populations to develop different mean levels of say, intelligence or extraversion, even if we assume that there was an evolutionary pressure towards a higher IQ or a more excitable temperament. On the contrary, things like metabolic processes can often be massively influenced by only a few gene changes- and with the example of metabolic differences, there's already quite the evidence for racial differences. I. e., inuit's metabolic system has adapted to get along with a diet high in animal protein, asian people are more prone to diabetes than white people due to having a lower proportion of muscle tissue (even when controlling for BMI of course).
science	“Race” is a social construct. There are no Asian genes or African or European genes. There are only variations of genes within groups. Basically, it’s like every group has dish soap, it’s just that one group has lavender scented soap where another has coconut or honey scented soap. Biology does not recognize race, so when sociologists talk about “disproportionately affected ethnic groups” they are actually referencing socio-economic status; in other words, poor folks with larger amounts of melanin. RACE IS IRRELEVANT TO CANCER. The economic class in which we find ourselves influences cancer rates. I have a degree in biology and have discussed this topic with several academic folks. Race is fiction and if you think someone has a higher chance of illness bc they’re ethnic, that is the very definition of racism. It’s class that determines risk of cancer, not skin color or accent. Things like the foods we eat and how we choose to live, traditions that are taught, these affect cancer rates. Get it right, you racists. God damn but y’all are frustrating in your ignorance.
science	Race was defined in terms of what we would now call phenotype, and those phenotypes associated with race are from constellations of genes that respond to evolution at the broad geographic level. Those genes are present within all humans at the genomic level, and we all have variations on these genes due to geographic history. We all have the genes for skin color, for instance. What differs is the level of expression of these genes, and these are a response to environment over time. To clarify, there is no single gene that makes anyone any particular race, and those traits stereotypically used to classify folks into “races” are more reflective of historical circumstances and thus class, not the presence or absence of genes. That is to say, in general a Native American person has the same genes as an African person; their racial identity is now understood to be a narrative instead of a biological fact. Because racial identity is rooted now in social narratives and not biological facts, it is misleading to group folks into racial groups. Instead, geneticists use the concept of haplotypes to make sense of those broad level genetic similarities between groups of people. Haplotype is different from race; race is a concept used to create a class-based world view. Haplotypes simply classify genes by how often they congregate with other genes. This article has a misleading headline.
science	Yes, actually it is very well established that serotonin plays a pivotal role in the social interactions and sexual functions of humans; so much so that they've formed the basis of an entire class of drugs known as Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors. Even if you want to remain skeptical of Serotonin's specific role in the formation of human heirarchy, Peterson's overarching point is that the formation of social heirarchy in sexually selective animals is largely the norm for the vast majority of species and that humans are no exception.
science	He doesn't try to make hierarchies feel "kewl". He argues that they have been present in our ancestors since the Cambrian explosion and are deeply engrained not only in our society but in the chemical substance of our physical brain and are conserved by evolution to such an extent that things as different as lobsters and octopuses function in basically the same way as humans. They cannot be overridden with just a few centuries of mere human thought, no matter how smug or snarky the biologically illiterate left becomes. How best to deal with hierarchy and social organization, that's a question he leaves pretty wide open. As a clinical psychologist he's most concerned with the individual level but he's also pointed out that high income inequality drives crime more than does poverty, for example. Maybe you're a smart kid but dismissive wordplay is no substitute for knowing what you're talking about.
science	I mean this is coming from a JP fan, but he does say that rooting them out of society often hurts people. Like he said it’s bad when people are told that rising up in the hierarchy is a form of oppression. I mean he obviously thinks people need purpose, and he’s repeatedly said having values means forming a hierarchy. In this way if JP saw a society of humans without hierarchies he’d probably think something was wrong.
science	I'm saying we should take into account that society is already very much organized similarly to that of the lobster, at least in terms of our neurochemical response to social stimuli. The main take-away for humans is to recognize that competition is innate to our species - like the lobster. Certain philosophical or political groups would have you believe that competitive heirarchy is simply the result of trends in Western Society, and that if we were to develop a perfect social system, we would embody a being with no innate propensity for climbing heirarchies - like an ant, or a [Borg](http://www.abetterinterview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/borg.jpg), or something.
science	No, of course not? We know that humans with low serotonin activity experience depression with its accompanying feelings of defeat and behave similarly to lobsters who lose fights. We know that bullying, ostracism and social failure in general causes depression. And now we know that a serotenergic drug acting in the opposite direction has the same prosocial effect in octopuses as in humans, and octopuses are distant from lobsters on the tree of life as humans are. It really looks like the same system doing the same thing all across the animal kingdom which is cool but not at all surprising. Most if what we know about the nervous system we learned by studying invertebrates. And none of this justifies anything or even explains much at higher scales of organization.
science	>The ridicule is of JBP making up unobserved insinuations about humans and serotonin. Stop handwaving that garbage with "overarching point" apologism. I'm glad you've apparently learned the FIRST three things about serotonin. If you'd like to expand your knowledge, instead of getting upset with psychologists who understand things that you don't, spend 5 seconds googling your question. I promise it'll make more sense if you take the time to research "serotonin role social status apes." I think the confusion is that you think you're entitled to JBP literally citing studies for you when he says things like "human dominance structure acts similarly to lobster dominance structures and the apparent link is the serotonergic system." It isn't his job, nor the job of any professor, to READ for you. You can do that yourself. Stop acting like things you don't understand and haven't researched are fantastical handwaving. >Hierarchies in lobsters are regulated in part by serotonin = science. Thus serotonin does a similar thing in humans = not science. Thus human predilection toward hierarchies is explained by biological evolution = not science. You realize this comment reads like you're blissfully unaware of the massive berth of research on the human serotonergic system, right...? Are you under the presumption that we've only studied the effects of serotonin on lobsters (and octopodes) but not actual humans...? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310586509_Serotonin_and_Dominance
science	It's interesting to see that the evolutionary history of Serotonine goes back this far. One thing to keep in mind though (considering what a lot of comments here imply) is that just because humans and octopuses share a common neurotransmitter this doesn't mean that their functions are identical or even similar - Serotonine is probably being used by the different species because it's a simple organic molecular structure to snythesize for most life forms so evolution held on to it. Serotonine's species specific function evolved is likely mostly corresponding to the evolution of the species itself rather than having a "superordinate" function that is the same in all species with Serotonine.
science	> But two chemicals that are the exact same will act the same, correct? They will, assuming the organism they’re in has the exact same biology. But the post says: >“We performed phylogenetic tree mapping and found that, even though their whole serotonin transporter gene is only 50 to 60 percent similar to humans, the gene was still conserved. That told us that MDMA would have a place to go in the octopus brain and suggested it could encode sociality as it does in a human brain.” The gene is conserved but not identical.
science	> In addition to vertebrate animals including cyclostomes But why this oddly specific verbosity? Who questions them being vertebrate?! Btw, formally you'd want to cite Article 1 (3) (b), as the locus you cited is in the preamble, which is not legally binding (even for the member states to implement). On the other hand, while the details might differ, the fact that cephalopods must be included in the protection is a hard necessity for the member states, or else they are in violation and the commission can start a process against them.
science	Scribes are great, though the current model is somewhat exploitive of students. Few others are willing to put in the leg work and continue developing for minimum wage (which is what many scribes are paid, despite the companies they're contracting through charging some $30 an hour). That said, a tool that makes $200,000 p.a. doctors more efficient is a useful tool, and even more useful in the context of our coming shortage of doctors as boomers age.
science	Yeah, I kinda do. I never said it was a requirement. I said they like to see it. They like to see it because it shows clinical experience but in reality, you can scribe remotely and get almost zero clinical experience. I have volunteered at free clinics for experience too. However, if you're pulling down a full time job, it's hard to commit to regular volunteering which doesn't pay, or scribing which doesn't pay enough. As a non-traditional applicant, I am familiar with the struggles of other non-trads, and I know several who have voiced this concern.
science	Sure, but did you do that while in college and also working a full time job? Because my point is that neither scribing nor getting volunteer/shadowing hours are easy while you're trying to pay bills. It is another instance of how access is stratified. You said somewhere below that I don't know what I'm talking about but failed to really account for other perspectives. I'm not trying to single you out. This is a persistent problem with lack of empathy that is unfortunately very common among young premeds. I hope you gain a better understanding of the issues as you grow in your career.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.