fifnir

> I would of > I may of

https://www.perfect-english-grammar.com/could-have-should-ha...

> how would the major organised religions cope with the revelation (pun intended) that there was life that originated off of Earth/outside of the garden of eden?

Like they've dealt with every other scientific advancement that killed their beliefs. They will deny it as much and as long as they can until they will be forced to admit it, at which point "god" will shrink to an even meaningful pocket of scientific ignorance. Some of them will keep denying it forever

> There isn't a natural right to consume content produced by companies who seem hell bent on making it difficult to access that content.

There's also no natural right for them to prohibit me from consuming, or to gouge me, or to push for horrible legislation with their unfair amount of influence.

You are never morally stealing a digital copy because you do not deprive the original owner of the item.

Of course you don't understand, cause you completely slaughtered his argument.

'Any man who must say, "I am the King", three or four times in a single blog post, is no true king.'

Even if it gets recycled, it's not free. Raw materials need to be collected, processed, and transfered. The bottle-quality plastic has to be created and transfeed to the bottle making factory. The bottles transfered again potentially, filled with water, wrapped in more plastic, transfered again.... all that before recycling.

The original comment of the guy was "when they die off" (based on the observation that 'they' are typically older people).

How is this "authoritarian" ?

Everyone took what they THINK he's saying and are running with it, without ever addressing his point.

Is putting murderers in jail authoritarianism ?

So what's another plastic bottle in the dump right? Someone will figure it out, as long as you don't need to deal with the hassle

> I don't know why

You know exactly why it bugs you and you're absolutely right. I think what's confusing is how can other people NOT see these huge problems

I slipped and wrote "higher eukaryotes" in relation to yeast and this is my post-doc's comments:

"that broke my heart :( other eukaryotes? multicellular eukaryotes? animals? Whatever you like, but please, no "higher", the poor yeast have been evolving for a long time and are much better than us at fermenting beers..."

<edit> This is a great paper that touches on animal complexity, see "Developmental Depth" and "Structural depth" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228365097_Possible_...

I thought i was doing this by only getting black socks. Now I have a drawer full of very subtly different black socks

Firstly, I would phrase the value as "People should not be restricted in the roles they can fulfill in society" (I don't think anyone serious(ly) argues that everyone should do exactly the same).

And no I don't think that this value is under threat from other cultures just because they reproduce more.

The value didn't get established in society because the people who held it reproduced more. Also, those who oppose it won't necessarily continue to reproduce more forever.

Atheists have smaller fertility rates than any religion, yet atheism is spreading more and more

Maybe I should have said efficiency instead of productivity ?

> you genes will die along with you

I get it, this is why I haven't already had a vasectomy, but your genes are nothing special, just a sample of the alleles in the population.

I'm much more concerned about producing ideas that will outlive me and spreading those. Newton died a virgin yet he profoundly influenced the world.

Similar with cultures, ancient greeks are long gone but their culture shaped the world.

> Any constructive discussion is welcome.

I want to attack the premise that a shrinking population is inherently a problem. The only clearly stated problem that I've seen is how social security will likely crumble since the fewer younger people won't be able to support the large aging population.

But this ignores how productivity has been and will continue to rise thanks to machines. I think we can easily take care of an aging population if we make proper use of new technology.

In fact I think that reducing our numbers is necessary for our survival.

We live in a capitalist world, where constant growth is assumed and expected, but the earth is a relatively closed system and you know what happens with bacteria in closed systems? They reproduce until they exhaust the system's resources and then they all die.

Will it work with multiprocessing?

I just want to have a pizza delivered to my balcony one day

But on the biggest issue of american politics of the last 50 years, he has found himself (chosen?) on the wrong side of history

<edit> If you hear trump talk for two minutes and you don't immediately realize the danger and what he represents, you might be too cynical

What's the best that we can eat? --> What we're evolved to eat What did hominids eat up to 10.000 years ago? --> Everything except carbs as we know them today

There's your connection of science to low-carb

Carbs in the quantities that we have them these days are ridiculously unnatural,

> fairly, openly, democratically, with respect.

Why would the US change its modus operandi ? :P

Interesting, I did some more digging and found this for anyone interested in a nice paper:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5121266/

It's so self evident that I don't know where to begin...

Language has rules (They were taught to us in school). They might change over time but they still exist.

I'm sure that many "could of"s have been made official over the eons in all languages, (thanks to general ignorance/incompetence/refusal to learn) but that doesn't mean we should respect "couldofers" (see? I made up a word, I'm not that rigid) as if they're the next Shakespeare...

Iz their know point at witch "human caltoural fenonemon" stops and blatant misuse starts? Would you not draw the line somewhere?

I draw it at "you're/your/couldof" etc and it infuriates me because, not only these people offload a significant part of the work of communication to me, but they have the nerve to consider themselves somehow superior.

> an arms race between the placenta and the womb, and rather than a safe place to protect the fetus, the womb is more of a safe place to isolate the fetus and manage its access to the mother's resources while keeping the mother safe.

I don't see anything human-specific here, this would have been true for all placental animals no?

You know what rubs MY nose? When people misuse language and then treat any correction as something snobby.

Typical argument from someone who just wrote "could of", or mixed you're with your: "Oh but language is to communicate, and you understood what I'm saying so it worked so stop being snobby about it"

gah, makes my blood boil

> It seems like a business where you make everyone mad no matter what you do.

Maybe you can spent some of your gazillion dollars to hire humans instead of relying on automated half-measures

Well semantics are important, especially in fields that someone is intimate with, and I'm currently finishing a phd in cis-regulation and epigenetics.

When we stress mice and notice a difference in their offspring through epigenetics, this is something that has already evolved in mice. Parts of the parental DNA get "marked" and the mark passes on to the offspring and influences their development, but the mechanism that connects external stress and the marking of the parental DNA is itself a genetic mechanism and subject to evolution.

The offspring whose development was changed because of the parental stress isn't evolved, much like a baby with FASD[1] isn't "evolved" either

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_spectrum_disorde...

Maybe one day we can prove there's a teacup orbiting Saturn too !

Epigenetic research isn't going against evolution, it's refining some details.

We are discovering some nonmendelian dynamics of inheritance, but being epigenetic they are only about how the organism can differentially use its genetic library.

Because instead of vaguely describing what I did I can show you exactly what I did.

Instead of saying "we normalized the counts", I can show you EXACTLY what that was that I did.

If I can't see your code I don't trust you.

I think it's cleaner, more honest, more reproducible, and it helps teach younger researchers.

ps. Huge amounts of "human" data are normally public and available for anyone to work with, it's only specific subsets that need to be private.