?

I do think a real point is raised here: that it is only in a modern, secular world that we are able to have the "study of religion." Yet I am skeptical of the idea that this means religion itself is also a modern phenomenon.

Maybe, but ofc the Evangelical "relationship, not religion" people.

But what about Christianity vs. atheism or "superstition"?

A monk definitely would! And early Christians have terms (θρησκεία, θεοσέβεια) that can certainly be translated as "religion."

Is it? This assumes a lot about the causality of these "definite historical circumstances." Augustine or Pascal, for instance, would disagree, as would any "natural theologian."

This seems like a category error to me. There have always been religious people, it seems, and even the discipline of studying religious practice goes pretty far back. Yet chemists are the one doing chemistry.

Not so much uncovered as assumed.

This assumes a lot about the audience/who is studying religion.

Do we?

"Average understanding"? Maybe to a post-Enlightenment European, but even many of those see no opposition.

True!

test

This is a practice annotation from Prof Daly.

This actually got me. When I watched the first video and it was "revealed" that the creator was "not real," I fully believed it because I've definitely been tricked by AI videos before. After watching the second video by Professor Casey Fiesler, I was genuinely shocked, both because I fell for it so fast and because I felt double tricked. I might've believed it as fast as I did because I've never seen any of Kurt Skelton's videos before, so it was easy for me to imagine that he might've just been curated by another creator. Maybe had I seen that creator's videos prior to that video, I would've been more skeptical since I would've seen a longer history of the creator and his personality. Definitely a shocker to me either way though!

Sun is trying to appeal to supporters of transgender rights, as well a skeptics who believe their views are scientifically grounded and need to be challenged on those terms.

Responding to groups like the IDW that claim to defend science while using it to argue against transgender rights is motivated by the growing influence of arguments in politics and public discourse around these issues.

The author matters because Sun is a neuroscientist writing about biological sex and gender from a scientific stand point. Her background establishes credibility and helps explain why the article focuses on correcting scientific misunderstandings rather than debating gender purely as a social issue.

Sun’s article argues that biological sex cannot be reduced to a simple binary and that scientific research contradicts the “basic biology” often cited to oppose transgender identities.

Today, we are exposed to a growing number of AI-generated videos on platforms like Instagram and YouTube. While some are clearly AI, others appear highly realistic, often prompting viewers to question whether the content was created by a human or AI. This ongoing uncertainty has begun to shape a habitual way of thinking, where we instinctively evaluate the authenticity of what we see. As AI and bots become further integrated into digital media, this shift raises important questions about how trust, perception, and credibility may evolve in the future.

This phenomenon appears frequently with celebrities. Bots are often used to generate coordinated hate comments or manipulate online discourse, which can significantly harm celebrities’ digital presence. Such misuse undermines personal expression, damages mental well-being, and disrupts the sense of personalization and safety within their online spaces.

I was already familiar with harmful bots, but it was interesting to learn about friendly bots! I learned more about their abilities while reading this section, which I was previously unaware of.

The “fake bot” idea is wild because it flips the usual problem—now humans can pretend to be AI to get attention, seem mysterious, or dodge accountability (“it wasn’t me, it was the bot”). That makes trust even harder, since it blurs what’s real automation versus just performance. It also makes me think platforms might need clearer disclosure norms, because otherwise people get rewarded for deception either way.

It’s kinda scary how coordinated bot/troll activity can make a backlash look way bigger (and more “real”) than it actually is, which can totally warp what people think the general public believes. The stat about a lot of negative tweets being politically motivated or not even human really shows why “online outrage” isn’t always a reliable measure of real opinion. It also feels unfair to creators, because they can get pressured or harassed by something that’s basically manufactured.

It amazes me how quickly the internet tries to corrupt these bots. As another comment mentioned, the same thing is also happening to Twitter's Grok, as well as many other similar bots in recent days.

I find it fascinating that while antagonist bots can be used negatively, there are ones, like the gender pay gap bot, that are used to create a positive impact and bring attention to issues like these. It's nice to see that, like all things, even 'antagonist bots' can also be used towards a positive change.

In addition to bots that were made to spam advertisements or as a way for influencers to gain more followers, some bots can help some influencers gain more recognition. Aside from just followers, some will buy bots just to comment on their posts or share them, which can make them seem more popular, leading them to appear on more people's feeds and social media, thus gaining more real-life followers.

Not really. I think in a lot of controversial cases involving bot behavior are often not excused because at the end of the day, someone programmed it. Maybe it's because I don't know exactly how bots work, but I feel like a bot's actions are limited to what its programmer allows it to do, so if a bot is able to do something (such as post racist comments, as explained in an earlier section of this chapter), then something in its code allowed it to process racist information and express it. In the case from earlier this chapter, it probably should've been considered that if the bot is using other twitter users' tweets toward the company and that information is public, there probably should've been safeguards to detect racial remarks and block it from the bot's vocabulary and processing. It could be argued that that scenario slipped from their minds, but I think that anything that will be released to the public should be tested and be given feedback from a smaller community before released to the mass public. Surely someone would've thought that the bot could pick up racist tweets.

This is the danger.

Relativism!

And this is the challenge of the scholar!

It's good to note this.

Well, here is the tricky part: do they operate outside of their understandings? The problem of description is that they can be made apart from what a practitioner actually believes...

But can't these elements simply be integrated into an intelligible account?

Agreed.

Any proposals for how to go about this?

This is a crucial point.

Good point.

True.

Or disagreements between the observer and the practitioners (if such a distinction is to be made).

Also true.

Valid point.

Is this not circular?

But this strikes me as very "external." What is the "internal" sense that I am supposed to get?

Is it?

What makes something a "religious object" though? Does this concept not commit us to some idea of what "religion" is?

I once would have said this was disgusting, but I have grown beyond that

Unless we were starving and we'd be forced to, but hey, I wonder what they taste like

That, I would assume, is incredibly nutritious

Not only is production at a low cost but distribution is now at the point and available hyper targeted.

Although this likely pertains to more contemporary times, I think this is a great reminder that biology, although often seen solely as physical, can also be molded through social and cultural constructs. Thus, in interpreting skeletal remains, it is important to consider what biology may reveal about the social environment the individual inhabited during life. In deep time, this obviously may be difficult, but I think it serves to demonstrate that great thought must be devoted when attempting to assign individual anatomy to larger populations.

Makes sense with interleaving in mind.

why was this restriction added.

Perhaps it is mentioned elsewhere, but what does this mean by 'per person?' Does this refer to every maxilla/mandible that had articulated teeth? I feel like teeth would fall out fairly easily within a burial context, though I may be wrong. If the teeth are disarticulated, it seems it would be rather difficult to assign them to a particular person before analysis was conducted on them.

I think this relates to one of the reading questions: "The commitment on the part of the HWN to allow this biological material to be retained is beneficial to researchers, but is it beneficial to them?" While I do think the research was beneficial for the Huron-Wendat as it revealed scientific data regarding their past, one has to question how much authority the group actually had in 'controlling their story.' Though sometimes individuals from Indigenous groups may be involved in the research, often times it will be individuals outside of these groups running the tests in labs and publishing papers. In this sense, though the Huron-Wendat did play an important role in this research, one has to question how much authority they actually have in 'controlling their story' within a scientific context. I don't know if there is a simple, practical solution to this, however.

I have very little coding experience, so I am unfamiliar with how a bot is structured. This section of the textbook was helpful in educating me on how to create a bot in Python, as well as other programming languages.

Dear authors, congratulations on the beautiful work. - This is clearly a very important work to define the ON-DSGC subtype and investigate the developmental regulation of the subtype using genetic and functional approaches. I have a minor critique - For Figure 6, I suggest that your revised/peer-reviewed paper should cite the original publication (PMID: 35524141) in both text/method on mWGA-mCherry as (mWmC+) instead of saying a generic (WGA+), as your staining was RFP (the mWmC fusion ) but not WGA-protein. The fusion protein (but not the original plant lectin from Yoshihara 1999) made visualization robust and quantifiable.

The functional perspective is one of three main ways CEStoicism looks at things.

CEStoicism encourages both the formation of groups following its own nomic and entailment net, as well as similarly-concerned groups with different forms of self-coordination.

Specifically, this mechanism is our nomic and entailment net.

In some situations the control mechanisms may come from a place external of the systems under control. For example, from a farmer (C) that controls many of the conditions/inputs of the plants (Sn) on the farm (S').

But in the situation of a true democracy (S'), the control mechanism (perhaps better called a coordination mechanism) comes from the people themselves (Sn). This coordination mechanism (C) is composed of a good-faith process where the people (Sn) create and edit the rules they agree to live under.

Major transitions in evolution (Maynard Smith and Szathmary 1995) mark the generation of new coherences - that is, of new and overarching constitutive regimes that are the outcome of interlocking context-independent and context-dependent constraints.

A. Juarrero, Context Changes Everything, p.51

See Epistemology, introduction

See Metaphysics, introduction.

In Stoicism, the ultimate good is Eudaimonia.

Ecological Economics says we do not yet know what the ultimate end is.

Such as these Eternal Philosophical Questions.

See Process.

See here. From that page:

Broadly speaking, philosophy has three concerns: how the world hangs together, how our beliefs can be justified, and how to live. — Jim Holt, New York Times Book Review, 15 Feb. 2009

There is no previous basis for the "tails" to have to "protect" themselves from water. This would be a great place to add the term amphipathic to go along with hydrophobic and hydrophilic. Also to unpack polar and nonpolar molecules interacting. I have used magnets as my example for polar molecules and plastic as the nonpolar so students grab the idea that polar molecules stick together while nonpolar molecules have no affinity for the polar molecules.

CEStoicism defines eudaimonia as a goal, attained by living with virtue.

Besides stable equilibrium, equifinality also describes the 'release' stage of the adaptive cycle.

The goal as something that is not present, but which the system works towards is an example of an absential.

CEStoicism generally follows Principia Cybernetica's view of philosophy.

Also see Ecological Economic's ultimate ends.

CEStoicism does not desire the immortality of the individual, to which points 16 and 17 aspire. The evolution of culture/worldview/p-individual can occur with or without the indefinite continuation of individuals. Instead, creative immortality and cultural P-individual immortality suffice.

On both points 10 and 11, CEStoicism differs with Principia Cybernetica. Rather than humanity integrating into a 'world society and government', CEStoicism believes that people are gaining more opportunities to discover an increasing number of non-geographic cultures/worldviews (which are themselves stable conceptual systems (SCSs), which they may explore and possibly join. SCSs converse with each other through conflict and cooperation, through interaction. These conversations may result in the emergence of more complex SCSs capable of broader and deeper conversation. Potentially, these SCSs may be semi-immortal in the sense that they have the possibility to continue propagating through human generations, if they maintain fitness. We de-emphasize the idea of human minds integrating through a technological/physical connection of their nervous systems. Instead, we see language and culture as the connection, which technology may support.

CEStoicism is unsure if older religious systems, and the idea of metaphysical immortality, are losing their influence. However, we do agree that other forms of immortality are gaining appeal, including the immortality of stable conceptual systems (SCSs).

See vicarious selectors

The definition we are most interested in.

Links to Survival.

See r vs. k selection for two types of proliferation/survival strategies.

See values, norms, beliefs.

A coherent framework.

The understanding is knowledge.

We understand knowledge as a model.

See Evolutionary Epistemology.

“Life is the universe experiencing itself, in endless variety.” -Alan Watts.

"Through our eyes, the universe is perceiving itself. Through our ears, the universe if listening to its harmonies. We are the witness through which the universe become conscious on its glory, of its magnificence." -Alan Watts.

See Pantheism.

A world view is a broad stable conceptual system (SCS).

Stoic disciplines and virtues offer guidance for individual action. Deep Ecology, Ecological Economics and the Solidarity Economics offer guidance for collective action.

Link in page 227 of 'Neither Ghost Nor Machine'

CDStoicism is an incomplete worldview, however the explanations of the world that it offers include cybernetics, ecology, cybernetics, biosemiotics.

(Help make it more complete)[https://cestoicism.neocities.org/Nomic.html].

A perception-action cycle

Add afferent and efferent pathway to the list as noted earlier.

Afferent and efferent pathways would be good terms to add to this list.

CE Stoicism de-emphasizes and is uninterested in the idea of "up-loading" one's mind and instead emphasizes the idea of creative immortality achieved by an contantly-evolving Stable Conceptual System (SCS) that maintains high fitness.

Living parts of existence that continue to survive) have periods of constructive evolution in the K-phase of their adaptive cycle, and also demonstrate resilience both within one cycle and throughout many cycles in a panarchy.

A really fun short story!

This is meant in its literal sense: That systems well-suited to their environmental niche are likely to recreate themselves in that niche.

Others misapplied this phrase to assert that the behavior of social groups is fixed and genetically-determined. This use of the phrase is called Social Darwinism, and is often used to justify racism. CEStocism does not agree with this interpretation and use of the phrase.

See ultimate ends as defined in by Ecological Economics.

The r- and K-situations correspond to different phases in the adaptive cycle. r is the growth or exploitation phase. K is the conservation phase.

For a non-anthropomorphic agent like nature, 'choice' is done non-anthropomorphically, through randomness or by natural law/principle.

In accordance with Naturalistic Pantheism, we choose to not anthropomorphize nature.

"Taking the transcendental idealism of Immanuel Kant as his starting point, Schopenhauer argues that the world we experience around us—the world of objects in space and time and related in causal ways—exists solely as ‘representation’ (Vorstellung) dependent on a cognizing subject, not as a world that can be considered to exist in itself (i.e. independently of how it appears to the subject’s mind). Our knowledge of objects is thus knowledge of mere phenomena rather than things-in-themselves. Schopenhauer identifies the thing-in-itself—the inner essence of everything—as will: a blind, unconscious, aimless striving devoid of knowledge, outside of space and time, and free of all multiplicity. The world as representation is, therefore, the ‘objectification’ of the will."

From Wikipedia's The World as Will and Representation

For a non-anthropomorphic agent like nature, we believe 'choice' is done non-anthropomorphically, such as through randomness or by natural law/principle.

In accordance with Naturalistic Pantheism, we choose to not anthropomorphize nature.

Again, for a non-anthropomorphic agent like nature, 'we believe choice' is done non-anthropomorphically, such as through randomness or by natural law/principle.

We differ from PcP here: Nature as an agent does not come into being. Rather nature itself is being, and exists throughout all time and space (as does nature's agency).

At the end of this section it would help to see the visceral and parietal terms used with the membrane/cavity terms. ie. visceral pericardium and parietal pericardium to help students see the pattern of naming membranes. This has been a difficult concept for students to grasp for a long time.

A further break down of the thoracic cavity to include the pleural cavity, pericardial cavity, and superior mediastinum terms would be helpful here. The information is a part of the diagram, but the terms are not found in the descriptive text.

I don't see "intermediate" in the list of terms. That would be good to add.

This is my first time seeing a click-farm, and I usually associate these accounts with bot accounts because they perform similar things. Both are used to boost inauthentic engagement for posts, advertisements, or other content.

I like this clarification because “bot” gets thrown around so loosely online. It makes sense to draw the line at whether an account is actually run by software versus a human, even if that human is being paid and tightly scripted. Calling click-farm workers “human computers” is kind of unsettling, but it does a good job of showing how inauthentic behavior isn’t always automated in a technical sense.

See Bootstrapping

Agreement between several p-individuals across several m-individuals. See Pask's Conversation Theory.

We respect the specific definition of 'thought' defined by Principia Cybernetica, but we feel the real distinction of the human animal from other animals is humans' extensive use of fine-grained signs. We also stress that self-consciousness, tool making, imagination, planning, play, sense of humor and esthetic feelings are likely abilities/activities shared by some other animals, although maybe not to the same fine-grained ability as humans. We further stress that human are still animals.

CEStocism believes various forms of media already allow humanity to transcend individual thought, however the use and quality of media ranges widely, and this variety leads us to disbelieve that a single coherent superorganism or global brain will come about. Rather, we see the continuing evolution, interaction, merging and splitting of distinct worldviews or stable conceptual systems.

We also believe the future holds a chance of either or both: (a) A novel metasystem transition that allows for a continued greater conservation phase. (b) A significant risk of either a consequential collapse, release and reorganization of societal resources

This example shows how separating intention from action can be used to avoid responsibility. This can be applied to bots, since people who deploy them can hide behind the automated actions while denying responsibility for what the bot produces.

The donkey example actually made this click for me. It’s a really clear way to show how intention and action can be separated, and how responsibility gets blurred when the “actor” doesn’t understand what it’s doing. Seeing bots framed this way helps me think less about blaming the account itself and more about the people behind it, likewho designed it, deployed it, or benefit from it, even if they’re far removed from the actual action.

I believe it is crucial to analyze the intentions of the various people involved, as they are the root of how a bot behaves online. This also draws back to the fact that all actions made by the bots should be traced back to the programmers, as bots are not autonomous and do not know the difference between right and wrong; only the people who are giving them instructions know.

See Entailment Net

See Constructivisim

See https://cestoicism.neocities.org/selection

Also see Rachel Burnham's review (http://rachelburnham.blogspot.com/2019/07/review-of-curation-power-of-selection.html) of Michael Bhaskar's book "Curation. The power of selection in a world of excess" describes curation in terms of selection:

[Bhaskar] describes curation as 'using acts of selection and arrangement (but also refining, reducing, displaying, simplifying, presenting and explaining) to add value.

...

He sees expert selection as at the start of good curation and quotes from Maria Popova, curator of the highly thought of 'Brain Pickings': "The art of curation isn't about the individual pieces of content, but about how these pieces fit together, what story they tell by being placed next to each other, and what statement the context they create makes about the culture and the world at large. This is, she argues, a process of 'pattern recognition'. Seeing how things fit together, understanding connections (which multiply in a networked environment), but then also, crucially, creating new ones by recombining them, is a massive part of curation."

See https://cestoicism.neocities.org/selection

I found my shell on my MacBook is not Bash. What is it?

See also selection

See also survival

Basically, all this resistence from Member States i in fact (as author argues) EVIDENCE OF CO - DECISION AND INTEGRATION WORKING - > necssary hurdles to overcome -> successful negortaions processes.

OLP makes Member States "manage" the EP in areas where BEFORE LISBON they would have ignored it (selective exits? Less possible after Lisbon. Good queston idk)

OLP is theoretically now ONLY for regulatory issues but that IS changing (ad evidenced)

In conc -> trilogues need to be more transparent, EP needs better procedures for it. Need to connect Member States and citizens more -> therefore need more open dialogue.

"Under these conditions, ironically, the OLP might for the time being remain ‘a democratic procedure for regulatory issues only’. However, the passage to bicameralism is real, and intergovernmental carve outs and parliamentary conservatism are part and parcel of the deepening of co-decision. The OLP compels Member States to ‘manage’ the EP in areas of sensitive issues where they would rather just ignore it. Likewise, it exposes MEPs to the growing public expectations of civil society organizations. EU bicameralism is growing out of the straitjacket of intergovernmental relations—even in sensitive cases of market regulation."

"Summing up the comparative observations on these three dimensions, these cases show the strengths and weaknesses of EU bicameralism, as it enters into new, sensitive areas of market regulation. Member States do not yet consider EU bicameralism as the only game in town; in this respect, agriculture is no different from financial regulation. However, MEPs still have a considerable influence on the daily process of bicameral law-making by instituting democratic control and pluralistic representation. The analysis shows that faced with pressure, MEPs reacted very differently in agriculture and in financial affairs, resulting in a lower degree of EP autonomy from the Council in agriculture than in financial affairs. These different outcomes probably reflect a range of circumstances and conditions, which researchers now need to disentangle. They likely include the extent to which EP committees are used to working with co-decision, the intensity of public pressure, and the configuration of policy networks."

LASTLY -> last way to measure impact of cultural / political effects of OLP are via looking at specific SECTORS of legislation -> in this case agricultural and financial market policy -> use these two exampels because they are SO DIFFERENT -> therefore any post OLP / Lisbon treaty trends must be related/

"On virtually all aspects of policy-making, agriculture and finance are so different that any similarities in the process or outcome of EU bicameralism would have to be taken seriously."

Anyway, existence of trilogues (they are regulated -> EP has reporting requirements on them, but still controversial) is evidence of DEMOCRATIZATION of co-decision process -> i.e., not those macro treaty level things, but in DAILY PRACTICE -> in other words, Democratic effects of the OLP and co-decision being codified are influence on EVERY DAY actings of legislative bodies and this is EVIDENCED by the existence of trilogues.

Trilogue "socialization" is the "realist" interpretation of co-decision.

"the trilogues themselves have generated their own norms and expectations as part and parcel of the broader process of socialization between the Commission, EP, and Council participants. It has been argued that trilogue socialization has promoted a more ‘realist’ interpretation of co-decision, which has moderated the reformist ambitions of the EP by linking its credibility to expectations of ‘responsible’ legislator (Ripoll Servent 2012). All in all, the democratic effects of the co-decision and OLP procedures seem to trickle down in everyday law-making through a sedimental process where democratic norms play a certain, but not uncontested, role."

KEY -> Cultural / political measurement of OLP / Lisbon impact can also be seen as the importance of INSTITUTIONALIZATION -> i.e., the increasing legitimacy of legal rules and procedures -> when these acquire "substance and stability" (in OLP's case is INSTITUTIONALIZATION of the co-decision procedure, which already existed -> here is saying that this is a MOMENT IN TIME when such a procedure is absolutely codified into law)

"importance of institutionalization: the moment when legal rules and procedures acquire substance and stability. "

“Hereditary / 遗传的” — with appropriate images

English — hereditary (thorough explanation)

1) Core meaning

Hereditary means passed from parents to offspring through genes. If something is hereditary, it can be inherited biologically because it is encoded in DNA.

2) Biological mechanism

• Genes are segments of DNA located on chromosomes.

• Each person usually inherits two versions of a gene (alleles):

• one from the mother

• one from the father

• These alleles influence:

• traits (eye color, hair texture)

• disease risk (some genetic disorders)

3) Traits vs. conditions

• Hereditary traits → visible or functional characteristics
• Hereditary diseases → conditions influenced by inherited genes

Important:

• Hereditary ≠ contagious
• Hereditary ≠ guaranteed (a gene can increase risk without causing disease)

4) Common inheritance patterns

• Autosomal dominant: one allele is enough to show the trait
• Autosomal recessive: two recessive alleles are required
• X-linked: gene is on the X chromosome, affecting males and females differently

5) Example sentences

• “Eye color is partly hereditary.”
• “This disease is hereditary, but symptoms may not appear in every carrier.”

中文 — hereditary（遗传的） 详细解释

1) 核心含义

遗传的（hereditary） 指 通过基因从父母传给子女的性状或特征，本质上与 DNA 有关。

2) 生物学原理

• 基因存在于 染色体 上，由 DNA 构成
• 人通常从父母各获得一份 等位基因

• 等位基因共同决定：

• 外貌或生理性状

• 是否携带某些遗传性疾病的风险

3) 重要区分

• 遗传 ≠ 传染（不是病菌传播）

• 遗传 ≠ 一定会发生

• 有些人携带基因，但并不表现症状

4) 常见遗传方式（中学重点）

• 显性遗传：一份显性基因即可表现
• 隐性遗传：需要两份隐性基因
• 伴性遗传：基因位于 X 染色体上

5) 中文例句

• “这种特征是遗传的，会在家族中出现。”
• “这是遗传性疾病，但并非每个携带者都会发病。”

学习提示（给 Biology / Genetics）

看到 hereditary，可以立刻联想到这条逻辑链： DNA → 基因 → 等位基因 → 遗传方式 → 性状 / 疾病

如果你愿意，我可以下一步把它做成 中英对照生物词卡（flashcards），或直接嵌入你之前的 Unit 1 DNA HTML 教学页面。

English — incomplete dominance (thorough explanation)

1) What incomplete dominance means (core idea)

Incomplete dominance is an inheritance pattern in which neither allele is completely dominant, so the heterozygous phenotype is an intermediate (blended) form of the two homozygous phenotypes.

Incomplete dominance = blending of traits in heterozygotes

2) How incomplete dominance works

• Two different alleles affect the trait
• In a heterozygous individual, both alleles partially influence the outcome
• The result looks like a mix, not one trait hiding the other

3) Classic example (Science 10 favorite): flower color

Let:

• R = red flowers
• W = white flowers

Cross: RR × WW

Offspring:

• RW → pink flowers

📌 Pink is not a new allele; it’s the intermediate phenotype.

4) Incomplete dominance in Punnett squares

Parents: RW × RW

Possible offspring:

• RR → red
• RW → pink
• RW → pink
• WW → white

Phenotype ratio: 1 red : 2 pink : 1 white

📌 Notice: phenotype ratio = genotype ratio in incomplete dominance.

5) Incomplete dominance vs other patterns (very important)

| Pattern | Heterozygous result | Example | | ------------------------ | ------------------------- | ------------------ | | Dominant–recessive | Dominant trait only | Brown eyes | | Incomplete dominance | Blended trait | Red × white → pink | | Codominance | Both traits fully visible | AB blood type |

6) Why incomplete dominance matters

Incomplete dominance:

• Explains traits that don’t follow simple dominance
• Increases visible variation in populations
• Is common in plants, animals, and humans (for some traits)

One-sentence exam summary

Incomplete dominance occurs when heterozygous individuals show an intermediate, blended phenotype.

中文 — incomplete dominance（不完全显性） 详细解释

1) 什么是不完全显性（核心概念）

不完全显性是指： 两个等位基因中没有一个完全显性，杂合体表现为中间型性状。

不完全显性 = 性状混合表现

2) 不完全显性的表现特点

• 显性不能完全压制另一等位基因
• 杂合体表现为中间状态
• 性状不是“要么这个，要么那个”

3) 经典例子（考试常考）

花的颜色：

• 红花（RR）
• 白花（WW）

杂交后：

• RW → 粉红色花

📌 粉红不是新基因，而是红和白的中间表现。

4) 潘尼特方格中的不完全显性

父母：RW × RW

后代比例：

• 1 红（RR）
• 2 粉（RW）
• 1 白（WW）

👉 表现型比例 = 基因型比例

5) 不完全显性 vs 共显性（重点区分）

| 遗传方式 | 表现结果 | | ----- | ---------- | | 不完全显性 | 中间型（混合） | | 共显性 | 两种性状同时清楚出现 |

一句话考试版总结

不完全显性指杂合体表现为两种性状的中间型。

如果你愿意，我可以把 dominant / recessive / incomplete dominance / codominance 整理成 Science 10 中英对照对比表、潘尼特方格练习或互动闪卡，非常适合系统复习与教学。

不完全显性（incomplete dominance） EN: A condition in which neither allele for a gene completely conceals the presence of the other, resulting in an intermediate expression of a trait. Example: In four o’clock plants, red flowers crossed with white flowers produce pink offspring, an intermediate phenotype. 中文：两种等位基因互不完全掩盖对方，从而产生介于双亲之间的中间型表现。 例子：紫茉莉红花与白花杂交产生粉红花，就是不完全显性的例子。

English — traits (thorough explanation)

1) What traits are (core idea)

Traits are characteristics or features of an organism. They describe how an organism looks, behaves, or functions.

Trait = a characteristic of a living thing

Traits can be:

• Inherited (passed down from parents)
• Influenced by the environment
• Or a combination of both

2) Types of traits

A) Inherited (genetic) traits

These traits are controlled by genes and passed from parents to offspring.

Examples:

• Eye color
• Hair color and texture
• Blood type
• Natural height potential

📌 These traits are present from birth.

B) Acquired (environmental) traits

These traits develop due to life experiences or environment.

Examples:

• Suntan
• Muscle strength from exercise
• Scars
• Language spoken

📌 These traits are not inherited genetically.

C) Traits influenced by both genes and environment

Many traits result from both heredity and environment.

Examples:

• Height (genes + nutrition)
• Intelligence (genes + education)
• Athletic ability (genes + training)

3) Traits in genetics (Science 10 focus)

In genetics, traits are:

• Controlled by genes
• Each gene may have different alleles
• Alleles can be dominant or recessive

📌 Example:

• Brown eyes (dominant)
• Blue eyes (recessive)

Punnett squares are used to predict traits in offspring.

4) Genotype vs phenotype (important distinction)

| Term | Meaning | Example | | --------- | ------------------- | ---------- | | Genotype | Genetic makeup | Bb | | Phenotype | Physical expression | Brown eyes |

📌 Traits are what you see (phenotype), based on genes (genotype).

5) Why traits matter

Traits:

• Explain similarities and differences between organisms
• Help scientists study inheritance
• Are the basis of natural selection and evolution

One-sentence exam summary

Traits are characteristics of organisms that can be inherited, acquired, or influenced by both genes and environment.

中文 — traits（性状 / 特征） 详细解释

1) 什么是性状（核心概念）

性状（traits）是指生物表现出来的特征或特点。

性状 = 生物的特征

2) 性状的类型

① 遗传性状

由基因决定，从父母传给子女。

例子：

• 眼睛颜色
• 头发颜色
• 血型

② 获得性状

由环境或经历造成。

例子：

• 晒黑
• 肌肉增强
• 疤痕

③ 遗传 + 环境共同影响

• 身高
• 学习能力
• 运动能力

3) 遗传学中的性状（考试重点）

• 性状由基因控制
• 基因有不同等位基因
• 等位基因有显性和隐性

4) 基因型 vs 表现型

| 概念 | 含义 | | --- | ---- | | 基因型 | 基因组合 | | 表现型 | 外在性状 |

一句话考试版总结

性状是生物的特征，由遗传和环境共同决定。

如果你需要，我可以把 traits / inherited traits / acquired traits / Punnett squares 做成 Science 10 中英对照闪卡或课堂练习题，直接用于教学或复习。

性状（trait） EN: An inherited characteristic, such as eye colour or hair colour. Example: Traits like seed colour in pea plants or the ability to taste bitterness are controlled by genes. 中文：一种可遗传的特征，如眼睛颜色、头发颜色等。 例子：豌豆的种子颜色、是否能尝出苦味，都是由基因控制的性状。

English — alleles (thorough explanation)

1) What alleles are (core idea)

Alleles are different versions of the same gene. They control variations of a trait, such as eye color or flower color.

Allele = one version of a gene

Each gene can have two or more alleles, but an individual organism usually carries two alleles per gene (one from each parent).

2) Where alleles are found

• Genes are located on chromosomes
• Alleles sit at the same position (locus) on homologous chromosomes
• One allele comes from the mother
• One allele comes from the father

📌 This is why offspring show traits from both parents.

3) Example of alleles (simple)

Trait: Seed color

• Y = yellow
• y = green

Possible allele combinations:

• YY
• Yy
• yy

These combinations affect the trait that appears.

4) Dominant vs recessive alleles (Science 10 focus)

Dominant allele

• Shown with a capital letter (A)
• Expressed if at least one copy is present

Recessive allele

• Shown with a lowercase letter (a)
• Expressed only if two copies are present

📌 Example:

• Aa → dominant trait shows
• aa → recessive trait shows

5) Alleles, genotype, and phenotype (key relationship)

| Term | Meaning | Example | | --------- | ------------------ | ---------- | | Allele | Version of a gene | A or a | | Genotype | Allele combination | Aa | | Phenotype | Physical trait | Brown eyes |

Alleles determine the genotype, which determines the phenotype.

6) Alleles in Punnett squares

Punnett squares:

• Show how alleles from parents combine
• Predict possible offspring genotypes
• Estimate trait probabilities

📌 Example: Parents: Aa × Aa

• Possible offspring: AA, Aa, Aa, aa

7) Why alleles are important

Alleles:

• Explain variation within a species
• Help predict inheritance patterns
• Are the basis of genetics and evolution
• Allow populations to adapt over time

One-sentence exam summary

Alleles are different versions of the same gene that determine variations in traits.

中文 — alleles（等位基因） 详细解释

1) 什么是等位基因（核心概念）

等位基因（alleles）是指同一基因的不同版本，决定同一性状的不同表现。

等位基因 = 同一基因的不同形式

2) 等位基因在哪里

• 基因位于染色体上
• 等位基因位于同源染色体的相同位置
• 一个来自母亲，一个来自父亲

3) 等位基因举例

性状：豌豆高度

• T = 高
• t = 矮

组合可能是：

• TT
• Tt
• tt

4) 显性与隐性等位基因（必考）

• 显性等位基因：只要有一个就会表现
• 隐性等位基因：必须两个都有才表现

📌 Tt → 显性性状 📌 tt → 隐性性状

5) 等位基因与性状的关系

• 等位基因 → 基因型
• 基因型 → 表现型

一句话考试版总结

等位基因是控制同一性状的不同基因形式。

如果你愿意，我可以把 alleles → genotype → phenotype → Punnett squares 整理成 Science 10 中英对照闪卡或互动练习，直接用于复习或教学。

等位基因（allele） EN: Different versions of the same gene that may produce different forms of a trait. Example: For pea flower colour, one allele codes for purple and another for white. 中文：位于同源染色体相同位置、控制同一性状的基因的不同形式。 例子：例如花色基因可以有紫花等位基因和白花等位基因。

Joan Westenberg on blogging

Blogs as self care

yes, build what you want to have.

encyclopedie as infra, in the sense of having a stable set of refs for all. Not blogs therefore (except for uris).

A room of one's own (Virginia Woolf) digitally is a blog. Disagree, bc it's public, which is the opposite. It is a window on the output of that room.

I do think there's more people who get fed up with the empty carbs of socmed yes. I also think they don't see alternatives, def not writing for themselves at any length. An issue is that bringing in all those people doesn't scale the writing. At first everyone blogged bc that was how you participated in the conversation, so it attracted those that were ok with writing

newsletters seem to still work well imo. Consistency and rhythm is a challenge though.

RSS is plumbing so it's invisible to most. My team doesn't realise there's an easy way to follow my blog. Readersoftware isn't common anymore.

blogposts still get indexed well by search engines, and certainly way better than socmed utterings.

Sees bloggers switching to socmed or substack and impoverishing themselves intellectually in the process.

In contrast socmed stuff is declarative, taking up a position to only get opposition.

Blogging as essays, attempts to put something into words, acknowledging the uncertainty.

Posits the original encyclopedia was both a k organising attempt and a network of references between ideas, thus bringing them together

Platform stuff is in a competition for attention. And that is its only purpose.

blogging has an imagined audience, and any output can be referred to.

platforms have no interest in permanence, only in engagement in the now

describing the distributed conversations that were important to me for blogging too. Not sure we were as exalted though.

Blog as a more prudent way to spread ideas than the twitter type short messages

Enlightenment was not a salon, but an era where coming up with ideas and spreading them carried risk.

Typo, maybe "To Python:"

Naively, looks like it should take a negative value. H_oe points in -Y by amperes law. for a magnetization with phi=0, then by right hand rule the torque points down.

However, torque and tau are related by a minus sign, because tau is defined as mhatdot

Farewell words of Ophelia, in her madness, to the ladies of the court of the King of Denmark

"Thanks" in Cockney.

Abortion pills.

Pharmacist.

Released from military service.

The barman is telling everyone to get out.

Folk song.

"The Tempest."

In medieval art, the dolphin was associated with love.

God of love.

The sound of the nightingale.

Mentions of abuse.

The panels of a coffered ceiling.

The first ecounter of Enea and Didone in Virgil's "Aeneid".

Shakespeare's "Antony and Cleopatra".

Satyrical play of Thomas Middleton "A game at chess".

Ethan Mollick prompts Claude AI to come up with something that people will pay for and could make $1k/month

(via [[Stephen Downes p]])

• [ ] return

[[Pieter Colpaert p]] introduces the concept of n:: eventual interoperability

Vgl [[Adversarial Interoperability 20200729143434]] [[EU Interoperability Framework EIF]]

By [[Laurens Hof p]] X is geen platform probleem maar een machtsprobleem. Nog lezen wat hij exact bedoelt. Imo denk ik dat elk platform dat het type beslissingen neemt dat X doet, geen platform in (US) juridische zin meer is, en dus ook inhoudelijk verantwoordelijk is en daarmee aansprakelijk.

Some good pointers to [[Brian Eno c]] work and thinking, to follow up.

Also good anecdote from one of those links on Rem Koolhaas notion of n:: premature sheen Making things look nice early takes away from thinking about other points of quality. Jeremy applies it to AI too, the premature sheen generate awe, but not quality output.

"I think of Cognitive Debt as ‘where we have the answers, but not the thinking that went into producing those answers”. It is a phenomenal largely (but not exclusively) fuelled by the deployment of LLMs at scale. Answers are now much, much cheaper to come by.

Additionally, I am most interested in exploring Cognitive Debt not from an individual perspective, but from a group one. It is critical to thinking through the implications of using these technologies inside an organisation, or between an organisation and its employees, a government and its citizens, and so on and so forth."

n:: cognitive debt - [ ] return

UAE to move to AI driven governance. Key diff is that in UAE there's no need for accountability in processes and decisions to the populace.

on llms in qualitative research: the only winning move is not to play

Techdebt, maintenance costs due to expedient choices in development to accelerate development.

Applies to software dev w AI too.

Sanskrit word, "peace".

Thomas Kyd's "The Spanish Tragedie".

"The Prince of Aquitaine, of the ruined tower", a line which Eliot refers to its source in the sonnet ‘El Desdichado’ (‘The Disinherited’) by Gérard de Nerval.

A line from the anonymous poem Pervigilium Veneris, which ends with a reference to Philomela.

Last line of Canto 26 of Dante's Purgatorio, in which he meets Arnauld Daniel.

Nursery rhyme.

The Fisherman King.

Count Ugolino, XXXIII of Dante's Inferno.

Paolo and Francesca, second circle of Dante's Inferno.

Imperative, "control".

Hero of Shakespeare's play.

Imperative "be compassionate".

Imperative "give".

Holy mountain in the Himalaya range.

River Ganges.

The betrayal of Judas.

The church bells of London.

The image of the knights looking for the Holy Grail is introduced.

Bertrand Russell told Eliot that he had dreamt of London collapsing.

Jesus, God or perhaps Tiresias.

God’s instruction to Moses, to relieve the thirst of the Israelites, having led them through the desert.

According to the Bible, the earth shook when Christ died.

The first scene of the last part of the poem represents the cruxification of Christ.

Wikipedia pagina over Jan Lucas van der Baan