MattDMo

@anongoodnurse If I could scientifically show where the line was, I could single-handedly end the abortion debate. Unfortunately, I don't know when a bee becomes a bee, or an acorn a tree, or a bunch of cells a living human being.

Look up parthenogenesis. Also, a single cell is not a living being/bee. It is a cell. It can develop into a bee, but it is not a be in and of itself, no more than an acorn is an oak tree.

Anybody have any suggestions?

RIP Richard Leakey bbc.com/news/world-africa-59833131

So, if you post in chat ±12h from Jan 1, 0:00 UTC and the message is starred, you earn a Happy New Year hat. Which I haven't gotten on this site yet. Just sayin'...

Yes, I suppose it is a good step. I just hope that they continue in this direction. Like I said, I'm still here.

@BryanKrause This is yet another example of the rampant "community cluelessness" at corporate. The accepted answer basically boiled down to "Gee, we didn't think anybody cared, so we just went ahead and changed it without asking anyone." At least they accepted responsibility and rolled it back, unlike other recent fiascos *coughMonicacough*. I'm still here, though...

Fascinating article from America's National Public Radio on "3-parent babies" and mitochondrial genomes.

@another'Homosapien' you're naughty!

@another'Homosapien' one of my suspects

@another'Homosapien' Not that I know of, but I have a few suspects in mind. You could probably figure it out pretty easily by reading the context of the starred statements.

@another'Homosapien' yeah, I can't wait for his next diatribe. I suppose we'll have to wait until he gets sick again.

@another'Homosapien' In the other SE/SO chatrooms I'm involved with, a star is used to tag items which match what I mentioned - they're funny, informative, or interesting. It's not a reward for answering a question or something, and there's already a bookmark capability.

@another'Homosapien' it was in his mind, I suppose. I barely remembered it even when he reminded me.

General question - why are all these random things starred on the right? They're neither funny, nor interesting, nor particularly informative. Like upvoting newbies on the main site, someone does not understand how starring is supposed to work...

@another'Homosapien' I particularly liked how he claimed straight away that my downvote was because of some previous discussion on a question that I didn't even remember. Paranoia starts early.

The answer is good, short, and to the point. I wish it had more direct references, but it clearly refutes the (somewhat fuzzy) points the OP had made at the time. What makes it memorable is the tirade it kicks off, with the OP (I think, it's kind of unclear) claiming that he's one of the greatest scientists of all time, and he's being persecuted b/c of his brilliance, and b/c of that we're all attacking him and his theories. Or something. I really hope he doesn't delete any of his comments.

And, until I edited it out yesterday, an admittance that most of it was written during a 40C fever. You can draw your own conclusions about that :)

@another'Homosapien' unfortunately, flags do not equal close votes, but they can influence a mod to finally close it. The question is essentially content-free, although if you go through the edit history you'll find all sorts of interesting stuff. For example, the fact that until 3 hours ago, there weren't any scientific references supporting any of his claims.

Anybody want to cast the final close vote on this gem and let it fall into the waste bin of opinion-based questions? For some entertainment, read the comment stream after the answer. It's quite enjoyable.

@CowperKettle most likely. If they're using the standard TMB two-part substrate, I believe one of the components is somewhat light-sensitive, which is one reason why they ship in opaque bottles. However, it would have to be exposed to bright light for a very long time (days to weeks to months) before you'd see any effect in your assays.

@CowperKettle I literally can't count the number of ELISAs I've done in my life - probably somewhere in the mid-thousands if I had to guess. It's just one of those things you pick up on after a while - you accidentally leave a plate out on the bench during development, and it works exactly the same as the plate you ran yesterday!

You can do the development in the dark and it won't hurt anything, but it's not necessary. Neither the enzyme nor the substrate chemicals will lose any detectable activity in that short of a period of time.

@CowperKettle I'm not sure the parentheses (round brackets) are necessary here. Also, is the text in question referring to an HRP-mediated reaction? In that case, protection from light is not necessary. It's just a common lab urban legend.

@WYSIWYG they can be called "popup windows" or "dialog boxes" or just plain "windows"

@CowperKettle you're absolutely correct, that's what I was getting at in one of my earlier comments. I just mentioned it so you could pass it along to your ELL friend so s/he can have a better understanding.

@CowperKettle If you've ever heard of the word "extemporaneous" or of someone "speaking extemporaneously" then that might give your friend a clue to the meaning. Someone who speaks extemporaneously does it off-the-cuff, without preparation or warning time, right away.

@CowperKettle I would write it as "Use a freshly-prepared solution of ______ to ______". While ex tempore is a nice use of Latin, it's not a common phrase in the lab, at least here in 'Murica.

I've just updated my useful comments post on Meta to make homework just about homework. I added a new section for poorly-researched questions, and another for hypothetical, opinion-based questions.

@CowperKettle regarding the last sentence: that's not necessarily true, so don't take that at face value. For example, in an ELISA assay, I may be using a base 1X sample buffer (PBS with 0.05% Tween-20 or PBS-T) and the 1000X detection antibody needs to be diluted in that, not water.

@CowperKettle in all the labs I've been in, yes. Granted, I haven't worked in a full straight-out chem lab since my undergraduate days almost 20 years ago, but I've spent plenty of time in bio and biochem labs, and the X abbreviation is used universally, both for self-prepared solutions and those obtained from vendors. I would assume straight chem would be the same, but I just asked in The Periodic Table just to make sure.

@CowperKettle yup, this one is best

@SanjuktaGhosh that question is fine. Its title could be a little more narrowly focused (Can adult jellyfish host photosynthesizing bacteria?) but it gets the idea across. Titles should only be changed when they're completely uninformative (Question about biology) or they clearly state one question in the title then go on to ask a completely different question in the text.

@terdon Just tried out my new comment, with only a little bold. And two italicized letters. I still don't know how I feel about "too broad": There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs. That's just not always the case.

@terdon How about this? The Biology.SE community has agreed that **questions that show little or no prior research effort** are off-topic on this site **unless you have shown your attempt at an answer**. Please [edit] your question and tell us **where** you've looked, **what** you do know, and **where exactly** you still have questions. Unresearched questions may be subject to down-voting and closure.

Maybe I just need to reword my canned response to lousy no-research questions to not mention homework, and instead say something like "the community has agreed that questions that show little or no prior research effort are off-topic on Biology unless you have shown your attempt at an answer.

@terdon I suppose that's true, but it doesn't explain to the OP why the question was closed. There needs to be some education here.

@terdon Well, SO does a fairly decent job at making certain kinds of bad questions OT - lacking MCVE, library request, typos, etc. Granted, it doesn't cover everything, but it's a start. I think we need to more strongly emphasize in the tour and help center at least that no-research questions are discouraged.

@terdon Thanks :) I'm at 50-something thousand on SO, and I really missed having those privileges here. At least I can see those cute pink-surrounded deleted answers now...

The problem is we don't have a close reason that adequately covers these situations. Too broad doesn't work, because sometimes the questions are properly focused. Primarily opinion-based is out. Unclear what you're asking doesn't really apply, because it's often quite clear what they want to know. So, we need an addition to the Off-topic because... menu.

Hello, 1st place person!

@Soleil-MathieuPrévot Oh, I missed that. Thanks

@Soleil-MathieuPrévot I read it to mean that those hats were cleared from everyone, regardless of whether they'd earned them or not, so even if you earned one/both, you'll have to earn them again.

@comprehensible if you feel that you have enough sources to convincingly defend your hypothesis, then write an answer and let the voters decide who is correct. At this point, I feel that you are arguing just because you are so wedded to your hypothesis that you don't want to accept any opposing evidence, which is the opposite of how the scientific method is supposed to work. Additionally, your point about a lack of modern jaw fractures related to chewing doesn't make any sense - if we evolved to have a strong jaw/chin to prevent such injuries, then of course we won't suffer from them!

@Jan @NotWoodward thanks for the explanations. It makes sense, I just haven't had to think in terms of pure chemistry for a long time. If you're reacting chemical A with chemical B in the presence of catalyst C, you want to make sure the molarities match up, and since the same reactant can be used in multiple different reactions at different concentrations, it could be 3.5X in one experiment, and 17.6X in another.

In bio and biochem, the X notation is pretty universal, but seeing as I haven't been in a straight chem lab since my undergrad days, I wanted to check.

Also, does this just apply to self-made solutions only, or do kit components from vendors also use it?

Hi everyone, greetings from Biology! I just have a very quick and simple question: in the lab, are concentrated solutions labeled using the X notation? Meaning, a ten-fold concentrated HCl solution is labeled as 10X HCl. Or, are things just labeled by molarity, and you need to do the calculation yourself to determine if it needs to be diluted 50-fold or whatever?