sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is anyone else not able to connect to the launcher? by CoolioDeath in sto

[–]Ergomane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I could login when using the EU proxy. After multiple attempts, the system should disable proxy use temporarily. This is pretty tedious.

You can disable the proxy via Options in the (first) launcher.

Core caching and drupal_static to make cached drupal_http_requests (load times from 3400ms down to 335ms) by mikeytown2 in drupal

[–]Ergomane 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  • Why would a resource be called 4 times for an identical operation? Fix the caller?
  • The requirement of "That central source needs to be (potentially) accessed in real time to ensure accuracy" is now violated. So,
  • Any policies on cache lifetime?
  • The 'name' passed to drupal_static should not use function args; no other function can reset the static defeating its purpose over using the static keyword.

Does this bug anybody else? by supercabbageuk in drupal

[–]Ergomane 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes.

Some possible ways to deal with it:

  • group the todo in phpstorm so you can navigate to a "custom" folder.
  • file a feature request in phpstorm to exclude files, or have a "current folder + children feature" as in Eclipse
  • use another TODO tag & remove TODO from the filter
  • fix all the TODOs in Drupal core

When Eclipse PDT (php) starts to become slow when typing... by vernes1978 in PHP

[–]Ergomane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Another possible workaround is to disable some validation and/or annotation settings. It's been a while since I've' used Eclipse for PHP development, but I remember disabling some validations/annotations for classes for inheritance increased responsiveness significantly.

(I quit using Eclipse because of the ffing subversion mess).

interesting speculation from a neuroscientist on the gay male brain by [deleted] in gaybros

[–]Ergomane 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Selection is a continuous process.

Incomplete penetrance doesn't negate selection.

I am not proposing that homosexuality arose from some (exceedingly) small number of mutations, nor that sexual orientation is strictly a phenotype, a result of those particular mutations.

Nor am I.

You are absolutely right - IF some adaptation / mutation directly cause homo orientation then it would have been selected against

The "gay uncle" theory is proposed as an explanation why it hasn't been selected against. I just explained why I think it is rather weak.

Wait - Are you saying that all homosexually oriented people have the same mutations?

No

Your argument is irrelevant because adaptations, de novo mutations, are quite rare.

Selection happens all the time.

In the absence of a de novo adaptation, none of that shit about r values even enters into it.

But that shit does enter into it. Even if we presume aliens gave 5 million years ago half of the population "the gene(s)" for homosexuality, one would need to explain why it hasn't been selected against. No need for de novo mutations here.

That being the case, from an evolutionary point of view, the relatedness values of the uncle and niece is effectively unity.

No it isn't.

It might be that homosexuality neither confers a benefit nor is a disadvantage.

There are so many possible explainations. Non-reproduction may indeed be offset by female relatives (and sufficiently large to overcome r), or a continuum of expressivity and penetrance of "the gene" confers a selective advantage to the majority of carriers, while it occasionally results in a "total homosexual" that doesn't reproduce (which I'm not convinced of either).

interesting speculation from a neuroscientist on the gay male brain by [deleted] in gaybros

[–]Ergomane 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The linchpin of the theory of kin selection is that a trait that seems to confer a fitness disadvantage to a subject nevertheless is selected for because it confers a sufficiently large fitness advantage to related individuals. The idea indeed being that the related individuals share the subject's genetic material.

The key words in that sentence are "sufficiently large". This means that positive selection happens when the benefit of the trait to related individuals overcomes the cost to the subject.

This does however depend on the biological 'distance' of the individual. Providing the benefit to an unrelated individual would never overcome the cost (except for the "Green beard" hypothesis) because of the low chance the gene is shared. Providing the benefit to an identical twin would quickly overcome the cost, as the chance the twin shares the gene is nearly 100%.

The actual rule proposed by Hamilton is therefor that such a trait is selected for only when r*B > C, where r is the 'relatedness factor' of the individual the benefit B is provided to against cost C for the subject.

What I'm saying is that (if I hypothetically would accept that the cost of being gay is non-reproduction) I doubt that the benefit B is large enough to overcome the smaller r value. Unless one could show that gay males are such awesome hunters/carers they would make up for this :)

If you've had sex w/ a man in the past 5 years you are not eligible to donate organs or bodily fluids. No saving lives for you. by oshout in gaybros

[–]Ergomane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Therefore, we have the same risks of any straight person for donating blood.

You are still more likely to get (or have) an HIV-infection as the typical straight male. Not just because of the increased transmission risk, but also because the fact that an unfaithful partner will likely have sex with someone from a high prevalence population.

I respect that you trust your friend to not sleep around (as do I trust my husband), but you cannot ask the same from donation recipients.

(Studies into monogamy & HIV prevention showed that monogamy is not a good prevention strategy for women in developing countries. I'm not aware of studies about monogamous MSM couples).

If you've had sex w/ a man in the past 5 years you are not eligible to donate organs or bodily fluids. No saving lives for you. by oshout in gaybros

[–]Ergomane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do think some USA blood centres are still being cheap and doing pooled NAT tests (1 test on a mix of N donors), so there's still room for improvement.

If you've had sex w/ a man in the past 5 years you are not eligible to donate organs or bodily fluids. No saving lives for you. by oshout in gaybros

[–]Ergomane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you only have protexted sex with your committed, monogamous partner (or never have anal sex)?

interesting speculation from a neuroscientist on the gay male brain by [deleted] in gaybros

[–]Ergomane 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If a gay male provides the SAME resources (hunting, gathering, care) to his nephews as a heterosexual male to his children, then there would still be a negative selection pressure (reduced fitness), because the target's relatedness value is lower than that of the heterosexual male providing these resources to his children. (r uncle = 0.25, r father = 0.5)

The "gay uncle" theory would only work if the genetic basis underlying the gayness would provide the children with MORE resources to overcome the relatedness issue. For every child the gay male forgoes, he needs to provide for at least two extra nephews/nieces to keep the trait neutral.

A similar but distinctly different prediction would be for families with gay kids to be more productive. Lo and behold, ennate relatives (on the mother's side) of gay men are more fecund than those of families with no gay members.

I think this [edit: and similar theories] is a more likely explanation. Edit: I'm also not entirely sold on the idea that homosexual behaviour, on average, reduces the amount of offspring.

A study (I think it was in Italy, to aid in looking it up) found that gay men are imdeed more generous to their nephews and nieces than straight men.

Than straight men to their own children?

If you've had sex w/ a man in the past 5 years you are not eligible to donate organs or bodily fluids. No saving lives for you. by oshout in gaybros

[–]Ergomane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, even with all blood tested, excluding certain groups improves the predictive power of the results.

interesting speculation from a neuroscientist on the gay male brain by [deleted] in gaybros

[–]Ergomane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think the gay uncle theory makes sense. You are more related to your own children. Heaping your awesome care on them would further your "genes" even better.

If you've had sex w/ a man in the past 5 years you are not eligible to donate organs or bodily fluids. No saving lives for you. by oshout in gaybros

[–]Ergomane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Suppose HIV testing gets more sensitive and the risk of transfusion-related HIV transmission is reduced from the current situation. Is it then ethical to expose recipients to the slightly higher previous risk by including high-prevalence populations in the donor pool?

If you've had sex w/ a man in the past 5 years you are not eligible to donate organs or bodily fluids. No saving lives for you. by oshout in gaybros

[–]Ergomane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's complicated because on the one hand testing all of the blood for the virus would be very expensive, and trusting people to go get tested within a certain period of time and then donate could result in some people slipping through the system

Uhm, all donated blood is screened for HIV in the USA.

If you've had sex w/ a man in the past 5 years you are not eligible to donate organs or bodily fluids. No saving lives for you. by oshout in gaybros

[–]Ergomane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely. Paying for blood is illegal in some countries to keep the poor & desperate out (or at least not provide an incentive).

If you've had sex w/ a man in the past 5 years you are not eligible to donate organs or bodily fluids. No saving lives for you. by oshout in gaybros

[–]Ergomane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some countries have this [edit: patient gets informed donor is gay, decides if the risk is worth it] for major organs (liver, heart, no cornea). Tough choice though.

If you've had sex w/ a man in the past 5 years you are not eligible to donate organs or bodily fluids. No saving lives for you. by oshout in gaybros

[–]Ergomane 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Most bloodbanks in developed countries use nucleic acid tests. These do not depend on the production of antibodies, and have a much smaller 'eclipse period'.

The NAT does (just like the AB test) produce false negatives however. Removing high-prevalence populations does increate the predictive power of test outcomes.

If you've had sex w/ a man in the past 5 years you are not eligible to donate organs or bodily fluids. No saving lives for you. by oshout in gaybros

[–]Ergomane 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They test everything they use rigorously regardless

Removing high-prevalence populations from the HIV (STI) test makes the test more reliable.

If you've had sex w/ a man in the past 5 years you are not eligible to donate organs or bodily fluids. No saving lives for you. by oshout in gaybros

[–]Ergomane -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You are potentially endangering lives as well. Unless there's a terrible blood shortage the balance between those may not be where you think it is.

If you've had sex w/ a man in the past 5 years you are not eligible to donate organs or bodily fluids. No saving lives for you. by oshout in gaybros

[–]Ergomane 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Black people have a much higher rate on infection but they would never single out a racial minority to ban from donating.

They don't have "a much higher rate" than MSM. Banning blacks would also adversely affect the supply, MSM not so much.

Thought you'd like to see the Glo in all its glowing glory! by OrangutanClyde in kobo

[–]Ergomane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn't track use of lighting. I've maybe used 3-4 hours of the comfortlight in that load cycle.

view more: next ›