arteteco @arteteco@qoto.org
- License
- CC-BY-SA 4.0
Mod
#Italian, PhD student in computational biology (#bioinformatics)
#atheist, #evolution lover, very bad #banjo player, very casual poster, I am glad whenever a feel a sincere human connection
I'm a mod here at #QOTO, feel free to reach out!
Joined Jul 2018
@coldwave mine town, what are we even talking about! He should build an underground fortress using the metal still there.You don't "hide" in a tower
@xp_eileen_mathematics ahahaah, you must have very large pizzas in your place!
@ondiz
My two cents,
removing the aphids may be the main contributor here. Aphids produce honeydew that the sooty mold loves, and that inhibits the photosynthesis.
Especially if it is an old tree with a big root system and doesn't usually have a severe lack of water, I'd say mulching may have helped, but in a very light way, especially after only a bit of time.
However, if the mulch was rich in nutrients and it sat there for long enough (at least 6-9 months), giving them the time to get in the soil, than it may be a main contributor and the tree was likely in a lack of something
@paleobiologist@fosstodon.org
I'd love to read a blog of yours, consider to open one again!
I have no clue what you are talkin about, I'll give that a look tomorrow, it's getting late here in Italy
arteteco
boosted
🇳🇱
There is so much to unload in that statement.
For starters lets be clear I do recognize and agree that there are plenty of examples of governments where the laws are designed in such a way that is unfair for those in poverty and makes it harder to get out of poverty than I’d like.
With that said, I certainly wouldnt adopt the idea from this statement you made:
Yes, almost everyone has some influence over their financial situation, and that influence is tiny, doesn’t matter.
As someone who grew up in absolute poverty, on welfare, had to grow up in a home with 4 generations under the same small roof and never even had a room of my own until much later in life, someone who later made my own success and am now financially successful, I can say first hand, at least in the USA, that nothing can be farther from the truth.
My success didnt come at the whim of some rich person, no one gave me a chance, I worked my ass off in near-starving conditions to get there on my own. I spent my free time at the library, I studied at a very young age, and by the time I was 15 years old I figured out how to make 6 figures from a house hold that otherwise could barely feed me.
I’ve been through the process, I’ve seen it first hand, and I can say without a doubt int he USA we have a great deal of power to define our own financial freedom. While that doesnt mean the system is fair, and it doesnt mean you have the same advantage as someone born rich, it is clear the notion of ones control over their own financial health as being insignificant is simply not the reality.
I should also point out I spend a good deal of my free time tutoring young adults in subjects that they cant afford to go to college to learn, in the hopes they can use that knowledge to get out of poverty on their own. I never give these people dumps of money or give them favors to start them out in life, the only thing I do is spend a year or more helping them study and learn marketable skills. Virtually everyone I ever taught who lasted a year without quiting went on to make very good money and be successful despite having a start in life of poverty…
So I also know im not the exception, I’ve seen dozens of people go from rags to riches due to their own hard work and study and little more. So even if we agree that the cards may be stacked against them it is also clear that most people have a great deal of influence on their financial standing, the system may not be fair, but you do have a lot of the power to change your situation despite this.
@freemo From the other side of the fence, I agree. I’m not on the low end of the income spectrum because “powers were against me”, even though I studied hard at many things I also never managed to market them or to properly sell myself, also out of shyness. I never properly learned how to go for jobs and I spent years travelling and discovering the world without giving a fuck about my income. Choices.
I could have make quite some money in my life if I did things differently. I won’t lie, I feel stupid now, and I feel not appreciated and bla bla bla, but most of it is definitely on me.
I’m sure that holds more true for some other countries, but for EU, USA and rich places… man, I don’t know, I don’t think so
Told ya they are kinda crazy!
taxonomy is very much a philosophical issue, beside of a scientific one. I don't even think it fully qualifies as science, not sure. It's useful as heck though, and we surely would need more taxonomers around!
tribe is above the genus, many genera can be part of the same tribe, but below subfamilies.
You can use words as you prefer, just don’t put your foot down on them.
In the humans afaik we don’t have enough genetic diversity to talk about subspecies. Human is actually considered a subspecies by many, like Homo sapiens sapiens.
There is I think a lot of political difficulty in the field though (I study other stuff so I’m not really into it)
The most common words I’ve heard for the different groups are “populations”, which in ecology means a group of individuals living int he same area, which can bring to evolve different phenotypic traits without being a different group
Consider that the Fst, that is, the genetic difference between populations, is usually higher inside than outside, ie there is more difference inside the european people, for example, than between europeans and africans.
To make it clear, I don’t care how you call the groups as long as I understand and you don’t sell it for scientific consensus. Race is usually used for zootechnic reasons as I said, so I’d avoid the term, just this.
You are tackling a complex scientific problem that is not resolved for any organisms, even ones where we have no political interest like many plants.
I don’t have any ultimate answer
the exceptions are not for edge cases. They are a very, very significant amount of organisms in the plant and fungi kingdom, let alone in the bacteria protozoa etc
Even inside mammals you have many cases: what about a sterile person? Is he not human? What about hybrids that work but lose viability as the generations go on?
For mammals it may work somehow. Still, I don't agree: the most commonly used species concept is morphological: they look similar, they are the same species. The biological species concept it's a nice abstract definition, rarely applied and only to a very limited amount of organisms.
They phylogenetic and ecological species concept also make sense (even more IMO), but again, hard to test, hard to obtain all data: we go back to how they look like.
@TradeMinister
Yeah it is irrelevant, but it's interesting and I'm not here to fight: If you remember, this all thing started because I said I am borderline poor. This was a personal, chit chatting post, not a scientific debate one
so and so. Mammals are a very, very small group, and Myer was of course biased with animals, being a zoologist and all. Still, even in this small group there are many exceptions, and also, Myer sold this as an experimental definition: you can test whether it's working.
Now, have we ever fucked a broccoli to check if that was working out? Is it really doable? Can we have a dog screwing every living being to check if they reproduce? By Myer idea, that is what we should do. In practice, it's not used and we always default to the morphological concept of species. Even tho, to be honest, I'd love to see those experiments in action!
I'd love to make one thing clear here, in case it's not obvious to everyone: species do not exist. Subspecies do not exist. Phyla do not exist. Those are groups we make to make sense and get an order out the immense complexity of the living creatures. In the end, there are only individuals, and there is no definition of "species" that does not have exceptions or faults. Depends on context and aim of the analysis
That is why I push a lot to use a consensus based, conventional nomenclature: otherwise we'd go crazy. And I'm tellin' ya, those taxonomists oftentimes are already kinda there
@TradeMinister
For many, it still is like that. For others, it wasn't like that even before. I hear what you mean, and I know there is a lot of rot in the academia, even though I am not a scientist I jump from lab to lab to see what's up like an annoying kid.
I was talking about science per se, not "the academia": in the long term, is a tool that will explode in the face of anyone who tries to use it for political reasons, be it Marx with his whole "scientific materialism", be it the latest politician. That's why they cherry pick the truth from there, but never fully adopt the method.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, and thanks for the insight on your father's life
@amerika
Well, it became an ad hominem the moment you told me that I am captured and are conformist for career reason and therefore can't see it clearly. This is how I read it
@amerika
Mate, taxonomy is complex already as it is, why go against the established names just for the sake of it?
please refer to the ICZN code, article 45 (regarding specific and subspecific nomenclature)
https://code.iczn.org/species-group-nominal-taxa-and-their-names/article-45-the-species-group/
breed is only used for domestic animals that went through selective breeding - doesn't have any taxonomic value
@dantheclamman Man I don't know, please tell me!
- License
- CC-BY-SA 4.0
Mod
#Italian, PhD student in computational biology (#bioinformatics)
#atheist, #evolution lover, very bad #banjo player, very casual poster, I am glad whenever a feel a sincere human connection
I'm a mod here at #QOTO, feel free to reach out!
Joined Jul 2018
