@VolokhC Garrett, I'd be happy to send you all sorts of scientific citations from my forthcoming chapter on the issue, but I'm not convinced you would understand them, or if you did, whether you'd be willing to understand them.
Janet K. Shim, et al., Race and Ancestry in the Age of Inclusion: Technique and Meaning in Post-Genomic Science, 55 J. Health Soc. Behav. 504 (2014).
More from Science
I think we have to expand our thinking about the toroidal sphere even more. When looking at maps, I noticed the da Vinci map, from 1514, which uses the Reuleaux Triangle. This triangle is formed from 3 intersecting circles, and is in the center of a trefoil.
The trefoil is the focal point in many gothic structures, repeatedly and prominently shown. It is represented in many ways. ‘Going down the rabbit hole’ now makes sense, if you understand the center point of the ears is the center of the torus, with the rabbit trefoil.
The trefoil can be found within the toroidal field. Here is a fun site, where you can manipulate it yourself. https://t.co/FCMcybuuFC
The wiki page makes it seem like there isn’t much of importance with the Reuleaux Triangle, besides being used for coinage, or some stupid bike. But the Wankel engine is an interesting engine, using this geometric design https://t.co/ayPOgkAqGN
https://t.co/m9EaWwF796
The trefoil is the focal point in many gothic structures, repeatedly and prominently shown. It is represented in many ways. ‘Going down the rabbit hole’ now makes sense, if you understand the center point of the ears is the center of the torus, with the rabbit trefoil.
The trefoil can be found within the toroidal field. Here is a fun site, where you can manipulate it yourself. https://t.co/FCMcybuuFC
The wiki page makes it seem like there isn’t much of importance with the Reuleaux Triangle, besides being used for coinage, or some stupid bike. But the Wankel engine is an interesting engine, using this geometric design https://t.co/ayPOgkAqGN
https://t.co/m9EaWwF796
Recently I learned something about DNA that blew my mind, and in this thread, I'll attempt to blow your mind as well. Behold: Chargaff's 2nd Parity Rule for DNA N-Grams.
If you are into cryptography or reverse engineering, you should love this.
Thread:
DNA consists of four different 'bases', A, C, G and T. These bases have specific meaning within our biology. Specifically, within the 'coding part' of a gene, a triplet of bases encodes for an amino acid
Most DNA is stored redundantly, in two connected strands. Wherever there is an A on one strand, you'll find a T on the other one. And similarly for C and G:
T G T C A G T
A C A G T C A
(note how the other strand is upside down - this matters!)
If you take all the DNA of an organism (both strands), you will find equal numbers of A's and T's, as well as equal numbers of C's and G's. This is true by definition.
This is called Chargaff's 1st parity rule.
https://t.co/jD4cMt0PJ0
Strangely enough, this rule also holds per strand! So even if you take away the redundancy, there are 99% equal numbers of A/T and C/G * on each strand *. And we don't really know why.
This is called Chargaff's 2nd parity rule.
If you are into cryptography or reverse engineering, you should love this.
Thread:
DNA consists of four different 'bases', A, C, G and T. These bases have specific meaning within our biology. Specifically, within the 'coding part' of a gene, a triplet of bases encodes for an amino acid
Most DNA is stored redundantly, in two connected strands. Wherever there is an A on one strand, you'll find a T on the other one. And similarly for C and G:
T G T C A G T
A C A G T C A
(note how the other strand is upside down - this matters!)
If you take all the DNA of an organism (both strands), you will find equal numbers of A's and T's, as well as equal numbers of C's and G's. This is true by definition.
This is called Chargaff's 1st parity rule.
https://t.co/jD4cMt0PJ0
Strangely enough, this rule also holds per strand! So even if you take away the redundancy, there are 99% equal numbers of A/T and C/G * on each strand *. And we don't really know why.
This is called Chargaff's 2nd parity rule.
You May Also Like
A list of cool websites you might now know about
A thread 🧵
1) Learn Anything - Search tools for knowledge discovery that helps you understand any topic through the most efficient
2) Grad Speeches - Discover the best commencement speeches.
This website is made by me
3) What does the Internet Think - Find out what the internet thinks about anything
4) https://t.co/vuhT6jVItx - Send notes that will self-destruct after being read.
A thread 🧵
1) Learn Anything - Search tools for knowledge discovery that helps you understand any topic through the most efficient
2) Grad Speeches - Discover the best commencement speeches.
This website is made by me
3) What does the Internet Think - Find out what the internet thinks about anything
4) https://t.co/vuhT6jVItx - Send notes that will self-destruct after being read.
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
