+1 to well said but dear lord that username

You mean fertilization? Egg and sperm cells are unique in that they carry half genomes, which conveniently make a whole one again when you put the two together. The sperm in this case contributes pretty much just that genetic information to make the egg complete.

The egg then goes on to multiply, and is therefore the common ancestor of every single cell that will ever be a part of you -- and your own descendants, if any.

I described the conversion of celsius to fahrenheit but accidentally flipped the F and C in the formula. It's corrected now, and I added the opposite conversion for good measure.

Oh yes, I switched them up. Lemme fix that.

This is a very nice example.

You can also tell from the conversion formula (which is the formula behind that graph, too) that the relationship is linear. Namely...

>F = 1.8 * C + 32 (or C = 5/9 * F - 32)

...is a classic a * x + b linear formula.

E: switched F and C originally.

OP can ask a followup question if they want. Otherwise, I'd be writing an essay explaining a bunch of things that aren't really related just to make the point they aren't related.

"Recessive alleles aren't selected out because there's nothing about recessivity that inherently carries selection disadvantage" is a perfectly fine point to start with.

Dominance & recessivity of alleles simply have nothing to do with their inheritance. Neither is inherently tied to selection advantage.

That's correct, there's no true 100% certainty. But as a matter of statistics, you can interpret some threshold level match as an effective yes/no.

Yep, the way they get to their answer might be different but it should still give the same answer (you are the father yes/no) if the method is sound.

No problem, and good luck.

E: do keep an eye on proper macro balance, though.

Absolutely. As long as total in is smaller than total out, your weight is on a decreasing trend. 1500 in vs 2500 out is still net -1000 which is very substantial.

As a rough estimate, a kilogram of body fat contains about 7000-9000 kcal worth of energy, so this particular diet would see you lose one kg of weight in roughly a week's time.

Similarly, if you were comatose and getting fed 1500 kcal a day, you'd be at 1500 - 1800 = -300, so still losing weight but only 30% as fast as the example diet --> about 1 kg a month.

Just being alive sees you burning something like 1800 calories a day. You'd use that much even if you laid perfectly still in bed all day, like a coma patient.

Say that between an active job and exercise, you burn another 700 or so, putting your total at 2500. If you then stick to a harsh diet like 1000 kcal a day, you're 1500 kcal in the negatives, so that comes from fat instead.

It's pretty straightforward. Fat is essentially just a way to store energy. If you want to reduce those reserves, you need a net negative in/out balance i.e. it needs to decrease faster than it increases, like draining a bank account by spending faster than you refill it.

In the case of energy, you gain it from food. So you can reduce that by eating smaller amounts and/or less energetic food. Conversely, you spend energy through basic bodily functions (those account for the majority of energy expenditure for the average person) and exercise.

You're asking why some things contain more energy (that you can extract) than others?

Time to look up the Krebs cycle and oxidative phosphorylation. I'm sure they've been explained in detail on this sub before, and good old wikipedia will probably do a decent job of it too.

Batch effects, for one. Something could be wrong about a particular batch of some reagent so that it causes aspecific effects in your assay. You then generate measurements that, sure enough, reach statistical significance. If enough of your publication hinges on that bad data, it could even cause a retraction.

Because they're different titles. You can call yourself doctor at any point in life after earning a PhD from any university, but professorship is a step further and requires active tenure at a university.

That's nice and all but irrelevant if the subject isn't very country-specific. The other person even clarifies as much.

These are fair points. I agree journals aren't entirely pointless, and that part of the blame in perpetuating this system lies with academics themselves. Watching your new paper doing numbers in Nature is something most would not pass up, even if there were alternatives that are more ethical in this sense. Disrupting that kind of status quo and trusting new platforms is always going to be hard, but I hope the push against the classical for-profit publishers continues.

ArXiv is a big one. I'm in life sciences, and we're seeing the same with medRxiv and bioRxiv. For all the harm it did, the pandemic did much to drive adoption of these platforms. Though I feel many people still think of them as more of a stepping stone to that coveted Nature publication, etc.

/u/Mastodon996 and /u/Expert-Hurry655, both wrong. If only it were like that.

>Some research articles are free, and others are behind paywalls. Why? Because it costs money to operate. If you see a research paper you'd like to read that's behind a paywall, any public or university library should be able to get you a copy, because most of them have subscriptions.

>But research is expensive and scientists need to bring food to the table too. Someone needs do pay for all that and whoever pays can decide where the results go, if an aerospace industry company is researching on a new material, they do that because they hope to make proffit in the future.

Research is expensive, and researchers do need to make a living (most in academia don't earn particularly much relative to the time/education investment needed to get to their positions).

But the paywalls you're seeing do not fund these researchers and their projects. It is an entirely for-profit middle-man business run by the journal publishers, a model that persists only because they have the power of establishment on their side. Scientists must publish to stay relevant and stay funded, and publishing is controlled by these journals who extract fees from the scientists to publish their work, too. And the peer review process, where impartial experts judge the quality of submitted work before publication, playing a major part in the editorial role for journals? Those scientists aren't paid for their time either. Journals take and take, and make everyone else pay for things they didn't create, with minimal operating costs -- all they have to do is host the research papers, and print some paper copies. The profit margins on this business are ludicrous.

Some countries are attempting to break up this model. I believe in the US, regulations are being put in place currently that force academic work funded by taxpayer money (a huge share of research funding!) to be made available free of charge to the public within a year.

There are also certain fields, mostly around computer science, that are breaking free of this themselves by launching open publication platforms and collectively trusting/supporting them, taking away traditional journals' prestige factor.

Source: am in academia.