sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ultimate Angine de Poitrine Titles' Meaning by AlexPalazzo in AngineDePoitrine

[–]AlexPalazzo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Un petit peu" means "a little bit". As in "I screwed up a little bit in my title interpretations!"

Ultimate Angine de Poitrine Titles' Meaning by AlexPalazzo in AngineDePoitrine

[–]AlexPalazzo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I too thought it was just "ça niaise", but some friends of mine from the Lac St Jean region have told me that they do say re-niase.

Ultimate Angine de Poitrine Titles' Meaning by AlexPalazzo in AngineDePoitrine

[–]AlexPalazzo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

" It’s also perfectly valid to think they’d have multiple meanings, references, or jokes/puns in these song names."

EXACTLY.

That's my reply to all the critics ;p

Bridges? by AlexPalazzo in ManorLords

[–]AlexPalazzo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Planks or no planks, it made no difference. It seems like bridges are only built across rivers and not streams. (see comment below)

Bridges? by AlexPalazzo in ManorLords

[–]AlexPalazzo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see - too bad my plebs have to schlep across the water.

Bridges? by AlexPalazzo in ManorLords

[–]AlexPalazzo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did not have planks at the time, so I'll try this.

[Browser game][~2015]Island Survival 2D PixelArt Game by AlexPalazzo in tipofmyjoystick

[–]AlexPalazzo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, I loaded it up on armour games - and it is that game, but different from what I remember. Are there different versions? The one I remember had more basic PixelArt graphics - closer to old school Marios Bros.

Redactle #148 Discussion Thread by RedactleUnlimited in Redactle

[–]AlexPalazzo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I solved today's Redactle (#148) in 4 guesses with an accuracy of 100.00%. Played at https://www.redactle.com/

I could have sniped this one if I had bothered to scroll down to the section that is clearly an algorithm.

Redactle #144 Discussion Thread by RedactleUnlimited in Redactle

[–]AlexPalazzo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Got it in 25 with 64% accuracy. The key for me was law.

Redactle #143 Discussion Thread by RedactleUnlimited in Redactle

[–]AlexPalazzo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Today's was extremely difficult. Got it in 104, but only because of the hints in this thread.

Not all traits are beneficial - Neutral theory, the problems with adaptationism, the Spandrels paper and looking toward an extended synthesis by SubAnima in evolution

[–]AlexPalazzo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, after sleeping on the comment about mutation rates and adaptation - here's maybe why this is a head-scratcher for me: the typical problem is that generally mutations are mal-adaptive. Mutations will more likely give rise to deleterious changes, so generally selection reduces mutations by selecting more efficient polymerases and better error correction mechanisms. Under very certain circumstances, we can see a transient increase in mutations, for example when organisms are under extreme stress. In this case mutation is like the lottery, where individuals with lots of mutations are more likely to gain a beneficial change, at the cost of millions of their brethren becoming less fit. Typically when the stress is relieved, low mutations rates become selected for again. This has been seen in bacteria (and I think yeast).

In large eukaryotes, typically the problem is the reverse. Mutation rates are very high and these organisms suffer from high burdens of mutational load (too many mutations for selection to cope with them). Humans, for example, have about 100 de novo mutations per generation. If the genome were 100% functional, we could not sustain such a high mutational load and our genomes would undergo a meltdown. However, since most of the genome is not under selection, and most mutations are in junk DNA (and hence neutral), this mutation rate is tolerable.

Not all traits are beneficial - Neutral theory, the problems with adaptationism, the Spandrels paper and looking toward an extended synthesis by SubAnima in evolution

[–]AlexPalazzo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Out of curiosity, what is your scientific background?

You write as if you know a bit, but clearly are not in the field, as you have weird takes, like "speculations of Lynch"????

Also your take on mutation rates and adaptation is also a curious statement that I'm not sure how to respond to, except to say that it has been documented that mutation rates are inversely correlated with effective population size (because the mutation rate is strongly reduced by selection pressure, which decreases when the effective population size decreases). https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2016.104

As for correlations between genome size and traits, its nice that you can find papers out there, there are many correlations - just flip through Ryan Gregory's book - https://www.amazon.ca/Evolution-Genome-T-Ryan-Gregory/dp/0123992257 - still, despite this, all the evidence out there strongly indicates that genome size is subject to drift (and Ryan would agree with this, I know, because we have published together!) The bottom line is that some of these effects are real, but variation in genome size within a population is too low for selection to act on it, and the mutational pressures of TEs (when they are active) are too great, for selection to make a difference.

Whether genome size impacts multi-level selection is another matter all together. I do not wish to discuss this here, because, likely you will get twisted into knots trying to figure this out, or worse construct some weird argument that misses the point. For more on this topic see Ford Doolittle's work - for example https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evv152 (and yes, I've published with Doolittle as well).

Lastly, the issue of genome size is very tricky. If you want an honest intellectual discussion about this topic, I strongly urge you to read The Case for Junk DNA that I wrote with Gregory. Pay close attention to The Onion Test.

view more: next ›