HIV was a gift to the Christian right and now that medication has been so successful, things like HPV make up a larger part of what they have left. Helping parents misuse their small power in general but extreme power over their children also plays into the hands of people wanting the corruption of power over truth.
You are not correct according to Reuters.
"The new schedule also recommends U.S. children receive a single dose of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, rather than a two-dose course. Recent studies have concluded that a single dose is not inferior to the longer course and noted the World Health Organization also backs a single dose schedule."
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
Not really. While you have a large potential energy buildup at a higher altitude, you cannot "bank it" / "save it" on descent. There is no way to store it in batteries or convert it back into fuel.
One of the challenges of aeronautics is the efficient disposition of the potential energy without converting it all into kinetic energy (ie speed) so that the landing happens at an optimally low speed - thus giving you a chance to brake and slow down at the end.
> "While you have a large potential energy buildup at a higher altitude, you cannot "bank it" / "save it" on descent. There is no way to store it in batteries or convert it back into fuel."
An electric fan aircraft absolutely can recharge it's batteries on descent. The fans simply act as turbines, creating drag to slow the aircraft and electricity to charge the batteries. Large commercial airliners already have a small turbine that works this way, the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) which is used to generate electrical power in emergencies.
You can use a turbine to generate electricity, so yes, you are converting potential energy into electrical potential. However, no real mass produced passenger plane today can use that electricity for flight (thrust).
RAT is only used when sh*t hits the fan. Even then, it can help you power some hydraulics / electrical, not “store” energy for further flight.
The OP asked - in a low fuel situation, can the energy spent on a climb get effectively recovered - and the answer is not really. We convert as much as we can into unpowered (low-powered) descent. But once you are at a spot where you make a final decision to land or not, you are by design low and slow - and all that energy you had 15m ago is gone.
If you need to keep flying, those engines need to spool back up. And that takes fuel.
> "no real mass produced passenger plane today can use that electricity for flight (thrust)"
Such aircraft do exist. For example, the Pipistrel Velis Electro trainer. And more recently, the Rhyxeon RX4E became the first electric aircraft to be type-certified for commercial passenger operations.
It's likely that we'll see many more electric fan aircraft in the coming years/decades, whether powered by batteries and/or hydrogen fuel cells, or hybrids with both conventional turbofan and electric propulsion in order to improve efficiency and environmental performance.
Many airports (in the US, at least) make much more money from parking fees than everything else. On top of that, at least some operate their retail in a royalties model too (ie 20% of all sales goes to the airport, before any costs).
Thus, there is very little incentive to keep you in the airport less, and multiple incentives to keep you there longer.
That's what makes the 2-hour early 'rule' so egregious. Manipulating passengers to sit around in a Disneyland-priced mall because of the 1 in 5 chance the TSA screwed up their staffing that day.
I think Singapore has a pretty good experience worked out now, the immigration is automated just with an iris scan.
Additionally moving security to the gate rather than having a single security point for all flights also makes the wait here shorter and more importantly predictable.
If I'm just taking a cabin bag I always arrive 35-40 minutes before a flight and have had no trouble with time, normally enough time to grab a coffee too before boarding.
> Reviewers can be professors, PhD students, etc. and are paid by the journal for their time.
Most journals do not pay for reviewers time. There are some experiments that allow for this, but I would say 99% of the reviews out there are done... "out of the goodness of the reviewer's heart".
There are indirect benefits to being a reviewer, such as early access to unpublished work, "goodwill" with the editor, etc.
It's possible they checked before (and the article suggests they had an inclination where the gene should be) but the resultant backcrosses involved a spontaneous recombination of the relevant fragment. It's possible someone checked the wrong vial in lab, or mislabeled results. It's possible something funny "just happened".
Wet lab is hard, and everyone is chasing the eureka moment.
My reading of the article suggests they modified the genomes of multiple trees, and the “winners” that got into the field happened to have ancestors that had moved the target gene to a different chromosome.
They’re simultaneously trying to make precision modifications to the genome and also trying to preserve hundreds of wild strains.
If they succeed, the required technological advances will probably be broadly applicable.
"Upon further and additional independent investigation, scientists confirmed that the trees they had been researching were in fact *descendants of a different event in the Darling line* in which the OxO gene had been inserted into a coding region, causing a deletion in a known gene. "
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr. He was a fascinating man, relatively non-famous. Probably singlehandedly contributed to more environmental damage than you can imagine. Died in a strange way too.
* overhead - people cost a lot of money: this includes ongoing maintenance of the tech stack, including rewrites of obsolete parts, but also ops cost - preprinting can include more than one human touchpoint
* converting PDFs to HTML is an annoying problem
* searchability of the repo is likely an annoying problem
* any new features that stakeholders want added (commenting, annotations, etc)
* ongoing hosting / CDN cost
How much do each of those cost and how does it add up to 10M? If you get two overqualified people to work on it full time and pay them FAANG salaries it'll still be enough for decades. I can't imagine the hosting is expensive when 99% of the papers are a few megs at most.
I'm just a bit confused because this is a site that already works really well and isn't technically difficult.
Magically using billions of federal money to hold assets to maturity is a bailout. If hypothetical JPMorgan is willing to pay for the (ie) bonds $20B, but they "support" $25B of deposits... that $5B is a bailout. Even if in 10 years those bonds would be worth $25B.
In their defense, if the backup requires accessing archive tape drive records, long processing queues in non-scalable systems, etc - this could easily take 24 "physical" hours of things getting lined up correctly.
It's one thing to show you the last 24hr of tweets. Another to get a complete twitter history for given uid.
I still scratch my head about some no-brainer vaccines such as HPV. All upsides, prevents the literal cancer. No downsides.