Ovah

Tangential: a while back I bought a very specific cheese from Lidl. And the very same evening I got a Lidl ad for that very cheese on Facebook. I have never signed up as a member, the only things that connect me to that place would be my credit card.

I did bring my Android phone that has got Messenger lite installed, but that's stretching it tbh.

I'm pretty sure everybody was 'opted-in' to this feature by default. Afaik I have never actively enabled it and yet I'm in the leak. I provided FB my phone number for 2FA purposes. I'm dumbfounded if they actually allowed people to look up my profile with my 2FA info.

The sale of location data by carriers is a USA specific phenomenon afaik.

Making a profit from gene technology is hard. I've heard second hand that many famous and innovative biotech companies have barely been able to turn a profit, year after year.

In the early 2000s Sweden it was not uncommon to have a 'No advertising thank you, except for the IKEA catalog' sticker on your mailbox.

I think theoretical/practical background will allow me to figure stuff out as I go with relative ease. Often times in bioinformatics there are useful vignettes a Google search away. But you are right that specialized tools and libraries which I haven't used before are likely needed. At least for me the main bottleneck will be proper space for processing and the aspect of (reusable) hardware to keep costs down costs. While NanoPores appear to have hidden costs it still seems to be way cheaper than other methods if I want to have my own sequencing rig.

Thank you for the practical insight. I suspected that NanoPores are not just yet geared towards hobbyists. I happen to have some bioinformatics knowhow so it's mainly a matter of hardware for me. As both you, u/bioinformatics and u/searine mention it is the overhead cost of flow cells etc that worries me from a hobbyist point of view.

Thank you. The upfront cost of the sequencer sure makes it tempting at first sight.

My desired hobbyist use case is to key out plants, lichens and mushrooms that I find in the field. I have the bioinformatics knowhow just need the hardware. 3-4h seems lika a long time for a genome that is <30k nucleotides long. Mushrooms on average seem to have almost as many genes as coronaviruses has nucleotides. I guess partial sequences (and thus reduced comp time?) might do the trick but it's probably hard to target those partial reference sequences with a long-read method like NanoPore.

Anyone with hands on experience using NanoPore? I've been thinking about buying one of these to play around with. But anecdotally I've heard that they lack utility or are my concerns just myths? a) they are designed to handle many batched samples at once rather than many runs of few samples over time. So in practice they don't really last for many individual samples. b) the computational requirements are high. So while a NanoPore can be plugged into a laptop in the field it would take forever to run the data processing on said computer.

Thank you. Yeah you hit the nail on its head: it's the environmental conditions that matter. Still it's impressive that a single whole genome has remained largely intact for 100M years or else the cell would not be able to replicate. However for the sequencing of ancient genomes no single genome has to be intact as fragments of many cells can be computationally pieced together into a complete template genome.

And DNA appears to have a half-life of 521 years. 101 million years is 194 817 half-lifes. Assuming the research is sound I wonder how the bacteria get around that limit.

A sieged Senate just doesn't fall into 'stuff happens'. The last it happened was by the hands and torches of British troops during wartime.

Anything that grinds ongoing Senate election proceedings to a halt by force is a threat to democracy. Regardless of the insurgents political agenda. There are no ifs or buts here. There can still be violence even if nobody gets hurt. Yesterday the violence of a few (temporarily) silenced the voices of all voting Americans.

A lot of issues are partisan. What happened yesterday is not. Yesterday both Republicans and Democrats came out and denounced the insurrection in the stronges of terms.

I respectfully disagree that the siege of a national symbol, at the heart of a nation, is a harmless act. This was a substantial threat to democracy as we know it. That a Senate in session is forced to seek refuge due to safety concerns is nothing but dangerous and harmful to the very fabric of societ. If just a few of those 'protestors' had had slightly more nefarious intent the outcome could have been very different.

Technically speaking depression is not a symptom. It's diagnosis in its own right.

I agree. OP stated it was painful to swallow and I'm guessing the laryngoscope is likely the culprit there. The idea is that because the laryngoscope compresses the base of the tongue this likely results in pain swallowing.

It's probably the actual physical metal laryngoscope that is the cause of the throat pain, and not the tube itself. The laryngoscope is used to pry open the throat so the vocal chords can be clearly sen. It's not violent but there is significant force involved and a slight mistake can get a tooth knicked. This visibility is needed so that an air tube can be inserted between the vocal chords to secure the airway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laryngoscopy#/media/File:Macin...

"I never had any of them tell me to eat yogurt afterwards to repair what they do to your gut biome." At least today 'probiotics' are just like any other health supplement without the proper data to back up regular clinical use. There might come a time where they are regularly prescribed but we are not there.

Thank you, looks like I stand corrected. A very large part of that is prostate cancer which isn't really significantly affected by alcohol. But you're right, the total increased % mortality of cancer is higher than what I stated..

I agree. Talking about cancer risk is not the way to go to motivate people to stop drinking. There are far more significant and clinically relevant risk from using alcohol than cancer, such as cardiovascular disease.

The baseline risk of getting cancer['s whos risk is increased by alcohol] is somewhat low as it is. Simply refuted the above statement that alcohol doesn't affect cancer risk.

EDIT: Thank you asdfasgasdgasdg for the correction.

I mean cancer which risk is affected by alcohol is somewhat low as it is. I simply refuted the above statement that alcohol barely affects cancer incidence.

Cardiovascular disease however is the #1 cause of death in the Western world. And here alcohol alcohol plays a much much more significant role in contributing to mortality.

Here are some actual numbers for risk increase. Heavy drinkers have a 5-fold increased risk of getting head and neck cancer, esofageal cancer, and 2-fold increase for liver cancer. The source also reviews colorectal, breast and head+neck cancer. My opinion as a medical professional is that these are significant, and not "very tiny amounts", of increased risk.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...

Here's a good start. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...

For those who don't know (including me), IFR means Infection Fatality Rate. "applies to infectious disease outbreaks ... [and] represents the proportion of deaths among all infected individuals, including all asymptomatic and undiagnosed subjects." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate

I'm open to pushback. Nobel prizes usually reward basic science over applications thereof. My understanding is that Feng Zhang didn't discover anything fundamental. Sure, he was first with applying CRISPR to eucaryotic cells. Which indeed is an impressive feat: not because it was a huge theoretical leap but because of his labs strong work ethic managing to do so very quickly.

I'm interested in what way this could be a logical fallacy. Would you care to expand?

Correlation is indeed not causation. However all four statements hold true for correlation. And at least alcohol can cause cancer.

- Bad diet: for example red meat increases risk of colorectal cancer. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/

- physical activity reduces the risk of many cancers. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/o...

- overweight people have a higher risk of cancer. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/o...

- alcohol increases risk of head and neck, oesophageal, liver, breast, colorectal caner and many others . https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...

Drugs may only be prescribed for an approved set of diseases. Using a drug for a new disease indication without a study to back it up falls"experimental treatment". In other words, using a drug for an unapproved indication is doing scientific experiments on humans without approval which of course is unethical (and illegal). That said it's easier to get permission to use a new drug for a new disease indication if the drug has had previous clinical history of treating other diseases. At least in my country such permission is handed out on a case by case basis after the responsible physician has applied to the proper regulatory authorities.