jyounker

The wasps drown. The hornets just drop in for a sip, and then fly off.

I don't see why. A lot of Western Poland used to be German, and it's not like there's one German cuisine either. You don't get many Bavarians eating pickled herring with beets, but's it's classic cuisine in Berlin.

I worked for a few years in consumer banking, and this looks like solid advice.

It's a misuse because in this context the hyphen could be mis-construed as a negative amount, and this causes the reader to stop and carefully re-read the content to ensure that they're not misinterpreting it. That's not where you want to be spending your reader's attention.

My experience in consumer banking says that every instrument specifies the precision of the calculation, how and when rounding happens, and slew of little details.

So, yes, everyone has to understand how all their partners are doing rounding and summing.

How you expose you present your data to third parties is not how you represent it internally.

I think you're demonstrating the reluctance to admit that class conflict is a real thing.

There has been a class war going on for at least four decades in the US, and the lower classes are on the loosing side. All you have to do is look at growing wage gaps in that period. We can come up with all sorts of just-so stories, but the simple answer is that the rich have captured the US government, and it is being governed primarily for their benefit.

It's first paragraph leaves me disappointed. It's 1996. Worries over a tech bubble are a few years away. And there are no tensions with Russia really, because Americans didn't give a damn about the first Chechen war.

> People believing they are entitled to dictate what other people do with their property, or believing they should have some say in the "character" of their neighborhood that involves non-public land just doesnt make any sense to me.

Would you like me to buy the lot next to your house and set up a 3000W sound system pumping noise music 24 hours directly at your bedroom? Because that's what you're arguing for.

TLDR: It's just like a human, if a human were fundamentally different.

> Surprisingly (or unsurprisingly) enough, blind tests did exacerbate > this issue, so, far left ideologues started calling to an end to > blind auditions since they ended up making orchestras "less diverse" > instead of more

You should really shouldn't subtly misrepresent the argument. The article states that blind auditions made orchestras much more diverse in some categories, but did not make much of an impact in others.

As far as I can tell nobody except Anthony Tommasini is calling for blind auditions to go away. His position position is just weird and using it to represent the opinions of most of the left is more than a bit disingenuous.

If you're talking about deep time, sure, but I'm referring to actual human historical timescales of a few tens to a few hundreds of years.

> I don't think any of this can be changed without large-scale social acceptance of greater risk in clinical trials and significant support from the government.

I agree with you about significant financial support from the government if that support is financial and given to smaller groups.

I disagree about societal acceptance though. I feel like your point of view may be missing clinical trials and treatments in the USA. The laws we have are written in blood, and the laws more sophisticated than I think you appreciate.

There are various options for fast-tracking drug development if the conditions are serious enough or the drugs promising enough. I suggest actually reading about how these processes work, and the history of what happens when we don't have these protections, before deciding that approvals are overly cautious.

Why would you expect those cases to have lower rates of false conviction than normal cases?

Some have harsh words for this man of renown

But some think our attitude

Should be one of gratitude

Like the widows and cripples in old London town

Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun.

There legitimate reason to suspect that Israel was involved in a series of anti-muslim rallies that happened across the US a few years back. The Molly Conger's covered it in an episode of "Weird Little Guys": https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/an-accidental-nazi-ral...

When DNA matching was introduced, we discovered that at minimum 10% of people on death row were innocent. Death row cases are among the most litigated and examined cases. So, 10% is a reasonable floor, and we're already in double digits.

First thing to remember: cancer drugs attack human cells. Because of this they can very unexpected and traumatic side-effects.

Because of this initial trials consume lots of medical staff to deal with the potential side effects. Normal side effects for cancer treatments include:

  * Your gut lining dissolves, your shit leaks into your body cavity, and you get sepsis.

  * Your heart stops during the infusion.

  * Cumulative poisoning that nobody understands. (E.g. some agents have lifetime limits, and if you go beyond that, then you die. Guess how we found out.)

  * Your immune system, and you get things like disseminated fungal infections.

The danger of side-effects like this requires a medical team largely dedicated to the experimental patients.

This puts a limit on how many patients you can put into a trial. I'm under the impression that cancer trials are pretty much always full.

Cancer treatments are really scary things. There are all sorts of impacts that we have no idea about when using drugs that fundamentally attack pieces of our own body.

My partner of many years had one of the nastiest cancers around, one with no targeted treatments. She went through an experimental combination of existing drugs. Some of the side effects included:

  * Her heart stopping during a drug infusion. This happened multiple times over the 18 months of treatment.

  * Disseminated fungal infections.

  * Sepis because holes were developing in her GI tract.

This is just a sampler of the horrible effects.

This was a good response. Other patients just died from the drug combination.

This is what going slowly looks like in the world of cancer treatment.

And how is that different from any other governmental level? Seriously, we in Berlin got a freeway that nobody I know wanted or wants. It's not the EU's fault.

So we're in agreement. The expectation is that biochemistry here on Earth only produces a small proportion of the possible structures.

> What you have to be careful about here is that the structure that were available 30 years ago were quite strongly biased by what was experimentally tractable.... ie the recurrence of the same folds is in part related to what crystallised well.

It was biased in some sense towards those things that could be crystalized, but but at that time we were already seeing the same sorts of recurring motifs with cryo-em which is much less restrictive in the required preparations. (Purify it and flash freeze it.)

In the last 30 years there's nothing that has overturned the recurrence of motifs in protein structure. It's just become more and more established.

This paper confirms that.

The methods they're using are interesting, but the fundamental result isn't surprising.

Fossil fuel companies have spent the the last forty years in an organized campaign to prevent the US (and by extension, the world) from taking action against global warming.

There's a great book on the subject called "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway.

I wasn't replying to the OP.

> So what are the lessons here?

The only lesson is that, to a biochemist, the result is not surprising.

Exactly.

I have a 30 year old book on protein structure on my shelf. One of the primary themes is the recurrence of the same structural motifs in proteins. The fact that biologic proteins use the same patterns for different functions isn't new information.

The result also fits in with the rest of biochemistry. While there are a vast variety of interesting chemicals in living things, and they do all sorts of amazing stuff, there are really only a handful of classes of chemicals.

The variety of classes of chemicals that can exist dwarfs what gets used in biochemistry. Why would we expect structure to be different?

We're in agreement though, that it would be interesting to understand what the constraints are.

> What do you mean by "reaction center"

An enzymatic reaction center is also known as an "active size". It's the location within an enzyme's 3D structure where catalysis happens.

"But global warming is a hoax. And even if it wasn't it's not our fault. People couldn't be the cause. And even if it is our fault there's nothing we could do about it."

We have broken our world for the greed of a few. History will not be kind to us.

None of this seems particularly surprising to someone who was an undergraduate level of biochemistry knowledge. Thirty years ago the professor in my Proteins class made a few relevant important points in his lectures:

1) Only handful of amino acids in a enzyme structures were highly conserved. (Out of hundreds, generally less than ten.)

2) Those were generally in the reaction center.

3) Almost all single sequence replacements had no measurable effect on protein structure and function.

4) Across species the "same" protein can diverge in sequence by up to 40%, while keeping the same structure. Sometimes this goes as far as 80%.

Given these basic facts, the findings in the paper aren't really surprising to anyone who studies proteins.

[Note: As with everything in biology, you can find counter examples. The histone proteins involved in DNA packing have an incredibly conserved sequence.]