[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

The concern is acceleration: if it's 40-50m horizontally per year now then it could be 400-500m per year in 20 years.

They use everything though. If it’s stuff that isn’t desired to be eaten it is used as compost for crops or turned into something else.

[removed]

>but the aerosol is environmentally harmful.

Why is that?

They have a very hard time and they generally don’t go in water because they can’t swim. Another animal that can’t really swim is a hippo. An elephant can be in water over its head because of how their muscles and ligaments and whatnot hold their lungs. The water pressure does nothing to their lungs. Unlike with giraffes.

[removed]

[removed]

hehe. You sound like you're getting very angry at this annoying vegan you've imagined. You're absolutely right that if a patient needs it, they're probably not in a state where you'd query it. But really, relax. There's millions of vegans, and few if any that would ever think of asking you for vegan EPI in an emergency. Whilst there are religious people who refuse life-saving medications, for most vegans, their principles are simply to make the less harmful choices where there is one, not to die for an ideology. And in a non emergency, what's so threatening hypothetically about a vegan asking if there's an option for a medication that's the more ethical choice? I use asthma inhalers, and requested the dry powder version rather than the aerosol. They're the same drug, but the aerosol is environmentally harmful. The doctor, nurse and pharmacists were all delighted to help. If they protested their assignment in treating me, I think they'd look a little crazy...

> These things tend to clump together and do things like fall into stars where we can detect them by their emission lines.

I think that requires some additional assumptions. Dark matter indeed couldn't be gas, because we can detect gas on its own, and also gas would lose energy and fall into things (whereas dark matter does not). However, high-density low-brightness objects made of ordinary matter (like free-floating asteroids or planets) would behave just like dark matter and would be incredibly difficult to detect. Granted, it would not be easy to explain how they all formed.

But that's why I went to the very early-universe evidence for dark matter. Because irrespective of what form ordinary matter took in the late universe, it was all the same in the hot early universe.

[removed]

Again, you're not 'wrong' but the economics are not that simple. They once were... maybe still are in some places. But in the developed world, the economic model of industrialised animal farming is now getting weird. There is not such a direct line between the volume of meat produced (the primary commodity) and the viability of the business. You are saying that the value of the meat is primary because you couldn't derive sufficient value from the rest, but in Europe where I live, you usually can't derive sufficient value from all the products together! The industry is heavily subsidised, and the viability to farmers and to agrobusinesses relies on taxpayer subsidies paid per head of cattle, or per unit of land. So to the farmer/business selling the cow, its market value can't really be reduced to one product, even if it's the product with the biggest value. That's what I mean when I say that nothing is a byproduct. Every part that is paid for (including the subsidies) contributes to putting the business in the red or the black. If a quirk of the market meant that the most valuable part of the cow was, briefly, the gall bladder from which a powerful new anti-cancer drug was derived, vegans would probably not decide that meat was therefore a secondary 'byproduct' that was ethical to consume.

It actually doesn’t because the coefficients of static and sliding friction are different.

There are practical implications of that, but unless you assume frictionless parts, the torque immediate prior to motion will be greater than the torque immediately after.

[removed]

I have read the last two comment threads and try to summarize them, but first there are few concepts which are essential to know.

1. Proteins: nearly every complex reaction in your cells is controlled by proteins, you could call them the machinery of the cell. Most proteins fall in one of two categories: catalyzing reactions or giving structure to your cells/body. Proteins are made by ribosomes which use the information on your DNA as a template (technically its mRNA but the information is more or less the same, since mRNA is a copy of your DNA)
2. DNA: DNA holds information about making proteins or better known as genes. But in reality those genes only make up a small fraction of your DNA (~5%). The rest of the DNA is either used for structural purposes, regulatory purposes or is "useless" (e.g. broken genes, viral DNA or transposons).
3. Chance/statistics: For chemical reactions to occur the molecules have to "bump" into each other. Thats why the concentration of molecules or proteins is essential for your cells (just imagine the difference between finding a needle in a haystack or finding one needle in a haystack with millions of needles). This concept of chance is what regulates your cell e.g.: Glycolysis (important part of energy metabolism) is, among other things, controlled by ATP (the energy molecule) -> the more energy the cell has the less it produces energy. This also shows us that regulation of the cell isn't a on/off switch and more of a curve (from basically zero to maximum capacity).

Chance is even more important than you might think: If you are interested look up "Entropy, Ludwig Blotzmann, James Maxwell "

​

Now to mitosis:

In the pro(meta)phase the centrosomes will "shoot" out thousands of microtubules and some of them will bump into the kinetochores of the chromosomes and attach. Now, in the metaphase, the chromosomes get pulled (there are motorproteins which can walk along the microtubules) along the microtubules and since they get pulled from both sides they will gather in the middle. In the anaphase proteins, which cut the linkage between the chromosomes, are released and the single chromosomes get pulled to the poles of the cell.

This wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindle_checkpoint gives nice overview of this.

Just remember that all this is regulated by many complex interactions in a cascade like manner (Condition X is met because the concentration of molecule A is high/low and thus more of protein XY is released which itself promotes different reactions)

>I would imagine the main reason for their higher blood pressure is so blood is able to reach their heads, you need roughly 23mmHg per foot in height.

It's a closed loop system, so as long as it's primed you don't need much pressure to pump it from an engineering point of view, as long as you replace the blood vessels with non-compliant tubes.

Just throw a 12v centrifugal pump on there and you should be OK.

[removed]

[removed]

Because it's an easy source of glucose. You have to process something into glucose, it isn't a naturally occurring sugar in large quantities in plants, so since sucrose is literally just glucose and fructose stuck together, why wouldn't you? It's one of the many ways it's made at industrial scale efficiently.

This short article describes the process and the various feedstocks commonly used, if you're curious.

Edit: While the most dominant feedstock is starch, processed sugarcane (i.e. once the sugar has been largely removed) is used as a feedstock for glucose since it would otherwise just go to waste. Interesting research article here.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]