What’s 50 Out of 2.2 million?

Headline should read, DeepMind calculated 2.2 million hypothetically stable crystal structures with the possibility to advance everything from materials science to biology (emphasis mine)

There’s a large difference between a hypothetical crystal structure and being able to produce that crystal structure in the real world. And an even larger difference between the hypothetical and the ability to produce the crystal structure in an efficient and cost-effective enough manner to be usable. There are already multiple materials that are known that would make better batteries than lithium-ion batteries, but either the manufacturing method is too hard or expensive, or the materials are extremely rare. So it’s nice DeepMind was able to do this, but it’s years from being usable still.

It’s all up-front costs! /s

It’s like they were trying to jump the Gorge Dukes of Hazzard style. Crazy to watch.

Username… checks out?

It’s a problem in that it ignores the fact that McCown (who happened to then fight for the Confederacy after) collected this bird and gave it to another white man, who ‘named’ it. The bird was already well known to Native American tribes in Texas and Arizona. So to say that McCown ‘discovered’ it is just blatantly wrong. The name that the AOS will go with is the ‘thick-billed longspur’ as it’s anatomically accurate and doesn’t make it seem like McCown discovered this bird.

Don’t give them any ideas.

Now I’m sitting here trying not to laugh, thinking about the old adage: how do you know if the Pope is venomous or poisonous?

If you bite the Pope and you die, he’s poisonous. If the Pope bites you and you die, he’s venomous.

I feel like he would spray holy water though.

That’s the next game in the Dark Souls line: Bright Souls: YHWH’s revenge.

Now I’m imagining laser derby matches.

There’s multiple levels so the answer is “sort of.” Very generally, the Minister of Defense (or equivalent) has a national defense council that will have heads of armed forces and maybe a few senior civilian members. The council creates the overall battle plan with specific generals or admirals creating plans for specific battles or campaigns that conform to the overarching goals set by the defense council. The Prime Minister has a cabinet. The cabinet will receive info from the defense council. Intelligence agencies and departments involved with any economic warfare. The PM and cabinet can give direction to individual councils and departments to coordinate the overarching strategy of the entire country. The defense council will then adjust plans based on Cabinet’s directives. The PM is probably given detailed briefings of battlefield progress and aims for the military for the short-, medium-, and long-term for the conflict and can veto specific plans. But the PM won’t help to plan attacks or modify those plans usually. That’s the purview of generals and admirals.

So, in reading through this, I see several problems, but the authors note these mostly. The primary being that they used two different methods of detecting DNA in the vaccine samples and got two wildly different values. The qPCR returned normal numbers and their fluorometry had wildly higher numbers. It’s been years since I’ve done a fluorometry study, but I feel like my qPCR numbers were usually more reliable. If that’s still the case, saying that widely distributed vaccines have high amounts of DNA in them is just wrong, because the qPCR values returned numbers well under the FDA acceptable amount of DNA in the COVID vaccine.

And saying that they detected DNA fragments at all is something of an ‘uh duh, yeah’ statement for the title. You’ll always find SOME DNA fragments. As long as they are under some identified acceptable boundary (hopefully itself established in other studies) then it shouldn’t affect the vaccine’s efficacy or increase SAEs. Add to that VAERS is there to report EVERY adverse event that happens during vaccine trials and afterward, finding a correlation between DNA found in vaccines and increased reports in VAERS is like finding a correlation between increases in butter sales in Maine correlates with increased murder rates in Chicago. It’s somewhat interesting right now, but definitely doesn’t rise to the level “holy shit, we need to re-science this ASAP!”

BE Man, Amazon must be really pissed off about this…

I think most, like me, read the article and found it wanting. The USA has limited resources and has to decide what’s going to get priority. The Biden Administration’s decision to focus its foreign policy on countering growing Chinese global influence is a decision that has to be made in the context of these limited resources. So blaming the US for a war that both sides have wanted and worked toward for 50 years while every US President has put in far more resources to try to prevent that war seems like the journalist doesn’t understand the basics of practically anything having to do with foreign policy. But must be the USA’s fault because we didn’t decide to spend more of our limited resources on a conflict that never goes away.

36.005970N , 114.976380W

If it helps, I can rationally discuss glyphosate. Plant geneticist here.

Your own comment above basically supports the definition of tankie. Specifically, this:

The term is also used to describe people who endorse, defend, or deny the crimes committed by communist leaders such as Vladimir Lenin,[9][10] Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Enver Hoxha, Pol Pot, and Kim il-Sung. In modern times, the term is used across the political spectrum to describe those who have a bias in favor of illiberal or authoritarian states with a socialist legacy or a nominally left-wing government, such as the Republic of Belarus, People’s Republic of China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Nicaragua, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Serbia, the Syrian Arab Republic, and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Additionally, tankies have a tendency to support non-socialist states with no socialist legacy if they are opposed to the United States and the Western world in general, regardless of their ideology,[4][11] such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. (emphasis mine)

I would take issue with the single word ‘fascist’ that @figaro@lemdro.id is using, as the government doesn’t need to be full-on fascist to it qualify for tankies to defend it. It only needs to be illiberal with a socialist legacy or nominally left-leaning government. So the definition is more broad than what figaro defines. But all the elements of Figaro’s defintion are literally there in your own linked Wikipedia article.

Someone has to take Ted Cruz to Mexico.

ADL would almost certainly file an anti-SLAPP claim and probably win. California’s anti-SLAPP law even says that it’s contents should be broadly considered as a bulwark against assholes using the courts to prevent public participation. If ADL does win an anti-SLAPP motion, Musk would end up paying their lawyers fees down to the cent.