Unless they’re your manager. Then they stay forever or get promoted.

The loading screen tips also begin to change as you progress, going from normal tips to lines like, “So, you think you’re a hero?”

This isn’t an attack on your comment, which gave quality information, but I think it’s relevant to the conversations linked in your comment.

Their definition of authoritarian is a contradiction to their actions and used subjectively. “I hate authoritarianism, so we should defederate to keep out the authoritarians.” This statement is supportive of a fundamentally authoritarian action.

This is also why people who use the term “tankies” seriously are themselves deeply unserious. Their understanding of the topic is superficial at best and colored only by Western biases rooted in anti-communist propaganda. The concept of authoritarianism was itself a product of propaganda.

Saying “no” is authoritarian. Holding elections is authoritarian. Authority itself doesn’t matter, what matters is who is in power and how they use their power to influence the world.

Some people recognize and accept this reality and then openly support the power that best aligns with their own benefit.

Anger at tankies is usually just a lack of class consciousness and ignorance based on a term that changes based on who you support and who you do not.

All those internet points…lost…never to be earned again…

On Lemmy, our social credit score isn’t even tracked!

Afaik, all modern browsers can import/export passwords and bookmarks? FF lets you set up an account and sync across devices with a unique PW if you want (not your computer user PW, but it could be).

No idea on touchscreens outside the Android app.

A respirator with an organic vapor trap will work, but an N95 will do essentially nothing for chemical vapors besides give you a false sense of safety.

If you have nothing, do your work outside and don’t work with your face directly over areas with the toluene.

Side note: to anyone looking to follow this method, please try to limit the amount of toluene you are exposed to by wearing gloves and working in a well ventilated space. It can do dirty shit to your nervous system and I’ve seen chemists start to experience symptoms from relatively little exposure to the fumes.

Which you should not feel bad about. Pirates are in the right. IP law is fucked and you are just surviving in this mess.

It’s not selfishness and greed so often as it is fear and ignorance. Education remedies the ignorance and steels people against the fear that keeps them from working together against a seemingly more powerful force.

Where was this? The practice described above is common in US universities.

Through the prescient powers granted by the spice melange.

Many of the main characters in WoT are just phonetically different spellings or slight alterations of characters from the Arthurian Legend.

• Egwene al’Vere = Guinevere
• Amyrlin, Merrilin = Merlin
• Moiraine = Morgaine (not to belittle your insight)
• Artur Paendrag = Arthur Pendragon
• Gawyn = Gawain
• Lan = Lancelot
• Tar Valon = Avalon
• Etc.

I’d say Paul’s rise is portrayed as a mixed event throughout the books that depends on the perspective of different factions and what time period you view it from, but overall the main characters see it as good as the end of the first book. The movie doesn’t try to explain many of the details that didn’t fit into it’s cinematic storytelling style (you get almost none of Paul’s thoughts and struggles) so there is a lot of clarity that can be provided by the book. I think the movie left less of a sense of his ascension being motivated by good intentions (and magical foresight/inescapable destiny) than the book did, so it’s a less optimistic ending.

The Fremen saw it as a good/liberating event and Paul as a true member of their tribe, and he genuinely seems to internalize that into his sense of self. (From the reader’s perspective, this is disregarding the white savior bias of the book that the comment before yours alluded to. Paul is a colonizer who is sympathetic to the natives and helps them lift themselves up in ways the book implies couldn’t have been done without his help). Overthrowing the Harkonnens and the Emperor’s forces leaves the Fremen and moreso Paul in an overwhelmingly powerful position as Arrakis is the only planet able to produce spice at the time.

This is juxtaposed with the view of the nobles, the spacer’s guild, and the populations of other planets that is explored in later books. Fast space travel is only possible due to the effects of spice that allow the navigators of the space guild to see short distances into the future to avoid collisions, etc in space travel. Control of the key to space travel grants the Fremen immense political and economic power, but also puts them at odds with the rest of the empire who are reliant upon the spice.

One aspect the movie didn’t explain well is that the Fremen were not motivated by gaining the political and economic power of spice, but instead envisioned an Arrakis that was no longer a wasteland. They developed plans to terraform the planet to make it more hospitable and liberation allowed them that opportunity. On the flip side, spice is produced by the worms, but water is toxic to the worms (the scene with the worm dying in water isn’t just from it drowning), so if they are able to accomplish this goal, spice production will be eradicated, affecting space travel everywhere.

I don’t want to spoil the story after the first book because I believe they will explore it further in the movies. Ultimately, the first book is a story of liberation as well as a coming-of-age story for Paul and the outcome is generally seen as positive by the majority of the characters you get the perspective of. The ones who are opposed are portrayed as grotesque embodiments of evil, like the baron Harkonnen (the movie was too nice to him and cut out the pedophilia, though it kept some of his sadistic and cruel tendencies).

Whether your views of the events of the first book will hold up over time might depend on the events that happen next in the series. There is fallout from everything that happens in Dune as it’s very much a story focused on political machinations. Something that is good or bad may turn out to have consequences with the opposite effect down the line.

Lots of contextual details were left out of the movie as well as a lot of the character building, so I suggest reading it if you are interested. The first 100 pages are tough to get through, but then it goes smoothly. For example, the lack of detail in the movie makes Chani and Stilgar feel fragile and insecure rather than resolute and pillars of strength/growth for Paul, Jessica sees less focus and you get little exposure to her thoughts, there is a miniscule amount of light shed on Paul’s thoughts throughout the movie, so he comes off as callous in the movie while he is far more empathetic in the book.

I was being reactive too and that made me crass. Did that commenter deserve it? Not really.

My point wasn’t directly to prove someone wrong (their content wasn’t wrong, just poorly explained), it was my gut reaction to what I perceived as a type of scientist of any level who sees themselves as better and smarter than everyone else. The most effective way I’ve found to shut this down is to bully them about their own weaknesses because the majority of this “STEM is the only viable education and makes you smarter than everyone else” attitude only ever comes from people who’ve never done anything else with their lives.

Most of these types have never held a full-time job besides working in a lab and the totality of their professional and academic experience is in science. Communication, art, history, the “soft” sciences, are things to be made fun of and contain nothing useful in the minds of these types and that leaves them wildly unqualified to communicate science in any format. Their presentations suck, their explanations suck, and their writing and figures suck even if their science is very well done. This means their science is effectively useless because a huge part of the scientific process is communicating what you’ve done. Almost all of these people become PhDs and then continue this behavior long into their careers! It’s not every PhD, but it’s a significant portion.

The comment I replied to sounded to me like this type of person (the poor science communication, not the ego part), so my gut reaction was to reply as if to one of those people. I left my other reply because it seemed like a waste of time to shit on the only useful reply while contributing nothing to the conversation myself, so I get why it also looks like an ego trip. I’d peg my actions as more self-righteous than conceited, which is also a problem of ego. :)

Everything you’ve said is true and you’ll just have to take me at my word when I say that the approach you described is how I approach others in my offline and professional life. I work hard to make sure my own science communication is always accessible to my target audience and gives what I see as the necessary context surrounding the topic as well. My intention is never to talk down to people with less experience in an area than me, but no one is perfect and I’m sure it can come off that way occasionally.

That said, my first comment was made in short temper against an assumption/projection of a person and it’s something I’ll probably do again despite knowing it’s not the most useful approach because I’m a fallible human and this type of forum tends to have a culture that encourages this behavior. What I mean by this culture comment is very evident on Reddit, but less so on the spaces I frequent on Lemmy. Commenters frequently leave very confident replies that are factually incorrect or unclear. There is no other way to combat this directly than to call it out and doing so in a way that shuts them down. Not shutting them down leads to drawn out arguments where the person who is wrong dogs in their heels. Yes, you are right that putting someone on the defensive just leads to more of stubborn replies.

I believe poor or inaccurate communications of technical topics can be more harmful than keeping the comment to yourself. It creates an uphill battle for those with expert knowledge and for those who don’t have it, but are trying to learn. At that point, correcting the mistake becomes more about educating the commenter. Yes, corrections can theoretically help others, but I find it largely just propagates the false information. That’s why I prefer to shut that part of the discussion down.

Additionally, I work in a space where credentials are weighted heavier than factual accuracy, direct critiques of those with power or credentials are dismissed as uncivil, while those from positions of power are not. The only ways to combat that force is to put your nose to the grindstone with those hopes that you one day gain the power that will lend you authority or you stop caring about credentials, offer a direct critique and deal with coming off as an asshole sometimes.

I guess I’m done justifying myself now, but I hope you understand the point of my justifications was to help explain the reasoning behind my approaches rather than to counter your critiques and absolve myself from my approach. I do justify my actions for myself, but sharing your reasoning always helps with empathy regardless of whether your actions are right.

I care less about replying or sharing my knowledge on social media these days, but your critiques are welcome and I have thought about my replies the last few days as well. Ultimately I decided to brush it off and move on after my last one despite disagreeing with your first reply, but I respect good faith discussions and think your last comment deserved a thoughtful reply. Thanks for putting up with me sharing most of my thoughts at length. I usually try to keep my comments short and unserious because I know that my serious replies tend to become very long otherwise.

You’re right and I’ll try to be less reactive and aggressive the next time I see a scientific comment that disappoints me. I replied more to a projection than to the actual commenter and they didn’t deserve such a harsh response. Thank you for calling it out (and fuck Sheldon Cooper).

I’m sure there’s some hypocrisy in my replies, but that’s not going to stop me from doing the same again. I’ve worked with scientists for a long time and the way most of them communicate is a pet peeve of mine.

TLDR: If I interpreted what you are getting at, no. The rest of the comment is about questions surrounding yours that I think are more relevant.

If you inhale a certain amount of virus particles vs drinking the same amount of virus particles, the amount of virus particles that are able to infect cells would be lower in the drink than what was inhaled. So no, the amount of virus particles that can infect you would be lower in the milk.

Fun side fact: there are some routes in your gut to access your immune system, such as the lacteals. Some vaccine researchers have targeted these, but it’s notoriously difficult to produce an oral vaccine that is effective as administration by other routes.

The route of infection isn’t always important once an injection takes hold. If you get infected by the same virus via drinking vs inhaling, you’re still infected with that virus and your body will still have to fight it off.

Quantity doesn’t matter so much once you pass the bar for an active viral infection because viruses produce an obscene amount of replicates once they infect a cell. The bar for infection does vary by the pathogen and route of exposure, so it can take a much larger quantity of virus particles for an infection to take hold through your gut than through your lungs. Different viral species are able to more efficiently infect you via different routes as well.

Aside from those effects, how are differences in the route of an infection important?

1. The types of protection your body provides against infection varies by route. Mucous, antibodies, the types of immune cells, the density of immune cells, and environmental factors like pH and clearance of mucous (how quickly it is removed and replaced) all affect how difficult it is for a pathogen to get through and infect it’s target cell type. Some examples are: your nose protects you by catching things in the mucous and then running out your nose or down your throat, your stomach is acidic and lined in mucous, so viruses can’t get through as easily and are likely to be destroyed by the acid, the layers of your skin make it extremely difficult for anything to get through unless you get an open wound.

2. The route of the infection changes the types of immune cells that encounter the pathogen, which can affect the type of protection your body develops against that pathogen. Sometimes this is the type of cell formed, but it can also be where are most of these cells located.

A pathogen in your muscle (or an injected vaccine) will produce cells to fight the infection and cells to remember the pathogen as well as help fight an infection caused by that pathogen in the future. This can reduce the severity and length of symptoms you experience with future infections.

A pathogen in your mucous membrane (I’m mainly talking your nose and nasal-spray vaccines) will produce all of the types of protection that would be produced in your muscle, but it can also produce antibodies that will interact with the pathogen and prevent a new infection from occurring.

Vaccine researchers are trying things like nasal sprays instead of intramuscular injections in order to target this preventative immune protection. This isn’t the only potential benefit, but it’s one reason to do this and some vaccines are available as nasal sprays.

All of this is generalized and immunology is vastly more complex than I made it sound here. To be frank, immunology is so complex that we still largely are guessing during vaccine research. We know things, but everything in the immune system is interconnected and there are still many things we don’t know. We only have part of the puzzle and are missing the picture on the box. Even when we do find an effective treatment, chances are it was an educated guess, but we don’t actually know all of the mechanisms behind the protection.

Hopefully that helps make things a bit clearer.

Drinking infected milk sounds like an ineffective and potentially dangerous way to protect yourself, but frankly, it’s not entirely without merit. I definitely won’t be doing it.

What a long-winded, asinine answer. Using scientific jargon doesn’t help communicate your meaning to the layman when you do not bother to actually explain the meaning of the jargon you use.

Put the effort in to explain the science properly. If you can’t, then you don’t know the subject well enough. If you won’t, then you shouldn’t be communicating science.

The article is listed on ResearchGate.

For anyone looking for an alternative to Sci-Hub (the GOAT), you can make a free account on RG and send a request to the authors for a copy of their paper (about two clicks to perform).

Most researchers will send you a copy within a day, maybe two. If you copy the title or the DOI link into a search with “ResearchGate” it usually shows up in most search engines.

I think we have more pressing issues in certain airplanes at the moment, but that’s a good point.

1060 W. Addison St., Chicago, IL