urshanabi [he/they] @ urshanabi @lemmygrad.ml

Posts

0

Comments

107

Joined

2 yr. ago

best of luck

you think there are sectarian conflicts between like arabic numerals, babylonian base 12, i ching base 2, hindu numbers, roman numerals, etc?

"No it isn't 2 towers, they are two 1's so it's actually 3 in base 2!!"

"Nuh-uh, it's a signed bit so it's negative 1"

"You fools! they are two I's therefore it is II or 2!"

"11 two 1's make 11!!1!"

or something like that i think

I used github pages, now I use codeberg pages. It's nice I suggest you try it out (for static content like a blog, it's great).

Ive been considering Shiori, LinkWarden, or Readeck.

Other options here

ty, some of these worked for me

yo been a while cde, i wanted to ask: have you read any other ancient greek/roman authors? i'm looking at iamblichus and his work on pythagoras, and lucretius and his works. i'm not really acquainted (i only read socratic dialogues and not the mid or later platonic works, and parts of aristotle like organon and working through nicomachean & eudemian ethics) and i'm wondering if you have any tips or advice (｡◕‿◕｡)

honestly super impressed with stalin's writing in general, kinda unbelievable that someone could be so good at as many things. i've met savant's and their fantastical ability is typically restricted to a narrow domain, for some it's almost as if they don't have any special ability, and they could likely choose an area and excel at it. maybe not the absolute best, and still really really good.

any others come to mind?

No, I don't think I will.

I made a response above, it is complex, and not that complex if enough subjects and enough data is attained. The more time goes on the more trivial it becomes.

The genetic component need not be the determiner for whether people of a faith, a culture, are discriminated against. Period. One need not react negatively to scientific claims, a good measure is, what if this limitation was overcome? What exactly would that change?

As far as I am concerned, with respect to genetics outside of medical use, or few other areas, nothing.

I completely agree with genetics being useless.

Your point about 'most generalized' is unfortunately not accurate. Perhaps in the past, there were for example major issues with the reference human genome which overrepresented people from western eurasia, and only have a handful of ethnic groups from Africa (recall, any two random people chosen from Africa will be more genetically distinct than any two other humans; Papua New Guinea might be an exception and other parts of Micronesia; at least to the best of my knowledge). Since for example there were many people from Amerika also sequenced, it only added to the bias towards western eurasians.

The current reference human genome is very very much improved over the initial attempts. Not perfect of course, however more specific databases and other references which are specific to other regions/groups/etc (really whatever grouping of genomes may be of interest), one which is not really related to ethnicity is the neanderthal genome, the Human Pangenome Reference tries to take care of the issues with any kind of bias by having a collection of genomes. There's also the African Variation Reference Genome.

What does this mean? The resolution is increasing, note earlier that if only western eurasians and certain ethnic groups from Africa, like Mbuti, Yoruba, etc. if one was not of that population, say a Nuxalk Nation individual, enough would be different that it would be hard to say maybe if they were closer to western eurasian population A or B. Which says nothing of how they relate to the people living in close proximity, say Inuit to the northish and Anishinaabe to the east.

That isn't the case now. There are single point mutations, groupings of a few bits of DNA, haplotypes (seminal paper here), which one can look at and say with confidence, "This genome belongs to a person who is very likely from this geographic region." This doesn't mean people don't have variation, only, the genome is conserved, i.e. it doesn't change all that much especially in some areas of the genome which are like super important. Such as the genes related to DNA Replication, making tRNA; stuff where if it wasn't there the cell couldn't grow and replicate at a high enough rate for the organism to be viable.

You can imagine there can be a test, like a pH strip, which only checks for one of several characteristic haplotypes or combinations of haplotypes if additional resolution is needed, and the result would be quite accurate. Enough to discriminate at least. Enough to arrest and test more thoroughly, which is only getting cheaper by the day.

You need to accept that this stuff is getting better, and outside of medical use, mapping migratory paths, etc. there need not be any application in a way which is discriminatory. Denying the effectiveness is denying scientific progress, maybe not now, but at least in the future. If we are to be dialectical materialists then it must be considered that a compound with a given causal history may have the ability to inform those who study it of its history, and, that ability will change over time. The incoming nefarious uses can only be countered if they are accurately anticipated. Humans exist and have existed in a specific physical space at specific times, like layers of sediment or the wear on a rockface, it can be analyzed and information of interest can be determined with great accuracy.

Look at this database, this population, Ecuador Cayapa has a 45.8% chance of having the haplotype DPA101:03-DPB104:02. You might say, "The sample size is only 183" and you would be right. What you aren't including, is the hundreds of thousands sampled (this is only for high quality data which meets the needs of this database, there is much much more; typically the data needs to be de-identified and meet a laundry list of requirements to even be collected, let alone shared) which represent thousands of different populations spread out across the globe. And, though the haplotype I gave had 'only' ad 45.8% chance, and if you check it out other populations have it too, you'll notice on the page there are three haplotypes which have a very high frequency. That makes it very precise. Here is the associated global map, there aren't very many places where you would find an individual with the given haplotype.

This doesn't include all the haplotypes which this population likely or very likely does not have. With that it's rather trivial to determine where an individual is likely from, than to infer the migratory pathways and history.

Sorry for the long post, I just wanted to convey that I knew a bit about what I was talking about. Not too much, others who do this for a living or have advanced degrees would know much more.

For some good news, look at this database which has data on which haplotypes are associated with adverse drug reactions.

A note on variation. There is a genome, some areas vary a lot, some don't as much. There are other 'omes. Omics captures the entirety of the field of this kind of computational biology. Transcriptome is more or less a time-series analysis of the level of RNA transcript of interest at given points in time. Epigenome is the epigenetic stuff, so like, there are molecules/complexes, the usual example is a methylated site. A methyl group is attached at some point along the genome and it changes how a gene is exposed. That changes how often it gets transcribed, how often a gene is expressed. You can't necessarily look at the genome to determine which sites are methylated. I don't remember the inheritance, it was sorta complicated and it's been a while. mtDNA, or mitochondrial DNA can also vary, there are some diseases which lead to a non-viable fetus or a baby which will not survive past a certain age because their body doesn't like produce enough energy needed.

Yeah, I would not like the precedent it would set.

The claim for this paper is that it is a necessary consequence of determining the medical nature of a condition which Ashkenazi Jewish people are at risk for. I read about the increased risk before, the author also lays it out well. In class we learned it was called a 'founder effect', when a population has it's size greatly reduced and then there is less variation present.

The issue is any existing conditions, say an increased risk for a disease, propagate as the population grows and can become 'fixed'. It isn't as much of an issue for a large population, since if like, 10 out of 10 000 000 have the increased risk then it's not too bad. If it's 1 out of 10 000, that is troubling. When that population grows more and more people will continue to have the condition :(

Jewish people are discriminated against, that is rather obvious, finding out using diagnostic tools is helpful to anyone who might have an adverse condition and not know about it. Uh, unfortunately, medicine/research sucks and is chalkful of stuff like Tuskegee Syphillis Experiment, whenever ethnicity or specifically people from a given geographic region are focused on...

Ashkenazi are a population which are studies a lot (there are a ton of population genetics papers, those are the ones I am familiar) because there is an established history and it is fairly accurate.

Hope this stuff isn't used by anti-semites (obv it will, I'm hoping the harm is kept at a minimum...)

nice, that's what i was going for; appreciate the validation cde

Why does it appear what your saying is, the novelty and or uniqueness of the tragedy of the Holocaust is and for some short time will be, the awfullest and worst loss of human life in recent history? Where do you get the audacity to make a claim like that, do you realty think without asking others throughout the world you can even begin to make such a claim? It's because you're german and feel really bad and learned from your mistakes and of course are sorry and this gives you a keen insight over others who are not part of a culture or society where genocide is even on the table?

I for one cannot accept it prima facie. Why would my proximity and knowledge of awful terrible events be the demarcator between whether it is or is not the worst?? Why is the convenience of checks notes it happening within the lifetimes of my immediate ancestors a useful metric besides convenience?

It's this disgusting platitudes and preposition of "having a keen insight" also called smugness or knowing better or speaking platitudes which foments the stage and discussion for such idealistic rhetoric, devoid of trivial empirical claims, which increases the preponderance of having your voice and others like it anywhere near the centre of the stage; where, what do ya know, it's been for the last century-and-a-half.

Let others from cultures who have no genocide on their hands speak, you and your ilk have been tolerated and have said more than enough. You're given an inch and take a mile.

I'm sorry, why do you in particular have some keen insight or experience or knowledge which allows you to speak for these folks anymore than the other commenter?

EDIT: I should clarify, it would be very very easy to not do this; there, I did it now, there I didn't do it again, I can keep this going. Can you specify why in-and-of-itself supporting an unambiguous apartheid regime and settler-colonial state engaged in documented genocide over decades is not, again, in-and-of-itself enough to not support or write on or for it??

Universal Basic Income i'll have to disagree with (not inherently, rather in nearly all proposed implementations), look into Negative Income Tax, which to my knowledge, was purported by Milton Friedman. A notable economist, known for Monetarism, and advising Reagan during his Reaganomics thing.

Big fan of the sentiment. Positivist accounts have their place and I love seeing critical evaluations of them.

Yeah that would be a great idea. The piracy community on dbzer0 uses rentry.co, maybe that's an option?

Does anyone know the source for this clip, as in what news media establishment is Red? It's the logo/animation-thingy in the top right corner. I can't really read the instagram tag either, idk maybe I should get new glasses 🤓

That's a good point, do you know how one might phrase or introduce it? I feel like just using the word 'economy' makes people think of something nebulous (it's the invisible hand of the free market, don't ya know? how does it work? in mYsTeRiOuS wAyS) and the vocabulary I'd use to try to explain or express what the productive forces are also kinda seems out of place.