The OP. It's in his name.
It's interesting that you jumped straight to him fucking dogs though, rather than him merely owning both dogs and a saxophone...
I had always presumed it was a play on words, rather than an admission of bestiality.
I'm afraid your sarcasm is lost on me.
Yes. Your reading comprehension is horrible, influenced by your motivated reasoning, probably in an attempt to protect your ego.
Perhaps if you were to provide an actual quote from the book that you've linked to
Why would I provide anything for someone who is acting like an asshole? If every organic chemist in the world came to you and told you that you were wrong, you still would argue against them. The root of your problem is reading comprehension fails.
Also, you write like you learned organic chemistry in the 90s or something.
After your first reply I guessed you were 'fragile' - why else resort to belittling someone for gently correcting a mistake.
Now, well...
It's something of a truism that the accusations we level at others are, in reality, our own failings. Thanks for showing us all who you really are!
And, not that it's particularly important, but just for the record, I took a chemistry module 2 years ago (so rather more recently than the 90's), as part of my degree and got a module mark of 95%.
Ok, I'll let you email the authors and tell them they are wrong. I'm sure they'll be happy to hear from such a smart person as you.
I'm afraid your sarcasm is lost on me. Perhaps if you were to provide an actual quote from the book that you've linked to, one that backs up the statement you made about there being no difference between man-made and natural compounds, your intent would be clearer...
After all, by my understanding, and to quote from an easily accessible source the difference can be a matter of life or death: "This subtle difference can have profound implications for biological processes and drug interactions, as the human body often exhibits specificity for one enantiomer over the other." (c.f. thalidomide)
The majority of people are average
Nobody is average. Everyone is either above or below average.
Both incorrect. I guess that just goes to show that, despite 'everyone' knowing what you both meant, imprecision in language leads to potential misunderstandings when it comes to reporting on science.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Yeah, me either...
For example: IF you ask an organic chemist, they will claim there is no difference between natural and "man-made" organic compounds.
Then that organic chemist needs to go back to school and revisit the topic of chiral molecules...
That said:
... most are getting a message from an influencer.
Indeed, there's an awful lot of absolute rubbish being spouted by some of these people e.g. "carrots aren't food".
When Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, America or other signatories of the memorandum did not take the responsibility to defend Ukraine. I don't know why this myth is still being repeated.
Possibly because Article 4 of the Budapest Memorandum states "The
When taken in conjunction with the nature / membership of the Security Council, not to mention the US's history of military interventions c.f. The Gulf War(s), it is a not unreasonable leap to assume that the US would step in.
That the aforementioned Memorandum doesn't, apparently, reach the bar of being an international treaty but is instead merely a set of political assurances (and most definitely not guarantees - not in the English language versions of the document anyway) does go some way to explaining why the common man might easily come to mistrust and / or despise politicians and lawyers. Um, sorry, I mean might easily explain why the confusion arose, and why it persists.
But they will not become unaffordable to me, as I have a terminal illness and have a year or less to live.
Sorry to hear that - though prognoses / progression timelines are not always accurate. Either way, I hope it's painless...
(not from the US myself, so I guess that last goes without saying)
Seriously though, I'll miss reading your comments!
... The rest of us get in the death tube.
Hmm, are you sure about that?
When I travel, I get on a plane, on a train, on a boat, or on a bus. Oddly though, I get in my car, but on my bike - well, that last one is, perhaps, not too surprising.
What's really strange however, now I'm thinking about it, is that I might get on or in a minibus.
It appears my mind, for whatever reason (presumably spoken language or socialisation based) makes the transition between the two 'means' of boarding transport based on its size, and the transition point is about the size of a minibus. Though there may be other language flow related issues too, as, while I would definitively get into a van, or even a lorry, when it comes to loading said lorry I might put stuff on the lorry or in it.
Just don't ask me whether it was a red lorry or a yellow lorry...
"Clean plastic." Recycling fans expect me to wash my garbage. I think not.
There are no easy answers, however, for people's ignorance and apathy...
Glass is great for reuse, but that takes a lot more effort and organization than chucking it into a common bin. Glass recycling is just about as energy intensive as making new glass, and it's not like there's any shortage of raw material. Aluminum, cardboard, and precious metals are the only things that make sense to recycle with current technology and economics.
This is (almost certainly) not correct.
Quite apart from the fact that recycling glass saves on raw materials, the broken up 'old' glass, known in the industry as cullet, reduces the energy required to melt those raw materials by lowering their melting point, resulting in energy and cost savings of ~40%. It also has the added advantage that, for all bar 'speciality' glass, the chemical composition already matches that of the finished product. There are, for sure, efficiencies of scale when it comes to the sourcing, transporting, and sorting of bulk raw materials as opposed to collection, cleaning, and transportation of used glass, but this is generally counterbalanced by the fact that the used product tends to be much closer to the manufacturing facilities.
The main problem, as I see it anyway, is that most people either don't give a shit or pay, at best, lip service, to the idea of recycling. Where I live I frequently see that people have thrown out out old (plastic) milk containers still half full of spoiled milk - while the instructions for plastic recycling clearly state clean plastic. There are no easy answers, however, for people's ignorance and apathy...
That is the regulatory change I think we need. Platforms can control their content but they do need to specify to the user why, what the statement was and tie it back to the TOS and have a standard for appeals.
On a not totally unrelated subject: I was browsing fb this morning when my account got suspended. Why? Apparently, according to the page that loaded anyway, their algorithm determined I might not be a real person. If I want to regain access I need to upload a video of my face, turning it to present various profiles to the camera, to prove I am, in fact, a real person...
Ah well, looks like I am going to, finally, be able to avoid those random time-wasting doom-scrolling sessions in future.
That's an interesting assertion, given your failure to produce the IRB waiver that you claim -- with no evidence whatsoever -- exists. Perhaps you could fabricate some other, different, less feeble justification to support your attempt to excuse this unethical conduct.
Well, it really wasn't too hard to find an, appositely Swiss, reference to support their assertion:
"Waiver of the consent requirement may be applied in certain circumstances where no foreseeable harm is expected to result from the study or when permitted by law, federal regulations, or if an ethical review committee has approved the non-disclosure of certain information."
Personally I find it hilarious that "impairments to reasoning and judgment that may preclude informed consent include intellectual or emotional immaturity" are just a few of the reasons given for why informed consent might not be obtainable from the subjects, when considered in juxtaposition with the fact that people on a debate forum on Reddit are, apparently, up in arms over having their minds changed by a bot. Very emotionally mature!
It's not just the right. On the left, people say that gender is a preference rather than biology
I scrolled past the first time you posted this, but couldn't resist a second time...
There are different definitions of gender, but pretty much all of them include the fact that it's a social / cultural construct. Given that in gendered languages objects have genders but clearly aren't biologically male of female I fear you're looking at this from an unduly blinkered perspective.
Gender
and forget why men aren't allowed to play on women's teams--because they have a _physical_ advantage that is not diminished by the emotional preferences of the athlete.
Yeah, the vocal minority definitely shot themselves in the foot on this one, and the liberal left left on open goal by not pushing back against this vocal extreme. They forgot that fairness is not viewed from one side only. However, this isn't typical of the left as a whole, just a subsection of it.
However there's clearly more to it than just fairness, at least on the right. After all, a libertarian believes in personal liberty, right? If someone wants to mutilate their body (*cough* sorry, engage in extreme cosmetic surgery) surely that's entirely their right, their prerogative. What does it matter to you?
Or they tilt the scales in favor of specific minority groups in the name of eliminating inequality.
There's no doubt in my mind that positive discrimination has gone too far, but it's difficult to balance the scales without overshooting a little bit. I'd encourage everyone to maintain a bit of perspective, rather than just take everything back off one side of them though. Historically, they most certainly were not balanced, and that legacy still creates certain disparities in opportunity.
(These are just as abhorrent to those on the right, as mistreatment of immigrants is abhorrent to those on the left.
If mistreatment of people isn't abhorrent to you, or at least to 'those on the right', then I'd suggest we have a problem. After all, "All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights..."
Perhaps we could all do with remembering this, and trying to apply it in our interpersonal relations.
I mean, it will collapse
You just won't see the final outcome likely for several decades.
That's a good point, though I wasn't really referring to the demographics in my previous response.
Of course, one might need a strict definition of 'collapse' vs 'decline' or 'shrink' to be sure, but, to an extent, that's just splitting hairs.
...as luxury items especially increase in cost.
I never realised that clothes counted as a luxury item.
Or the parts needed to repair your car, your washing machine, your fridge, your gas boiler.
"When the philosopher said 'May you live in interesting times' he didn't say it was going to be such hard work, or so damn cold!"
In seeking the unattainable, simplicity only gets in the way. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982
