> All of which still ignores how wildly unlikely it is that such a high degree of similarity occurs by chance.
It is wildly unlikely that I should exist through the process of evolution, to waste my afternoon on this argument, and yet: here I am :) Have a nice day.
> Even if I hadn't, what point to claiming authority on that basis?
Oh, this was a direct response to the fact that you repeatedly implied that I was ignorant and hadn't done basic reading in the field. You were wrong about that as well.
Someone disagreeing with you is not always a sign of ignorance.
I apprehended it perfectly well; I'm still in disagreement, since my argument is unaffected.
> so contradict all available evidence
It doesn't, and that's what you have missed. What I said is logically harmonious with all available evidence.
By observing three fish with the same solution for antifreeze, we know that three fish have the same solution for antifreeze. This immediately contradicts any claim that all unrelated species have different solutions for antifreeze, which makes them worthy of study. It's a "black swan".
As such, whatever mechanism has caused this has not been seen to work this way elsewhere. Therefore, saying "this mechanism is not seen to work this way elsewhere" is not remarkable as evidence.
It's now a neutral statement which matches our expectation, and can't therefore be evidence against the mechanism. It's certainly not evidence for another mechanism.
I could just as well say "I have only observed horizontal transfer in N other cases, and this is not one of those N cases, therefore it is not horizontal transfer". That would be wrong, but has equal logical merit as your claim.
Yes, happily! Since, as I was saying in my first comment: I didn't agree with this part of the paper's abstract being relevant evidence, or your take on it; but I agreed with it in other aspects.
Even with all this 'trivial literature review', there still remains the possibility three fish might have randomly walked [or non-randomly walked] into the same solution with the same local maximum, which couldn't be distinguished from lateral transfer just by looking at the protein structure.
"A doesn't always happen this way" isn't evidence, at all, for B happening. Your logic is faulty.
Thank you for appreciating my sense of humour. As someone who has worked in a genomics lab, I think coding analogies are perfectly fine. The analogy is not in error.
> On what basis do you hold any such expectation?... The paper explicitly contrasts its subject with several examples of convergent evolution producing functionally equivalent, but proteomically and genomically highly distinct, outcomes
On the basis that the protein is the function here. (antifreeze protein). There might only be one good, or best local maximum, solution for this problem at the protein level. So, we would expect natural selection might converge on that one solution. And, the results of two runs would not be nearly as different as they are in cases where natural selection is optimizing for a system process.
Obligatory coding comparison:
If I asked two programmers to code a webshop, I would expect the underlying code to look substantially different - if the code looked the same, I'd take it as evidence of copying.
If I asked two programmers to code "If A then B", I would expect the underlying code to look substantially the same, whether or not they copied.
A specific antifreeze protein is the second case: both the code and the outcome. It's not part of a system which would have more freedom of variation in its solutions.
> that three species should have a near-identical sequence coding for a near-identical protein suggests rather strongly that this version of the gene arose in one species and was then acquired by the other two
We'd strongly expect the amino acid sequence to be similar both by "convergent evolution" (each case evolved independently with the same motivation) and "lateral transfer" (one case evolved and then shared DNA across species), so this wouldn't typically distinguish those two cases.
The sibling answer about structure of introns and exons is a more convincing answer, in my opinion. I don't think we would expect to see that in convergent evolution, but we would in a copy-paste job.
Yours is an anti-capitalist take which I don't see as a criticism of VW specifically here.
The reason this service can potentially exist is only because Tesla is charging such a high upfront cost, and because it may be more accessible (or indeed cheaper) for some people to rent on a pay-as-you-go basis.
"This is 100% a way to extract more money from consumers" is true of literally everything that every corporation does. That's the point of its existence.
Are they spinning it to sound good? Of course, that's part of the job. Do you have to take the service if it provides no additional benefit to you? No, you can still buy a Tesla (or not).
> no one has really approached this type of bet sizing from a rigorous perspective beyond the relatively simple Kelly Criterion.
Kelly Criterion takes into account your bankroll at the point of betting, so it does take that into account
I haven't understood your points further than that - minimizing risk of ruin (taken literally) is typically equivalent to not ever gambling at all. No gambler would agree with that, by definition of them being a gambler.
This comment is right - and the study began shortly after Ohio's peak of infections.
As such, most infected participants would have been recently infected in a situation with low and decreasing virus circulation. Nobody thinks there's any risk of reinfection at that point.
> It would push us a lot closer to a world where people don't own anything anymore besides their own houses (maybe not even that) and the government owns everything.
I'm really struggling to understand this point of view, given the article that you couldn't be bothered to read says the US government owns 15% of all real estate already.
In my country, the reason that a lot of people own their houses is because the government sold its housing stock to residents in the 1980s and 1990s. That created a majority of homeowners, for the first time.
The fact that the government didn't replace this housing stock has been the cause of a massive generational rift, with a reduction in owner-occupancy from that peak, down to the point that a plurality of people (the vast majority of people under 45 - almost all young families) are now private renters in insecure housing situations.
While that same housing stock - originally built by the people, for the people - is increasingly dominated by exploitative for-profit landlords.
London's transport strikes have been shown to ultimately benefit the wider economy, as people have broken out of their local maximums and found more efficient ways to travel around.
> In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three
The "Today,..." claim is is simply false (both when the article was written, and now).
Wikipedia lists examples including six countries in Europe. Belgium is listed, which created a wealth tax in 2018 - why is that missing from this article of 2019?
Tax regimes in Europe change frequently according to the political situation, so this presents little evidence as to whether any individual tax "worked" anyway. But, this claim is just badly researched (generously speaking).
I would say in general that you want to motivate money to move as much as possible - and the problem with excessive wealth is that the money is not moving.
In an ideal world, I would tax money only when it is static.
Wealth taxes are extremely well-supported, despite the media as an industry [and politicians] being owned by people strongly motivated to campaign against it all costs, e.g.:
As best I can tell, Bitcoin has moved more than [it has so far today, ~6%] on 42 days in the last year, and 38 days the year before that, considering open-to-open values.
10% daily moves happened four times in May: twice in each direction.
Statistically, we should consider it just a normal, unremarkable day for Bitcoin.
It is wildly unlikely that I should exist through the process of evolution, to waste my afternoon on this argument, and yet: here I am :) Have a nice day.