Radiorum

X (Twitter) has certainly changed under Musk. It’s become a Republican blow-horn. The recommendation algorithm (decides which posts to promote or bury in people’s feeds) has been changed. It’s all slanted for the Republicans now. On Elon Musk’s X, Republicans go viral as Democrats disappear

Yeah, now that I think about it, alcoholics often smoke

Well, we can only handle one addiction at a time.

Your lack of understanding does not invalidate my position. “Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.” ― Samuel Johnson, The Life of Samuel Johnson

I wouldn't say entirely, but it is an important element of recovery. But addiction is a sneaky thing. You think you're fine, and then - your brain is taken over. Agree, that is the most important thing.

I was. This is what I said and what you responded to with talk of "probabilities:" But I think I understand you now. You are talking about gene frequencies in a population. How allele (one form of a gene) and genotype frequencies are related are described by the Hardy-Weinberg Principle. So, no, you’re wrong - gene frequencies in a population do not fit standard probability distributions/curves. That doesn’t even make sense – what would you put on the X-axis? Gene/allele frequencies are described with just one number. For example, according to twin studies, there is a heritable contribution to gender incongruence, when looking at allele frequencies. One significant association was identified - transgender women had a significant overrepresentation of short ESR1(TA)n compared to cisgender men (p = 0.0089). The frequency of any one specific allele in a population depends on several things, most notably the direction natural selection takes. The correct terms are dominant and recessive. And no, this is not related to their frequencies. It is possible for a recessive allele to be more common in a population than its dominant partner. Going back to my original claim - how does this make them unnatural?

I believe the only way to recover from addiction is to completely sever all contact with whatever you are addicted to. Then, your brain can start healing - to recover from addiction your brain must be rewired. As long as whatever you are addicted to continues to stimulate your brain, this can't happen. Rewiring requires making new neural circuits that start to work in place of the one the addict was stuck in. This takes time and lots of support.

Simon Fraser University was the location of the famous Rat Park experiments in the 1970s – which led to the conclusion that “the opposite of addiction is not sobriety, but connection.” A 3-minute video about this: In 2015, Johann Hari gave a TED talk referencing those experiments to continue with the theme that the best way to treat addicts is by supplanting the all-consuming bond made in the brain with the drug with healthier and more meaningful connections, and developing relationships with supportive people. Just wondering if Dr. Somers belongs to the same camp – that recovery depends on reconnecting addicts with society.

Here's my response to that:

that's not how probability works with genetics. Look up Punnet squares. I’m not sure how this is a counterpoint to my point about the genetic variation possible in one offspring from two parents. The formula to predict the number of possible genotypes in the offspring from two parents is 3 raised to the power of n, where n is the number of genes involved. Humans have approximately 20,000 genes in their genome, so the number of possible genomes in the offspring (i.e. number of genetically different offspring possible from two human parents) is 3 raised to the power of 20,000. I tried to calculate this on the Exponent Calculator but the number was too large to calculate. And this does not even take into account other things that affect gene expression, like environmental factors (including epigenetics) and mutation.

Omg, I'm Lol, you're funny. Name it. We're not talking test scores, we're talking people's lives. We come into this world so innocent, formed by the mysterious process of development in our mother's wombs. It's a whole entire spectrum, and we come out who we are. When two parents mate, there are more possible genetic combinations in the offspring than there are stars in heaven. I'm just into accepting people where they are. Life is tough enough.

You really need to get out more.

God, no. Are you dense? I'm talking about the process of appointing Cabinet members. And I surely will not. But in the final analysis, the only criterion for getting selected should not be blind loyalty to Trump. There is no normal, there is only natural, and we are all natural.

But should not all citizens have full participation in that society?

No, there are checks and balances on a president's power, and Trump is trying to bypass it all. He thinks he is a king. Let's follow your logic. I shouldn't speak. Maybe I should "know my place?" Maybe I shouldn't vote? I am informed, and - ‘Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.’ – Thomas Jefferson I'm sensing disgust. Can the disgust of one for another ever be the basis on which legislation is founded?

Let's get to the bottom of this. "Woke" just means aware and attentive. Why does that scare you?

It never fails to puzzle me when the right calls the left a bunch of liars, when the right is inherently much more dishonest than the left. The left appeals to reason (that’s why they lost the election) and the right appeals to emotion (that’s why they won). The left tries to convince voters to vote in their own interests. The right has to convince voters to vote against their own interests. How do Republicans influence people to support tax cuts for the wealthy, de-regulation and opposing policies that benefit lower-income workers, shrinking the social safety net, opposing a minimum wage, and ignoring climate change? They lie. Trump’s lies have convinced people to make irrational decisions. How? Here’s a clue: A social media post that Trump made three times during the summer of 2024: Jul 20th 2024 - 10:12:25 PM EST, Jul 20th 2024 - 8:44:02 PM EST, Jun 25th 2024 - 3:09:00 PM EST Lol, he’s talking about his role in trying to turn over a legal election so he could stay in power!

But Hegseth is totally and utterly unqualified to head the largest (and probably the most diverse) bureaucracy in the US. He's a poser with a personal agenda to get rid of "Woke." He's even said he will fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs because the DEI and the "woke shit" has got to go.

So Mr. Gaetz met with Senators yesterday and he is out today. Hegseth meets with them today. We'll see what comes out of that.

I'm not claiming democracy is dead in the US, but there are warning signs. My quote means - Rights can be infringed upon and dissent repressed in the name of “maintaining stability” and protecting “core national interests” – goals that are open to a lot of interpretation. Consider - Trump has long derided and intimidated the free press. (Why do you think the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times did not endorse any presidential candidate?) Now, he has threatened to end their access to him if they treat him unfairly, as well as to rescind the licenses of networks that displease him. He tried it in his first term, calling on the FCC to revoke the license of NBC after they reported that his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, had called him a word that rhymes with boron. Brendan Carr, Trump’s nominee for head the FCC (who wrote the FCC chapter in Project 2025 – so much for disavowing it), has stated that he would “enforce” broadcasters’ “obligation” to act in the “public interest.” That term – “public interest” – can be used to justify all sorts of infringements on rights, in the same way that Hungary has silenced dissent in order to “maintain stability” and protect “core national interests.”

Are you asking me to explain it or disagreeing?

Poilievre is going to win. I'd bet on it. Then we'll see what happens. Yeah, too bad Navalny wasn't able to participate.

Your complaint isn't against the system, it's against the party. And you can rest easy in the knowledge that in the next election you can vote them out. No such comfort is available to the Russian people.

I'm sorry, equating the governments of Canada and Russia means you have lost all credibility. I refer you to one of my previous posts: This isn't the first time you have changed my words. I said that Kennedy was defending democracy, defending the democratic world.

But you have this right in Canada! And then we have our voice at the ballot box. Compare this to Russia, where, according to Amnesty International: https://www.amnesty.org/en/projects/anti-war-protest-in-russia/ I don't know.