Born 1976, studied chemistry, later PhD in molecular biology. Mother of the two girls.
BB6
Karma: 78
I have found this older post and read the comments, one pointing me to actual advice to prevent being raped, which a police department wrote up: https://police.charlotte.edu/safety/sexual-assault-prevention/reduce-risk-becoming-sexual-assault-victim
Some of it easy to follow, but some would be difficult or very inconvenient to obey.
“If you live in an apartment, avoid being in the laundry room or garage by yourself, especially at night.”
“Exercise extra caution when using underground and enclosed parking garages. Try not to go alone.”
Ultimately, we sometimes make tradeofs in favor of living normal life without a need to be paranoid or babysitted all the time.
I am in Duolingo learning French, and the one thing I am trying to keep is the “streak”, i.e. the long uninterrupted chain of attendance days.
In fact, I am allowed to skip a day or two, if I pay by gems I earned before. (I also regularly earn more gems by constantly renewing the bet, that my streak will not be interrupted, which has a circular self reinforcing effect.)
I basically ignore the incentives other than the “streak”, and it works well for me. I am at unit 21 after a year and most people I know did not get this far in any duolingo language.
Edit: The creators of Duolingo are apparently learning on the go, how to gamify the learning best. Since I started, the layout has changed at least twice. But, to my satisfaction, the “streak” thing is still there.
Phone contact +421 908 158 110 . We might change a location, call if you are late.
What are the opinions now,with omicron being out there in some countries, and coming to others ? Our kids are 6 and 4 years old. The 6 year old had her second dose only yesterday, because our country was slow in allowing vaccination. The younger one is unvaccinated because there is no aproved vaccine for her.
I am very suspicious about statement that I cannot avoid getting omicron, unless I take extreme measures. Why ? Because I have heard the same about delta and it was false.
I have a friend in Germany, she teaches at school, where rapid antigen testing 3 times a week prevented the school transmissions. They know it, because if a child is flagged as a contact, they test them daily, so they have this feedback.
I pulled away my children (3 yo and 6 yo) from school and kindergarten and they did not get delta. The delta peak in our town did happen already. The kids also did not go indoors apart from our home and the granparents. Are these extreme measures ? In some sense yes, because it put a great strain on a relationship with my partner, I can feel he is dissapointed in me in a last few days. But from what I was told before about the terrible delta, I thought this might be insufficient ! We do not mask at the corridor in our block of flats, which contains 8 other families. Children can play outdoors with other kids. My partner did go shopping masked by FFP2, I went to work masked by FFP2 in the corridors.
My experience is, that preventative measures work. But if you believe, there is no point trying to avoid infection, you will get infected.
EDIT: Ouch, I was wrong. Apparently, there are many single nucleotide polymorphism, that come up in GWAS and which are NOT in protein coding regions. Non-protein-coding SNPs actually constitute 90 percent of stuff found in GWAS !!!
The other part of my argument still stands. There are other variations in DNA apart from single nucleotide polymorphisms, like repeats. And they would not show up in GWAS.
Previous text:
At a bioinformatic summer school, there was a talk, that humans and apes chimpanzees have very similar genes. And many scientists believe, that the most important difference between humans and chimps does not lie in the sequences of protein coding genes. Rather, it is suspected, that the regulatory regions are the thing that matter most. It may be more important how much of certain proteins is produced rather than what exactly those proteins look like. This “how much” question is regulated by other proteins, but also by weird things like how far away some genes are distanced from each other by non-coding DNA areas, how are the non coding DNA areas spatially folded. Some regulation is achieved by repeats, too.
So, duh, I am not surprised, that GWAS sees less genetic effects than twin studies. (RETRACTED PART The GWAS is focusing on protein coding genes almost exclusively.) It is focusing on minuscule point differences—single nucleotide polymorphisms ! It covers just a part of what matters in DNA variability.
Years ago, I have seen this book review on Bryan Kaplan’s Selfish reasons to have more kids (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nzsHQzsvwLw6g4pyE/review-selfish-reasons-to-have-more-kids)
It argues, based on adoption and twin studies, that it is difficult to proove effect of parenting on almost anything. Among the rare exceptions listed, it is mentioned, that parents have “A small effect on educational attainment, but no effect on grades in school or on income”. So to me, it was weird, that the book The Genetic Lottery focuses so much on one rare parameter, the educational attainment, that can actually be affected by adoptive parents. Why not study the grades or income instead ?
Where do you see it naturally occurs in mammals ?
Thanks. I am not ashamed about correcting myself. Rather, the time that passed, since I know about the mistake and did not manage to correct it :-( .
If the method were used, e.g. in a food control lab, it could mean health problems to people, who have an intolerance to the food compound, our analyte. Because it would tell them, it is not there and the food is safe.
Fortunately, to my best knowledge, the method is not in use.
New separate article is certainly better than nothing.
Erratum or retraction are, for my conscience, better than a new separate article.
I wonder if there are other ways people deal with this.
Thanx a lot !
People, off topic, but why does the site show my e-mail addess and not my user name ? How can I change it ?
Yes :-)
They did test fot antibodies before taking RadVac. That was a prrcaution to lower the probability, that they would get antibodies due to infection.
The vaccine by Stoecker is a protein subunit produced by cell culture. It uses cell machinery like ribosomes, and, more importantly, chaperones, which fold the polypeptide correctly, to make it a functional protein (or protein subunit in this case).
Unlike Radvac, which is a mix of peptide strings synthetised chemicaly.
I cannot reproduce your demonstration of electrostatic charge, even if I am using masks or respirators, which I believe not to be fake. Please, what are the particles ? Paper ? Cut paper napkins ? What are they laying on ?
If I could order more sections for this book, I would be interested in:
Female rites of passage. Were they covered by the book ? For instance FGM—some advocate to avoid the actual cutting, but keep the rest of the ritual, because it is so important psychologically. Women tell stories and share their wisdom (in some cultures). Or I have seen on TV, in certain locations adolescents change the shape their teeth, both men and women, which hurts, but they do feel “matured”.
Life with and without diapers. I have casually tried infant potty training / elimination communication, and read a lot about how diapers are unnatural and noble savages do not use them. Also China has a succesful tradition in doing without diapers. On the other hand, there are worse things than diapers, e.g. swaddling clothes. Or leaving children stuck in the holes in the ground. I have never seen a good overview in one place.
Influencing a motor development of the child. For instance, we are told, helping the baby walk before it is ready can cause harm. However, some cultures train walking from birth. Or, on the contrary, do everything to prevent snd slow down motor development. That was actually mentioned in the book. I do have an interesting review on this in one place: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175590/
You write somewhere here in the comments, that those clients who are telling the truth are new to the system (or innocent, but those do not interest me now) while most lies come from repeated offenders. Shouldn’t it be the opposite ? Shouldn’t the experienced ones have, well, the experience, that telling truth to their lawyer gives them better results ? What if they tried and did not see the difference ? Combine it with your often repeated feeling, that you are useless. And your article about 11 words, which describes a situation, when you dramatically helped the client, for whom you apparently felt sympathy, but it was more an emotional move, not a technical one. (You simply asked the judge to reconsider her harsh decision).
OK, I know, a more straightforward explanation is, that the new clients are less stupid, that’s why they are new, and did not have legal problems many times already.
But still, aren’t the lies a lame attempt to gain your sympathy, because they correctly believe, your sympathy is the most valuable thing that can make a difference for them ?