There's a short science book called Hidden Guests, it talks about why women have the potential to end up with microchimeric "incursions" from sexual partners and their own fetuses, fetuses can have microchimerism with each other (not just twins but prior fetuses from same mother) and fetal cells crossing into the mother and towards the end talks about the resemblance between this and transplants( someone else's cells thriving in one's body). So if organ transplants can potentially have that effect, it's already happening to sexually active women, with the caveat that for the fetal cells it wouldn't have much formed personality, yet.
That reminds of a piece which frames pregnancy as a biochemical cold-war between the body of the mother and the child, which can turn "hot" to the detriment of both. In this framing, the chimerism isn't just from cells getting lost, it's the legacy of structured infiltration and sabotage.
______________
> In primates and mice, it’s a different story. Cells from the invading placenta digest their way through the endometrial surface, puncturing the mother’s arteries, swarming inside and remodelling them to suit the foetus. Outside of pregnancy, these arteries are tiny, twisty things spiralling through depths of the uterine wall. The invading placental cells paralyse the vessels so they cannot contract, then pump them full of growth hormones, widening them tenfold to capture more maternal blood.
> These foetal cells are so invasive that colonies of them often persist in the mother for the rest of her life, having migrated to her liver, brain and other organs. There’s something they rarely tell you about motherhood: it turns women into genetic chimeras.
You mean, having a medical procedure that involves a major organ disease, a long waitlist with your life on the line, start by knocking you out, cutting you open, replacing one of your organs, follows with a recovery period, and then a lifelong regime of immunosuppressant drugs to prevent rejection might affect your personality somewhat?
Have fun controlling for confounders with this shit.
Current Trade with US is a small percentage of the reserve. It's the trade with everybody else and trust that it will hold value for all the future trade is where it matters.
Please don't instigate flamewars about the relative badness of superpowers on HN. We're here for curious conversation, not political/ideological battle.
Right, because an agency supposedly meant for "immigration enforcement" being sent to cities of the President's opponents so they can crackdown on protests and harass citizens is different... how? Is being persecuted for your religion worse than being persecuted for your political beliefs?
There is a secret police force actively patrolling the streets, going door-to-door asking for papers, shooting American citizens and your response is "it's not that bad"?
This frames escalation as if it’s an inevitable byproduct of “not cooperating,” but that’s a choice. Sanctuary policies generally limit voluntary local participation (e.g., detainers without judicial warrants), they don’t “block” federal enforcement.
“If you don’t want door-to-door, cooperate” is basically saying federal agencies get to punish jurisdictions for lawful policy choices by switching to more coercive tactics. That’s not normal enforcement; it’s politicized leverage. And once you normalize that logic, it won’t stay confined to immigration.
> “If you don’t want door-to-door, cooperate” is basically saying federal agencies get to punish jurisdictions for lawful policy choices by switching to more coercive tactics.
If you make any level noncooperation law against federal law enforcement, you are effectively creating the requirement that for the feds to enforce the law the federal government has to change their tactics. That’s not punishment, it’s just the effect of the decision you made.
> That’s not normal enforcement; it’s politicized leverage.
It’s not normal enforcement, but neither is noncooperation. Sanctuary cities are not the norm. It’s a form of political leverage too.
> And once you normalize that logic, it won’t stay confined to immigration.
Right…and you could also say the same thing about sanctuary policies too. So what if a city or area decided that they were going to be a sanctuary for people who violate the civil rights act? Would the federal government be justified in using different tactics in its enforcement of that law?
There are threads here you don’t want to accidentally pull because they will unravel whole sections of cloth that you want to keep intact.
You pretending that this is merely federal agents enforcing immigration laws is delusion. Thousands of agents being sent to one city and hundreds more promised after backlash is not immigration enforcement, it's punishment for dissent.
> If you don’t want the door to door enforcement, have your local officials become cooperative in enforcing the immigration laws
Since when did States need to "cooperate" with federal law enforcement to avoid masked thugs terrorizing the populace? Weren't right wingers all about States' Rights under Democrat administrations?
> So no, I am not going to downplay and dishonor the victims of the the human rights violations of China by comparing it to what is happening here
I didn't ask you to "downplay" human rights violations done by China, I asked if you thought one type of persecution was worse than the other. Clearly you don't have an issue with the persecution happening in the US, so thanks for making that clear at least.
If you don’t like a law, change it. If your representatives are not representing you, elect new representatives who will.
If you don’t want immigration enforcement, don’t elect someone who ran on that platform.
And, no…I do not believe that our enforcing immigration laws that were passed in a bi-partisan and supported as is by presidents from both parties and enforced by presidents from both parties are in any way, shape, or form equivalent of what China has done specifically to the Uyghurs.
“They rounded us up, forced us into labor camps, and sterilized all of us, but at least we could see their faces. That’s so much better than being sent back to your hometown by someone wearing a neck gaiter”
People speaking out against Trump and ICE are getting shot in the head. So I really see no difference.
ICE is sending brown people and people with accents to concentration/death camps. Say what you will about the Uyghurs, but China provided them with their own rooms and toilet facilities. ICE has been forcing detainees to drink toilet water and eat moldy bread [1]. All while hiring rapists and violent criminals for their enforcement.
Really, the US is actually worse than what China was at this point and China was bad.
China is still far more repressive as a system (and Xinjiang is in its own category). The point isn’t equivalence; it’s convergence. Democracies don’t have to become ‘China’ to become unrecognizable fast, what matters is whether coercive tools are being politicized, whether oversight still bites, and whether abuses have consequences.
Personally I don't feel its constructive to discuss who's worst, because there are many axis they could be compared on. But when it comes to internal human rights violations, China has infrastructure in place for industrial control of dissent. The US is not there but is currently on a crash course towards authoritarianism
No need to consider. The UK and France have nukes. France even has a two-tier response. Not enough to vitrify Russia or China five times over, but enough to make them reconsider.
But that transferred very sensitive data to a third party without anonymising the amount.
Just by replacing the email with a random anonymizedAccountId the impact would have been reduced from disaster to who cares. This was bad design from the start.
Just mind-bogglingly stupid to send anything about users other than a UserID number/UUID to your web tracking software.
Of course, in a sensitive situation such as that, even IP address can also be problematic, and your 3rd-party tracking software vendor gets that automatically.
If these clowns had hired someone smart instead of just copy-pasting some tracking code and throwing their whole user object at it or whatever, they would have given this some thought.
I'd have used the ability to proxy the MP tracking calls to my own server which most of these services offer but few use. That server would not keep any logs and would perform coarse GEOIP, remove the IP itself or zero the last 2 octets, and relay that information into MixPanel using custom attributes.
Just a quick back-of-napkin sketch, but even that was more thought than they put into it.
I get these spam emails all the time. Some "hacker" has my Pornhub history. They even have video (they "hacked" my laptop camera) of me, uh, enjoying myself. They're gonna leak all of it if I don't send them Bitcoin. I think it's hilarious because I'll provide that data to anyone who asks - no need for "hacking". But I'm 100% confident no one wants that data. LOL
I am not talking about hiding wealth. How do you find all of a person's wealth in a principled way? There isn't a central clearinghouse of this information.
People can own houses, factories, &c, in indirect ways, or in other jurisdictions, and these are all basically legal and make it hard to say what, exactly, people own.
The easiest people to tax are people whose inflows are simple wage income, who own a house and a car in their own country, and don't have a business. In other words, ordinary people. They make up a bulk of the financial activity in a country and the bulk of the tax revenues (most of the time).
It is easy to imagine that the way to capture greater tax revenue from wealthy people is simply to scale this system up -- tax the wealthy people more on their income, their expensive car, &c. However, wealthy people are also wealthy in structurally different ways from ordinary people.
Also. We are very neuro-centric, but the system also had all type of hormones and other chemical messages affecting it.