that would be molecular genetics
you basically never work with telomeres for micro organisms

youre bad at the pretending to be smart thing

actual active doses of meth and and normal amphetamine are actually not that different of experiences (relatively sure I haven't done meth, so just going off what I've read). The biggest differences are in amount and route of ingesting. Smoking gives you a higher peak and addicts typically take something close to 100mg of IR equivalent at a time, both of which will get you addicted to regular amphetamine too. If you're regularly taking equivalent doses of meth/amphetamine, you're only slightly more likely to get more addicted to meth, since it is a bit more euphoric on the whole and makes it easier to form the response.

I take a lot of adderall, fwiw, and I know what you're talking about to some extent. I find it depends heavily on the sort of work you're doing, your motivation, etc etc. At work I mostly program, read articles, or write so its not a big deal if I hyperfocus for 4-8 hours, cause no one really interacts with me anyway. Days that I have to do stuff down on the production floor are rough, though. It gets better as you get more and more used to the actual ride, but its still pretty easy to lose yourself (I wrote a 3 page footnote on the history of the Darwinian individual yesterday :( )

1. developing a stim habit just to finish high-school or w/e is dumb
2. it still requires you to actually start doing shit, otherwise you just clean your house

salts are great for productivity, but they dont really do much for actually starting a project ime. Theres not really a workaround other than building better organizing habits to get you to actually begin things. then snorting shit actually helps

reccing ^ Ciggs/ vapes / shit that you can do every couple hours to take breaks. if you get in the habit, it helps workflow a ton cause you dont burn out as quick and it's less miserable, so you dont end up psyching yrself out on starting the next thing

in theory. in my field, advisors can pretty much take you on whenever they want, especially if you're independently funded
my proposal was basically derived from my work, anyway, and the potential advisors whove seen it felt confident in my chances (as confident as can be at least), and I'm kinda half sure I'll be able to make two Applications b/c the rules are weird

did you submit anything? shit v nearly killed me, I spent prolly 20 hours a weekend on it this month

I finished my GRFP application, feel fairly confident & submitting tomorrow
if I get it, theres advisors at Harvard & GA tech who are kinda interested in my stuff (also one at MIT but he does open ocean so eh)

if I dont prolly just gonna stay at my brewery tho

Politics & Truth by Foucault, a history of the Rwandan genocide, a supplement/"how-to" of Derrida & Deconstruction currently

over the past 6 mos:
was into German idealism for a while, read most of Kant & Hegel, kinda lost interest after and switched to Marxist analysis & structuralism. I read Logic of Scientific Discover and some of Fisher's texts a few months ago and wanna start getting into more epistemology/scientific philosophy

outside of that, I read a decent amount of stuff for work/school. most is kinda boring to non-ecologists/evo-reseaarchers, but "Life in Moving Fluids" was something I read a few weeks ago that was both really approachable and still a strong introduction to fluid mechanics

being homophobic in a thread about encouraging a safe and welcoming space for LGBT+ community members is a bad look

also, please stop posting

@vis

fraternal birth order isnt a new discovery. the problem with your post is the application of genetic determinism to explain homosexuality, while clearly having a (being charitable) high-school level understanding of immunology and physiology. The extent to which it is genetically determined (predisposed, to be more accurate) is a fairly intense field of study, but your proposed mechanism and presumed source offer incompetent and mechanistically inconclusive explanations, respectively. Further, any attempt to define homosexuality as a predominately genetic phenomena is spurious in the absence of more rigorous study. Your (presumed) source offered no variance assessments between homologs of hetero- and homosexual carriers, so arguing that the heritability* of homosexuality at all is a poor interpretation of the data I gave you. Considering you haven't posted a source yourself, I'd reccomend diving a bit deeper into the peer reviewed literature before making further claims. I'd also reccomend brushing up on comparable phenomena where maternal immunoresponse results in developmental "defects"**, e.g. rh-factor induced hemolytic disease in newborns. In doing so, you'd notice that the response is triggered not by immunoperception across the placenta, but rather by child-to-mother blood transfer occurring during delivery. In the absence of a similar exposure (e.g. one in which the fetal/neonatal nervous tissue is introduced into maternal circulation for immunorecgonition), I really look forward to hearing how you explain the maternal immune response arising to begin with. I'd like reiterate that the protein of consequence here is an embedded surface protein in fetal neuronal tissue, and not in free serum, and so there needs to be some mechanism by which fetal neuronal tissue is exposed to maternal immune cells.

thanks!

*I use heritability in the rigorous sense here, cf.
** I use the term defect here cautiously. Within the broader framework of evolution I do not like the term as it carries significant negative connotation, and within this subject it risks characterizing, in light of further study demonstrating genetic causation of homosexuality, homosexuality itself as a disorder or defect i.e. something to be "corrected"

to add: patrilineal-vs-matronal-immunological determinism for neuronal development would also mean women who are not analogous to their mother's NGLN4X allele would suffer similar (though reduced) effects, depending on barr bodies etc

FWIW: genetics, devbio, & immunology arent my interests, but I'm kinda familiar enough to be sus on that article

this is what he's referencing
http://www.pnas.org/content/115/2/302
not outright wrong, but the entire post is just... bad
My biggest critique of this study is there's not a particular reason that male neuronal surface proteins would be exposed to the mother's immune system to
a. trigger initial immunity
b. trigger B-cell activation during the second pregnancy

further:

"The X-linked homolog, NLGN4X, might also play a role in the formation of sexual/romantic attractions, and antibodies raised by NLGN4Y might alter sexual brain development by cross-reacting with fetal NLGN4X, given its similarity to NLGN4Y"

would indicate the mother should face a fair chance of clonal deletion or anergy for any immune cells actually capable of targeting the gene, considering the epitopes are probably similar between the two

so idk man, p sus article imo

discuss

playing video games and only making online friends for most of my formative years has trained me to never make eye contact with people :)

tbh i wrote a ~1000 word response explaining how the entirety of my post pretty clearly explains what I believe
but i kinda felt like you wouldn't understand that one either
reread the post im replying to
then read anything about communism
and think critically how communism can be characterized as a reaction to capitalism rather than an independently developed system

I've mostly just been shitposting so far, but here's an actual thoughtpost (though uncurated)

1. I believe capitalism is inherently exploitative. Not gonna explain why, as thousands of well-regarded pages on the subject already exist.
2. To suggest capitalism is the best economic system possible when the economy has only existed for 200~20000 years (depending on where you wanna start) is optimistic. If you view economics as the efficient sharing of resources, suggesting we developed an optimal solution after such a short time belies a lack of creativity. Communism might not be more efficient, but the current market is unlikely to be optimal either. Therefore, we should be moving away from capitalism.
3. Communism offers an idea of a society that I think is more egalitarian while rewarding work. Under capitalism, work is not tied to income, allowing the existence of classes of people propped up by the working class. The veil of ignorance covers most of my belief here, but in general I think the entire idea of heritable social-class is something we (global we) should be working to move past. Humans are probably smart enough (or will be) to figure out a way to make things fair in the future. The great trend in western society has been away from hierarchy over the past 200 years, and I'd like that to continue. Abolishing states and social class are unlikely in my life-time, but I'd like to start paving the way where possible.
3.5. The current distribution of wealth is dumb. Really the entire idea of money is an inexact abstraction to keep track of who's socially "worthy" of staying alive, and the faster we can move past that the better.

You should finish reading Marx because regardless of if you agree with his solution, his critiques are still relevant today. There's a reason plenty of liberal and right-wing sociologists continue to use his frameworks to understand class structures in capitalist societies. Reading in general is cool, and if nothing else understanding anti-capitalist thought will help you understand capitalism better.

ps tag yrself

https://i.imgur.com/l2JmsML.jpg