Although the immediate processing of food might occur in major digestive organs, the effect of increased or decreased nutrient availability will be felt throughout the body. One primary effect of starvation is the breaking down of cells (autophagy) in order to reuse their components for more necessary bodily functions - like the atrophying of muscles.

Naturally, your germ line cells are one of your core bodily functions, so the nutrients will necessarily need to make their way there.

One recent paper[1] hypothesized that the byproducts of this cellular breakdown can cause cells to bundle up DNA that encodes some genes, rendering them less accessible and therefore less active. This can even be passed trans-generationally (presumably by altering the tight storage of specific genes in the germ line cells).

Broadly this mechanism is called epigenetics, where specific histone protein modifications cause regions of DNA to coil up tightly, making it far less likely to be expressed, or unwind and become far more active. It’s a very neat mechanism by which many characteristics can become generational despite not having a clear genetic component.

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10244352/

I don’t trust any graph without at least its axes and captions, so here’s the source.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/consumerpriceinflation/april2024

While I think the message here is important, this particular plot seems to be of “Owner Occupier’s Housing Costs” and this capture conveniently crops the frame so that you don’t see the dip just before 2019.

I don’t know anything about being an electrician - commercial or otherwise, so I’m curious to hear your side.

When all those people go to working remote, it’s not like they’re no longer in need of electricity. Presumably their home demand is higher and we might even see people adding new office spaces to adapt their home. Maybe the public grid needs to change to support it? Won’t this mean that there will just be a different type of demand for electricians?

Are there reasons this would be less attractive to electricians? Pay, job security, or something else?

Maybe those aren’t the same people.

Thanks for sharing! Really interesting history in this article. It’s scary to think what a world would look like if Sun didn’t sue Microsoft into oblivion and put an end to this strategy.

We could be living in a world where Windows is the dominant desktop OS instead of our beloved Solaris.

To be serious, though, being sued/forced to settle isn’t an indicator that the strategy hasn’t worked. In fact, as is evident by the continued doubling down on the strategy by Microsoft and the unfettered execution of this strategy with Chrome, it’s clear that the value far outweighs the cost of the occasional settlement. The only real deterrent is antitrust regulation and that has been just about entirely defanged. These concerns are especially pertinent for something like Lemmy where there’s no central entity to soak the legal fees to go to court.

You can substitute “at least 10 years ahead” as stated in the second sentence of the article quoting US senators.

we need to know who makes the most green hydrogen

That would be an awesome stat, but it’s not what the article claims. I explained that above.

But because the topic has caught my interest I did some more digging. The only report I found was linked on Wikipedia, which says that 0.1% of all hydrogen globally is produced using renewable energy. This is the same figure China claims they produce, so by volume I would expect the total volume to be proportional to the production/consumption, which would mean China still would produce approximately 2x the next biggest producer. There could still be other countries punching way above their weight, but given the incredibly low net green production globally, we’d be splitting hairs over what amounts to research plant production. You’re welcome to continue searching for more specific reporting.

Now, given that we’ve found ourselves on a tangent sparked by a misunderstanding of the article, trying to compare countries on a metric that amounts to 0.1% of production, I would say it would be a better use of both of our time to focus on how we get the other 99.9% of production over to green production. Given this article, China seems to be approaching that problem ambitiously and I’m glad to see it. To address climate change we absolutely need China to invest in green tech, so this article should only be received positively. I’m looking forward to tracking the progress, because it looks like there’s a lot of opportunity to improve globally.

(sorry for duplicate posts, deleted the 3 others)