À retenir

Britische Analyse des green Deal der bisher die erwünschten Ergebnisse nicht gebracht hat. Die EU verfolgt eine marktwirtschaftliche Linie und kann damit nicht mit den USA und China, die protektionistisch agieren, konkurrieren. Zum Erreichen der Klimaziele werden laut EU-Kommission bis 2030 zusätzlich 620 Milliarden Euro an Investitionen erforderlich, das sind 3,7% der Wirtschaftsleistung der EU. https://taz.de/Kompetent-versenkt/!6012533/

.

不要なアスタリスクが見えています

不要なアスタリスクが見えています

いくつかの〜ということもあります。　の代案

原文 Some errors have easy, obvious fixes, thanks to the suggestions in Python’s tracebacks. Some errors are much harder to resolve, even when the eventual fix only involves a single character.

代案 エラーの解決は，Pythonのトレースバックの提案どおりに直して終わり，ということもあれば散々悩んだ挙句にたった1文字の修正でよかった，ということもあります。

typo たった1文字

https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000222404/energieversorgern-gehen-argumente-gegen-ausstieg-aus-russischem-gas-aus

Dem Global Energy Monitor zufolge sollen in den kommenden Jahren 1,5 Billionen Dollar in LNG Terminals und Pipelines investiert werden. 20% dieser Summe sind für Europa geplant und hier wiederum ein großer Teil für Anlagen in Griechenland. Die USA lobbyieren in Mittel- und Südosteuropa intensiv, um ihr LNG dort zu verkaufen. Der subventionierte Aufbau von Gasinfrastruktur übersteigt den europäischen Bedarf bei weitem. Reportage in der New York Times zum Gasboom in Griechenland. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/31/climate/greece-europe-natural-gas-lng.html

Contact Schreyer about existence of archived version of Syntopicon...

ref: E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (New York: Pantheon Books, 1964), 12.

Lawrence Levine<br /> The Opening of the American Mind (1996)<br /> note the coverage of "how our memory should function"

This would seem to be refuted by the thesis of Poor White Trash in which there was still low brow entertainment which only intensified over time into the social media era.

How, if at all, did the great books idea contribute to the idea of Manufacturing Consent for the 20th century?

the word "dreams" here along with great books and classical education reminds me of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s education on the classics as seen in his zettelkasten.

Surely his cultural up brining along with his religious training and his great books education empowered him to critically eye and change the culture around him.

this nudges me to ask the question: what sort of culture was John Waters creating in the early 1970s onward?

He was juxtaposing queer culture with that of the prurient, the comedic and the ideas of "trash" and counter-culture to subtly shift the cultural milieu in which he was living and participating. His satire and subversiveness made his content more palatable for the masses which also allowed him to make more mainstream material which still pressed the boundaries while allowing him greater access to audience.

note here, again, the idea of culture as "capital":

culture can make you better than other people

great phrasing here:

mere conformity, the perverted twin of democratic equality

definition of agnotology:

Within the sociology of knowledge, agnotology (formerly agnatology) is the study of deliberate, culturally induced ignorance or doubt, typically to sell a product, influence opinion, or win favour, particularly through the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data (disinformation). More generally, the term includes the condition where more knowledge of a subject creates greater uncertainty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology

some of the cultural democratization at that time presumed free time as well as conscious choice to make the effort... what about those who have patience for neither?

what about the economic choices to participate or not?

compare the dominance forms of education to to guides by the side

ideas of John Taylor Gatto and unschooling...

also indigenous teaching methods which also pass down culture as part of an overall "package"

ref: Charles F. Richardson, The Choice of Books (New York: American Book Exchange, 1881), 6. The publication estimate came from a librarian, F. B. Perkins.

fn: Habermas, Structural, 168.

Are the commons (common good, common sense, and common culture) anathema in an uber-capitalist society where everyone is generally out for themselves and often only "covering" when their needs align with societies' needs?

It's certainly at risk now in part because of lack of both consensus and compromise. Even the arguments aren't broadly accepted by either side.

evidence?

We hear this regularly, and it seems intuitive, but... where is the proof of this...

Just how "informed" ought a person to be? How critical? Everyone is "critical", the internet is full of criticism, but not necessarily in the sense meant here.

He and others are usually talking about some perceived "perfect democracy" which doesn't really exist in actuality.

How is he defining the idea of "democratic" here and throughout the piece?

I find it interesting that in common parlance there's a subtle (hidden?) meaning of "individual ownership over" which ties in with "the commons".

of conformity, or create new forms of class stratification?

Where does Chomsky's Manufactured Consent fit in here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Boorstin

note that the use of "capital" with respect to culture commodifies it and frames it in an economic context here.

How is one to earn and then later spend this capital? How might it be quantified?

Jacques Barzun wrote a review of of the Great Books when they came out in 1952.

Barzun, Jacques. “The Great Books.” The Atlantic, December 1952. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1952/12/the-great-books/642341/.

See notes at: https://hypothes.is/a/8o-z3DHLEe6_PMtDOvwCmg

did the tension inherent in the cultural evolution of the great books idea versus vocational and other forms of education set up the culture wars of the late 1900s/early 2000s?

Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism - Author(s): E. P. Thompson - Source: Past & Present, No. 38 (Dec., 1967), pp. 56-97 - Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of The Past and Present Society - Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/649749

<small><cite class='h-cite via'>ᔥ <span class='p-author h-card'>Dan Allosso (@danallosso)</span> in Howard Zinn's A People's History, Part 1 (YouTube) (<time class='dt-published'>09/16/2021 09:28:56</time>)</cite></small>

Die taz zum Torpedieren des Green Deal und besonders des EU-Renaturierungsgesetzes durch die EVP und über die Rolle Manfred Webers. https://taz.de/Agrarlobby-gegen-Naturschutz/!6012538/

Экзорцизм - это столкновение между физическим миром и паронарпальным измерением, где человек борется с силами, которыми не возможно увдиеть, но можно задокументировать их влияния на физический мир.

訳としてはあってると思うのですが，読みにくさが気になりました。

原文 ask yourself if you’re making a simple but common off- by-one error.

代案（２文に分ける）

１から数え始めていないか確認してください。単純ですがよくあるミスです。

IMO: 「簡潔に」もしくは「簡単に」のほうが好み。

pytest公式では以下のように説明がありますね。

The pytest framework makes it easy to write small, readable tests, and can scale to support complex functional testing for applications and libraries.

ダブルクオーテーションで統一してるようなので、ここも統一したほうが良さそう

Typo: test_give_default_raise 原文もそうなっているようですが、半角スペースは不要です。

Typo: 検出した

Typo: 関数名

Typo: get_formatted_name 原文もそうなっているようですが、半角スペースは不要です。

2024/6/1時点では24.0でした。 https://pypi.org/project/pip/24.0/

IMO: 含まれるようになるものもあります。

この説明だと有名になっていくとPythonの標準ライブラリに入るように確定しているように読めてしまいました。

Typo: 低い

.

bitpay , vultr 也在用

英語が唐突に出てきてびっくりしました。

第２版の日本語書籍では「それどころか！プログラミングの〜」となっていて，それでよいと思います。

第２版と同じではありますが，一般的には「気をつかう」「気を配る」「注意を払う」あたりが使われると思います。

代案 気を配る

余計なアスタリスク＊が出ちゃってるみたいです

Appendix C

前の章から何度か指摘していますが，このあとも続きそうなので指摘はここまでにしておきます。修正する場合は章横断でご確認ください。

好みの問題かもしれませんが，「おそらく」の置き場所が気になりました。「ここからは推測ですよ〜」ということを早めに知らせたい気持ち。

代案 おそらくブラウザが裏で〜処理をしています。

リンク先はVentura用のページになっています。最新はSonomaです。リンク文字列を書きたいけど長いので悩ましいですね。

代案 Appleサポート（https://support.apple.com/ja-jp ）で以下のキーワードで検索してください。

.

Il est dit dans la vidéo de prendre le HTTPS, et dans votre texte on nous parle du SSH ! Quelle indication faut-il suivre ? Ou pouvez vous préciser la différence entre les deux ?

As teachers, we need to find ways to encourage parents to co-use media with their child/children. Unfortunately, many parents are either unfamiliar with the technology their child is using and thus uncomfortable using the technology together, or they view media content and devices as a way to entertain the child or to have them work independently. It would be great to have a conversation with parents at the beginning of the year about the benefits of co-using media and technology with their child. You could also use open conferences or family nights to help parents become familiar with some of the technology tools their child is using or create tutorials that could be assessed at home.

Creativity - connecting seemingly separate dots (areas, insights, concepts, products, etc)

Creativity is 'seeing' what isn't there. And feeling it should be obvious.

I think this is also the curse of creative. Because they think it is so obvious, people with creativity sans confidence fall into the purgatory of paralysis. Inaction. They think since it's too easy to think for them, it must be too easy for 'big corps' and 'intelligent people' to think, as well.

A creative person, above all, must have self belief.

INSIGHT:

A lot of people in the industry a. do not have creativity b. do not have diverse experiences from different fields.

They do not have enough dots to connect so they end up with linear solutions

Creativity is non linear.

The broader one's understanding of human experience, the better design we'll have.

To design something well,

you have to "get it"

You have to GROK what it's all about.

To thoroughly understand something, you have to 'chew it up' NOT just quickly swallow it.

Most people take big gulps.

Design - How it looks Design - How it works

2nd Part is more important than the first if one's goal is to build it for people.

If it is purely for self serving reasons, do whatever the hell you want,

Japanese Language Pack for Visual Studio Code が正式名称のようです。 https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=MS-CEINTL.vscode-language-pack-ja

おそらくバックスラッシュのせいで文字色が変わってます。あと日本語WIndows環境ではバックスラッシュではなく￥マークが表示されます

実際の目次に合わせて大文字にするのとハイフンを取る Appendix C

この説明は誤りです。最近のmacOSのデフォルトではPythonがインストールされていません。 トラブルシューティングにあるApple版のPythonを誤ってインストールするの説明が正しいので、この訳注は削除したほうが良いかと思います。

macOS12.3でPython2.7の廃止に伴い、Python3はCommand Line ToolsやXCodeをインストールしたときにPython3.9がインストールされる形になります。 https://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos-release-notes/macos-12_3-release-notes#Python

実際の目次に合わせて大文字にするのとハイフンを取る Appendix B

次の行にもあります

追従できます　という表現に違和感があります

原文 but it will be easier to follow some later steps if you save the python_work folder directly on your desktop.

代案 このあとの手順についていきやすいです。

You can ignoreのcanのニュアンスを追加するとわかりやすくなりそう。

代案 〜メッセージが表示されることがありますが，すでにインストール済みなので無視しても問題ありません。

原文 This extension adds support for writing, editing, and running Python programs

代案 この拡張機能はVSCodeにPythonプログラムの読み書き，実行に関する機能を追加します。

何より新しいかが不明確なので，「最近のmacOSでは」はどうでしょう

このブロックで部分的に不思議な太字がありますね。 （3,10,13が太い）

2024/06/01時点ではsonoma(14.5)ですね。Pythonは3.9のままみたいです。

2024/06/01時点で3.12.3です。2024年秋出版なら3.13.0出てそう

表記揺れ: ある

Looks like my old annotations are not showing up here

https://docdrop.org/video/xQx-tuW9A4Q/#annotations:9_SmgCDKEeuXxO8mN5IZmA

Estas encuestas nos permite saber como se encuentra enfocada la población ecuatoriana, en sus hábitos lectores, prácticas y consumos culturales. De esta manera se estaría concientizando a las personas a fomentar la lectura en su vida cotidiana.

Es muy agradable saber que hay predisposición por parte de las personas al colaborar con actividades de esta categoría

Estas encuestas son necesarias para saber el nivel de conocimientos y el nivel de vocabulario que se puede llegar a tener con un proceso y un hábito de lectura dentro de nuestro país.

Considero que esta encuesta tiene una gran importancia ya que nos permite conocer sobre cual es el porcentaje del habito de lectura en las personas

Doing the job of organising the net frontier clip

https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxl0MlTULCcBksvouYsJBcpJfLinFUjOcm?feature=shared

ワンタイムパスワードでログイン後にPublicでコメント

X（旧Twitter）みたいな訳注つけますか？

〜を通した作業，という表現に違和感がありました。

their experience of working through Python Crash Course

work through a bookで「読み進める」

代案 〜を読んで得られた経験を

〜あれば〜あれば〜ないか　がとても読みにくいです。

They also kept an eye out for areas that worked well enough in previous editions but could be improved upon, given the opportunity for a full rewrite.

代案 Kennethは，以前の版で問題なく動作していた箇所であっても，もし全体を書き直す機会があったら改善できる点がないかにまで目を配ってくれました。

表現がこなれていないのが気になりました。

代案 読者拡大を助けてくれたことに感謝しています。

悩み中とのことなので代案

ゲームプログラマーになる気がないとしても，このプロジェクトを進めることで『必修編』で学んだ内容と実践を楽しみながら結びつけることができます。

typo 太字になってないです

Blogging Every Day by [[Barry Hess]]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrobright

This process can be used to whiten yellowed plastics.

equal

The list also enclosed exercises from Sutton's Book.

DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.108889

Resource: (Santa Cruz Biotechnology Cat# sc-365180, RRID:AB_10710523)

Curator: @Naa003

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_10710523

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.108891

Resource: (Cell Signaling Technology Cat# 4814, RRID:AB_390781)

Curator: @Naa003

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_390781

What is this?

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.91711

Resource: pClamp (RRID:SCR_011323)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_011323

What is this?

DOI: 10.1158/2767-9764.CRC-23-0546

Resource: (Abcam Cat# ab203457, RRID:AB_2889230)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2889230

What is this?

DOI: 10.1158/2767-9764.CRC-23-0546

Resource: Agilent TapeStation Laptop (RRID:SCR_019547)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_019547

What is this?

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.70833

Resource: Imaris (RRID:SCR_007370)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_007370

What is this?

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.70833

Resource: MATLAB (RRID:SCR_001622)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_001622

What is this?

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.70833

Resource: ImageJ (RRID:SCR_003070)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_003070

What is this?

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.70833

Resource: (BDSC Cat# 54591,RRID:BDSC_54591)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:BDSC_54591

What is this?

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.70833

Resource: BDSC_32245

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:BDSC_32245

What is this?

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.70833

Resource: RRID:BDSC_5458

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:BDSC_5458

What is this?

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.74172

Resource: (BDSC Cat# 28838,RRID:BDSC_28838)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:BDSC_28838

What is this?

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.74172

Resource: (BDSC Cat# 42750,RRID:BDSC_42750)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:BDSC_42750

What is this?

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.74172

Resource: (BDSC Cat# 38880,RRID:BDSC_38880)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:BDSC_38880

What is this?

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.74172

Resource: (BDSC Cat# 7017,RRID:BDSC_7017)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:BDSC_7017

What is this?

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.74172

Resource: (BDSC Cat# 91812,RRID:BDSC_91812)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:BDSC_91812

What is this?

Comfort: low-likelihood/low-impact events Cautious & Concerned: acceptable variability of the level of risk, risk tolerance Critical: outside tolerance limits

Preventative provides the most control while Detective provides the least control

Preventative: Limit the possibility of an undesirable event happening. Preventative controls become more important with the priority to prevent a certain outcome. Most controls implemented in response to hazard risks fall under this.

Corrective: Reduce the impact of any outcomes that have already been realized and remedy risk exposure. Treatment is focused on making the risk less likely to occur and/or the impact is reduced.

Directive: Give directions to people in an effort to ensure a particular outcome is achieved and loss is prevented. Examples include training on how to respond to a specific event. Similar to processes in PPT.

Detective: If an outcome has already been realized, detective controls figure out when and how. The goal is to ensure that circumstances do not deteriorate further or happen again

the 4 T's falls under risk response

basically just working to move the risk to the tolerable quadrant through the use of T's that are adjacent to terminate

there is overlap between the 4T's, I imagine that distinction comes when looking at likelihood/impact and type of control used

employee training, security cameras, redundant backups, etc

so does this mean that implementing controls is a form of risk treatment?

In the summer we'll use our factories to make swimsuits and in the winter we'll make mittons

To tolerate a risk means to accept and retain it, even if it is more risky than the organization would like (We may lose 40k in product but it would cost more to replace it so we're just not going to)

The concept of risk tolerance is the range of risk that is acceptable (We've prepared ourselves so that we're comfortable with up to 20k in losses)

the point of controls are to ultimately move risk to a tolerable level

if the benefit is high and in alignment with the organization's goals

residual risk

Tolerate: No further action is taken. The exposure is either tolerable or the cost of taking action is disproportionate to any benefit gained. | low likelihood / low impact

Treat: Action is taken to reduce the risk back down to a tolerable level. | high likelihood / low impact

Transfer: A third party to takes on the risk. Cyber insurance is the most common example of this. | low likelihood / high impact

Terminate: The only way to achieve an acceptable level of risk is to completely stop the activity. | high likelihood / high impact

the "T" that you use is dependent on the location of said risk when graphed on a risk matrix

4Ts generally just applies to hazard risks then

in terms of priority significant risk

❗👍

Perhaps some of the most interesting ideas b/c they relate to education and hence to enculturation and the empowerment of the young.

Again the structural solutionist mono-mania.

First, even it does respond to institutional innovation but much less than we may wish, at least near-term.

Second, what about programs precisely designed to bring about cultural and ontological "innovation".

I suspect such innovations would yield some benefit, but not nearly as much as we might imagine.

I think is a classic case of the primacy of being. yes structure (i.e. institutions) can make a bad case worse, or an ok case better. But they are limited in how much they can move things. The US is mostly hamstrung by deep cultural differences at a moment of paradigmatic change. Yes the electoral college or the senata composition may make things worse but it is minor compared to what is going on at the cultural foundations.

Structural innovations are therefore most interesting that would hasten cultural evolution.

❓ Hmmm. This is too strong.

It may lack an intrinsic evolutionary direction but nor is it purely under our control. Like a river that flows downhill, we may dam and shape it, but there is a general tendency that may be hard to resist.

Hmmm, it may be more about the very nature of the knowledge economy - costless copying -- combined with monopoly IP rights. It isn't about hierarchical segmentation of the production system.

Even if this were so - which i doubt (even if am an advocate for a revolution in the structure of the knowledge economy - cf open revolution), the primary obstacle to wider participation may be ontological rather than structural.

Specifically, participation in the knowledge economy may primarily be about having the ontological capacities -- cognitive complexity, emotional flexibility etc -- to engage and only secondarily about structural obstacles (though, those too, may be significant.

Crudely put, significant participation may require decent math skills, or capacities for self-expression.

Yes ... and it's all struturual-solutionist, quite explicitly e.g.

... a different way of thinking about structural change and structural alternatives ...

Violence is masculinity. This was taught form his father as he watched boxing films.

Turned down 250k to do what he loves.

верстка, заменить бэктики на $

проверить знаки неравенства в выражении ниже

плотности

давайте

психометрического

пробел между

в формуле circle → sphere, square → cube

лишняя скобка

случайных

не «по 20» на картинке!!

в нашем

одна

принципы

Unfortunately, while the Natives were excited to show the voyagers what there land held, the admiral was probably only seeing a wasted opportunity for exploitation.

It seems like he is sizing up the crowd and firepower of the Natives. He is estimating how many colonizers with guns he will need to take out an army of gunless people

It's interesting to see the difference in care for these items. Native people were fascinated and appreciative of the new experience and discovery, seeming grateful. Colonizers seem like they have a poor attitude or "valueless" items like glass jewelry

As supplementary material to Addendum 1 (update v1.1(A)), SITC has created a treatment algorithm for HCC.

Last reviewed 6/16/23 (v1.1(A) update supplement)

SITC continuously evaluates the field for emerging data and new FDA approvals. Updates to the recommendations, tables, treatment algorithms, and/or guideline text in this publication are made with the approval of the SITC HCC CPG Expert Panel. More information on SITC Guidelines can be found at sitcancer.org/guidelines.

SITC published an addendum to the guideline (Addendum 1, update v1.1(A)) based on the approval of tremelimumab in combination with durvalumab for adult patients with unresectable HCC. A supplementary immunotherapy treatment algorithm for HCC was generated based on the Expert Panel recommendations. It can be found on the SITC website here.

View the supplement to this addendum "HCC Immunotherapy Treatment Algorithm" on the SITC website.

Last reviewed 6/16/23 (v1.1(A) update supplement)

SITC continuously evaluates the field for emerging data and new FDA approvals. Updates to the recommendations, tables, treatment algorithms, and/or guideline text in this publication are made with the approval of the SITC HCC CPG Expert Panel. More information on SITC Guidelines can be found at sitcancer.org/guidelines.

A supplementary immunotherapy treatment algorithm for HCC was generated based on the Expert Panel recommendations. It can be found on the SITC website here.

This is a bit confusing; it's so vague and general that it sounds like it could describe almost any protein.

I'm not sure that two examples can constitute evidence for or against filtering. Is it possible to use a ground-truth dataset to make this kind of filtering/no-filtering decision with more confidence?

This is a bit confusing, because protein language models are a kind of deep learning model. It would help to clarify what "deep-learning-based models" refers to in this context.

What does a reliability index value of "1" mean?

Hmmm........ Funny that.

This sounds staged.

Chaos in the types of council and the qonsequent need to explicitly name each in laws allows lawmakers to selectively 'forget' to update inconvenient parts.

So the CoL may be given explicit legal advantages over other private corporations because it actually a local council, but it is not a legislature (which could concievably apply to local councils) because it is actually a corporation? This seems like the City's advocates can't decide what it is and choose whichever definition happens to suit them at the time.

Such – very convenient – Schrödiger's entities seem to arise when they do not need to be registered/categorized in a predefined way (see Wiki: Unincorporated Association).

A system based on mere convention appears to be much easier to covertly manipulate.

A 'trivial' law had been passed ostensibly with the priority of a constitutional one, but with no clear or official explanation.

Bribery

Why?

eLife assessment

This important study provides deep insight into a ubiquitous, but poorly understood, phenomenon: synaptic noise (primarily due to failures). Through a combination of theoretical analysis, simulations, and comparison to existing experimental data, this paper makes a compelling case that synapses are noisy because reducing noise is expensive. It touches on probably the most significant feature of living organisms -- their ability to learn -- and will be of broad interest to the neuroscience community.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Given the cost of producing action potentials and transmitting them along axons, it has always seemed a bit strange that there are synaptic failures: when a spike arrives at a synapse, about half the time nothing happens. This paper proposes a perfectly reasonable explanation: reducing failures (or, more generally, reducing noise) is costly. Four possible mechanisms are proposed, each associated with a different cost, with costs of the form 1/sigma_i^rho where sigma_i is the failure-induced variability at synapse i and rho is an exponent. The four different mechanisms produce four different values of rho.

What is interesting about the study is that the model makes experimental predictions about the relationship between learning rate, variability and presynaptic firing rate. Those predictions are consistent with experimental data, making it a strong candidate model. The fact that the predictions come from reasonable biological mechanisms make it a very strong candidate model and suggest several experiments to test it further.

Interestingly, the predictions made by this model are nearly indistinguishable from the predictions made by a normative model (Synaptic plasticity as Bayesian inference. Aitchison it al., Nature Neurosci. 24:565-571 (2021). As pointed out by the authors, working out whether the brain is using Bayesian inference to tune learning rules, or it just looks like it's Bayesian inference but the root cause is cost minimization, will be an interesting avenue for future research.

Finally, the authors relate their cost of reliability to the cost used in variational Bayesian inference. Intriguingly, the biophysical cost provides an upper bound on the variational cost. This is intellectually satisfying, as it answers a "why" question: why would evolution evolve to produce the kind of costs seen in the brain?

Strengths:

This paper provides a strong mix of theoretical analysis, simulations and comparison to experiments. And the extended appendices, which are very easy to read, provide additional mathematical insight.

Weaknesses:

None.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary

This manuscript argues about the similarity between two frameworks describing synaptic plasticity. In the Bayesian inference perspective, due to the noise and the limited available pre- and postsynaptic information, synapses can only have an estimate of what should be their weight. The belief about those weights is described by their mean and variance. In the energy efficient perspective, synaptic parameters (individual means and variances) are adapted such that the neural network achieves some task while penalizing large mean weights as well as small weight variances. Interestingly, the authors show both numerically and analytically the strong link between those two frameworks. In particular, both frameworks predict that (a) synaptic variances should decrease when the input firing rate increases and (b) that the learning rate should increase when the weight variances increase. Both predictions have some experimental support.

Strengths

(1) Overall, the paper is very well written and the arguments are clearly presented.

(2) The tight link between the Bayesian inference perspective and the energy efficiency perspective is elegant and well supported, both with numerical simulations as well as with analytical arguments.

(3) I also particularly appreciate the derivation of the reliability cost terms as a function of the different biophysical mechanisms (calcium efflux, vesicle membrane, actin and trafficking). Independently of the proposed mapping between the Bayesian inference perspective and the energy efficiency perspective, those reliability costs (expressed as power-law relationships) will be important for further studies on synaptic energetics.

Weaknesses

(1) As recognised by the authors, the correspondence between the entropy term in the variational inference description and the reliability cost in the energetic description is strong, but not perfect. Indeed, the entropy term scales as -log(sigma) while reliability cost scales as sigma^(-rho).

(2) Even though this is not the main point of the paper, I appreciate the effort made by the authors to look for experimental data that could in principle validate the Bayesian/energetic frameworks. A stronger validation will be an interesting avenue for future research.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Weaknesses

(1) The authors face a technical challenge (which they acknowledge): they use two numbers (mean and variance) to characterize synaptic variability, whereas in the brain there are three numbers (number of vesicles, release probability, and quantal size). Turning biological constraints into constraints on the variance, as is done in the paper, seems somewhat arbitrary. This by no means invalidates the results, but it means that future experimental tests of their model will be somewhat nuanced.

Agreed. There are two points to make here.

First, the mean and variance are far more experimentally accessible than n, p and q. The EPSP mean and variance is measured directly in paired-patch experiments, whereas getting n, p and q either requires far more extensive experimentation, or making strong assumptions. For instance, the data from Ko et al. (2013) gives the EPSP mean and variance, but not (directly) n, p and q. Thus, in some ways, predictions about means and variances are easier to test than predictions about n, p and q.

That said, we agree that in the absence of an extensive empirical accounting of the energetic costs at the synapse, there is inevitably some arbitrariness as we derive our energetic costs. That was why we considered four potential functional forms for the connection between the variance and energetic cost, which covered a wide range of sensible forms for this energetic cost. Our results were robust to this wide range functional forms, indicating that the patterns we describe are not specifically due to the particular functional form, but arise in many settings where there is an energetic cost for reliable synaptic transmission.

(2) The prediction that the learning rate should increase with variability relies on an optimization scheme in which the learning rate is scaled by the inverse of the magnitude of the gradients (Eq. 7). This seems like an extra assumption; the energy efficiency framework by itself does not predict that the learning rate should increase with variability. Further work will be needed to disentangle the assumption about the optimization scheme from the energy efficiency framework.

Agreed. The assumption that learning rates scale with synapse importance is separate. However, it is highly plausible as almost all modern state-of-the-art deep learning training runs use such an optimization scheme, as in practice it learns far faster than other older schemes. We have added a sentence to the main text (line 221), indicating that this is ultimately an assumption.

Major

(1) The correspondence between the entropy term in the variational inference description and the reliability cost in the energetic description is a bit loose. Indeed, the entropy term scales as −log(σ) while reliability cost scales as σ−ρ. While the authors do make the point that σ−ρ upper bounds −log(σ) (up to some constant), those two cost terms are different. This raises two important questions:

a. Is this difference important, i.e. are there scenarios for which the two frameworks would have different predictions due to their different cost functions?

b. Alternatively, is there a way to make the two frameworks identical (e.g. by choosing a proposal distribution Q(w) different from a Gaussian distribution (and tuneable by a free parameter that could be related to ρ) and therefore giving rise to an entropy term consistent with the reliability cost of the energy efficiency framework)?

To answer b first, there is no natural way to make the two frameworks identical (unless we assume the reliability cost is proportional to log_σsyn_, and we don’t think there’s a biophysical mechanism that would give rise to such a cost). Now, to answer a, in Fig. 7 we extensively assessed the differences between the energy efficient σsyn and the Bayesian σpost. In Fig.7bc, we find that σsyn and σpost are positively correlated in all models. This positive correlation indicates that the qualitative predictions made by the two frameworks (Bayesian inference and energy efficiency) are likely to be very similar. Importantly though, there are systematic differences highlighted by Fig. 7ab. Specifically, the energy efficient σsyn tends to vary less than the Bayesian σpost. This appears in Fig. 7b which shows the relationship between σsyn (on the y-axis) and σpost (on the x-axis). Specifically, this plot has a slope that is smaller than one for all our models of the biophysical cost. Further, the pattern also appears in the covariance ellipses in Fig. 7a, in that the Bayesian covariance ellipses tend to be long and thin, while the energy efficient covariance ellipsis are rounder. Critically though both covariance ellipses show the same pattern in that there is more noise along less important directions (as measured by the Hessian).

We have added a sentence (line 273) noting that the search for a theoretical link is motivated by our observations in Fig. 7 of a strong, but not perfect link between the pattern of variability predicted by Bayesian and energy-efficient synapses.

(2) Even though I appreciate the effort of the authors to look for experimental evidence, I still find that the experimental support (displayed in Fig. 6) is moderate for three reasons.

a. First, the experimental and simulation results are not displayed in a consistent way. Indeed, Fig 6a displays the relative weight change |Dw|/w as a function of the normalised variability σ_2/|_µ| in experiments whereas the simulation results in Fig 5c display the variance σ_2 as a function of the learning rate. Also, Fig 6b displays the normalised variability _σ_2/|_µ| as a function of the input rate whereas Fig 5b displays the variance _σ_2 as a function of the input rate. As a consequence the comparison between experimental and simulation results is difficult.

b. Secondly, the actual power-law exponents in the experiments (see Fig 6a resp. 6b) should be compared to the power-law exponents obtained in simulation (see Fig 5c resp. Fig 5b). The difficulty relies here on the fact that the power-law exponents obtained in the simulations directly depend on the (free) parameter ρ. So far the authors precisely avoided committing to a specific ρ, but rather argued that different biophysical mechanisms lead to different reliability exponents ρ. Therefore, since there are many possible exponents ρ (and consequently many possible power-law exponents in simulation results in Fig 5), it is likely that one of them will match the experimental data. For the argument to be stronger, one would need to argue which synaptic mechanism is dominating and therefore come up with a single prediction that can be falsified experimentally (see also point 4 below).

c, Finally, the experimental data presented in Fig6 are still “clouds of points". A coefficient of r \= 0_.52 (in Fig 6a) is moderate evidence while the coefficient of _r \= −0_._26 (in Fig 6b) is weak evidence.

The key thing to remember is that our paper is not about whether synapses are “really" Bayesian or energy efficient (or both/neither). Instead, the key point of our paper, as expressed in the title, is to show that the experimental predictions of Bayesian synapses are very similar to the predictions from energy efficient synapses. And therefore energy efficient synapses are very difficult to distinguish experimentally from Bayesian synapses. In that context, the two plots in Fig. 6 are not really intended to present evidence in favour of the energy efficiency / Bayesian synapses. In fact, Fig. 6 isn’t meant to constitute a contribution of the paper at all, instead, Fig. 6 serves merely as illustrations of the kinds of experimental result that have (Aitchison et al. 2021) or might (Schug et al. 2021) be used to support Bayesian synapses. As such, Fig. 6 serves merely as a jumping-off point for discussing how very similar results might equally arise out of Bayesian and energy-efficiency viewpoints.

We have modified our description of Fig. 6 to further re-emphasise that the panels in Fig. 6 is not our contribution, but is taken directly from Schug et al. 2021 and Aitchison et al. 2021 (we have also modified Fig 6 to be precisely what was plotted in Schug et al. 2021, again to re-emphasise this point). Further, we have modified the presentation to emphasise that these plots serve merely as jumping off points to discuss the kinds of predictions that we might consider for Bayesian and energy efficient synapses.

This is important, because we would argue that the “strength of support" should be assessed for our key claim, made in the title, that “Signatures of Bayesian inference emerge from energy efficient synapses".

a) To emphasise that these are previously published results, we have chosen axes to matchthose used in the original work (Aitchison et al. 2021) and (Schug et al. 2021).

b) We agree that a close match between power-law exponents would constitute strong evidencefor energy-efficiency / Bayesian inference, and might even allow us to distinguish them. We did consider such a comparison, but found it was difficult for two reasons. First, while the confidence intervals on the slopes exclude zero, they are pretty broad. Secondly, while the slopes in a one-layer network are consistent and match theory (Appendix 5) the slopes in deeper networks are far more inconsistent. This is likely to be due to a number of factors such as details of the optimization algorithm and initialization. Critically, if details of the optimization algorithm matter in simulation, they may also matter in the brain. Therefore, it is not clear to us that a comparison of the actual slopes is can be relied upon.

To reiterate, the point of our article is not to make judgements about the strength ofevidence in previously published work, but to argue that Bayesian and energy efficient synapses are difficult to distinguish experimentally as they produce similar predictions. That said, it is very difficult to make blanket statements about the strength of evidence for an effect based merely on a correlation coefficient. It is perfectly possible to have moderate correlation coefficients along with very strong evidence of an effect (and e.g. very strong p-values), e.g. if there is a lot of data. Likewise, it is possible to have a very large correlation coefficient along with weak evidence of an effect (e.g. if we only have three or four datapoints, which happen to lie in a straight line). A small correlation coefficient is much more closely related to the effect-size. Specifically, the effect-size, relative to the “noise", which usually arises from unmeasured factors of variation. Here, we know there are many, many unmeasured factors of variation, so even in the case that synapses are really Bayesian / energy-efficient, the best we can hope for is low correlation coefficients

As mentioned in the public review, a weakness in the paper is the derivation of the constraints on σi given the biophysical costs, for two reasons.

a.First, it seemed a bit arbitrary whether you hold n fixed or p fixed.

b.Second, at central synapses, n is usually small – possibly even usually 1: REF(Synaptic vesicles transiently dock to refill release sites, Nature Neuroscience 23:1329-1338, 2020); REF(The ubiquitous nature of multivesicular release Trends Neurosci. 38:428-438, 2015). Fixing n would radically change your cost function. Possibly you can get around this because when two neurons are connected there are multiple contacts (and so, effectively, reasonably large n). It seems like this is worth discussing.

a) Ultimately, we believe that the “real” biological cost function is very complex, and most likely cannot be written down in a simple functional form. Further, we certainly do not have the experimental evidence now, and are unlikely to have experimental evidence for a considerable period into the future to pin down this cost function precisely. In that context, we are forced to resort to two strategies. First, using simplifying assumptions to derive a functional form for the cost (such as holding n or p fixed). Second, considering a wide range of functional forms for the cost, and ensuring our argument works for all of them.

b) We appreciate the suggestion that the number of connections could be used as a surrogate where synapses have only a single release site. As you suggest we can propose an alternative model for this case where n represents the number of connections between neurons. We have added this alternative interpretation to our introduction of the quantal model under title “Biophysical costs". For a fixed PSP mean we could either have many connections with small vesicles or less connections with larger vesicles. Similarly for the actin cost we would certainly require more actin if the number of connections were increased.

Minor

(1) A few additional references could further strengthen some claims of the paper:

Davis, Graeme W., and Martin Muller. “Homeostatic Control of Presynaptic Neurotransmitter Release." Annual Review of Physiology 77, no. 1 (February 10, 2015): 251-70. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-physiol-021014-071740. This paper provides elegant experimental support for the claim (in line 538 now 583) that µ is kept constant and q acts as a compensatory variable.

Jegminat, Jannes, Simone Carlo Surace, and Jean-Pascal Pfister. “Learning as Filtering: Implications for Spike-Based Plasticity." Edited by Blake A Richards. PLOS Computational Biology 18, no. 2 (February 23, 2022): e1009721. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009721.

This paper also showed that a lower uncertainty implies a lower learning rate (see e.g. in line 232), but in the context of spiking neurons.

Figure 1 of the the first suggested paper indeed shows that quantal size is a candidate for homeostatic scaling (fixing µ). This review also references lots of further evidence of quantal scaling and evidence for both presynaptic and postsynaptic scaling of q leaving space for speculation on whether vesicle radius or postsynaptic receptor number is the source of a compensatory q. On line 583 we have added a few lines pointing to the suggested review paper.

The second reference demonstrates Bayesian plasticity in the context of STDP, proposing learning rates tuned to the covariance in spike timing. We have added this as extra support for assuming an optimisation scheme that tunes learning rates to synapse importance and synapse variability (line 232).

In the numerical simulations, the reliability cost is implemented with a single power-law expression (reliability cost ). However, in principle, all the reliability costs will play in conjunction, i.e. reliability cost . While I do recognise that it may be difficult to estimate the biophysical values of the various ci, it might be still relevant to comment on this.

Agreed. Limitations in the literature meant that we could only form a cursory review of the relative scale of each cost using estimates by Atwell, (2001), Engl, (2015). On line 135 we have added a paragraph explaining the rationale for considering each cost independently.

(3) In Eq. 8: σ_2 doesn’t depend on variability in _q, which would add another term; barring algebra mistakes, it’s . It seems worth mentioning why you didn’t include it. Can you argue that it’s a small effect?

Agreed. Ultimately, we dropped this term because we expected it to be small relative to variability in vesicle release, and because it would be difficult to quantify In practice, the variability is believed to be contributed mostly by variability in vesicle release. The primary evidence for this is histograms of EPSP amplitudes which show classic multi-peak structure, corresponding to one, two three etc. EPSPs. Examples of these plots include:

- “The end-plate potential in mammalian muscle”, Boyd and Martin (1956); Fig. 8.

- “Structure and function of a neocortical synapse”, Holler-Rickauer et al. (2019); Extended Figure 5.

(3) On pg. 7 now pg. 8, when the Hessian is introduced, why not say what it is? Or at least the diagonal elements, for which you just sum up the squared activity. That will make it much less mysterious. Or are we relying too much on the linear model given in App 2? If so, you should tell us how the Hessian was calculated in general. Probably in an appendix.

With the intention of maintaining the interest of a wide audience we made the decision to avoid a mathematical definition of the Hessian, opting instead for a written definition i.e. line 192 - “Hii; the second derivatives of the objective with respect to wi.” and later on a schematic (Fig. 4) for how the second derivative can be understood as a measure of curvature and synapse importance. Nonetheless, this review point has made us aware that the estimated Hessian values plotted in Fig. 5a have been insufficiently explained so we have added a reference on line 197 to the appendix section where we show how we estimated the diagonal values of the Hessian.

(4) Fig. 5: assuming we understand things correctly, Hessian ∝ |x|2. Why also plot σ_2 versus |_x|? Or are we getting the Hessian wrong?

The Hessian is proportional to . If you assume that time steps are small and neurons spike, then , and . it is difficult to say what timestep is relevant in practice.

(5) To get Fig. 6a, did you start with Fig. Appendix 1-figure 4 from Schug et al, and then use , drop the q, and put 1 − p on the x-axis? Either way, you should provide details about where this came from. It could be in Methods.

We have modified Fig. 6 to use the same axes as in the original papers.

(6) Lines 190-3: “The relationship between input firing rate and synaptic variability was first observed by Aitchison et al. (2021) using data from Ko et al. (2013) (Fig. 6a). The relationship between learning rate and synaptic variability was first observed by Schug et al. (2021), using data from Sjostrom et al. (2003) as processed by Costa et al. (2017) (Fig. 6b)." We believer 6a and 6b should be interchanged in that sentence.

Thank you. We have switched the text appropriately.

(7) What is posterior variance? This seems kind of important.

This refers to the “posterior variance" obtained using a Bayesian interpretation of the problem of obtaining good synaptic weights (Aitchison et al. 2021). In our particular setting, we estimate posterior variances by setting up the problem as variational inference: see Appendix 4 and 5, which is now referred to in line 390.

(8) Lines 244-5: “we derived the relationships between the optimized noise, σi and the posterior variable, σpost as a function of ρ (Fig. 7b;) and as a function of c (Fig. 7c)." You should tell the reader where you derived this. Which is Eq. 68c now 54c. Except you didn’t actually derive it; you just wrote it down. And since we don’t know what posterior variance is, we couldn’t figure it out.

If H is the Hessian of the log-likelihood, and if the prior is negligable relative to the the likelihood, then we get Eq. 69c. We have added a note on this point to the text.

(9) We believe Fig. 7a shows an example pair of synapses. Is this typical? And what about Figs. 7b and c. Also an example pair? Or averages? It would be helpful to make all this clear to the reader.

Fig. 7a shows an illustrative pair of synapses, chosen to best display the relative patterns of variability under energy efficient and Bayesian synapses. We have noted this point in the legend for Fig. 7. Fig. 7bc show analytic relationships between energy efficient and Bayesian synapses, so each line shows a whole continuum of synapses(we have deleted the misleading points at the ends of the lines in Fig. 7bc).

(10)  The y-axis of Fig 6a refers to the synaptic weight as w while the x-axis refers to the mean synaptic weight as mu. Shouldn’t it be harmonised? It would be particularly nice if both were divided by µ, because then the link to Fig. 5c would be more clear.

We have changed the y-axis label of Fig. 6a from w to µ. Regarding the normalised variance, we did try this but our Gaussian posteriors allowed the mean to become small in our simulations, giving a very high normalised variance. To remedy this we would likely need to assume a log- posterior, but this was out of scope for the present work.

(11) Line 250 (now line 281): “Finally, in the Appendix". Please tell us which Appendix. Also, why not point out here that the bound is tightest at small ρ?

We have added the reference to the the section of the appendix with the derivation of the biological cost as a bound on the ELBO. We have also referenced the equation that gives the limit of the biological cost as ρ tends to zero.

(12) When symbols appear that previously appeared more than about two paragraphs ago, please tell us where they came from. For instance, we spent a lot of time hunting for ηi. And below we’ll complain about undefined symbols. Which might mean we just missed them; if you told us where they were, that problem would be eliminated.

We have added extra references for the symbols in the text following Eq. 69.

(13) Line 564, typo (we think): should be σ−2.

Good spot. This has been fixed.

(14)  A bit out of order, but we don’t think you ever say explicitly that r is the radius of a vesicle. You do indicate it in Fig. 1, but you should say it in the main text as well.

We have added a note on this to the legend in Fig. 1.

(15) Eq. 14: presumably there’s a cost only if the vesicle is outside the synapse? Probably worth saying, since it’s not clear from the mechanism.

Looking at Pulido and Ryan (2021) carefully, it is clear that they are referring to a cost for vesicles inside the presynaptic side of the synapse. (Importantly, vesciles don’t really exist outside the synapse; during the release process, the vesicle membrane becomes part of the cell membrane, and the contents of the vesicle is ejected into the synaptic cleft).

(16) App. 2: why solve for mu, and why compute the trace of the Hessian? Not that it hurts, but things are sort of complicated, and the fewer side points the better.

Agreed, we have removed the solution for μ, and the trace, and generally rewritten Appendix 2 to clarify definitions, the Hessian etc.

(17) Eq. 35: we believe you need a minus sign on one side of the equation. And we don’t believe you defined p(d|w). Also, are you assuming g = partial log p(d|w)/partial w? This should be stated, along with its implications. And presumably, it’s not really true; people just postulate that p(d|w) ∝ exp(−log_loss_)?

We have replaced p(d|w) with p(y, x|w), and we replaced “overall cost” with log P(y|w, x). Yes, we are also postulating that p(y|w, x) ∝ exp(−log loss), though in our case that does make sense as it corresonds to a squared loss.

As regards the minus sign, in the orignal manuscript, we had the second derivative of the cost. There is no minus sign for the cost, as the Hessian of the cost at the mode is positive semi-definite. However, once we write the expression in terms of a log-likelihood, we do need a minus sign (as the Hessian of the log-likelihood at a mode is negative semi-definite).

(18) Eq. 47 now Eq. 44: first mention of CBi;i?

We have added a note describing CB around these equations.

(19) The “where" doesn’t make sense for Eqs. 49 and 50; those are new definitions.

We have modified the introduction of these equations to avoid the problematic “where”.

(20) Eq. 57 and 58 are really one equation. More importantly: where does Eq. 58 come from? Is this the H that was defined previously? Either way, you should make that clear.

We have removed the problematic additional equation line number, and added a reference to where H comes from.

(21) In Eq. 59 now Eq. 60 aren’t you taking the trace of a scalar? Seems like you could skip this.

We have deleted this derivation, as it repeats material from the new Appendix 2.

(22) Eq. 66 is exactly the same as Eq. 32. Which is a bit disconcerting. Are they different derivations of the same quantity? You should comment on this.

We have deleted lots of the stuff in Appendix 5 as, we agree, it repeats material from Appendix 2 (which has been rewritten and considerably clarified).

(23) Eq. 68 now 54, left column: please derive. we got:

gai = gradient for weight i on trial

where the second equality came from Eq. 20. Thus

Is that correct? If so, it’s a lot to expect of the reader. Either way, a derivation would

be helpful.

We agree it was unnecessary and overly complex, so we have deleted it.

(24) App 5–Figure 2: presumably the data for panel b came from Fig. 6a, with the learning rate set to Δw/w? And the data for panel c from Fig. 6b? This (or the correct statement, if this is wrong) should be mentioned.

Yes, the data for panel c came from Fig. 6b. We have deleted the data in panel b, as there are some subtleties in interpretation of the learning rates in these settings.

(25) line 952 now 946: typo, “and the from".

Corrected to “and from".

Nice of them to point that this is a common scenario, not just a hypothetical one.

Update v1.1

New Recommendation: * For patients with FIGO 2014 stage III-IVA cervical cancer, pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy is recommended.

Update v1.1

Table 2 has been revised to include trial data from KEYNOTE-A18 (NCT04221945) that led to the approval of pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy for patients with FIGO stage III-IVA cervical cancer. Updated Table 2 can be found here.

Last Reviewed 5/25/24 (v1.1 Update)

SITC continuously evaluates the field for practice-changing data and new FDA approvals. The information on this page provides a detailed overview of updates to the guideline content based on changes in the field. Updates to the guideline outlined below were made with the approval of SITC's Gynecology Cancer CPG Expert Panel. More information on SITC Guidelines can be found at sitcancer.org/guidelines.

v1.1 Update Summary

• The FDA granted approval of pembrolizumab with chemoradiotherapy FIGO 2014 Stage III-IVA cervical cancer on January 12, 2024. Based on this approval, the Gynecologic Cancer CPG has been updated in the following location: Immunotherapy for the treatment of cervical cancer - Recommended immunotherapy treatments for cervical cancer (including Table 2). [Ref 13, 299, 300]

• The FDA granted approval of dostarlimab with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by single-agent dostarlimab for dMMR or MSI-H (as determined by an FDA-approved test) primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer on July 31, 2023. Based on this approval, the Gynecologic Cancer CPG has been updated in the following location: Immunotherapy for the treatment of endometrial cancer - Recommended immunotherapy treatments for endometrial cancer (including Table 3). [Ref 15, 121, 301]

See highlighted text for updated content and more detailed information.

I am curious where most of the folk and popular music traditions from the US come from. I feel like one of our primary exports in the US is culture/art, so I'd be very curious to see what inspiration we have taken from other parts of the globe.

I would like to learn more about the history of music's globalization and how artists from the US have utilized the power of the internet to export and share their music throughout the world. I am also curious on how different cultures around the world take inspiration from American music and implement elements of it into their own culture and music.

TEST

FDIC re: failure

for - fake meat - Bezos Center for Sustainable Protein

for post comment - LinkedIn - carbon sequestration - Jonathan Foley - Regenerative Agriculture

sign error

• SEGUNDA TURMA

• Processo: AREsp 2.523.152-CE, Rel. Ministro Francisco Falcão, Segunda Turma, por unanimidade, julgado em 21/5/2024, DJe 23/5/2024.

• Ramo do Direito <br /> DIREITO ADMINISTRATIVO, DIREITO PROCESSUAL CIVIL, DIREITO TRIBUTÁRIO

TemaPaz, Justiça e Instituições Eficazes <br /> Embargo à execução. Desistência do embargado. Adesão ao REFIS. Previsão de pagamento de honorários. Nova cobrança. Bis in idem.

DESTAQUE - Havendo a previsão de pagamento, na esfera administrativa, dos honorários advocatícios, na ocasião da adesão do contribuinte ao Programa de Parcelamento Fiscal, a imposição de pagamento da verba honorária, quando da extinção da execução fiscal, configura bis in idem, sendo vedada nova fixação da verba.

INFORMAÇÕES DO INTEIRO TEOR - Havendo a previsão de pagamento, na esfera administrativa, dos honorários advocatícios, na ocasião da adesão do contribuinte ao Programa de Parcelamento Fiscal, a imposição de pagamento da verba honorária, quando da extinção da execução fiscal, configura bis in idem, sendo vedada nova fixação da verba. Tal entendimento, inclusive, foi cristalizado no enunciado do Tema repetitivo n. 400/STJ.

• Nesse mesmo sentido, destaca-se: [...] V. Na esteira do entendimento firmado nesta Corte, em regra, a desistência da Ação Anulatória ou dos Embargos à Execução, decorrente da adesão do contribuinte ao Programa de Parcelamento, não implica o afastamento da condenação aos honorários advocatícios. [...] VI. Todavia, a jurisprudência desta Corte orienta-se no sentido de que, havendo a previsão de pagamento, na esfera administrativa, dos honorários advocatícios, quando da adesão do contribuinte ao Programa de Parcelamento Fiscal, a imposição de pagamento da verba honorária, quando da extinção da Execução Fiscal, configura bis in idem. [...] (AgInt no REsp n. 1.994.559/MG, relatora Ministra Assusete Magalhães, Segunda Turma, julgado em 14/11/2022, DJe de 22/11/2022).

Processo: REsp 2.029.809-MG, Rel. Ministro Marco Aurélio Bellizze, Segunda Seção, por unanimidade, julgado em 22/5/2024. (Tema 1200).

REsp 2.034.650-SP, Rel. Ministro Marco Aurélio Bellizze, Segunda Seção, por unanimidade, julgado em 22/5/2024 (Tema 1200).

Ramo do Direito DIREITO CIVIL

TemaPaz, Justiça e Instituições Eficazes <br /> Termo inicial do prazo prescricional de petição de herança. Pretenso filho. Pedido de reconhecimento de paternidade post mortem. Data da abertura da sucessão. Tema 1200.

DESTAQUE - O prazo prescricional para propor ação de petição de herança conta-se da abertura da sucessão, cuja fluência não é impedida, suspensa ou interrompida pelo ajuizamento de ação de reconhecimento de filiação, independentemente do seu trânsito em julgado.

INFORMAÇÕES DO INTEIRO TEOR - A controvérsia posta no recurso especial repetitivo centra-se em definir o termo inicial do prazo prescricional da ação de petição de herança, promovida por pretenso filho, cumulativamente com ação de reconhecimento de paternidade post mortem - se seria a partir da abertura da sucessão ou se seria após o trânsito em julgado da ação relativa ao estado de filiação.

• A Segunda Seção do Superior Tribunal de Justiça, por ocasião do julgamento dos EAREsp n. 1.260.418/MG (Relator Ministro Antônio Carlos Ferreira, julgado em 26/10/2022, DJe 24/11/2022), dissipou a intensa divergência então existente entre as suas Turmas de Direito Privado, para compreender que o prazo prescricional para propor ação de petição de herança conta-se da abertura da sucessão, aplicada a vertente objetiva do princípio da actio nata, adotada como regra no ordenamento jurídico nacional (arts. 177 do CC/1916 e 189 do CC/2002).

• Compreendeu-se, em resumo, que a teoria da actio nata em sua vertente subjetiva tem aplicação em situações absolutamente excepcionais, apresentando-se, pois, descabida sua adoção no caso da pretensão de petição de herança, em atenção, notadamente, às regras sucessórias postas.

• De acordo com o art. 1.784 do Código Civil, que internaliza o princípio da saisine, "aberta a sucessão, a herança transmite-se, desde logo, aos herdeiros legítimos e testamentários", independentemente do reconhecimento oficial desta condição. Por sua vez, o art. 1.784 do Código Civil preceitua que: "legitimam-se a suceder as pessoas nascidas ou já concebidas no momento da abertura da sucessão".

• Dessa maneira, conforme consignado no voto condutor, o pretenso herdeiro poderá, desde logo e independentemente do reconhecimento oficial desta condição (a de herdeiro), postular seus direitos hereditários, nos seguintes moldes: "i) propor ação de investigação de paternidade cumulada com petição de herança; ii) propor concomitantemente, mas em processos distintos, ação de investigação de paternidade e ação de petição de herança, caso em que ambas poderão tramitar simultaneamente, ou se poderá suspender a petição de herança até o julgamento da investigatória; e iii) propor ação de petição de herança, na qual deverão se discutidas, na esfera das causas de pedir, a efetiva paternidade do falecido e a violação do direito hereditário".

• Reputa-se, assim, absolutamente insubsistente a alegação de que a pretensão de reivindicar os direitos sucessórios apenas surgiria a partir da decisão judicial que reconhece a qualidade de herdeiro.

• A imprescritibilidade da pretensão atinente ao reconhecimento do estado de filiação - concebida como uma ação declaratória (pura), na qual se pretende, tão somente, a obtenção de uma certeza jurídica, atribuindo-se a ela, em verdade, o caráter de perpetuidade, já que não relacionada nem à reparação/proteção de um direito subjetivo violado, nem ao exercício de um direito potestativo - não poderia conferir ao pretenso filho/herdeiro a prerrogativa de escolher, ao seu exclusivo alvedrio, o momento em que postularia, em juízo, a pretensão da petição de herança, a redundar, indevidamente (considerada a sua natureza ressarcitória), também na imprescritibilidade desta, o que não se pode conceber.

• Esta linha interpretativa vai na direção da segurança jurídica e da almejada estabilização das relações jurídicas em lapso temporal condizente com a dinâmica natural das situações jurídicas daí decorrentes.

• Processo<br /> REsp 1.955.116-AM, Rel. Ministro Herman Benjamin, Primeira Seção, por unanimidade, julgado em 22/5/2024. (Tema 1213).

REsp 1.955.957-MG, Rel. Ministro Herman Benjamin, Primeira Seção, por unanimidade, julgado em 22/5/2024 (Tema 1213).

REsp 1.955.300-DF, Rel. Ministro Herman Benjamin, Primeira Seção, por unanimidade, julgado em 22/5/2024 (Tema 1213).

REsp 1.955.440-DF, Rel. Ministro Herman Benjamin, Primeira Seção, por unanimidade, julgado em 22/5/2024 (Tema 1213).

Ramo do Direito DIREITO ADMINISTRATIVO, DIREITO PROCESSUAL CIVIL

TemaPaz, Justiça e Instituições Eficazes <br /> Improbidade administrativa. Indisponibilidade de bens. Solidariedade entre os corréus. Art. 16, § 5º, da lei 8.429/1992 (com redação dada pelo Lei 4.230/2021). Ausência de divisão pro rata. Tema 1213.

DESTAQUE - Para fins de indisponibilidade de bens, há solidariedade entre os corréus da Ação de Improbidade Administrativa, de modo que a constrição deve recair sobre os bens de todos eles, sem divisão em quota-parte, limitando-se o somatório da medida ao quantum determinado pelo juiz, sendo defeso que o bloqueio corresponda ao débito total em relação a cada um.

INFORMAÇÕES DO INTEIRO TEOR - Cinge-se a controvérsia em saber se, para fins de indisponibilidade de bens (art. 16 da Lei n. 8.429/1992, na redação pela Lei n. 14.230/2021), a responsabilidade de agentes ímprobos é solidária e permite a constrição patrimonial em sua totalidade, sem necessidade de divisão pro rata, ao menos até a instrução final da Ação de Improbidade, quando ocorrerá a delimitação da quota de cada agente pelo ressarcimento.

• Sobre a matéria, as Primeira e Segunda Turmas do STJ possuem entendimento pacífico de "haver solidariedade entre os corréus da ação [de improbidade administrativa] até a instrução final do processo, sendo assim, o valor a ser indisponibilizado para assegurar o ressarcimento ao erário deve ser garantido por qualquer um deles, limitando-se a medida constritiva ao quantum determinado pelo juiz, sendo defeso que o bloqueio corresponda ao débito total em relação a cada um." (AgInt no REsp n. 1.827.103/RJ,Rel. Ministro Og Fernandes, Segunda Turma, DJe 29.5.2020.). Nesse mesmo sentido: REsp n. 1.919.700/BA, Rel. Ministra; Assusete Magalhães, Segunda Turma, DJe 16.11.2021; AgInt no REsp n. 1.899.388/MG, Rel. Ministra Regina Helena Costa, Primeira Turma, DJe 10.3.2021; AREsp n. 1.393.562/RJ, Rel. Ministro Francisco Falcão, Segunda Turma, DJe 7.10.2019; AgInt no REsp n. 1.910.713/DF, Rel. Ministro Benedito Gonçalves, Primeira Turma, DJe de 16.6.2021; AgInt no REsp n. 1.687.567/PR, Rel. Ministro Mauro Campbell Marques, Segunda Turma, DJe 2.3.2018; e REsp n. 1.610.169/BA, Rel. Ministro Herman Benjamin, Segunda Turma, DJe 12.5.2017.

• O art. 16, § 5º, da Lei n. 8.429/1992, com redação dada pela Lei n. 14.230/2021, assim dispõe ao regulamentar a matéria: "Art. 16. Na ação por improbidade administrativa poderá ser formulado, em caráter antecedente ou incidente, pedido de indisponibilidade de bens dos réus, a fim de garantir a integral recomposição do erário ou do acréscimo patrimonial resultante de enriquecimento ilícito. (...) § 5º Se houver mais de um réu na ação, a somatória dos valores declarados indisponíveis não poderá superar o montante indicado na petição inicial como dano ao erário ou como enriquecimento ilícito".

• Observa-se que a lei não prescreve que a limitação da indisponibilidade deva ocorrer de forma individual para cada réu, mas, sim, de forma coletiva, considerando o somatório dos valores. Esse ponto é fundamental para se constatar que a Lei de Improbidade Administrativa, com as alterações da Lei n. 14.320/2021, autorizou a constrição em valores desiguais entre os réus, desde que o somatório não ultrapasse o montante indicado na petição inicial como dano ao Erário ou como enriquecimento ilícito, na mesma linha do que já vinha entendendo esta Corte Superior. A propósito: "(...) III. O acórdão recorrido está em conformidade com a jurisprudência do Superior Tribunal de Justiça, que possui precedentes no sentido de que, 'havendo solidariedade entre os corréus da ação até a instrução final do processo, o valor a ser indisponibilizado para assegurar o ressarcimento ao erário deve ser garantido por qualquer um deles, limitando-se a medida constritiva ao quantum determinado pelo juiz, sendo defeso que o bloqueio corresponda ao débito total em relação a cada um' (STJ, AgInt no REsp 1.899.388/MG, Rel. Ministra REGINA HELENA COSTA, PRIMEIRA TURMA, DJe de 10/03/2021)." (REsp n. 1.919.700/BA, Rel. Ministra Assusete Magalhães, Segunda Turma, DJe de 16.11.2021).

• Nesse sentido, efetivado o bloqueio de bens que garantam o quantum indicado na inicial ou outro estabelecido pelo juiz, devem ser liberados os valores bloqueados que sobejarem tal quantum. A restrição legal diz respeito apenas a que o somatório não ultrapasse o montante indicado na petição inicial ou outro valor definido pelo juiz.

• Não há, portanto, no § 5º do art. 16 da Lei n. 8.429/1992 determinação para que a indisponibilidade de bens ocorra de forma equitativa entre os réus e na proporção igual (e limitada) de cada quota-parte, sendo adequado se manter, mesmo no regime da Lei n. 14.230/2021, a jurisprudência consolidada no STJ no sentido da solidariedade.

• O citado artigo, ora em discussão, cuida do provimento cautelar de indisponibilidade de bens, cujo escopo é garantir a integral recomposição do erário ou do acréscimo patrimonial resultante de enriquecimento ilícito. Tratando-se de decisão interlocutória proferida no âmbito da cognição sumária, razoável que se reconheça a possibilidade de, provisoriamente, haver responsabilização solidária, ao menos até o pronunciamento final, porque, neste estágio do processo, ainda não é possível, ordinariamente, determinar a responsabilidade de cada um dos litisconsorte pelo dano, sendo razoável que se mantenha a garantia, indiscriminadamente, sobre os bens de quaisquer dos acusados, limitado ao total reclamado.

• Dessa forma, considerando a nova redação do § 5º do art. 16 da Lei 8.429/1992, afirma-se a seguinte tese jurídica: "para fins de indisponibilidade de bens, há solidariedade entre os corréus da Ação de Improbidade Administrativa, de modo que a constrição deve recair sobre os bens de todos eles, sem divisão em quota-parte, limitando-se o somatório da medida ao quantum determinado pelo juiz, sendo defeso que o bloqueio corresponda ao débito total em relação a cada um."

test

eLife assessment

This important study reveals the use of an allocentric spatial reference frame in the updating perception of the location of a dimly lit target during locomotion. The evidence supporting this claim is compelling, based on a series of cleverly and carefully designed behavioral experiments. The results will be of interest not only to scientists who study perception, action and cognition but also to engineers who work on developing visually guided robots and self-driving vehicles.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study conducted a series of experiments to comprehensively support the allocentric rather than egocentric visual spatial reference updating for the path-integration mechanism in the control of target-oriented locomotion. Authors firstly manipulated the waiting time before walking to tease apart the influence from spatial working memory in guiding locomotion. They demonstrated that the intrinsic bias in perceiving distance remained constant during walking and that the establishment of a new spatial layout in the brain took a relatively longer time beyond the visual-spatial working memory. In the following experiments, the authors then uncovered that the strength of the intrinsic bias in distance perception along the horizontal direction is reduced when participants' attention is distracted, implying that world-centered path integration requires attentional effort. This study also revealed horizontal-vertical asymmetry in a spatial coding scheme that bears a resemblance to the locomotion control in other animal species such as desert ants.

The revised version of the study effectively situates the research within the broader context of terrestrial navigation, focusing on the movement of land-based creatures and offers a clearer explanation for the potential neurological basis of the human brain's allocentric odometer. Previous feedback has been thoroughly considered, and additional details have been incorporated into the presentation of the results.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study investigated what kind of reference (allocentric or egocentric) frame we used for perception in darkness. This question is essential and was not addressed much before. The authors compared the perception in the walking condition with that in the stationary condition, which successfully separated the contribution of self-movement to the spatial representation. In addition, the authors also carefully manipulated the contribution of the waiting period, attentional load, vestibular input, testing task, and walking direction (forward or backward) to examine the nature of the reference frame in darkness systematically.

I am a bit confused by Figure 2b. Allocentric coordinate refers to the representation of the distance and direction of an object relative to other objects but not relative to the observer. In Figure 2, however, the authors assumed that the perceived target was located on the interception between the intrinsic bias curve and the viewing line from the NEW eye position to the target. This suggests that the perceived object depends on the observer's new location, which seems odd with the allocentric coordinate hypothesis.

According to Fig 2b, the perceived size should be left-shifted and lifted up in the walking condition compared to that in the stationary condition. However, in Figure 3C and Fig 4, the perceived size was the same height as that in the baseline condition.

Is the left-shifted perceived distance possibly reflecting a kind of compensation mechanism? Participants could not see the target's location but knew they had moved forward. Therefore, their brain automatically compensates for this self-movement when judging the location of a target. This would perfectly predict the left-shifted but not upward-shifted data in Fig 3C. A similar compensation mechanism exists for size constancy in which we tend to compensate for distance in computing object size.

According to Fig 2a, the target, perceived target, and eye should be aligned in one straight line. This means that connecting the physical targets and the corresponding perceived target results in straight lines that converge at the eye position. This seems, however, unlikely in Figure 3c.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer 1:

(1) Authors need to acknowledge the physical effort in addition to visual information for the spatial coding and may consider the manipulation of physical efforts in the future to support the robustness of constant intrinsic bias in ground-based spatial coding during walking.

Whether one’s physical effort can affect spatial coding for visual perception is not a settled issue.  Several empirical studies have not been able to obtain evidence to support the claim.  For example, empirical studies by Hutchison & Loomis (2009) and Durgin et al. (2009) did not find wearing a heavy backpack significantly influenced distance perception, in contrast to the findings by Proffitt et al (2003).  We respectfully request not to discuss this issue in our revision since it is not closely related to the focus of the current study.

(2) Furthermore, it would be more comprehensive and fit into the Neuroscience Section if the authors can add in current understandings of the spatial reference frames in neuroscience in the introduction and discussion, and provide explanations on how the findings of this study supplement the physiological evidence that supports our spatial perception as well.  For instance, world-centered representations of the environment, or cognitive maps, are associated with hippocampal formation while self-centered spatial relationships, or image spaces, are associated with the parietal cortex (see Bottini, R., & Doeller, C. F. (2020). Knowledge Across Reference Frames: Cognitive Maps and Image Spaces. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(8),606-619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.008 for details)

We have now added this important discussion in the revision on pages 12-13.

We thank the reviewer for the helpful comments.

Reviewer 2:

(1) ….As a result, it is unclear to what extent this "allocentric" intrinsic bias is involved in our everyday spatial perception. To provide more context for the general audience, it would be beneficial for the authors to address this issue in their discussion.

We have clarified this on pages 3-4.  In brief, our hypothesis is that during self-motion, the visual system constructs an allocentric ground surface representation (reference frame) by integrating the allocentric intrinsic bias with the external depth cues on the natural ground surface.  Supporting this hypothesis, we recently found that when there is texture cue on the ground, the representation of the ground surface is influenced by the allocentric intrinsic bias (Zhou et al, unpublished results).

(2) The current findings on the "allocentric" coding scheme raise some intriguing questions as to why such a mechanism would be developed and how it could be beneficial. The finding that the "allocentric" coding scheme results in less accurate object localization and requires attentional resources seems counterintuitive and raises questions about its usefulness. However, this observation presents an opportunity for the manuscript to discuss the potential evolutionary advantages or trade-offs associated with this coding mechanism.

The revision has discussed these important issues on page 12.

(3) The manuscript lacks a thorough description of the data analysis process, particularly regarding the fitting of the intrinsic bias curve (e.g., the blue and gray dashed curve in Figure 3c) and the calculation of the horizontal separation between the curves. It would be beneficial for the authors to provide more detailed information on the specific function and parameters used in the fitting process and the formula used for the separation calculation to ensure the transparency and reproducibility of the study's results.

The results of the statistical analysis were presented in the supplementary materials.  We had stated in the original manuscript that we fitted the intrinsic bias curve by eye (obtained by drawing the curve to transcribe the data points as closely as possible) (page 26).  This is because we do not yet have a formula for the intrinsic bias. A challenge is the measured intrinsic bias in the dark can be affected by multiple factors.  One factor is related to individual differences as the intrinsic bias is shaped by the observer’s past experiences and their eye height relative to the ground surface.  However, it is certainly our goal to develop a quantitative model of the intrinsic bias in the future.

We thank the reviewer for the helpful comments.

Reviewer 3:

(1) I am a bit confused by Figure 2b. Allocentric coordinate refers to the representation of the distance and direction of an object relative to other objects but not relative to the observer. In Figure 2, however, the authors assumed that the perceived target was located on the interception between the intrinsic bias curve and the viewing line from the NEW eye position to the target. This suggests that the perceived object depends on the observer's new location, which seems odd with the allocentric coordinate hypothesis.

We respectively disagree with the Reviewer’s statement that “Allocentric coordinate refers to the representation of the distance and direction of an object relative to other objects but not relative to the observer.”  The statement conflates the definitions of allocentric representation with exocentric representation.  We respectfully maintain that the observer’s body location, as well as observer-object distance, can be represented with the allocentric coordinate system.

(2) According to Fig 2b, the perceived size should be left-shifted and lifted up in the walking condition compared to that in the stationary condition. However, in Figure 3C and Fig 4, the perceived size was the same height as that in the baseline condition.

We assume by “target size”, the Reviewer actually meant, “target location”.  It is correct that figure 3c and figure 4 showed judged distance changed as predicted, while the change in judged height was not significant.  One explanation for this is that the magnitude of the height change was much smaller than the distance change and could not be revealed by our blind walking-gesturing method.  Please also note our figures used difference scales for the vertical height and horizontal distance.

(3) Is the left-shifted perceived distance possibly reflecting a kind of compensation mechanism?  Participants could not see the target's location but knew they had moved forward.  Therefore, their brain automatically compensates for this self-movement when judging the location of a target.  This would perfectly predict the left-shifted but not upward-shifted data in Fig 3C.  A similar compensation mechanism exists for size constancy in which we tend to compensate for distance in computing object size.

We assume the Reviewer suggested that the path-integration mechanism first estimates the traveled distance in the dark, and then the brain subtracts the estimated distance from the perceived target distance.  We respectfully maintain that this explanation is unlikely because it does not account for our empirical findings.  We found that walking in the dark did not uniformly affect perceived target distance, as the Reviewer’s explanation would predict.  As shown in figures 3 and 4, walking affected the near targets less than the far targets (i.e., the horizontal distance difference between walking and baseline-stationary conditions was smaller for the near target than far target).

(4) According to Fig 2a, the target, perceived target, and eye should be aligned in one straight line. This means that connecting the physical targets and the corresponding perceived target results in straight lines that converge at the eye position. This seems, however, unlikely in Figure 3c.

We have added in the revision, the averaged eye positions on the y-axes of figures 3 and 4.  To reveal the impact of the judged angular declination, we also added graphs that plotted the estimated angular declination as a function of the physical declination of the target.  In general, the slopes are close to unity.

We thank the reviewer for the helpful comments.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer 1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) This study is very well-designed and written. One minor comment is that anisotropy usually refers to the perceptual differences along cardinal (horizontal + vertical) and oblique directions. It might be clearer if the authors changed the "horizontal-vertical anisotropy" to "horizontal/vertical asymmetry”.

The Reviewer is correct, and we have changed it to horizontal/vertical asymmetry (pages 8 and 11).

Reviewer 2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) Providing more details about the "path integration mechanism" when it is first introduced in line 44 would be helpful for readers to better understand the concept.

The revision has expanded on the path integration mechanism (page 4).

Adding references for the statement starting with "In fact, previous findings" in lines 218 and would be helpful to provide readers with a basis for comparison between the current study and previous studies that reported an egocentric coding system.

We have added the references and elaborated on this important issue (pages 10-11).

(2) There appears to be a discrepancy between the Materials and Methods section, which states that 14 observers participated in Experiments 1-4, and the legends of Figures 3 and 4, which indicates a sample size of "n=8." It would be helpful if the authors could clarify this discrepancy and provide an explanation for the difference in the sample size reported.

We have clarified the number of observers on page 14.

(3) While reporting statistical significance is essential in the Results section, there are several instances where the manuscript only mentions a "statistically significant separation" with it p-value without providing the mean and standard deviation of the separation values (e.g., line 100 and 120). This can make it difficult for readers to fully grasp the quantitative nature of the results.

The statistical analysis and outcomes were presented in the supplementary information document in our original submission.

Reviewer 3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) Figure 1 is not significantly related to the current manuscript.

We feel that retaining figure 1 in the manuscript would help readers to quickly grasp the background literature without having to refer extensively to our previous publications.

(2) Add eye position to the results figures.

We have added eye positions in the figures.

(3) Fig 4c requires a more detailed explanation. The authors stated that Figures 4a and 4c showed consistent results.  However, because 4a and 4c used different horizontal axis, it is different to compare them directly.

We have modified the sentence in the revision (page 8).