deleted by creator

bogus

Oooh, fair point. I do think that’s still tricky now (I work with an international team) but it definitely wouldn’t get any better

EDIT: WAIT unless the date switched over at 00:00 every day no matter where you were

It would be annoying to be the many people whose work or waking hours were on “MonTues” though lol

Not the original commenter, but why couldn’t it be more like “John sleeps from 12-20:00 and is usually working from 21-5:00” and “Stacy sleeps from 8:00-16:00 and works from 17-1:00”, so Stacy and John decide to plan their video call for 6:00-7:00? Like I don’t super care what light schedule it is, more what my friends schedules are specifically, right? And the question could just be, “What times are you available?”

also… if it dies anyway and you’re heartbroken, dm me and maybe I can send you a cutting from mine :-) cheers!

So the plant you have there is a Maranta leuconeura. I have one that looks just like it!

There’s a couple things that could be going wrong. In general, here are the conditions it likes:

1. It likes indirect light. I keep mine by a south facing window that has an awning cutting the harsh light outside. Additionally, I have it behind a sheer curtain.

2. It likes to be kept in moist soil, and in a humid place. I don’t let mine fully dry out before rewatering it, and I live in a place where the ambient humidity is often 60-80%. If you live in a dry place, water it often and maybe keep it in the most humid place with enough light (kitchen or bathroom is usually more humid)

3. and this is key, it does NOT like hard water. I honestly think this could be the problem with yours given what you said. Hard water has a lot of minerals, and over time, they build up in the soil. The plant might have been fine with tap for months, but now the soil could effectively be too “salty” for it.

If I had this plant, I’d do one of two things.

Option 1:

• buy fresh potting soil
• gently remove the plant from its pot
• shake off the soil from the roots
• rinse and scrape off any residue on the inside of the pot
• replant in fresh soil
• water with RO/soft water from now on (see note below), keeping it moist, in whatever spot it already lives

Option 2:

• buy or obtain real reverse osmosis (RO) water (see note below)
• water the plant so thoroughly with RO that the mineral salts dissolve and are carried away. This means soaking the pot in a large volume (like more than a gallon) of RO water for an hour or so, or watering it so water flushes out the bottom 5+ times in a row. You can tell if you flush the minerals out because there should be no grey dusty residue left on the soil or sides of the pot!
• add a small amount of balanced fertilizer (like follow miracle grow instructions or something)
• water with RO/soft water from now on (see note below), keeping it moist, in whatever spot it already lives

As backup, I might also try and root a cutting (again, in RO water) just in case it still dies anyway. Hopefully with these efforts it will revive, though!

Note on soft/RO water:

If you are looking for soft water, don’t use water from a water softener (confusing, I know). This is because water softeners for humans replace the minerals with sodium ions. In essence, water softener water is just as “salty” as hard water, it’s just different salts.

Instead, try and get deionized (DI) or reverse osmosis (RO) water.

Ideally, this would come from an RO system, which is a common kind of in-house water filter. If you live by a college, you could maybe ask for some from their science departments (especially biology or chemistry). You can also buy it online and have it shipped to you, but this is really expensive, especially considering that the maranta needs so much water.

Instead, I would buy a TDS meter (available on Amazon for like $7). It’s a little stick device that you put in the water and it tells you how hard it is. With this, you could test a few brands of bottled water (avoid “spring water”, or “remineralized” water-- go for “filtered” or “purified”) until you find one with less than ~30 ppm / ~75 µS/cm dissolved solids. My grocery store sells water in big machines out front that reads 15 µS/cm, and it costs $2.50/5 gallons!

Honestly, I cheat and get lazy sometimes with mine and water it with tap. You saw yourself how long it takes for the solids to build up, and watering it with RO dissolves some of those over time. It’s not like tap will kill it right away, but these guys sure are picky! :)

I like how the artist included the one cyclone turning the opposite direction (on the right, hair blowing the other way)

… if you know you know 😎

… their government IS our government. Guam is a US territory.

Dude, what? I might be misunderstanding but there’s a huge difference between 15 minutes and four days? Or even between “hands off” supervision and no one looking to see why she hadn’t clocked in or out for DAYS? Or even just looking in the cubical?

Like… The employer definitely bears responsibility for being this neglectful. It goes way beyond “hands off” lol

Women are not included in those polls

… accurate

Whack. The only thing I can think of is if your base activity level has never been low enough in that several year period, you might not know what it feels like to be completely sedentary by comparison?

Oooooh I have some ideas! Some of these are paid/premium (but NOT micro transactions) and some have mild ads. But I share the distaste for data-mining, money grubbing, brain-melting-ad-ridden games, so I’m certain they are on the least intrusive end of the spectrum.

I really love biology (I’m a biologist…) so these are both pet games and usually breeding/evolution games!

• Fish Tycoon – This one specifically. A classic! Breed and care for cute fish!
• Niche breed and evolve – so neat and pretty educational about evolution/genetics. There’s a slightly more complicated/difficult pc game if she decides she likes the nichelings/universe.
• Pocket Frogs – Simple, low stress collecting game. it would take years to collect all the frogs, and there’s a relatively active community of people who trade sets of frogs to other people to help them complete collections. Would be fun to play with her friends at school!
• Reigns Her Majesty – a game about running a kingdom as a queen. When you die, you become your heir and retain some progress from your last lives. It doesn’t fit the exact criteria you mentioned, but I think she might like it anyway!

The point this guy is trying to make is that people are conflating Israel, Judaism, and Zionism in ways that don’t always make sense

Like, the polls you’re quoting are sentiments of Israelis, so this guy (and the vast majority of Jewish people in the world) are not included in those polls.

Even within Israel, that’s, what, 3-4 million people that disagree with that sentiment? And Israelis are only ~73% Jewish anyway?

On top of that, tons of zionists arent even Jewish, they are even likely to be antisemitic tbh.

So… what you said sounds a lot like “I don’t have anything against one particular group, but the sentiment of the citizens of this one country makes me second guess the perspective of a person in a totally different country just because they share one dimension of identity”… In essence, it sounds a lot like prejudice

(free palestine, in case that isn’t obvious)

Absolutely!

Two eggs:

Booth et al. (2014). “New insights on facultative parthenogensis in pythons”. Biological Journal of Linnean Society, 112(3)461-468

Two sperm:

Tinti, F. and Scali, V. (1992). “Genome exclusion and gametic DAPI-DNA content in the hybridogenetic Bacillus rossius-- grandii benazzii complex (Insecta Phasmatodea)”. Molecular reproduction and development, 33(3)235-242

One egg:

Ryder et al. (2021). “Facultative parthenogensis in California Condors”. Journal of Heredity, 112(7)569-574

One sperm (surprised me too!):

Heesch et al. (2021). Evolution of life cycles and reproductive traits: insights from the brown algae." Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 34(7)992-1009

These examples are non-exhaustive (so many parthenogensis examples!) so if you want to know more, or if you’re interested in learning about the increased reproductive fitness post-homosexual mating activities, no one primary publication will give you a complete picture. I recommended reading the book I mentioned-- Evolution’s Rainbow by Joan Roughgarden-- because it details this in ways I can’t summarize in a social media comment.

I will have a PhD in molecular, cellular, and developmental biology. I have publications in epigenetics/chromatin/gene regulation and similar fields. I also research equity in the sciences, and one specific research foci is inequity for LGBTQ+ individuals in STEM. Therefore, I have expertise in these social issues as well as the biological ones. I will have a certificate added to my PhD in biology that validates this expertise in LGBTQ+ justice and social research methods.

I just want to be clear (not to this person but to anyone reading) that they are wrong.

They are assuming what they will read as evidence in books and literature. It’s frankly kind of astonishing that I can say “I’m an expert, I’m a biologist, and trans women are women with tons of biological evidence for that validity” and then have this person say “AH but the SCIENCE says I’m right, you just have FEELINGS!”

To be clear, the science says I’m right, the feelings are irrelevant. Toodles!

This is the last comment I will make to you.

Those who carefully read my previous replies will notice that I absolutely did not step over this question. The book I recommended details more than just animal and ecological examples, it also addresses physiological differences people of different sexes, sexual orientations, and gender identities.

Here’s the truth: the binary categories of male and female are not simple biological ones. Organisms cannot be neatly categorized as male or female, including humans. To put humans into these boxes is to ignore huge grey areas in our understanding of the biology underlying these traits. Even among XX or XY individuals, sex characteristics are polygenic and vary continuously, meaning that even looking at a person’s karyotype (which, you should understand, we hardly ever do) you could not reliably predict the appearance of external genitalia, the presence or absence of other sex characteristics like body hair or breasts, or the identity or orientation of a person.

Although I do not personally believe that having an underlying biological justification is necessary for a trans woman to be a valid woman, there definitely are physiological and biological realities that validate her experiences. Moreover, I don’t think we determine womanhood by biology at all-- for example, a XY human with complete androgen insensitivity would likely not even know HERSELF that she had a Y-chromosome, perhaps for her whole life, and you-- a random person on the street-- would be absolutely unable to tell.

If the question is, then, is there natural precedent for an organism’s sex chromosomes to be unpredictive of their sex characteristics or social roles? The answer is YES, unequivocally. If the question is, is there natural precedent for organisms to be able to intentionally change their sex? The answer is YES, absolutely. If the question is, is there natural precedent for organisms to have a social role that does not match the standard for individuals of their sex? The answer is also YES, 100%, certainly.

Thus, if the question is, are trans people representative of the norms of nature and the biological sciences? The answer is: You fucken BET.

Anyone who claims that trans women are somehow categorically distinct from other women is ignoring how loose the boundaries of womanhood already are. They are trying to twist the facts present under close examination of the biological world to fit their own human social narrative of gender essentialism. The facts of biology are absolutely on the side of trans individuals, this is the consensus among researchers-- and it is being ignored for political purposes in the same way the consensus among researchers on climate change is being ignored.

Like I said, I don’t have all day to engage on this, especially since almost everyone talking about trans people in relation to biological essentialism is not engaging in the discussion in good faith. The take home message is this: if you are earnestly wanting to understand what biological science says about trans people, go read that book, and listen to myself and other experts that trans women have every right and every fact on their side to support their identities.

Oh, second comment: your framing is disengenuine.

These are scientists, I’m a scientist, we’re held to standards of peer review and methodological scrutiny.

I don’t need to establish how and whether we’re doing science with authority-- that’s the beauty of the invention of the scientific method. I also don’t need to establish whether these are facts or opinions, because the body of research is so large and well-discussed, for decades now, that peer review has had plenty of time to do it’s work.

To humor you-- the methods used have been all of the above: surveys, experiments, studies, etc.

To humble you-- it’s extremely arrogant of you to ask a scientist, to their face, whether their research is real or just opinion. If you think all the research in this field is wrong, you can fix it the way we fix all our science: by conducting your own research and subjecting it to review by other experts in the field.

It’s a little unclear if you are asking for resources about the diversity of sex, sexual orientation, and sexual selection strategies in nature, OR about the ways in which they are misconstrued by society-- either by ignoring the diversity of nature to favor a heternormative and gender essentialist narrative, or by too closely feeling that what is natural is what should be considered good and just (the naturalistic fallacy).

I, myself, am authoring studies on the latter topic, but the field is so small that by sharing specific examples, I seriously risk doxxing myself (and others with whom I work closely on a politically fraught topic).

One also needs to understand the former before meaningfully engaging with the latter anyway, so I highly recommend the book Evolution’s Rainbow by Stanford ecologist Joan Roughgarden. The book is written in plain language (intended for a wider audience than just biology researchers) and details the (at the time, 2009) present summary of known ecological examples of organisms behaving in ways that counter the human social norms surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity. She goes on to discuss the molecular basis of sex and gender in humans, including what is know about difference in brain structures and gene regulation, and then she contextualizes these examples in sociological terms. I think the book is a little dated at this point, and there was some conflict amongst biologists about aspects of the book that aren’t related to what we’re discussing (related to her modification of Darwin’s theory of sexual selection), so it isn’t perfect, but it’s basically the first thing any junior scholar is asked to read regarding this discussion topic. I think it will provide you with what you are looking for, seeing as it cites hundreds of studies in tens of fields of biological sciences relating to sex, gender, and sexual orientation in humans and other organisms.

Some key facts (mostly covered in the book) that you or others might find interesting:

• Homosexual behavior (same sex mating behavior) has been documented in fish, insects, birds, amphibians, reptiles, Invertibrates, and over 100 species of mammals
• Intersex bodies are common in nature, with many organisms either having characteristics of both sexes at one time or changing sex over the course of their lifetime. This is commonly found in “higher order” animals as well, and some populations of large mammals (like deer or bears) have been documented to have MOSTLY intersex individuals.
• Heterosexual mating is not required for reproduction, with documented examples of two sperm, two eggs, or just a single sperm or egg being enough to produce viable offspring in some circumstances. When homosexual mating is observed, it often increases the reproductive fitness of the participants
• The “sex roles” (unfortunate terminology, imo) of organisms are not a fixed norm, and we have many examples where the expectations you might have based on human societies for division of labor and activities are inverted or ignored entirely (such as birds where the males stay home and incubate eggs while the females compete with each other using displays of dominance and promiscuity)
• Although it doesn’t make sense to describe animals as having gender identities (due to those terms being intended for self-description among human social groups), it is worth pointing out that we do have many examples among animals where individuals of the same sex may have distinct categorical social dynamics, morphologies, and social roles (and that human gender identity does appear to have some underlying biological basis, although I will emphasize that it is non-deterministic and non-essentialist). There’s a discussion happening in the field about whether it is worth the potential downsides to describe these animals as having multiple genders within a single sex, so as to normalize and explain to non-biologists that human gender identities are mirrored by other organisms and are valid according to biological science

OP: says something revealing they don’t understand biology

Response: dude, what? You don’t understand biology!

You: “maybe they don’t understand biology because of all these new-fangled GeNdErS and iDeNtItIeS!!!”

(please don’t get me started on this, I am literally about to get my PhD in the ways people intentionally misconstrue and oversimplify sex, sexuality, and sexual selection in nature to obfuscate the validity of LGBTQ+ people in society and I don’t want to be here all day)