trisomy-21 isn’t present in sperm or eggs, it’s a mistake in cell division early in fetal development
This is incorrect. Non-disjunction (where chromosomes incorrectly separate) typically happens during the formation of egg or sperm. (We know this because most everyone with down syndrome has three different chromosome 21 instead of two identical copies of one chromosome.)
A related more general mnemonic works for the running lights too. Red has fewer letters than green, so it goes with left which has fewer letters than right and port which has fewer letters than starboard.
YY is non viable; the X chromosome has many genes which are essential. You can be XY, female, and fertile, but it’s pretty rare.
There’s a bunch of them, but one more common example is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.
It’s also possible to have a non-functional SRY (XY but female), or to be XX with an SRY translocation (XX but male).
Biology is complicated: pretty much anyone who says it only happens one way or is really simple is wrong.
This is a bit misleading. You only need to treat the first generation of 2n watermelon with colchicine (which inhibits the movement of chromosomes during metaphase) to produce a 4n watermelon. Once you have a 4n watermelon, subsequent generations do not require colchicine treatment.
Deflationary periods may be helpful to those with large amounts of cash or cash equivalents, which generally isn’t the working class. Wage growth outpacing inflation helps the working class more.
There’s likely some cases of convergent evolution, but I’m not sure this is settled for all trees.
I’d suspect that at least some trees with last common ancestors that are shrubs have re-enabled genes that enable the tree phenotype rather than independently evolving the tree phenotype.
But still really cool (and maybe turns on exactly how much evolution your consider needs to happen before it’s convergent evolution.)
Though usually they appoint them to ambassador to a ally like France or England or somewhere else cushy with minimal political impact.
Because they temporarily block the onset of puberty, not permanently block it. Any effects are mostly reversible if the individual desires. What isn’t reversible are the all too frequent side effects of untreated dysphoria: death.
Ain’t nobody in the US got a fancy kitchen scale.
Lots of us have them. (Well, basic scales which weigh a tenth of a gram.) They’re useful when weighing compressible dry ingredients like flour and brown sugar, and viscous wet ingredients like molasses and corn syrup. They’re also helpful when you’re multiplying a recipe by a factor that doesn’t result in useful units; it’s annoying to figure out how to measure out fractional cups that involve teaspoons.
They also help with portion control if you’re watching calories.
First off, thanks for the discussion, and this is an important question to ask as Democrats unpack why they lost. It boils down to “does moving to the central position gain more voters in the end or not?”
The argument I’m making applies in reverse too. What if there was polling data that indicated that this issue shifted the seven percent who were las likely to vote for Harris into not voting for Harris or not voting at all?
If that’s the case, then their decision becomes more understandable.
The challenge with this poll question is that it doesn’t ask whether this issue changes a potential voter from someone who wouldn’t have voted for Harris into someone who would have voted for Harris. It asks if they are more likely to vote for Harris.
For example, I was already highly likely to vote for Harris, but her being more emphatically against the genocide would still have made me even more likely to vote for her.
To make the case that she should have used this poll to change her position, you have to look at the pre-existing likelihood that someone would vote for her and see whether this issue brought them over that threshold. (For example, what fraction of the 35% voted in the primary and the midterm election? Were they already planning on voting? Who were they planning on voting for if not Harris?)
Not consenting to a police search doesn’t stop the search, and that’s ok.
What it does is make the fruits of that search inadmissable, and may also enable you to sue them if the search was unreasonable or excessive, or the pretext violated your rights.
Even if you know you don’t have anything in your car, verbally and clearly say that you don’t consent to the search, and would like them to note that fact, but otherwise comply. Lots of people have been caught up by police planting evidence, and you don’t want to be one of them.
Depends heavily on the kind (and intensity) of radiation. Beta (electron/positron) and gamma (photon) generally won’t, but neutron and alpha can. Many of the atoms that become radioactive will rapidly decay, and that’s one of the mechanisms behind the impact to structural integrity.
Bonus points if your static site sends a 503 with a retry after header.
Figuring out the Parkinson’s linkage is challenging too, because glyphosate is just one of many chemicals used in agricultural settings. It wouldn’t be surprising for the correlation to be caused by another chemical with strong evidence of casual linkage to Parkinson’s that itself is correlated with glyphosate, like Parquat. (Since Parquat is a herbicide, places that used it may also use (or have switched to) glyphosate.) Totally worth continued scientific study.
Removed by mod
Truth is a complete defense to defamation in the US. The problem is SLAPP protections don’t go far enough when there is a large disparity in resources.
It’s especially problematic when the consequences to victims go beyond lawsuits (reputational, mental, and physical well-being are all potential threats.)