#aggregate functions and grouping

[tpointtechblog]

Mastering Aggregate Functions in SQL: A Comprehensive Guide

Introduction to SQL: In the realm of relational databases, Structured Query Language (SQL) serves as a powerful tool for managing and manipulating data. Among its many capabilities, SQL offers a set of aggregate functions that allow users to perform calculations on groups of rows to derive meaningful insights from large datasets.

Learn how to use SQL aggregate functions like SUM, AVG, COUNT, MIN, and MAX to analyze data efficiently. This comprehensive guide covers syntax, examples, and best practices to help you master SQL queries for data analysis.

[fairygodsystem]

Do you have any system names for just the grouping that aren't system or collective?

We are really wanting a one worded collective name

♡ Alternatives to "system" or "collective" Master-list ♡

Association　　Assembly　　Aggregation　　Assemblage　　Assortment　　Array　　Alliance

Band　　Body　　Batch　　Battery　　Bunch　　Bundle　　Battalion　　Bracket　　Brigade

Class　　Club　　Chain　　Circle　　Crew　　Collection　　Cluster　　Clutch　　Clique　　Clump　　Clot　　Combine　　Conglomerate　　Congregation　　Crew　　Crowd　　Company　　Collaborative　　Communal　　Cooperative　　Common　　Corporation　　Compilation　　Collation　　Caboodle　　Convocation　　Cumulation　　Constellation　　Clan　　Consort　　Crop　　Coalition　　Classification　　Conspiracy　　Cabal　　Coven　　Corps

Division

Establishment　　Enterprise

Faction　　Function　　Formation　　Foundation　　Fellows　　Fellowship　　Family　　Force

Group　　Gathering　　Grade　　Gaggle　　Grouping　　Gild　　Guild　　Genus　　Generation

Herd　　Horde　　Hoard　　Heap　　Huddle　　Hodgepodge

Institute　　Institution

Lot　　League　　Legion　　Layout　　Lads

Mass　　Medley　　Mess　　Miscellany　　Mobilization　　Muster　　Mess　　Melt　　Mutual　　Mob

Number　　Network

Operation　　Outfit　　Order

Platoon　　Party　　Parcel　　Posse　　Phalanx　　Pack　　Personnel　　Pile

Round　　Ring

School　　Squad　　Squadron　　Set　　Species　　Syndicate　　Staff　　Stack　　Stock　　Suite

Team　　Troop　　Trust

Union

Variety

[drdemonprince]

what do you think is the answer to dealing with the stereotypical “roommate won’t do dishes bc of trauma/sensory issues”? like sure that’s possible it’s difficult & people should be aware of their needs, but when it begins affecting other people, i feel like someone has to consider other solutions—i.e. using paper plates instead of ones they have to wash. it’s also complicated when racial & gender dynamics come in to play. and then when i think on myself as an autistic white trans guy how can i both recognize where i need support but balance it with not recreating bad dynamics? I’m just not sure how we have these conversations while still validating folks experiences & dismissing their problems. we all deserve help but we also can so easily overly rely on others & burn them out especially if we have privilege over them. disability, especially invisible disabilities often become a shield for white folks & men it feels like to get away with shitty behaviors

I honestly think that a big problem people encounter in navigating such issues is that they make what is ultimately going to have to be a personal negotiation of limits and needs into something that is far more symbolic and abstract. it's almost impossible not to, if you care about social justice issues, and I think there are good intentions when people try to be mindful of how race and gender alongside interplay with this stuff, but in practice a lot of times people use their political ideals as a reason to argue against their own feelings or to not be honest about their feelings. people feel like they don't have the right to say that they cannot do something or need support, or that they're pissed off, in an individual level relationship, because they are treating both themselves and their roommate or partner as a symbol of an entire group. I think a person has to be able to tell their roommate when they are being an asshole. I think a person should just be straight up if doing the dishes is something that's not generally going to happen for them -- in unmasking autism I profile Reese Piper, an autistic sex worker who just straight up tells her prospective roommates that doing the dishes is not something she can do, so then they know what they are getting into and can work around it. honest conversations about what a person is and is not capable of and what they need really can vanquish a lot of so-called weaponized incompetence and other domestic issues long before they occur. but all parties involved have to be operating based on good faith. unfortunately not everyone is, sometimes people use their identities or their roommates guilt around structural oppression in order to pressure them to do things that they cannot do, and conversely it is very common for a white or TME roommate to weaponize anti blackness or transmisogyny against a roommate who speaks up about any inequity and portray them as the aggressive one. but I think before somebody gets way way too much in their own head about how a particular conflict looks or what structural issues might be relevant in the aggregate, they really have to start from a baseline level of self-acceptance and the ability to articulate both which household tasks are hard or impossible for them, and when they are fucking cheesed at their roommate for not doing what seems like their fair share. if you feel like you can't name those things, you're never going to actually have a respectful functioning relationship.

[hellsite-proteins]

Article Review

Okay, I know this isn't what I usually do on here, but I found this amazing article that fits with the theme of this blog so well, and I just had to share and talk about it! it's free to read here:

if you don't want to read the whole thing, i did my best to summarize it here. if you notice any mistakes, please let me know and i'll fix them!

researchers created random protein sequences to study. these were 100 residues long (or 109 with the inclusion of an N-terminal Met and a C-terminal 6His tag) and were made by either sampling different fragments of natural proteins from databases or by combining letters at random. this is not the same as using words, since in this study each letter was chosen independently, and the likelihood of choosing a letter matched the amino acid's relative frequency, but its still a neat comparison to this blog. they elaborate on this more in the methods section for anyone interested!

proteins in their generated library were analyzed using various algorithms to predict the occurrence of alpha helices and beta sheets. they were then sorted by relative disorder and secondary structure content. interestingly, the amount of secondary structure formation was not much lower for random proteins compared to those taken from pieces of databases. the three groups going forward were ordered, disordered, and a random sample.

next, they recombinantly expressed the selected proteins in E. coli and purified them for further analysis. I won't get into the specific assays, but overall they found that the more ordered proteins were more prone to aggregation and oligomerization, while the disordered protein were more likely to be expressed and soluble! following sequence analysis, they also determined that the disordered proteins did tend to deviate from the expected amino acid frequencies, which likely explains their increased level of disorder. because of all this, the less ordered random proteins are likely better suited for future evolution towards some function.

tldr: random proteins can form secondary structures and be expressed in vivo. interestingly, while the more structured newly created proteins were shown to clump together (which is Not Good!) in cells, disordered proteins did not and were actually well tolerated.

given all of that, i think i may have been a bit harsh towards some of the uglier looking structures on here. apparently, we can either have things that look like proteins but cause problems, or we can have ugly messes that are pretty chill for the most part. it still feels incredibly unintuitive to have more trust in the low confidence unstructured sequences, but this new information is still good and interesting to have!

[smilesession]

I’ve been using rateyourmusic for a decade, as a person who experiences the behavioral and cognitive framework generally understood as OCD, autism, and schizotypal and so easily immersed into the ordering and categorization system it offers. i got a lot of pleasure from the system it offers to a nearly addictive level, spending high school ignoring my classes to scroll around on RYM if I had access to a computer, sometimes skipping college classes to click around on RYM, could dump hours upon hours into making custom charts and compiling lists. I’ve lost days of my life mechanically copying RYM charts into offsite playlists or even writing them down, because the system of order and category provided such a strong incentive for my attention. but on the other end of a decade of that I’ve watched my personality and cognition more intensely mirror the format of the site, even if at first it felt like the other way around: that the site was mirroring my desires. at this point I think it’s the source of them and something sort of corruptive and corrosive. people aren’t meant to understand their leisure time through intense categorization and hierarchy. we shouldn’t be trying to find the niches microlabels possible to give everything its precise Order and then pretend that the neologism we’ve assigned to pieces of music (that much of the user base might have not even been alive at the time of their release, in many cases with these new genres) is somehow its Essence. the order isn’t its essence. I don’t think you’re conveying any meaningful, historical aesthetic information by randomly grouping a bunch of records as “Pigfuck” like we’re an aggregate volunteer force of Christgaus, let alone Hauntology per Fisher’s analysis per Derrida re: Burial. i don’t know how to put it but it feels like something important is getting lost in translation through the form and function of RYM. i don’t think I was supposed to develop as a consumer of music with the appetite prescribed by RYM instead of a participant. and if you’re not going to be a participant you should at least be bringing something new to the table as a writer / curator instead of being even lower on the food chain than the writers, being the person who turns what the old guard of critics said into an ordered product category. it all feels like the wrong way to be engaging with art

[darkmaga-returns]

By Frank Bergman April 19, 2025

An alarming study involving over 2 million participants has confirmed that Covid mRNA “vaccines” cause devastating long-term harm by sabotaging people’s immune systems.

The major study found that mRNA injections attack thyroid function, making recipients vulnerable to deadly diseases such as cancer.

The group of leading researchers behind the study is sounding the alarm with an urgent warning about the long-term effects of Covid mRNA injections on thyroid health.

The study was led by renowned neurology and radiology experts Drs. Kai-Lun Cheng and Hsiang-Lin Lee, both with Chung Shan Medical University in Taichung, Taiwan.

The groundbreaking study was published by Oxford University Press in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

During the study, which included over 2.3 million patients, the researchers used the TriNetX federated data platform, which aggregates real-world electronic medical records.

The researchers analyzed a staggering 2,333,496 patients through a retrospective cohort study spanning two years.

[o-craven-canto]

The processes that can turn an aggregate of cells into a complex organism. ADH: cell adhesion. APO: apoptosis, or selective cell death. ASM: asymmetrical morphogenesis. DAD: differential cell adhesion, sorting cells by type. ECM: secretion of extracellular material. LAT: lateral inhibition, a switch that can turn a cell into two different states. MIT: mitogenesis, or localized cell division. MOR: diffusion of a morphogenic signal. OSC: timed osclllation between different states. POL: polarization, or differential properties at different ends of a cell. TUR: Turing reaction-diffusion pattern. (pic: Newman & Bhat)

It's all well and good to say that DNA contains the instructions to produce an organism, but all DNA can do is induce the secretion of chemicals. There are no printed instructions or little foremen supervising the growth of an embryo. So how does secreting chemicals in a clump of identical cells end up producing something as complex as an animal?

Here's some tricks.

Differential adhesion. The cells of all animals have surface proteins called cadherins that bind each other into solid tissues. If all cells were uniformly covered in cadherins, they would form homogeneous spherical lumps; but if some cells are covered more or less sparsely than the others, then they will spontaneously sort by cadherin density, forming clumps and layers much like the spontaneous sorting of water and oil. If some surfaces are not adhesive at all, those will find themselves surrounding cavities. (pic: Gilbert & Barresi)

Lateral inhibition. The Notch protein forms a trans-membrane complex; when the external portion receives a signal from the environment, the internal portion breaks off and enters the cell nucleus to activate the expression of otherwise repressed genes. Thus, the Notch system works as a switch between two different states of a cell depending on whether or not it receives a particular signal. This is called "lateral inhibition" because it makes neighbor cells, such as neurons and glia in the brain, develop into complementary forms repressing each other's unnecessary genes. (pic: Audrey Effenberger, Wiki)

Cell polarization. "Wnt" is the name of a family of secreted signal proteins that have a multitude of functions. Among this is establishing cell polarity: through a cascade of signals, it can cause the cell's cytoskeleton -- its internal scaffolding -- to rearrange itself into an asymmetrical shape (... I think. This part of the process isn't fully clear to me), which leads to further differentiation. If the polarity involves different types or densities of adhesion proteins, then differential adhesion will sort polarized cells into distinct layers or hollow sacs and tubes -- hence, organs and body cavities. Cell polarization also leads to the establishment of the head-tail and back-belly body axes. (pic: Gilbert & Barresi)

Morphogenic gradients. When a cell or group of cells start secreting a diffusing chemical, this will naturally form a gradient with its concentration fading away with distance. This can direct differential development of cells over the organism body. Even if the chemical gradient is smooth, the morphological one doesn't need to be: cells can have different thresholds that will cause them to take one or another form. So there will be different discrete types of cells, each developing at a fixed range of distances from the source of the gradient. For example, in vertebrates, the protein Shh in the notochord induces the formation of motor neurons in the ventral side of the neural tube, which is closest. (pic: Gilbert & Barresi)

Asymmetrical morphogenesis. But then how do we end up with asymmetrical morphogenesis, for example our heart growing more on the left than on the right side? Morphogens don't have to spread only by themselves: in vertebrates, the morphogenic protein Nodal is systematically pushed to the left by beating cilia. Malformations in cilia can result into situs inversus, the development of organs in a position that mirrors the usual one. In addition (see "reaction-diffusion" below), Nodal induces the secretion of the protein Lefty2 which in turn inhibits Nodal and spreads faster, resulting into a side of the body where Nodal cannot accumulate. (pic: Green & Sharpe)

Chemical oscillation. If gene-activating factors inhibit their own synthesis, then they will come and go in regular waves, growing when they are few and decaying when they are many. This gives cells their own internal clock, which for example allows a cell to replicate at regular intervals. In multicellular organisms, the oscillation occurs in space as well as in time, as growth signals are released in waves. So they determine the formation of regular segments: for example, our vertebrae. (pic: Müller et al.)

Extracellular matrix secretion. While cells in epithelial tissues (like the outer layers of skin, or the lining of body cavities) stick closely to each other, those in connective tissues (like the inner pulp of skin, cartilage, or fat) are sunken in a matrix of various composition, but which usually contains elastic fibers of collagen. When a cell develops into a fibroblast, it starts secreting around itself the component of extracellular matrix with various mechanical properties, affecting the shape and structure of the body (especially when the cell is polarized). Even bone is simply a connective tissue whose matrix in rich in calcium phosphate mineral.

Turing patterns (reaction-diffusion). A chemical produced by a cell activates both itself and its own inhibitor. Activation is powerful but short-ranged; inhibition is weaker but spreads farther. Once a cell has produced the chemical past a critical threshold, its keeps reinforcing its own production, but also inhibits its neighbor from doing the same. At a greater distance, however, another cell or group of cells could also start the synthesis on their own. Depending on the range and power of activation and inhibition, this produces all sorts of patterns of activation: spots, stripes, waves, grids, rings. (pic: Green & Sharpe; Metz &al)

Apoptosis. Cells that receive a certain signal die, and their matter is recycled. If the signal of death is distributed according to Turing patterns, then living tissue can be cut and molded in very precise ways. For example, cells in the developing limb-bud of a vertebrate die in waves leaving behind parallel cylinders: the beginning of fingers.

Multiple mechanisms coming together to make vertebrate limbs: a morphogenic gradient distinguishes base and tip of a forming limb; reaction-diffusion creates a Turing pattern (diverging waves) that determines where finger bones will develop; and finally apoptosis cuts away the intermediate tissue. (pic: Green & Sharpe)

SOURCES

Gilbert & Barresi (2016), Developmental Biology Green & Sharpe (2015), Positional information and reaction-diffusion: two big ideas in developmental biology combine Newman & Bhat (2009), Dynamical patterning modules: a "pattern language" for development and evolution of multicellular form

[hum-tittle]

As a business management major with a minor in accounting here is how I think the squadmates would handle Excel. (And yes I do have spreadsheets for my posts)

S tier synthetics- EDI and Legion

being synthetics, they would both know how to use every feature and be extremely fast as well. But EDI would focus more on aesthetics than Legion

A tier knows how to make a macro (an action or a set of actions that can be recorded, named, saved and executed as many times as required and whenever desired)- Traynor, Liara, Tali, Mordin, and Miranda.

Though Mordin’s sheets are in a lot of shorthand and hard for most to understand.

B tier can make a pivot table/chart (A pivot table is a table of values which are aggregations of groups of individual values of a more extensive table within one or more discrete categories.)- Wrex and Jacob.

Now having so many kids, Wrex would need something to help keep track. I feel like the illusive man would force all of Cerberus to take Excel courses.

C tier can get the job done.- Jack, Garrus, Kasumi, Ashley, Kaiden.

They can do basic functions and stack filters but beyond that, is a nope. Jack had to learn to use it after becoming a teacher. Kasumi just doesn’t have a need for it, but if she did she would be higher.

D tier could if they needed to- Joker and Samara.

I think Joker would just get really annoyed with it and would only use it if he absolutely had to. With the Justicar code, there would be very few reasons she would ever need Excel, but she would be more than capable if she did. Thane being a Drell (they have perfect memory) he wouldn’t really need it for himself. Plus his line of work does not require it. But he would definitely make a spreadsheet well if asked to.

E tier will break something- Zaeed and Vega

Zaeed would shoot the computer after his third error code. James would really try but somehow make the whole system crash.

F tier No <3- Javik and Grunt

Javik would just refuse, but secretly it’s because he is worried he would be bad at using primitive tech. Grunt just gets too bored.

[talonabraxas]

“There are three chief groups of Builders and as many of the Planetary Spirits and the Lipika, each group being again divided into Seven sub-groups. It is impossible, even in such a large work as this, to enter into a minute examination of even the three principal groups, as it would demand an extra volume. . . . The Planetary Spirits are the informing spirits of the Stars in general, and of the Planets especially. They rule the destinies of men who are all born under one or other of their constellations; the second and third groups pertaining to other systems have the same functions, and all rule various departments in Nature.” (HPB, “The Secret Doctrine” Vol. 1, p. 127-128)

‘Planetary Gods’ by Talon Abraxas

Every celestial body in space, of whatever kind or type, e.g. our Earth, the Sun and Moon, is under the overseeing and directing influence of a hierarchy of spiritual and quasi-spiritual and astral beings, who in their aggregate are generalized under the name of celestial spirits.

These celestial spirits exist therefore in various stages or degrees of evolution; but the term planetary spirits is usually restricted to the highest class of these beings when referring to a planet.

In every case, and whatever the celestial body may be, such a hierarchy of ethereal beings, when the most advanced in evolution of them are considered, in long past cycles of kosmic evolution had evolved through a stage of development corresponding to the humanity of earth.

Everything in the Universe is evolving but promotion is limited to just one rung on the evolutionary ladder takes a complete Planetary Manvantara. This is seven Planetary Rounds and to us this means passing through 49 Globes and a total of 343 Root Races (Stages of Manifestation).

Every planetary spirit therefore, wherever existent, in those far past aeons of kosmic time was a man or a being equivalent to what we humans on earth call man.

The planetary spirits of earth, for instance, are intimately linked with the origin and destiny of our present humanity, for not only are they our predecessors along the evolutionary path, but certain classes of them are actually the spiritual guides and instructors of mankind.

We humans, in far distant aeons of the future, on a planetary chain which will be the child or grandchild of the present earth-chain, will be the planetary spirits of that future planetary chain. It is obvious that as H. P. Blavatsky says: “Our Earth, being as yet only in its Fourth Round, is far too young to have produced high Planetary Spirits”; but when the seventh round of this earth planetary chain shall have reached its end, our present humanity will then have become dhyanchohans of various grades, planetary spirits of one group or class, with necessary evolutionary differences as among themselves.

The planetary spirits watch over, guide, and lead the hosts of evolving entities inferior to themselves during the various rounds of a planetary chain. Finally, every celestial globe, whether sun or planet or other celestial body, has as the summit or acme of its spiritual hierarchy a supreme celestial spirit who is the hierarch of its own hierarchy.

It should not be forgotten that the humanity of today forms a component element or stage or degree in the hierarchy of this (our) planetary chain.

[chirrups]

I'm SOO hooked on your scarian squared AU

but besides the scrimblos themselves, I want to know more about the world logic - like how it functions, what grian/xisuma as a server admins might be capable of, how third!gri and secret!scar managed to wriggle their way to HC. how interactable is the games code....

I like when MC fanfic acknowledges game mechanics like inventories and the chat in various different ways. I need to know all your headcanons!!

Ok! Ok! [cracks knuckles] Let's get into it, my sick and twisted Minecraft lore.

THERE BE LORE AHEAD!!!

---

⭐ This little block universe exists in two parts:

A physical-plane (all the physical things you can touch and feel) and a code-plane, colloquially "the code" (the supportive structures that guide and direct the happenings on the physical-plane; in-universe it's often visualized as an network of threads spanning, connecting, and crossing infinitely).

Worlds are aggregations of physical and code-planes close together to form "reality", sort of like a zipper. Servers are the shared form of these worlds.

They are oriented in space in loosely grouped "thread-lines" with related worlds (being made by the same creator, for the same series, etc) organized from first to latest. This means that it's easier to travel vertically through worlds (within the same threads/series) than horizontally (between two different threads/series).

---

⭐ Players are a type of being that exist both in the physical-plane and code-plane of the universe. They are created when a being that exists solely on the physical plane "cracks" (basically the being dies and in their place something emerges in the code-plane).

Players are defined by their ability to alter the code-plane (i.e. coding); importantly condensing particles from the wider universe into worlds. This skill is mostly instinctive but can be developed further with research and practice.

How and what this looks like varies widely between players and is often flavored depending on favorite hobbies and motifs.

For example, to Xisuma, altering the code is analogous to actual computer coding. To Grian, it's similar to weaving or untangling a particularly confusing ball of yarn. To Scott, it's a set of harmonies between notes on an infinite song, and to Doc, it's a series of ever-blinking switches and dials. There's a lot of possibilities!

---

⭐ Players TECHNICALLY exist only on the code-plane as sort of a metaphysical blob of sentience. However, their innate coding ability allows them to exist in worlds on the physical-plane. They do this by splitting off pieces called "clippings" or "fragments" (term varies by region and upbringing and honestly how nice you wanna be about it), from their metaphysical self to act as vessels for physical experience.

These clippings can be modeled physically and mentally to fit a purpose either as 1-to-1 vessels to hang out with others or as characters for roleplay/storytelling purposes (that's right, I've made every smp canon all at the same time).

Through their clippings, players can look like whatever they want but generally, tend to make themselves look like what they did in their old pre-player lives as that is at least familiar.

In addition, players can choose how much "sentience" each clipping receives (used in-universe in reference to a player's awareness of what they are, alongside associated memories of their existence outside a set world). Usually roleplay-based servers remove or alter memories for immersion purposes which is consensual on the player's end (and not so much on the clipping's end just for some added drama there).

(Overall separation between player and clipping is really muddy, which leads to lots of complications.)

Using Grian as an example, his Hermitcraft clipping is an almost 1-to-1 of his player self and is fully self-aware of his existence as a clipping (though fully accepting is a whole another thing). His Life Series clipping(s), however, are meant for roleplay and have been altered (clumsily) to be completely unaware of any of the more metaphysical parts of their existence. There is always a degree of separation present between the player and their clippings (and clippings are nebulously their own people), but how much really does vary by situation.

---

⭐ As far as server admins go, they aren't really that more powerful or capable than the average player. Admin is just the title for players who maintain server spaces for others. This can go as little as just being the guy that tidies up the world's loose bits every once in a while to basically being the "lifeguard" in the world's most immersive LARP session.

Typically, players will enter contracts with admins (this is especially true on roleplay servers), giving away some code agency in exchange for the admin's care. This can be as light as giving admins permission to teleport players during emergencies to full control on memories, pain limits, available foods, etc.

Any player can become an admin, the only barrier for entry is wanting to learn how to do it. That being said, keeping a server safety, operational, and fun does require a good grasp of coding (which can either be learned through study or intrinsic skill).

---

⭐ About Third and Secret's survival: I can't say much since that is highly plot relevant to the fic I want to write someday.

But as a teaser: Grian is a very instinctive coder and learned to do it without a lot of technical instructions, something he failed to account for in his own clipping.

---

⭐ Some misc. lore tidbits that I can't really fit but I think you'd enjoy!

⭐ In the process of "cracking", newborn players consume the worlds they were born in for their universe particles as part of their development. Players then create new worlds to play and interact on, which, when abandoned, become cradles for the next generation of players to be born in. This serves a dual purpose of killing off the physical connection to the player's old life and as a way to keep the universe's components cycling through states of stagnation (worlds) and free flow (universe particles). ⭐ Clippings often don't look exactly like each other. Every version of a player is always a little different because, to them, physical composition is very much something you can just change on a whim. Of course, this does account for lots of cases of unsettling doppelgangers. ⭐ A common rite of passage for young players is the creation of your first physical-plane "skin". It involves a lot of deliberation on who and what you want to be. There are many player-developed resources dedicated specifically to customizing yourself. Hybrid forms are extremely popular. ⭐ Avian-form bodies are considered a complex form to pull off, requiring some sort of innate talent or study into anatomical AND spatial "tuning" on the physical plane (as powered flight is a hard thing to balance correctly). Flying for most players is often short-cut by using the wind-magic found in elytra cores to stabilize movement in air. So making yourself a bird is seen as a hard but rewarding way to earn flight (and it's def not for everyone). ⭐ Modding and data packs are commodities; often, they are pre-packaged code-plane alterations or guidelines that let other players experience this cool thing you've just made. Some servers specialize in producing these, along with other specialty goods like furniture, ingredients, games. ⭐ Speaking of food, there are different types! Craft-food is built purely from the code-plane. It is easy to make from a template, accessible, nutritionally balanced, but not that tasty. Cooked-food is made from the physical-plane, which is more tasty and overall better for mental health, but that, like irl cooking, takes skill. Complex dishes are difficult to replicate from code-plane only, but not impossible (Xisuma has tried, Impulse has succeeded). ⭐ All players claim to have heard a "song" during their birth into playerhood, which guided them instinctively on what to do next. It starts off as a tune, then clarifies over time, as the player grows, into words. It's referred to in-universe as "the cradle song" and is often used as a measure of how far along a player has grown (since the age that a being initially "cracks" is not a set variable). We know it as the end poem :)

[evidence-based-activism]

I constantly see posts about women being afraid to walk alone at night and men’s rights activists jumping in to talk about how it’s more dangerous for men and that strangers don’t pose a significant risk to women. Is that true?

Hi!

So, the answer to this is somewhat complicated. The short version is: women and men have similar overall victimization rates, but men are more likely to be victimized by strangers. This is a result of differences in exposure to possible stranger victimization, such that women actively reduce their exposure to stranger perpetrated crime more than men.

---

Stranger Victimization Statistics

The Bureau of Justice Statistics has an NCVS Dashboard [1] which facilitates questions like these. Using this dashboard, I found:

Aggregating across sex, strangers committed ~45% of all violent victimizations compared to ~45% of violent victimizations committed by known individuals and ~9% unknown.

Strangers were the offender in over a third of all violent victimizations for women.

The overall rate of violent victimizations is the same across sex.

The rate of violent victimizations by strangers is (~1.5 times) greater for men than women.

But the rate of rapes by strangers is (3 times) greater for women than for men.

It's fairly well established that women are more likely to be victimized by an intimate partner/family member than men, and since women and men have similar rates of victimization that difference had to be offset somewhere.

However, this difference in stranger victimization rates is rapidly closing [2]. The rate (number/1000 people) of stranger victimization in 1993 was 57 for men and 20 for women. By 2010, this had closed to 10 for men and 5 for women.

Further, when women talk about "being afraid to walk alone at night", I believe they are generally referencing their fear of being raped. This is notable, because because rate of stranger rapes is much greater for women than men.

---

Victimization Rates as a Function of Exposure

However, the above statistics give a fairly simplistic approach to the issue, in that they assume equal exposure to and effect of crime victimization.

To highlight this: there is a theory in criminology called the routine activities theory which aims to explain differential rates in criminal offending. Put simply a crime occurs when there is an intersection of a "likely offender", a "suitable target", and a lack of a "capable guardian". Thus crime rates depend not only on the offender but also on the exposure rate of potential victims.

And while the routine activities theory is primarily aimed at explaining offending, some researchers have applied the concept to victimization rates as well. In this application, victimization rates are a function of the a group's/individual's exposure rate (i.e., how often they are exposed to potential offenders and environments conducive to offending).

You need only apply common sense to see how women -- who spend less time alone outside the home and who often modify their behaviors to avoid potentially dangerous individuals [9, 10] -- would be exposed to less potential stranger victimizations and therefore have a lower rate of stranger victimizations.

Importantly however, we don't have to rely on common sense, as there has been research on this topic!

One paper [3] creates a mathematical model for the concept I described above, concluding that "fear of crime correlates better with victimization rates when adjusted for exposure" and "an inverse relationship between fear of crime and the usual measured victimization rate ... is caused by rational behavioral responses to crime." That is to say, when people have a greater potential risk for victimization, they take measures to reduce their actual victimization rates.

This article [4] further supports this model, finding that "routine activities are significant predictors of females’ risks".

Another article [5], confirms that "fear of crime is more strongly positively related to [exposure] adjusted than conventional victimization rates" and "some groups with relatively low conventional rates can have high victimization rates when adjusted for exposure to risk". They also indicate that "women’s fear may reflect not just the perceived risks of such a crime; it also may reflect the fact that personal victimization can have more serious consequences for women".

Another article [6] indicates that much of the variance in women's fear of crime can be "largely attributed to women having had negative experiences with strangers". The author also suggests "that knowing someone allows for a false sense of security in that one may feel that they can predict more accurately, and thereby possibly control, the behavior of someone if they have met in the past" to explain why women don't tend to report fear of those closest to them.

And this article [7] specifically acknowledges that "for females, the threat of victimization appears to be affected by rational choices to both avoid places that they are likely to be victimized and engage in defensive behaviors to protect themselves from victimization."

Beyond all that, a simple explanation for the difference in stranger victimization between men and women lies in the significant victim-offender overlap [8]. That is, a substantial portion of people who are victims of a crime are also offenders. This ties into the routine activities theory; people who are engaging in risky (criminal) behaviors are more likely to be victimized themself. This is important because, as we've previously established, men are much more likely to be perpetrators of crime, therefore it makes sense that they'd also be more likely to be victims.

I should note here, however, that despite their disproportionate representation among offenders, men are only more likely to be victimized by strangers. Women are more likely to be victimized by intimate partners and other family members, and women and men are equally likely to be victimized by acquaintances. [1]

All of this suggests that men are able to significantly reduce their victimization risk and avoid a substantial portion of victimizations simply by not engaging in criminal behavior. I recognize there are some situations in which it is not possible -- or at least very difficult -- to avoid all criminal behavior. However, I am highlighting this fact because this doesn't appear to be even a possible option for women.

---

Victim Blame

So, in other words, men have a higher rate of stranger victimization (but not overall victimization) most likely as a result of their higher engagement in risky behaviors (e.g., crime) and reduced engagement in safety behavior (e.g., avoiding walking alone at night) as compared to women.

Notably, this all suggests that if you held exposure rate constant, women are at greater risk for stranger victimization in any particular situation. However, fearing this victimization, partly due to more severe effects of victimization, women take greater precautions to reduce their exposure. This leads to a reduced rate of actual victimization, which leads people (MRAs) to call us "paranoid" and suggest it's really only men who are at risk.

But our lesser rate of stranger victimization is only because we are taking these precautions. Also importantly, not taking these precautions leads people to blame women for their victimization. This article [11] found that "less respectable" victims were blamed significantly more for their assault. This review [12] concludes the same with reference to women who "deviate slightly from ... the traditional female role" or who consume alcohol prior to their victimization.

In short, women are criticized for their "paranoia" if they take precautions to avoid victimization and for their "negligence" if they do not.

References below the cut:

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Generated using the NCVS Dashboard (N-DASH) at www.bjs.ojp.gov.

Erika Harrell. Violent Victimization Committed by Strangers, 1993-2010. Bureau of Justice Statistics , Dec. 2012, https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/violent-victimization-committed-strangers-1993-2010.

Balkin, Steven. “Victimization Rates, Safety and Fear of Crime.” Social Problems, vol. 26, no. 3, Feb. 1979, pp. 343–58. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.2307/800458.

Like-Haislip, Toya Z., and Karin Tusinski Miofsky. “Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Violent Victimization.” Race and Justice, vol. 1, no. 3, July 2011, pp. 254–76. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368711409059.

Stafford, Mark C., and Omer R. Galle. “Victimization Rates, Exposure to Risk, and Fear of Crime.” Criminology, vol. 22, no. 2, May 1984, pp. 173–85. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1984.tb00295.x.

Scott, H.S. (2003). Stranger Danger: Explaining Women's Fear of Crime.

May, David C., et al. “A Gendered Assessment of the ‘“Threat of Victimization”’: Examining Gender Differences in Fear of Crime, Perceived Risk, Avoidance, and Defensive Behaviors.” Criminal Justice Review, vol. 35, no. 2, June 2010, pp. 159–82. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016809349166.

Jennings, W. G., et al., On the overlap between victimization and offending: A review of the literature, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2011), doi:10.1016/j.avb.2011.09.003

Logan, Tk, and Robert Walker. “The Gender Safety Gap: Examining the Impact of Victimization History, Perceived Risk, and Personal Control.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 36, no. 1–2, Jan. 2021, pp. 603–31. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517729405.

Jacobsen, Shannon K. “Gendered Responses to Fear of Victimization? A Comparative Study of Students’ Precautionary and Avoidance Strategies in Suburban and Urban Contexts.” Violence Against Women, Jan. 2024, p. 10778012241228284. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012241228284.

McCaul, Kevin D., et al. “Understanding Attributions of Victim Blame for Rape: Sex, Violence, and Foreseeability 1.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 20, no. 1, Jan. 1990, pp. 1–26. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00375.x.

Grubb, Amy, and Emily Turner. “Attribution of Blame in Rape Cases: A Review of the Impact of Rape Myth Acceptance, Gender Role Conformity and Substance Use on Victim Blaming.” Aggression and Violent Behavior, vol. 17, no. 5, Sept. 2012, pp. 443–52. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.002.

[science-lover33]

Exploring the Marvels of Biological Macromolecules: The Molecular Machinery of Life (Part 3)

Proteins and Enzymes: Catalysts of Molecular Reactions

Proteins are the central players in macromolecular interactions. Enzymes, a specialized class of proteins, catalyze biochemical reactions with remarkable specificity. They bind to substrates, facilitate reactions, and release products, ensuring that cellular processes occur with precision.

Protein-Protein Interactions: Orchestrating Cellular Functions

Proteins often interact with other proteins to form dynamic complexes. These interactions are pivotal in processes such as signal transduction, where cascades of protein-protein interactions transmit signals within cells, regulating diverse functions such as growth, metabolism, and immune responses.

Protein-Ligand Interactions: Molecular Recognition

Proteins can also interact with small molecules called ligands. Receptor proteins, for instance, bind to ligands such as hormones, neurotransmitters, or drugs, initiating cellular responses. These interactions rely on specific binding sites and molecular recognition.

Protein-DNA Interactions: Controlling Genetic Information

Transcription factors, a class of proteins, interact with DNA to regulate gene expression. They bind to specific DNA sequences, promoting or inhibiting transcription, thereby controlling RNA and protein synthesis.

Membrane Proteins: Regulating Cellular Transport

Integral membrane proteins participate in macromolecular interactions by regulating the transport of ions and molecules across cell membranes. Transport proteins, ion channels, and pumps interact precisely to maintain cellular homeostasis.

Cooperativity and Allosteric Regulation: Fine-Tuning Cellular Processes

Cooperativity and allosteric regulation are mechanisms that modulate protein function. In cooperativity, binding one ligand to a protein influences the binding of subsequent ligands, often amplifying the response. Allosteric regulation occurs when a molecule binds to a site other than the active site, altering the protein's conformation and activity.

Interactions in Signaling Pathways: Cellular Communication

Signal transduction pathways rely on cascades of macromolecular interactions to transmit extracellular signals into cellular responses. Kinases and phosphatases, enzymes that add or remove phosphate groups, play pivotal roles in these pathways.

Protein Folding and Misfolding: Disease Implications

Proteins must fold into specific three-dimensional shapes to function correctly. Misfolded proteins can lead to Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and prion diseases. Chaperone proteins assist in proper protein folding and prevent aggregation.

References

Voet, D., Voet, J. G., & Pratt, C. W. (2016). Fundamentals of Biochemistry: Life at the Molecular Level. Wiley.

Lehninger, A. L., Nelson, D. L., & Cox, M. M. (2017). Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry. W. H. Freeman.

Berg, J. M., Tymoczko, J. L., & Stryer, L. (2002). Biochemistry. W. H. Freeman

[transmutationisms]

I'm curious if you've come across any examples of what you would consider effective communication or collective organizing around Covid? I know of a few groups who I think are doing good work to get people access to masks and rapid tests, making connections to broader issues such as lack of sick leave, barriers to healthcare etc, but they're also relying on things like questionable wastewater data extrapolation to make their points. I don't really know what to do about the latter issue, since we've just had access to all data taken away from us by the government. (I know it's not an effective tool for collective action, but tbh I also struggle with the idea that all alarmism is bad, because I am high risk and I am scared!)

well 1st of all to be clear, i think wastewater data are valuable and i do look at them. what i don't do is make wildly overconfident guesses from those data about exactly how many people are infected, how many sick people are standing in any given room, how many people will eventually qualify for a long covid dx, etc. i think wastewater data are a rough proxy but still an important one, and generally more useful at the local level (where they can be cross-referenced with factors like vaccine uptake, circulating variants, and municipal public health policy) than at national or regional levels (where the necessary amount of aggregation makes it difficult to tease out much useful information about any one town or city).

2nd, i don't know what country you live in but i do look in on CDC's covid dashboard, which includes data on hospitalisations, emergency department visits, deaths, vaccine uptake, test positivity rates, &c. if this is applicable to you i strongly encourage always reading the footnotes as these statistics vary in accuracy (in particular, test positivity rate is very unreliable at this point). i consider a lot of these numbers useful primarily as indicators of comparative risk: eg, i assume hospitalisation numbers have been inaccurate lowballs for the entirety of the pandemic; however, it is still useful imo to see whether that number is trending in a particular direction, and how it compares over time. again, local results are sometimes more helpful as well. i also glance in on the census bureau's household pulse survey results, which come out numerous times throughout the year and include questions about duration of covid symptoms, ability to function, and vaccine uptake. these numbers skew in the opposite direction to many of CDC's, because the phrasing of the covid questions is intended to be broad, and does not attempt to distinguish between the sort of long covid that entails a 6 or 12 month recovery period, vs the sort of long covid that turns out to be me/cfs or other chronic long-term post-viral complications. again, i still think these numbers are useful for viewing trends over time; no data will ever be completely 100% without flaw, and i'm not holding out for that. what does frustrate me, though, is people (with any and all ideological axes to grind!) interpreting any of these numbers as though they are in fact perfect flawless representations of reality, with no further caveats or critical analysis needed. that's what i'm pushing back on, whether it comes from the "pulse survey says long covid prevalence is decreasing, so fuck it!" crowd or the "biobot says last week was a micro-surge so we're all going to die!" crowd.

as far as local orgs or groups doing actual action, like distributing masks or vaccine clinics, i don't put so much stock in what they say on instagram or whatever because frankly i think it matters very little. the masks and vaccines and air filters and so forth are useful in themselves; that work is valuable. if someone's positioning themselves primarily as a communicator then yes, i'm going to scrutinise their communication methods more. if it's an action org i'm honestly less concerned, unless there is egregiously unreliable information being propagated or they're communicating in the sort of stigmatising manner that many peak Posters have adopted (people who got sick are stupid / immoral / deserve it, etc).

i'd also just like to make it clear that like... i live with someone who is at high risk, i accordingly treat my own covid precautions as though i am also at high risk, and i wouldn't want covid regardless... like, please understand that when i talk about this i'm not coming at it from a perspective of someone who's unaware of the need for caution! my concern is, again, that caution and risk discussion are not synonymous with "making frightened guesses and asserting them with 100% confidence" or "selectively attributing truth to data because they agree with me, regardless of the actual methodology and any problems therein". i understand that when people are behaving recklessly and being encouraged to do so by state and medical authorities, it is tempting to look at that situation and think that communicating the seriousness of the virus is worth risking a little bit of inaccuracy if it protects people. however, i do not think that strategy actually pays off in the long or short term as far as changing people's behaviour (if it did, wouldn't it have by now?) and i think it is playing with fire to encourage this manner of interpreting and disseminating scientific information as though it is a kind of ideological buffet requiring no further verification or investigation beyond a cherry-picked deference to the stated objectivity and ideals of The Scientific Method.

[thisisthinprivilege]

Fat hatred is a morality play.

The hatred of fat people isn't about aggregate social health outcomes. It never was. The hatred of fat people is an exercise of the oldest most animalistic impulse of man---the morality play.

Morality plays are ways we pattern situations and society in order to instruct people about some set of social rules (morals) and the rewards and punishments for not adhering to the social rules. The most important function of morality plays, however, is to instruct people on why the shame, disrespect, and social lashback they receive for not adhering to the set of rules is justified. That shame is for our own good, lest we receive some worse physical or cosmic punishment.

Concern for fat people's health, or for the health of society given some statistical indicator about its fatness, is absolutely a morality play. "Look what happens to the fat people who do not slim down!" "Look at what happens to societies who allow their people to get too fat!" The idea is to justify the rules: one mustn't be "too fat," whatever that's currently defined as, or else one is punished with bad health. Therefore, fat people must be shamed, so they adhere to the rules.

I do believe that the worst haters of fat people believe that they are justified in their hatred and shaming of fat people because they subconsciously are acting out their part of the morality play. Being the shame-giver in a morality play is incredibly satisfying to most people, because it makes them feel morally superior and higher-status.

Note that I believe there are strong feedback effects from the shame-givers to the people coming up with reasons to moralize body size in the first place. The two industries feed off each other. If fat people weren't as much of an accepted social target, I believe a great deal of the academic hyperfocus on fat people as a medicalized group would also fizzle. Why fat people and not tall people*, after all?

-ArteToLife

*Very tall people have a number of conditions correlated with being very tall, some which are similar to being very fat. Google Scholar is your friend, if you're curious about the literature.

[darkmaga-returns]

A major new study has confirmed that Covid mRNA shots cause “vaccine-induced AIDS” to develop in those who receive the injections.

The study, involving 2.3 million patients, found that mRNA injections trigger a condition known as Vaccine-Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (VAIDS).

The researchers found that VAIDS, or “vaccine-induced AIDS,” is caused by Covid mRNA shots destroying the human immune system by attacking the thyroid function.

The group of leading researchers behind the study is sounding the alarm with an urgent warning about the long-term effects of Covid mRNA injections on thyroid health.

The bombshell study has sent shockwaves through the medical and scientific communities after researchers concluded that Covid mRNA shots have caused a global surge in cases of VAIDS.

The findings have debunked claims from the corporate media and so-called “fact-checkers” that previously dismissed reports of VAIDS as “conspiracy theories.”

The study was led by renowned neurology and radiology experts Drs. Kai-Lun Cheng and Hsiang-Lin Lee, both with Chung Shan Medical University in Taichung, Taiwan.

The groundbreaking study was published by Oxford University Press in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

During the study, the researchers used the TriNetX federated data platform, which aggregates real-world electronic medical records.

[spacetimewithstuartgary]

Unique bacteria that survive by employing multicellular behavior offer clues to life's evolution

In a recent study, researchers gained new insight into the lives of bacteria that survive by grouping together as if they were a multicellular organism. The organisms in the study are the only bacteria known to do this in this way, and studying them could help astrobiologists explain important steps in the evolution of life on Earth.

The work is published in the journal PLOS Biology.

The organisms in the study are known as multicellular magnetotactic bacteria (MMB). Being magnetotactic means that MMB are part of a select group of bacteria that orient their movement based on Earth's magnetic field using tiny "compass needles" in their cells. As if that weren't special enough, MMB also live bunched up in collections of cells that are considered by some scientists to exhibit "obligate" multicellularity, the trait on which the new study is focused.

In biology, obligate means that an organism requires something for survival. In this case, it means that single cells of MMB cannot survive on their own. Instead, cells live as a consortium of multiple cells that behave in many ways like a single multicellular organism. This requirement to live together means that when MMB reproduce, they do so by replicating all the cells in the consortium at once, doubling the total number of cells. This large group of cells then splits into two identical consortia.

MMB are the only example of bacteria that are known to live like this. Many other bacteria clump together as simple aggregates of single cells. For instance, cyanobacteria clump together in colonies and form structures like stromatolites or biofilms that are visible to the naked eye. However, unlike MMB, these cyanobacteria can also survive as single, individual cells.

In the new study, scientists have revealed even more complexity in the relationships between MMB cells. First, contrary to long-held assumptions, individual cells within MMB consortia are not genetically identical, they differ slightly in their genetic blueprint. Further, cells within a consortium exhibit different and complementary behavior in terms of their metabolism.

Each cell in an MMB consortium has a role that contributes to the survival of the entire group. This behavior is similar to how individual cells within multicellular organisms behave. For example, human bodies are made up of tens of trillions of cells. These cells differentiate into specific cell types with different functions. Bone cells are not the same as blood cells. Fat cells that store energy are different from the nerve cells that store and transmit information. Each cell has a role to play, and together they make up a single living body.

The evolution of multicellularity is one of the major transitions in the history life on our planet and had profound effects on Earth's biosphere. In the wake of its appearance, life developed novel strategies for survival that led to entirely new ecosystems. As the only example of bacteria that exhibit obligate multicellularity, MMB provide an important example of possible mechanisms behind this profound step in life's evolutionary history on Earth.

TOP IMAGE: An electron microscopy images of multicellular magnetotactic bacteria that featured on the covers of the 2022 edition of The ISME Journal. The image was produced by Schaible and co-workers under the group's NASA awards. Credit: Roland Hatzenpichler / Montana State University

CENTRE IMAGE: Electron microscopy image and cartoon of a MMB consortium, highlighting its characteristics features that includes a hollow space at the center of the cell consortium. Credit: PLOS Biology (2024). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002638

LOWER IMAGE: The proposed life cycle of multicellular magnetotactic bacteria (MMB). Credit: George Schaible