kuhewa

Just based on your comment, I can promise you I have payed attention to the conflict less than you and have less of a 'dog in the fight' in terms of supporting a side. I just noticed your comment begging the question regarding mortalities that reflect makeup of a civilian population being the null case in urban warfare that needs no explanation.

It's a positive claim that requires empirical support, which you aren't providing.

A quick squiz would suggest this women+children death toll is the greatest in some time by some margin, despite some quite bloody and urbanised conflicts in recent years [1]. Perhaps you have justified knowledge that this case is different than any other or just better-documented, and the deaths are unavoidable insofar as urban warfare is to be conducted.

But even if it is the case that urban warfare should be expected to be conducted quite inefficiently (to the point that combatants are successfully targeted at a rate barely greater than random members of the population), you are also taking it as a given that conducting it at all is justified and shouldn't be alarming.

That doesn't appear to be a given by military standards of developed countries:

> Destroying an urban area to save it is not an option for commanders. The density of civilian populations in urban areas and the multidimensional nature of the environment make it more likely that even accurate attacks with precision weapons will injure noncombatants.…If collateral damage is likely to be of sufficient magnitude, it may justify avoiding urban operations, which though tactically successful, would run counter to national and strategic objectives.

United States Army and Marine Corps 2017 Manual on Urban Operations, quoted in [2]

[1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/more-women-and-child... [2] https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2021/04/27/urban-warfa...

You appear to be making the case that the 65% statistic of Gazans killed by Israel shouldn't be alarming since it merely is converging on the demographic makeup of the population.

I'd argue that it is very alarming when military casualties converge on the general populations demographics and not the demographics of actual combatants.

The right column on page 181 addresses these arguments

But the other contemporary lineages were mixing more than Thorin, and relatedness broadly correlates with geographic proximity [1]. But the contemporary later lineages in the area split off from samples as far as from Siberia and the Caucasus than to Thorin, as this paper demonstrates.

It isn't out of the question that groups could have moved quite a bit since there is evidence of turnover in either Caucasus or Western Europe later on, but I am not sure coming from somewhere else solves the puzzle. Existing evidence suggests that the MRCA of known late Neanderthals including those predating Thorin was in Europe [2].

So Thorin's lineage could have traveled from somewhere without other hominids and beelined for this site ten years prior, but it is not very parsimonious considering he was in a layer with the same PNII style artifacts for thousands of years before and after him? However, the PNII artifacts don't appear to be rooted in the previous ones of the region so perhaps there was an older exotic origin.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature26151 [2] https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.aaw5873

> It would make sense for a species near extinction to have small population clusters migrating and not bumping into each other

What evidence do you suggest supports this for 50k years?

The group Thorin was from may have been close to extinction when he died, but when genetic isolation started they were 50k years away from being that close to extinction. It seems remarkable based on what we know of hunter gathers or even animal population structure and movement, that there would be no mixing for that long.

Yes several weeks. But no contact is a little surprising for fifty generations, let alone fifty thousand years.

Of course, you are totally fine. Even with that interpretation, shorthand slang pronunciations have definitely become enough of a part of common parlance especially on the internet that it is quite a stretch to invoke potential racism.

Hell, 'Wat' has its own Know Your Meme page, as do several phrases including 'Dat' https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wat

They are probably presuming it's intended to be AAVE or similar.

Me as well. There is a lot of hype around 'regenerative' agriculture and livestock now as well, but one really needs to see detailed life cycle analyses to know the full footprint of a food choice

Apparently it has been commercially available to cattle growers since 2022 but not sure on uptake https://www.future-feed.com/buy-asparagopsis

The Asparagopsis supplements I think you are referring to are arguably clever, but

> Before these were invented we were looking at a situation where meat consumption (or at least beef) may have to be phased out.

They haven't really changed the game, at least not yet. But assuming optimistically they can reduce cow methane emissions and downsides can be avoided [1], the magnitude of the reduction [2] probably will not make or break the continuation of the cattle industry.

[1] https://www.murdoch.edu.au/news/articles/seaweed-might-not-b... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/13/seaweed-...

Anything immunotherapy in cancer treatment is extremely targeted. Early trials with new drugs include people getting cooked to death as the immune system and in particular the wrong interleukins get over-stimulated. 'Bolstering of the immune system' sounds good, but in general the immune system is a fine balance between doing the job against pathogen/cancer but not well that it is erring on being nonspecific and attacking self, i.e. autoimmunity. Unless otherwise noted, non-specific 'bolstering' in a tissue like the brain is likely not a good thing.

> You'll also need to bolster the immune system to aid in recovery.

This eats the brain

When you spend $200 on spamming people you need to believe it was effective

R has a pretty particular use case though, Python use for statistical programming/data analysis would be an apples to apples comparison. People doing a coding 101 course in Python don't really count against the R user base.

Once you are using the tidy paradigm, it lends itself to efficient plotting with ggplot2. Plotting with base R would require reshaping your data. So I think insofar as dplyr becomes a popular default it makes sense ggplot2 would be in lock step

That's only true IMO of the in-IDE plots, but actual exported PNG or vector graphics I think base R plots are pretty perfect, other than perhaps the default colour palette

I learned r too long ago so I am pretty fluent writing readable data wrangling code in base R. But I'm a biologist first, in my community I see the value dplyr adds in making it approachable for people who need to do some basic stats but probably will never need to really understand the language or do any development.

It also provides guardrails and encourages best practices which I find a bit to paternalistic and annoying but again I can see the value.

I think most R users would be surprised and just how much tidyverse functionality is hidden in base R but majority of the dplyr versions of functions have at least some intended improvement over the base R versions, and some are a massive improvement in functionality.

For example in a typical script the only tidyverse package I may load besides ggplot2 is tidyr, because the pivot_ wider/longer() functions really do solve a problem that was not fun in base R.

It really isn't, at least with the author's clarification that the arrow isn't the path. It might sound like it if you misread the instructions as 'travel due east' as the parent comment did.

Impossible to follow if you are thinking Euclidean geometry, but a great circle is a straight line in spherical geometry. The earth isn't a sphere, but it is much closer to one than it is a plane.

I read it after your caveat was added, but I didn't find it intentionally misleading, from the very strong response (which is doing what it accuses the post of doing by claiming it reads 'travel due east') I get the feeling someone may be a bit peeved they didn't 'get it's and instead thought the answer would be some embassy that happens to be directly east of Seattle.

And I don't think younger statisticians, those that will have 30+ years in the career tank, are now favouring Python over R (a few, Julia perhaps). So I don't imagine new stats functionality dropping in R first is going to change any time even close to soon.

> the risk is that the core developers become a bit insulated from the community of users

I think I like that actually. The core is quite conservative, meanwhile the packages that the average R community member uses break their own backwards compatibility every few months for silly reasons like renaming an argument `linewidth` instead of `size` in a function that was otherwise backwards compatible for a decade.

We don't teach theories in primary and secondary education when they are first proposed though. And don't come at me with the Wikipedia summary intro paragraph sir — Margulis started promoting the idea in 1967 with a theory paper, she didn't substantiate it with new evidence. It required the genetic evidence later decades would bring to really substantiate.

And yes, no one has questioned the existence of mitochondria for a good long while now.

> They insisted "I would have loved the subject if they had taught us topic X"

Just yesterday was a front page top comment along these lines, that teaching endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts would have made all the difference in grade school biology. But really it would be worth about 30-90 seconds of content in the lesson that day and gone barely noticed and probably not remembered.

You need some pretty advanced genetic and phylogenetic work to put meat on the bones of the theory though and that happened recently

Seems like you are answering the first part of your question with the second part

Depends when you took it. The endosymbiotic origin theory has links being worked out well into the 2000s.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-origin-of-mito...

Co-signed, worth reading but please don't quote the book at cocktail parties unless it is a claim you have independently (of the book) investigated