That "on your server" part also means that discoverability takes a massive nose-dive. Most of the music I've purchased on Bandcamp was discovered by following suggestions listed on the pages of albums I liked or by trawling through everything that shared tags with albums I liked. But that doesn't seem possible on Faircamp.
I think it depends on what accounts you read: If I only look at replies to accounts that I followed prior to Musk's takeover, then not much has changed. But that is likely because I only followed niche accounts. The moment I look at more popular accounts (news or what have you), then I see an overweight of blue-tick accounts that rarely have anything worthwhile to contribute
Could I ask you to point me to the part of the report that shows that Twitter reach in Sweden was at an all-time high this year? My Swedish isn't great, so I'm having trouble finding it.
DNA obviously does not behave like radioactive isotopes, so the half-life is dependent on a lot of external factors. The study presents a model for estimating the half-life of DNA for a given storage temperature assuming otherwise similar conditions to their reference samples. That's obviously useful for anyone working with ancient DNA, since it helps guide attention to samples that could potentially contain recoverable DNA.
The 521 years is just the half-life they estimated for their samples. Those are the empirical results, so it makes sense to highlight those in the title, as opposed to estimates from their model.
I don't mean to be rude, but please read the fine manuscript. It's open access, so you don't need to pay
If you have a bunch of observations, you can fit an exponential through them. You can do that in Excel. Here, let me just quickly do that for the half life of the buildings in Europe. ... Ok, done, it's 63 years. Should I publish an article? What conclusions does one draw? The usefulness of a model is how well it can extrapolate. 63 years means I should not find any buildings that are 2000 years old, and still the Pantheon is standing there just fine. Then what exactly is the claim? That it's possible to fit an exponential, but the exponential can't be used for inferring anything outside of my training sample?
And, no you are not being rude. But since you seem to have read the article, can you give me a few pointers why you think it's a good investment of someone else's time to go ahead and read it too? And don't be shy to use Machine Learning or Statistics jargon, we are on Hacker News here, everyone understands concepts like in-sample, out-of-sample, goodness of fit, overfitting and such.
You disagree with the 521 paper, but I'm not sure what your position is. Are you positing that DNA will not destabilize on its own unless subject to a particularly hostile environment? Are you saying it has a half-life but it's so much larger than 500 years that you expect usable DNA to be found in unfossilized dinosaur bone marrow?
The horse paper [1] is not a refutation of the DNA half-life paper [2]:
It's worth remembering that the half-life paper dealt with samples that had "an effective burial temperature of 13.1°C", while the horse sample was obtained from the permafrost. The half-life paper even talks about DNA obtained from ice-core samples in that age-range:
> The rate of depurination is influenced by temperature, among other factors, which explains why the most extreme survival of DNA was documented in approximately 450–800 kyr ice cores.
And if you look at Table 1 in the half-life paper, you'll find estimated half-lifes for a range of temperatures, with an estimated half-life of 9.5k years for a 500bp DNA fragment at -5C and 47k years for a shorter 100bp fragment at the same temperature:
> Still, the results indicate that under the right conditions of preservation, short fragments of DNA should be retrievable from very old bone (e.g. greater than 1 Myr).
The horse paper also cites the half-life paper, but not as a refutation.
> Wouldn't it be amusing if the Israelites were genetically Canaanites --- just with religious differences?
As I understand it, that is the expectation: The consensus among archeologists seems to be that ancient Israelites were simply another group of Canaanites who came to dominate the region. The Exodus is not a historical event.
My comment was not meant as an argument with the last sentence as its conclusion. Sorry for the (obvious) lack of clarity on my part.
Rather, the statement about the Exodus was meant to expand on the "who came to dominate the region": It was meant to convey that they did not come to dominate through systematic genocide of the other Canaanites as depicted in the bible. It is my understand that there is little to no evidence of this event (or the preceding events) having occurred.
The overall understanding that I was trying to communicate was simply that the ancient Isrealites were Canaanites who stayed in Canaan.
nit: (as a non-Christian) There is little to no __archeological__ evidence
The Bible's testimony itself, along with conclusion that people believed in this historical event at some point in time, is at least a some evidence towards it.
Yeah - its like say the illiad. Did the trojan war happen exactly like that? Obviously not. Was there some big war that inspired it? Probably.
Like, you shouldn't take the events of the bible literally, but you could probably reasonably infer that the nations demonized in it probably were historical enemies of the people who wrote it, etc
The problem with this thinking is that many of the "early" books of the Bible appear to be written much later than the "later" books, and while they are probably a record of the attitudes of the writers, they record their attitudes as of the time they were written, not as of the time period the claim to represent.
The Bible is not evidence. It's a bunch of stories written down by a bunch of people, written well after any of the supposed events they wrote about. Perhaps some of those stories can be corroborated by actual (physical) evidence, but Exodus is not one of them.
Generally speaking historical records are called "documentary evidence," and in real life there can be conflicting evidence, out of which may emerge a conclusion.
From the article I understand that the Israelites were a group of Canaanites. Regarding the Exodus, again, according to this article, there could be a connection between the withdrawal of the Egyptians from the region. The topic of challenging scriptures (for every religion) with archeology is very interesting because you need to have the mind open where one and/or the other have gray areas but you cannot repress them.
Exodus is not the story of the origin of the Jewish people, so its historicity has nothing to do with whether or not the Israelites are descendent from Canaanites.
The point here is not to target the Old Testament but think in wider terms about believes vs. history/archeology. You can find similar challenges in other religions and cultures.
Nothing I said suggests otherwise. I was simply looking at potential aftereffects of the unveiling --- and why any such unveiling might be vehemently opposed by entrenched non-scientific interests.
> I was simply looking at potential aftereffects of the unveiling
I think the world is less run by logic than people generally think. I don't think there will be an aftereffect. There is an Status quo and that's it. This observation is general and in anyway targeted in the context of the article. The Status quo involves any of us.
What are the consequences for people using screen readers?
Are the article details still accessible to those users or do they have go entirely by the tweet text?
https://www.ifixit.com/News/74736/warranty-void-stickers-are...