deleted by creator

For thoses that want clarification. Endotoxins are toxins that are present on the surface of bacteria. On ingestion it provoke an immune response like fever or likely an anaphylactic choc that can lead to death.

Just to add a bit of practical information (in case somebody desperate is reading this in five years), they’re very hard to separate from other things and tend to stick around largely invisibly. Very small amounts can provoke deadly immune responses. Labs who do make endotoxin free samples often have entirely separate sets of equipment for endotoxin free preps.

What we really need for companies or non-profits to take the expired patent versions of these drugs and produces them cheaply and safely.

Please google endotoxins before attempting this. It’s really, really important to work with pure and sterilized samples.

Yeah, I had seen the OT-2 before. I’m not sure it quite reaches the standard I’m looking for, but it might be the best I can hope for. The user manual seems to document a lot even if I’d like a more details on a lot of things. I’m certainly not paying 3k for a pipette and a subscription to over priced tips, but maybe someone has documented some mix of casting and 3D printing that to make a more sensible pipette. Ideally, we’d have open blueprints and repair manuals, but maybe there’s enough of a community around it to make it the best starting place.

Apologies, I think we are talking past each other. I think I misunderstood your initial comment. It read like a suggestion that lemmy’s more extreme communities were terroristic and a criticism of the first amendment, which suggested that you believe the government should be allowed to dictate what kind of speech is or isn’t acceptable – in particular on these little platforms. My comment was in response to that notion.

Re-reading it with your second comment, I think you’re saying that “terrorist ideologies” have been allowed to develop on conventional social-media by claiming first amendment protections in order to not moderate communities, and 2016 was not in reference to early lemmy but to the MAGA movement. That makes more sense, and I generally agree that conventional social-media follows irresponsible stewardship practices.

Turning to authorities to suppress fascism doesn’t seem practical. We need to cultivate good democratic systems and education systems that create citizens capable of thinking critically and turning down bad ideologies on their own. Citizens should be empowered, not coddled.

FOSS dominates by sheer persistence growing slowly as everything else burns bright and extinguishes until it’s the best remaining option.

It’s the slow way, but it’s the right way.

offer local collectives interest-free loan

Or buy bonds in companies (including co-operatives) that you think are ran in a morally acceptable ways.

I mean call me a capitalist pig, but I think investing can be a crucial funding mechanism for science, journalism, coding, or any public good / innovation that doesn’t necessarily make a direct profit. Like right now science is falling apart because it was overly reliant on government funding and Trump has done a really good job of halting that. Even ignoring the salaries, science is expensive. Like $100/day just for supplies to run a single lab plus a couple 3k purchases every month. Public donations just aren’t a realistic funding mechanism for that.

I think young scientists like myself should be putting the bulk of our salaries into personal research endowments (Yeah, like FIRE). Like, it’s giving up on retirement and home ownership, but I’m not willing to give up my research. Heck, even with that plan there are serious problems with how to fund equipment or rent lab space unless I come into a lot of money… Sorry, I think I’m spiraling into despair.

My point is that we need independent funding mechanisms. Like, yes tenure has shown that not every scientists will keep working without being on a financial treadmill, but if a scientist proves willing to sacrifice their personal finances for their research goals having a larger organization like a university match their investment with “matcher” research-endowments seems reasonable, and those funds might work if they start as donations that are then invested as endowments (after you prevent admin from taking a huge bite out of it).

Not an anarchist, but interested in voting theory and alethiology.

Let’s start with alethiology (theory of truth), and work our way up. Truth is consistency. A true statement is a statement that is consistent with some standard of truth. Typically there are four standards of Truth: Coherence, Correspondence, Consensus, and Authority. Coherence is internal consistency – basically math. Correspondence is consistency with the physical world. Coherence and Correspondence are what we’d call Natural Truths. Put them together and you get mathematical relations of physical measurements – i.e. Science. When you start combining natural truths with limited information, perspectives, and a little bit of game theory two Social Truths emerge: Consensus and Authority. Consensus is consistency between people. Authority is consistency with respect to specific people. It’s really important to understand that Consensus and Authority are emergent properties – i.e. vague descriptions we use for complex systems, not specifically defined measurements. This is where voting theory comes in because people disagree quite passionately about how to make specifically defined measurements anyway. Who has authority? How consensus ‘ought’ be measured? There isn’t a correct answer, but you can define what measurement you’re going to use.

An election is a way of measuring a consensus of authorities: i.e. do the relevant people agree? Elections can implement lots of little rules to bias results one way or another, but they’re not inherently good or bad. They’re just systems. That said, in epistemology there’s a definition of knowledge as justified true belief – basically asserting there has to be a justification (evidence or reasoning) that is true (consistent with the relevant standard(s) of truth, and often preceding knowledge/evidence) and genuinely believed (you can’t be lying to our faces). So if we want to know something we can look at the justification and see if it’s consistent with whatever standards we think are relevant. We can look at the consistency between the claims of what elections are supposed to do (social truths), how the systems bias the results (coherence), and what the real world results are (correspondence).

Most governments claim to be “democracies” to claim they have the consent of the governed and point to the use of elections as evidence of that consent. The claim of “consent of the governed” is requires social standards of truth, but again social standards are emergent so we look a both coherence and correspondence. The justification is elections, that’s a purely a system - i.e. math and coherence, so there’s an argument to be made that might already be an insufficient justification on its own, but let’s give them the benefit and at least judge it. So, I’ll give my best attempts at turning the way elections work with some vague sense logical relations and in-our-heads models – you’re free to model these systems in your own way disagree with what I think are inconsistencies. You’re also free to break out a calculator and code do more formal modeling like they do in voting theory.

First inconsistency, elections are supposed to give governments the consent of the governed: i.e. authority derived from consensus. So, if someone is not apart of the consensus (not merely out voted or choosing not to vote, but not allowed to vote), then the is no authority to derive. This is problematic when considering felons, non-naturalized migrants, and tourists. Perhaps you can argue those entering a territory give implicit consent to be governed, but this gets increasingly problematic as time passes if you assume any decay of consent can occur.

Second inconsistency, elections are supposed to give governments the consent of the governed: i.e. authority derived from consensus. But, can consent be given if the consenting party cannot say no? i.e. is the derivation of authority valid? Most elections do not come with a lottery or ‘none’ option which might be a viable stand in for ‘no’. Similarly, does coerced consent count as legitimate consent? If the voting system corrupts the votes in such a way that “strategic”/ coerced voting skews the results, is the election legitimate? Elections don’t necessarily have to do this. I’ve made a go at designing a Ranked Lottery system that gives a lottery option without skewing the vote, but I’ve never seen another election system that didn’t do this.

Third Inconsistency, elections are supposed to give governments the consent of the governed: i.e. authority derived from consensus. Who exactly is the government? How much authority can administrative positions be given by an elected body before they become unelected and illegitimate bureaucrats? Typically, I’d find this argument a bit weak; however, it’s worth noting that both the president and the supreme court are not directly elected. They are in-fact appointed by consensus of congress. Given the current times, it might be worth asking when this allocation of authority becomes illegitimate.

I’m sure there are more, but I’m tired of writing and I think you get the general reasoning.

Yeah, I definitely don’t make a significant portion of my income from investments…

Actually, yes. I’d argue that if you invest in bond you fundamentally undermine some of the worst aspects of capitalism. By definition bonds are still a sort of capital; however, a lot of the short-term-ism is motivated by stock speculation, so I’d argue they’re significantly better from a moral perspective. High Yield bonds make quite a lot of money and while they’re “riskier” than normal bonds they’re far safer than any stock.

It’s also worth noting that bonds aren’t as popular as stocks because when you recommend bonds to other people you’re sorta in a worse investment position. Sure the bond value goes up when they buy, but the money in bonds is from the dividends not the bond itself, so if you invest in bonds and tell other people to invest in bonds it becomes harder to buy more bonds when it comes time for re-investment. Moreover, if everyone invests in bonds there bond yields are likely to go down as there is more money to barrow. Also you pay more taxes because corruption.

“Elves, if they don’t like you, they don’t mind. They just plan to outlive you.” - Melody of Mana

Fair enough, but in that case your argument seems in favor of staying with established systems even when central figures in those systems are corrupt. It’s hard not to sympathize with the impulse to separate from systems with prominent corruption, but perhaps there is an argument to be made about the need to tolerate some level of corruption for sake of social structure.

This concept of structured communities creating diversity appeals to me. As structural biologists, we often say Structure is Function, and it’s obvious this concept applies to societal rules and systems as much as physical systems.

It’s not willful ignorance to block users, comms, or instances. I’ve been pushed to block news/politics comms across multiple lemmy instances just to save myself the time spent reading the smooth-brained mouth-breathers argue we should abandon money and build a utopia out of hopes and dreams.

Some of those subversives don’t even distinguish Anarchism from their so called “Democracy” - which isn’t even real two elite party election democracy, but rather some lottery nonsense where poor people have the same amount of power as rich people. Disgusting. ^/s

Edit: Was thinking about this, and I think I may have over stated. No group is a monolith, but anarchists are especially varied. Some believe in local structure, some don’t. Some believe in democratic decision making processes, some argue for more deliberative processes. While there is certainly some overlap between people who advocate for sortition systems and people who advocate anarchism, it’s not clear if that overlap is large enough to be worth talking about.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator