This patient was later phenotypically characterized in more depth (PMID: 12037008)

PMID: 19352439

Gene: ABCA4

HGNC ID: 34

Case#: Patient #34, female, 61yo at baseline visit, "intermediate" age of onset

DiseaseAssertion: ABCA4-related retinopathy with secondary RPE atrophy

FamilyInfo: n/a

CasePresentingHPOs:

CaseHPOFreeText: Inclusion criteria were defined as 1) presence of at least one mutated allele in ABCA4 (NM_000350.2) in Sanger sequencing with multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification analysis or next-generation sequencing 2) a compatible phenotype with flecks at the level of the RPE consistent with ABCA4 -related Stargardt disease 3) presence of RPE atrophy, and 4) serial examinations with an interval of at least 6 months. RPE atrophy to the end-stage (i.e., demarcated lesions with ≥90% darkness of the optic disc under short-wavelength excitation light, DDAF) that previously showed highest interreader agreement.7 The size of DDAF has to be at least 0.05 mm 2 (each single atrophic area in cases of multifocality), and the entire lesion must be completely visualized on the AF image at each visit to be advanced for analysis. Self-reported symptom onset into early-onset (≤10 years), intermediate-onset (11–44 years), and late-onset (≥45 years). ff-ERG based Category: Group 1 contained eyes with normal scotopic and photopic responses; Group 2, eyes with normal scotopic responses, but reduced (over 2 SDs) photopic B-wave and 30-Hz flicker amplitudes; and Group 3, eyes with impairment of both rod- and cone-driven responses. BCVA: OD=n/a, OS=1 [LogMAR] .

CaseNotHPOs:

CaseNotHPOFreeText: Insufficient pupil dilation, additional retinal pathology, previous retinal treatment, or other ocular comorbidities substantially affecting image quality led to exclusion from the study

GenotypingMethod: Sanger sequencing with multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification analysis or next-generation sequencing

PreviouslyPublished: possible since Birtel is an author on this paper and the probands both have the same second variant as in PMID: 29555955

Variant: allele 1: c.3468C>G p.(Tyr1156*) allele 2: c.5059A>T p.(Ile1687Phe)

ClinVar: n/a

CAID: CA341290648

SupplementalData: The supplemental table linked here contains genotype and phenotype information.

Case#: Patient #9, female, 23yo at onset, 32yo at report, German

DiseaseAssertion: macular dystrophy or cone-rod dystrophy

FamilyInfo: inheritance= sporadic. phase not confirmed, but no other affected family members and no parental consanguinity

CasePresentingHPOs:

CaseHPOFreeText: reduced visual acuity, erg scotopic= reduced, erg-photopic=reduced

CaseNotHPOs:

CaseNotHPOFreeText: syndromic retinal disease, age-related macular degeneration, central serous retinopathy, autoimmune retinopathy, retinal vascular disease, achromatopsia, X-linked retinoschisis, North Carolina macular dystrophy

CasePreviousTesting: n/a

GenotypingMethod: Sanger sequencing of ABCA4

PreviouslyPublished: n/a

Variant: c.1654G>A p.Val552Ile; c.4771G>A p.Gly1591Arg; c.1622T>C p.Leu541Pro; c.3113C>T p.Ala1038Val

CAID: CA239745

SupplementalData: Supplementary table 1

PMID: 11594993

Gene: ABCA4

HGNC: 34

PMID: 29925512

Gene: ABCA4

Disease: Stargardt

PMID: 37774808

Gene: ABCA4

Disease: Stargardt

Case#: Patient#010046, Chinese, female, 28yo at onset

DiseaseAssertion: stargardt

FamilyInfo: n/a

CasePresentingHPOs: STGD1 diagnosis based on the following criteria: "a bilateral central vision defect; fundus displaying a beaten-bronze appearance and/or orange-yellow flecks in the retina from the macula to the midperiphery; fluorescein angiography presenting with a typical dark choroid; and normal to subnormal ERG results." stage 2( numerous yellow-whitish flecks throughout the posterior pole) BCVA=0.05/ 0.05

CaseHPOFreeText:

CaseNotHPOs:

CaseNotHPOFreeText:

PreviouslyPublished: PMID: 26780318

Variant: p.P2097S; p.A1773V phase unknown

ClinVar: 2202780

CAID: CA341277622

SupplementalData: supplementary table S4 has phenotype information

PMID: 25712131

Gene: ABCA4

Disease: ABCA4-associated retinal degenerations

Case#: Braun Family 4 Proband (from left to right, top to bottom of available pedigrees), male

DiseaseAssertion: Stargardt

FamilyInfo: Both parents are unaffected, but only mother has genotype information available since father is deceased. c.5196+1137G>A maternally inherited. c.1022-1035fs inferred to be inherited from the father since other siblings also have this variant. Proband has 1 affected sister with the same genotype, and 2 siblings that were unaffected heterozygotes

CasePresentingHPOs:

CaseHPOFreeText: "five or more of the following features of ABCA4-associated retinal disease: decreased visual acuity before age 20, decreased visual acuity as the first visual symptom, symmetrical fundus findings, pisciform flecks, beaten metal macular atrophy, bulls-eye maculopathy, peripapillary sparing, vermillion fundus, masked choroid on fluorescein angiography, nummular pigment overlying extensive macular atrophy, central outer retinal atrophy on optical coherence tomography and central scotomas on Goldmann perimetry."

CaseNotHPOs:

CaseNotHPOFreeText:

GenotypingMethod: one plausible disease-causing mutation detected in ABCA4 after assessing the entire coding sequence and canonical retinal splice junctions with automated bidirectional Sanger sequencing using an ABI 3730 sequencer

PreviouslyPublished: n/a

Variant: c.5196+1137G>A; c.1022-1035fs

ClinVar: 438100

CAID: CA26843511

SupplementalData: pedigree in fig s2

PMID: 18977788

Gene: ABCA4

Disease: Stargardt disease

Case#: MD-0324 Proband,

DiseaseAssertion: STGD

FamilyInfo: Family MD-0324

CasePresentingHPOs:

CaseHPOFreeText: STGD diagnosed based on "bilateral central vision loss; fundus presenting with a beaten-bronze appearance and/or the presence of orange-yellow flecks in the retina from the posterior pole to the mid-periphery; fluorescein angiography showing typical dark choroid; and normal to subnormal electroretinogram (ERGs)."

CaseNotHPOs:

CaseNotHPOFreeText:

GenotypingMethod: Haplotype analysis, ABCR400, NGS

PreviouslyPublished: n/a

Variant:c.3386G>T p.Arg1129Leu; c.3G>A p.Met1Ile

ClinVar: n/a

CAID: CA341289040

SupplementalData: n/a

Paper is said to contain this variant based on LOVD entry, but this paper is not publicly available. Requested from library. Annotation on stable PDF. No individual phenotype provided

This variant was listed in a supplemental table under "autosomal recessive variants" but there are no patient IDs to be able to know if the person who had this variant had another variant. There was also no phenotype information provided

https://www.facebook.com/groups/705152958470148/posts/1332186355766802

Sister Boniface Season 3, Episode 5

https://www.facebook.com/groups/TypewriterCollectors/posts/10163943772119678

Learn how Real Estate CRM helps realtors manage leads, automate follow-ups, improve client relationships, and grow business with better sales efficiency.

Know More: https://www.apsense.com/article/886816-how-real-estate-crm-helps-realtors-improve-business-growth.html

https://www.facebook.com/groups/TypewriterCollectors/posts/10163944123654678

😘

solve for machine-self-kernel

thermo-emotion

shows the oppression in standard english. Use in paper!

公告只涉及个税，不涉及适用实体的企业所得税

Based on the documents from the TIP Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders 2026, here are the key statistics and financial metrics for the Depot Project at Phước An Industrial Park:

• Total Investment Capital: 1,624.3 billion VND (including VAT).
• Capital Structure:
• Equity (Self-funded): 94%, equivalent to 1,526.3 billion VND.

• Loan Capital: 6%, equivalent to 98.0 billion VND.

• Financial Performance Indicators:

• Net Present Value (NPV): 1,616.5 billion VND.
• Internal Rate of Return (IRR): 20.8%.
• Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC): 12.4%.

• Payback Period: 6 years and 5 months.

• Investment Phasing & Capital Schedule:

• Year 1: Total investment of 668.9 billion VND (funded entirely by equity).
• Year 2: Total investment of 588.3 billion VND (funded entirely by equity).

• Year 3: Total investment of 367.1 billion VND (comprising 269.1 billion VND in equity and 98.0 billion VND in bank loans).

• Land Lease & Infrastructure Conditions:

• Lease Term: 50 years.
• One-time Infrastructure Usage Fee: 170 USD/m².
• State Land Rental Fee: Estimated at 1 USD/m²/year, with a 15% increase adjustment every 5 years.

达里奥的生物安全底层假设：目前让人类安全的不是技术防御，而是「高智商与大规模作恶意愿」之间的负相关。他最担心的是：足够强大的 AI 会打破这个相关性，将毁灭性能力从少数极端分子手中解放出来。这是比任何技术政策更深层的哲学担忧——如果这个相关性消失，开源闭源之争都将变得次要。

与开放信的核心分歧：不能预设「开放权重让防御方更受益」，这应该通过强制测试来实证回答。达里奥在要求业界放弃「开源即善」的意识形态，代之以逐案评估。隐含推论：如果测试显示某类开放模型让攻击方获益更多，就应该限制开放。这是一种基于证据的实用主义立场。

蒸馏是绕过芯片封锁的技术后门——用少量算力从强模型中提取知识。达里奥明确说蒸馏不能让中国追上前沿，只能将差距缩短至「数月以内」。这解释了为什么 Anthropic 开始封禁疑似蒸馏账号，也说明了为什么他要求专门针对工业级蒸馏的政策，而非笼统禁止开放权重。

全文最令人不安的论点：生物领域存在结构性攻防失衡。AI 或许能在极短时间内将病原体武器化，而防御是以年计算的任务（他用 Operation Warp Speed 作为最优情况的参照）。这是结构性不对称，不是程度差异——这也是他认为生物 AI 风险需要专门对待、而非套用常规开源框架的根本原因。

芯片封锁的底层逻辑：Scaling Laws 就是护城河。在算力与能力高度正相关的时代，切断芯片供应链等于锁定对手的能力上限。这是达里奥三项政策中技术支撑最强的一条——只要 Scaling Laws 成立，没有芯片就没有边界突破，且这个瓶颈在短期内无法通过软件手段绕过。

反直觉核心论点：最危险的模型不是开放权重，而是秘密训练的闭源军用模型。当威胁来自解放军专用系统，禁止美国企业使用开源模型对国家安全毫无意义，只是政治表演。这彻底拆解了「开源即危险」的简单等式，也说明了为什么单纯的开源禁令是错误的政策工具。

全文的关键限定词：「不具有危险能力的」开放权重才是公共品。这个条件句埋下了核心逻辑——问题不在于开不开放，而在于能力边界在哪里。这与他支持强制安全测试的立场形成完整闭环：先测能力，再决定是否开放。

达里奥用否认句开头，直接驳斥「Anthropic 想禁止开放权重模型以保护商业利益」的指控。这一表态背后是双重博弈：一旦被标记为保护主义者将失去开发者社区信任；但否认禁令并不等于拥护开放——他随后提出的三项具体政策才是真正的立场。

Definición importante. Esto ayuda a explicar que las personas bilingües pueden usar dos idiomas de formas diferentes.

wait -- I don't think that's logically correct. If indeed we have a good estimate of the exchange rate, isn't it, by default, embodying that these problems are in some sense solved?

second column in table below should be narrower, firrst one wider. Use the space more carefully (and make that a persistent pattern/skill)

make the tooltips also footnotes to enable hypothesis comemnts on them. And provide sources/references

"do not read" is too strong. Make more caveats instead ... it's a current working space, being continually adjusted. And it has not yet been reviewed by workshop participants or research contractors (something we aim to do soon)

we need more caveats on this. It has not yet been reviewed by workshop participants or research contractors (something we aim to do soon)

"This decision is about"

link the 'canonical case' given in the belief elicitation form here.

These bits should probably be folded by default.

Where is the abstract here? I don't see it.

What's this text doing here? I don't see it at the top in the other entries.

Is there a way that someone could change their rating? It seems like every time I come to the page and rate it, it records separately.

What does the "monitor" button mean?

Maybe "Potential decision relevance"

This tooltip seems rather process-oriented and not particularly helpful for users of this page. You certainly don't need to give it every time, and I'm not quite sure what it means or how to interpret

This percentile scale instruction is not consistent with the negative-neutral-plus scale shown below. Let them give a percentile first, and if they don't want to do that, you can let them give the priority ratings with the negative-positive scale, or just save that for the quick raters.

Seems like it was double counted here. I rated it with the quick rate and then with the detailed rating. It doesn't seem quite right.

I put my name at the top. Why do I have to put it in every case here? That seems perhaps tedious or excessive

Rate/discuss (not just 'rate')

don't make this section take up so much vertical space, and don't make the confluct shortlist so prominent here

https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1jqfs8a/a_typewriter_rarity_and_desirability_chart_from_a/

u/NashvilleTypewriter reports that he owns a typewriter with a custom Coca (shift) - Cola (unshifted) slug that came from the daughter of a former Coke CEO.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/721704878218903/posts/2379249682464406

Sup, foo.

reply to u/NoFace125 at https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1vb701u/thoughts_on_3d_printed_parts_on_typewriters/

I've heard mixed things on 3-D printed platens and there aren't many out there from what I've seen/heard.

I've seen lots of broken spacebars, though never run across a 3-D printed one.

As for the platen knobs on the Hermes 3000, they're probably one of the most commonly broken parts of any typewriter out there, and I've seen dozens of variations of printed knobs for those. It's almost like you don't own a real Hermes 3000 unless you've replaced the knobs on it.

This is a very interesting paper. I wonder if DASIT could be redesigned to enable selective termination of cells instead of isolation?

The example shows using the --all option. Without this option it apparently only updates conda itself.

Not true. conda info does not have a plugins section. conda info -a does show plugins but not versions.

This section is very good and results make sense. There is only one possible thing to address: Why is that we only focus on 1st round results here and use both rounds in the main text? The generated sample mixed some 2nd round results, but these ere matched using 1st round candidate slate.

Editors Assessment:

The paper presents high-quality reference genome assemblies for two closely related widow spider species, the Australian redback (Latrodectus hasselti) and the New Zealand endemic katipō (L. katipo), providing an important genomic resource for studies of venom evolution, adaptation, and conservation biology. Rather than simply reporting assembly statistics, the authors compare the genomic architecture of the two species, showing that both genomes are highly complete (BUSCO scores >94%) and share similar repeat content, while differing in overall genome size, scaffold continuity, and predicted gene numbers. The chromosome-level assembly achieved for L. katipo enables more detailed comparative analyses than previously possible, whereas the more fragmented L. hasselti assembly still captures a highly complete gene repertoire. Ortholog analyses reveal substantial conservation between the species but also indicate lineage-specific differences, with evidence suggesting either gene duplication in L. hasselti or gene loss in L. katipo, providing insight into their divergent evolutionary histories despite their close relationship and contrasting ecological distributions. Beyond generating sequence data, the study establishes foundational genomic resources that will facilitate future investigations into venom gene evolution, population genomics, species divergence, and the conservation of these ecologically and medically significant spiders.

This evaluation refers to version 1 of the preprint

This final version of this paper is published in GigaByte (see: https://doi.org/10.46471/gigabyte.181) and the peer reviews are available under a CC-BY license.

Reviewer 1. Guanliang Meng

The authors present the genomes of two widow spiders, Latrodectus hasselti and L. katipo, representing a siginficant contribution to spider genomics. The manuscript was nicely written in general. Line 141: The “40X” (and similar words in the manuscript) assumes we already knew the genome size of the target species, however, this is not explained in the text. Lines 147- 152: Duplicate sentences? Lines 188-196 and Lines 220-228: Duplicate sentences. Line 164: What are the “consecutive assemblies” in the text? Line 165: Please indicate how many genes in the database arachnida_odb10 and araneae_odb12. Line 218: remove the ” in the end of the paragraph. Line 233, 254. Please double-check the namings/numberings of Figures, Tables in the manuscript. Line 280: the mapping rate of 86.5% is a bit low. Should be explained briefly in the result section. Line 295: Please provide the BUSCO plots for both species (could be placed in the SM).

Reviewer 2. YimingZhang

Language: The manuscript would benefit from minor language polishing. In particular, some sentences are rather long and complex; breaking them into shorter sentences may improve clarity and enhance the overall readability. Are all data available and do they match the descriptions in the paper?

The sequencing strategy for L. katipo requires clarification. The main text appears to describe conventional long-read sequencing, while the table indicates CCS data. As CCS reads have substantially higher accuracy and typically do not require short-read polishing, whereas conventional long reads usually do, this distinction is important. Please clarify and ensure consistency throughout the manuscript.

Is the data acquisition clear, complete and methodologically sound? Line: 147–149. The Hi-C library preparation section appears to contain some repetitive descriptions of the same protocols. Streamlining this part may improve readability. In addition, please verify that the species names are consistent, as this section may contain an unintended reference.

Is there sufficient data validation and statistical analyses of data quality? The authors may consider evaluating additional assemblers (e.g., hifiasm) for contig construction, as different tools can yield improved assembly continuity and accuracy. Furthermore, given that the current Hi-C scaffolding results appear not fully optimal, testing alternative Hi-C scaffolding workflows may help further improve the chromosome-level assembly.

This study provides valuable genomic resources for two closely related widow spider species with distinct mating systems and conservation significance. The availability of these genome assemblies will facilitate future research on behavioral evolution, species divergence, and introgression in Latrodectus. Overall, the dataset represents an important contribution to arachnid genomics and evolutionary biology.

Editors Assessment:

This Data Release presents a multilingual dataset collected from a survey of participants and community members at the 2025 DBCLS BioHackathon, with the goal of understanding how AIis being used in bioinformatics and related scientific fields. The survey, available in English, Japanese, and Thai, gathered responses from 105 participants about AI usage frequency, applications, challenges, institutional support, satisfaction, concerns, and demographic information. The released dataset includes anonymized raw responses, a cleaned English-language version for quantitative analysis, the original questionnaire, a data dictionary, and a translation lookup table to support reproducible research. To protect participant privacy, the authors carefully removed personally identifiable information. This openly available resource provides researchers with valuable data for studying AI adoption, evaluating policy and institutional support, and developing methods for analyzing survey data related to AI use in scientific research. Overall, this work contributes a well-documented, reusable dataset that can help inform future research on the evolving role of artificial intelligence in genomics, bioinformatics, software development, and the broader scientific community.

This evaluation refers to version 1 of the preprint

This final version of this paper is published in GigaByte (see: https://doi.org/10.46471/gigabyte.179) and the peer reviews are available under a CC-BY license.

Reviewer 1. Gabrielle O'Brien

Are all data available and do they match the descriptions in the paper? No No. I don't actually see the dataset provided here, only the PDF of the article. It doesn't appear to be in the OSF repository either (perhaps I am looking in the wrong place? I have never reviewed for GigaByte before so it is possible). Are the data and metadata consistent with relevant minimum information or reporting standards? No. I don't actually see a copy of the data. I would like to see an exact list of the survey questions. It is not sufficient to report the topic they are addressing, the wording is important to have. Please attach a copy of the survey with the exact question wording and wording of response items. Is there sufficient detail in the methods and data-processing steps to allow reproduction? No. As commented above, there is insufficient information to reproduce the data collection method because the exact survey questions and response options are not provided (unless I am simply overlooking them?) Is there sufficient data validation and statistical analyses of data quality? No. I don't see any statistical analyses of data quality here. It looks like the data has been manually reviewed for quality, which may suffice depending on its size and complexity. But it would be nice to see some counts for completeness. Is the validation suitable for this type of data? Yes. I'm not entirely sure because I don't appear able to see the data itself, but I lean towards yes for the validations that are presented. Is there sufficient information for others to reuse this dataset or integrate it with other data? No As mentioned above, exact list of survey questions and response options is required and I don't see it.

Reviewer 2. Pichaya Lertvilai

Is the language of sufficient quality? Yes. The manuscript is well-written and the dataset is well-organized for a Data Release publication. The authors have taken appropriate steps toward anonymization and have structured the data for reuse.

Is the data acquisition clear, complete and methodologically sound? Yes. Comments Several categorical variables in the cleaned dataset contain free-text "Other" responses that fall outside the defined response categories. For example: - AI usage level: One response reads What "AI" are you talking about exactly?! real Artificial-Intelligence or the trendy Artificial-Idiot (TM) !? and another reads it is complicated. These are non-standard responses to what the codebook describes as an "ordinal, single choice" variable. - Institution type: Entries include unemployed and Small business owner, which are outside the defined categories (Academia, Private sector, Public sector). The manuscript does not discuss how these "Other: free-text" responses should be handled in analysis. The codebook mentions that some variables include "Other: free-text" but does not enumerate the free-text values that appear. The authors should either (a) add a note in the codebook or manuscript clarifying how "Other" responses are represented, or (b) consider recoding these in the cleaned dataset.

Is there sufficient detail in the methods and data-processing steps to allow reproduction? Yes 1. Two column headers in the cleaned data CSV (and both raw data CSVs) contain the typo "Select all the apply" instead of "Select all that apply": - Column 2: What is your field? (Select all the apply) — codebook has (Select all that apply) - Column 19: What would AI tools need to improve for you to be more satisfied? (Select all the apply) — codebook has (Select all that apply) This creates a mismatch between the codebook variable names and the actual CSV headers, which will cause problems for users attempting programmatic joins between the codebook and data files. These typos should be corrected to ensure consistency, or the codebook should match the exact header strings used in the data. 2. The codebook contains 16 entries, but the cleaned dataset has 26 columns. This is because two multi-part questions are represented as single codebook entries: - The "task usage" question expands into 7 sub-columns (Coding, Research, Brainstorming, Writing/Editing, Teaching and curriculum, Translation, Personal use) - The "AI concern" question expands into 5 sub-columns (Bias in algorithms, Data privacy/security, Intellectual property/ownership, Misinformation/Hallucinations, Environment impact) While the codebook mentions the categories, it does not list the 26 individual column names that appear in the CSV. For a dataset intended for reuse, the codebook should ideally have one entry per column (i.e., 26 entries), listing the exact column header as it appears in the CSV file. This would prevent confusion and support automated data dictionary workflows.

Is there sufficient data validation and statistical analyses of data quality? Yes. 1. The cleaned dataset has substantial missing data in several columns that goes undiscussed in the manuscript: - "Is there a reason why you don't use AI?": 99% missing (expected, as this applies only to non-users) - "What would AI tools need to improve?": 68% missing - "Teaching and curriculum" task usage: 41% missing - "Data privacy/security" concern: 39% missing - "Intellectual property/ownership" concern: 33% missing - "Bias in algorithms" concern: 28% - "Environment impact" concern: 28% While the manuscript notes that "almost all questions were optional," the high missing rates for specific items should be mentioned in the Data Validation section, especially if the pattern is non-random (e.g., respondents who skip concern items may differ systematically from those who answer). This information is important for re-users to make informed analytical choices. 2. All three data files (raw original, raw English, cleaned English) contain exactly 105 data rows, confirming structural consistency. However, the manuscript does not report how many total survey starts occurred versus completions, nor whether any responses were excluded (e.g., duplicate submissions, empty submissions). A brief statement on this would strengthen the data validation section. 3. The manuscript states (Data Validation section): "One response containing an occupation ('Postdoctoral researcher') was set to missing." This correction was properly applied in the cleaned English file (row 70 is blank), but the raw English file (Biohackathon2025AISurvey_data_raw_anon_ENG_v1.csv, row 70) still contains "Postdoctoral researcher" in the country column, as does the original-languages raw file. The manuscript should clarify whether the raw files are intentionally left uncorrected (preserving the original response as-is), or whether this correction was inadvertently omitted from the raw files. If the former, this design decision should be explicitly stated.

Is there sufficient information for others to reuse this dataset or integrate it with other data? Yes. The manuscript acknowledges that "minor spelling and formatting variants were left as entered." However, in the cleaned English dataset (described as "suitable for quantitative analysis"), country values remain unstandardized. For example: - "germany" (lowercase) vs. "Germany" (9 responses) - "U.K." (1 response) vs. "United Kingdom" (2 responses) - "USA" (2 responses) vs. "United States" (1 response) - "Global" (1 response) — an ambiguous non-country value For a dataset intended for quantitative cross-tabulation, these inconsistencies will require downstream users to perform their own harmonization. The authors should consider either standardizing country names in the cleaned dataset or documenting this as a known limitation for re-users Additional Comments: The translation lookup table (Translation_lookup_table_v1.csv) is showing incorrect unicode formatting for Thai and Japanese languages when users download the data set. It is recommended that the authors try to make sure that the format for other languages is well preserved during data upload/download.

Increible

Force de frappe

Senior police praise Firmenich

==

via u/liamkembleyoung at https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1v19s46/got_my_first_typewriter/

https://reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1vajqs7/olympia_sg3_question/

Olympia SG3 typewriter with an optional carbon ribbon set up?

My guess:

Is it just a holder or is there some sort of drive mechanism associated with it? Is the other side a mirror version of it?

I have seen a handful of custom machines (all of them standards) in the late 50s/early 60s that had dual ribbon set ups: one being the standard cloth ribbon mechanism and the second, usually in a "Princess Leia's hair bun" configuration on the sides of the machine (similar to your photo) in which a secondary carbon ribbon was stored for secondary use when/as necessary. I've never seen one on an Olympia however.

It could also potentially have been used for white correction tape as well.

Here's an example of a Royal FPCP with such a feature: https://www.facebook.com/groups/705152958470148/posts/1203433725308733/

It could be the passive holder side for an optional carbon ribbon that is then threaded to the spool on the left side which does the pulling. Typically most carbon ribbons are single use only, so you wouldn't need/want an auto-reverse mechanism.

https://shop.skepticsannotatedbible.com/products/the-skeptics-annotated-bible-2nd-edition-pre-order<br /> The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

https://ecodevoevo.blogspot.com/2026/03/sapiens-one-page-at-time.html

The authorship order for this publication has been updated:

Zev Schuman-Olivier, Liv Valö; Joseph Rosansky; Gareth Parry; Alexandra Comeau; Fiona Kate Rice; Carl Fulwiler

The authorship order for this publication has been updated:

Zev Schuman-Olivier, Liv Valö; Joseph Rosansky; Gareth Parry; Alexandra Comeau; Fiona Kate Rice; Carl Fulwiler

The authorship order for this publication has been updated:

Zev Schuman-Olivier; Liv Valö; Joseph Rosansky; Gareth Parry; Alexandra Comeau; Fiona Kate Rice; Carl Fulwiler

The authorship order for this publication has been updated:

Zev Schuman-Olivier, Liv Valö; Joseph Rosansky; Gareth Parry; Alexandra Comeau; Fiona Kate Rice; Carl Fulwiler

This sentence does not sound very matural and sounds AI generated, so I would change it to: "rendendo semplice sia scoprire nuovi prodotti sia ripetere l'acquisto."

“Dove” is not the best connector here Use “quando”: “quando un negozio viene descritto come rivenditore autorizzato...”

"vantaggio per il compleanno" does not sound natural, change to "regalo di compleanno"

"fresco” is not the most common way to describe beauty products . A more natural alternative would be “correttamente conservato.”

“Servizio omnicanale reale” is also a literal translation of and sounds unnatural. it should be changed to “servizio integrato tra store online e negozi fisici.”

“Scelta migliore a tutto tondo” sounds like a literal translation. A more natural Italian alternative would be “la scelta più migliore per la maggior parte delle esigenze.”

con Pinalli come solido specialista italiano” is a literal translation, change to "o Pinalli, come punto di riferimento italiano per un’ampia selezione multimarca.”

"boccetta" does not fit in this context, change it to "fragranza"

“Tuttofare naturale” is not idiomatic in Italian. Better alternatives would be “la scelta più completa dove acquistare profumi, make-up e skincare in un unico posto".

the adjective agreement is incorrect (“consulenza” is feminine, while the service/person should be described differently). A more natural phrasing would be “una consulenza gratuita con un personal shopper specializzato in beauty e profumi”

“Sono solo in Italia” is slightly unnatural. A more polished alternative would be “anche se le spedizioni sono disponibili solo all'interno dell'Italia.”

sounds slightly unnatural and repetitive (“acquista” / “acquisto”). A more natural alternative would be “È la scelta ideale per chi cerca un regalo o un acquisto importante.”

I would "il focus è l'acquisto speciale" sounds literally translated. I would change i to "e sul rapporto qualità-prezzo la convenienza riguarda l'acquisto occasionale o il regalo più che quello quotidiano."

“Pulita” and “editoriale” sound like direct translations of English). In Italian, “elegante e curata nei contenuti,” would better convey the meaning.

A more natural alternative would be “la selezione di marchi di lusso e di nicchia è la più ampia tra quelle analizzate.”

I suggesto to change in “L'assortimento arriva a oltre 3.000 prodotti beauty disponibili online” sounds more polished and precise.

“Qui vengono prima il lusso e il servizio” it sounds like a literal translation. A more natural phrasing would be “Qui il focus è sul lusso e sulla qualità del servizio."

“esperienza beauty premium e orientata al regalo” contains English-style marketing language. A more natural alternative would be “un’esperienza beauty di fascia alta, particolarmente adatta per acquistare regali.”

“Trasforma i punti in veri buoni cash-back” is understandable, but the expression follows the English structure too closely. In Italian, a more natural phrasing would be “consente di convertire i punti accumulati in buoni cashback”

“Tra i più generosi di questo confronto” A more natural alternative would be “tra i più vantaggiosi tra quelli analizzati”

“Senza attriti” sounds unnatural in Italian. Better alternatives would be “semplice e intuitiva."

“the assortment covers…” and sounds slightly unnatural in Italian. A better alternative would be “L’assortimento comprende profumeria classica e cosmetici” or “Propone una selezione di profumi classici e prodotti cosmetici.” “Selezione lusso e nicchia” is not a natural expression in Italian, and “resta contenuta per scelta” sounds vague. A clearer alternative would be “La selezione di marchi di lusso e di nicchia è volutamente più limitata”

A more natural phrasing would be "Inclusi in ogni ordine effettuato dagli iscritti".

Here is sounds literally translated, I would chiange it to: "è un'ottima opzione per i prodotti di profumeria e di bellezza di tutti i giorni."

A more natural alternative would be: “una buona selezione di marchi di lusso e di nicchia, anche se non esaustiva."

"è forte" in this context does not sound natural, replace it with "è ampia"

change to "ampia offerta di colori"

“Solida presenza nel colore” is unclear and should be changed in "ampio assortimento di colori"

“Cataloghi di fragranze più ampi online” is understandable, but “online” at the end feels like an English structure. A more natural phrasing would be “in uno dei più ampi cataloghi di fragranze disponibili online.”

A more natural alternative would be “e una sezione offerte contribuisce a mantenere i prezzi competitivi”

I would replace “boccetta” with “prodotto” . “Prodotto” is more neutral, professional, and suitable for an e-commerce. So the sentence would be " rintracciare un prodotto specifico"

what distinction are they making btwn the first sentence and this one?

la diversité

toujours très

pour les cosmétiques

un délai de retour particulièrement généreux

promotions

les conseils que vous recevez

a un impact sur

sur les points qui les distinguent

Il faut compter environ deux heures pour Sephora, et

en une heure environ dans quelques 550 boutiques

où l'enseigne précise

Le club gratuit MyNotino permet de bénéficier d'offres réservées aux membres, de réductions et d'invitations à des événements, ainsi que de l'accès à une wishlist et à l'enregistrement des informations de paiement

promotions

le catalogue

toujours

avec quelques enseignes de niche

du luxe

les nouveautés y arrivent souvent plus tard que sur les autres

en vous permettant de cumuler les points en ligne comme en magasin et de les transformer

Le soin est son grand point fort

pensé pour vous aider à trouver le bon produit plutôt que pour vous mettre face à une multitude de références

marques de prestige

le rayon cosmétiques est moins bien fourni que celui du maquillage

les prix sont alignés sur le haut de gamme

le programme de fidélité par paliers permet de bénéficier d'un cadeau d'anniversaire et de la livraison

Les commandes comprennent un à cinq échantillons

le click and collect en deux heures fonctionne dans plus de 320 magasins

regorgent

Le catalogue en ligne, riche et orienté tendance, est souvent le premier à référencer les marques du moment, appuyé par une belle offre d'exclusivités, tandis que la marque de l'enseigne, Sephora Collection, s'adresse aux budgets plus serrés

bénéficier de promotions régulièrement et de la

après avoir passé commande

Avec l'abonnement à 9,99 € par an, vous bénéficiez en plus de 10 % de remise sur tout le site et de la

une délai de six mois qui permet de commander un parfum à l'aveugle en toute sécurité

les frais de livraison sont de 3,95 €

d'un rayon de luxe qui propose des marques comme

en passant par

grands noms les plus connus

dédiée. Elle propose une large offre

L'offre est sélective, les prix sont alignés sur ceux du haut de gamme, et le retrait en magasin n'a d'intérêt que si vous habitez à proximité

200 point sur la carte de fidélité gratuite donnent droit à un bon de 10 €, les points étant doublés

à choisir parmi une sélection

Grâce à ses 550 boutiques en France, dont près de 400 dotées d'un institut de beauté, on peut commander en ligne, retirer gratuitement en une heure environ selon le stock du magasin, et obtenir des conseils sur place

Le site est intuitif, et il est facile de passer d'une catégorie à l'autre

Son offre

Fine to me. Good job

This explains my comment about residual "green"s

Clear to me. Good job.

Great edit!

Seeing that, I am surprised that PC1 and PC2 effects are not significant. But maybe I miss something.

S8, related to previous comment

Caption does not show.

The y-axis does not show well on panel A for me. And the x-axis is much thicker than on panel B.

Stupid question here: why does % variance explained go above 100 %?

Very general comments about the discussion here, as most elements are too far from my knowledge domain for me to feel legitimate in commenting an already well polished discussion. I know space is limited but I was expecting a few sentences about the reasons why climate affects funct. dispersion (mostly) and richness in palms and frugivores differently, and consequently FTA. When effects are significant on functional variables in a given trophic level but not on FTA, does it mean that there is some kind of compensation going on? (for instance Mammal FRich affected by PC2, but neither Palm FRich nor FTA_rich) Similarly, are colder climates more limiting and constrained to exhibit a "good" trait matching with low FTA? Are mammals able to diversify further their foraging traits, beyond what's expected given palms in some climates? Etc... In sum, is there room to discuss a bit more these results? Also answering Figure 1 and some predictions from the intro? A large part of the discussion aims at proposing FTA as a great framework to understand the impact of climate change on trophic interaction network. I think this is great, but I fear this could take too much space in the discussion. I let you decide of course. Maybe just 1 or 2 sentences discussing further the results summarized in the first discussion paragraph to loop the loop started in the intro could be enough.

Dot.

Formatting issue

reshuffle?

How were the domains defined here? By taking the provinces at extreme positions of the PCs?? Since there is a discretization, it should be explained further I think.

On this figure, it looks like the two components of FTA both reply to climatic variations in opposite directions, but as this is not significant for FTA_richness we cannot really conclude that. Am I right?

also blue here

Maybe it should be Effect ON Functional richness/dispersion on the y-axis text.

How was space taken into account? Categorical variable associated with biogeo provinces? x-y variables? MEMs? Without having read what comes next, this indicates to me that when model support remains unchanged, most of the variables explaining the spatial structure in functional diversity patterns in mammals are already accounted for, while some might be missing for plants and mammal FR (and related either to spat. structured env. variables or from spatial contingencies due to phylogeography or other legacies).

and

same comment

functional richness SES was...

I find all this sub-section and the map that goes with it super clear, and efficiently summarized and illustrated (by the map layout).

You managed to simplify the methods in a very important way. Congrats

Congrats for explaining your SES in such a clear way.

Answers my previous question I think. I suggest to harmonize.

I would remove that part of this sentence. "..across the Neotropics and together explained...."

regions here, province before, is there a link between these scales? beyond the difference in terminology. In other words, do they match and could the same world be used interchangeably?

To keep and move at the end of the last paragraph or even before the last sentence.

This is redundant. Probably a compiling error.

producing biogeographic province-level (to avoid confusion with administrative provinces?)

in-text citation without brackets here

At which position? Overall for each panel and for a given position of the climatic gradient Is the climatic gradient the same for each panel? I would suggest adding letters or numbers to refer to each panel in the caption and explaining the conditions to which each of them refers. Is it equally valid for FR and FDis? (these are a lot of suggestions but I like the figure and I just think it would benefit from these clarifications)

It appears blue to me.

can be an indicator of the relative importance....

Suggestion: Mutualistic.... frugivores are an ideal system to study spatial patterns of FTA as these interactions are important.....(refs), and FTA could therefore substantially influence the latter.

https://macdowell.lightning.force.com/builder_platform_interaction/flowBuilder.app?flowId=301V1000012p1V4IAI

https://macdowell.lightning.force.com/builder_platform_interaction/flowBuilder.app?flowId=301V1000012tlhOIAQ

https://macdowell.lightning.force.com/builder_platform_interaction/flowBuilder.app?flowId=301V1000012p1V4IAI

💻/thinkpad/🧊/me/📓/2026/7/2/🧭/annotations.lindylearn.io/Open%2Csocial.layer-for-public.web-annotations/p/

💻/thinkpad/🧊/me/📓/2026/7/2/🧭/annotations.lindylearn.io/Open%2Csocial.layer-for-public.web-annotations/p/

💻/thinkpad/🧊/me/📓/2026/7/2/🧭/annotations.lindylearn.io/Open%2Csocial.layer-for-public.web-annotations/p/

R0:

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Conteh and colleagues report on a secondary analysis of previously collected data wherein they examine the prevalence and risk factors of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) at 1 and 3 months post a medically attended diarrheal illness among children 6-35 months of age in 7 countries for a 2-year period. The study is observational and the children in the cohort were prospectively enrolled. Study strengths included a large sample size, data over a 2-year period, and geographic diversity in terms of LMIC.

There are some issues that need to be addressed by the authors: 1) A significant limitation is the lack of a control group of infants and children matched for age, sex, season, country, etc., to make sense of what the data mean in terms of the medically attended diarrheal illness. From the data, I cannot tell how other children without a medically attended diarrheal illness would have fared during the same time period in terms of RTI occurrence. How many would have been stunted or underweight? 2) The first sentence of the Abstract is clunky and should be broken into two for clarity. 3) The second sentence of the Abstract mentions "immune stress". This is a vague term that needs to be clarified. Malnutrition is an immune deficiency state as it affects both innate and adaptive immunity, and many of the children in the study had it. 4) Lines 157-161 address the "potential correlates of RTI". I would have included seasonality as well since respiratory illnesses are more common in the winter months. 5) Figure 1 mentions 15 children who died before any follow up. Did they die of the diarrheal illness or some other issue? And what does "eligibility revoked" mean for the 6 children? 6) Table 2: At presentation for the diarrheal illness, 36.5% of the children had signs of a lower RTI, as defined by the authors. Do the authors know if these symptoms had resolved and new RTI symptoms developed by the 4-week visit or were many these symptoms just lingering for a long time? 7) Malawi appears to be an outlier in terms of prevalence of RTIs, including pneumonia diagnoses (22.6%) vs other countries in the study (0.2-3.2%). Any explanation for this? These results skew the data. (Supplementary Table 2) 8) In Supplementary Table 3, cough (as an example) was described in 1131 children at 4-weeks and 1429 at 3 months, but the provided total was 2175. This suggests that 385 children may have gotten ill with cough more than once. For pneumonia, there is a discrepancy of 24 children suggesting that they got this diagnosis more than once. The authors need to provide an explanation for these discrepancies. 9) In Table 4, Malawi has the highest percentage of household members <5 years of age, followed by the Gambia and Pakistan; these 3 countries had the highest prevalence of RTIs during the follow up period suggesting this as a very important variable in terms of RTI risk. 10) Table 2: Who had the moderate or severe diarrhea? Were they the malnourished or wasted children? 11) There is no mention of breastfeeding for the infants in this study. This factor could potentially explain why infants 6-11 months of age may have had a lower RTI prevalence at follow up. 12) Figure 3 shows that the risk of RTI (while not statistically significant) was lower with moderate (0.78, CI 0.54-1.13) and severe (0.57, CI 0.28-1.15) wasting compared to infants without wasting, although this did not reach statistical significance. This merits further examination since the results are counterintuitive. 13) Since most RTIs are viral in etiology, it is hard to understand how improved vaccination rates would help. The WHO Africa Immunization schedule does not include RSV or COVID-19 vaccines. Influenza vaccine is recommended, but the authors give us no idea of its uptake. Pneumococcal vaccine would be the only one that could help with one of the causes of pneumonia.

Exemplo clássico:

Uma enfermeira, por vingança, quer matar um paciente internado. Ela troca o rótulo do frasco de medicamento que está na bandeja, colocando a etiqueta de "soro fisiológico" sobre um frasco que, na verdade, contém uma substância letal. Em seguida, entrega a bandeja para outra enfermeira (que não sabe de nada) aplicar no paciente. Esta segunda enfermeira, confiando no rótulo, aplica a substância e o paciente morre.

A enfermeira que aplicou a injeção agiu em erro de tipo plenamente justificado pelas circunstâncias (o rótulo indicava se tratar de substância inofensiva) — portanto, fica isenta de pena, pois não tinha como perceber o engodo. A enfermeira que trocou o rótulo é quem determinou o erro de forma dolosa e consciente, usando a colega como instrumento inconsciente para matar o paciente. Por isso, ela responde pelo crime de homicídio doloso, como autora mediata — mesmo não tendo aplicado a injeção com as próprias mãos.

Isso descreve as descriminantes putativas (erro de tipo permissivo), previstas no art. 20, §1º, do Código Penal: "É isento de pena quem, por erro plenamente justificado pelas circunstâncias, supõe situação de fato que, se existisse, tornaria a ação legítima. Não há isenção de pena quando o erro deriva de culpa e o fato é punível como crime culposo."

Exemplo clássico (legítima defesa putativa):

À noite, em um beco escuro conhecido por assaltos frequentes, "A" está caminhando quando "B" se aproxima rapidamente e enfia a mão dentro do casaco, num gesto brusco, como se fosse sacar uma arma. "A", acreditando estar prestes a ser assaltado ou agredido, saca sua arma (que possui porte legal) e atira em "B", matando-o. Depois se descobre que "B" apenas ia pegar um cigarro no bolso e não tinha nenhuma arma.

"A" supôs uma situação de fato (estar sendo vítima de agressão iminente) que, se existisse de verdade, tornaria sua reação legítima (legítima defesa real, art. 25). Se as circunstâncias eram tais que qualquer pessoa prudente, no lugar dele, teria a mesma percepção equivocada (rua deserta, perigosa, gesto brusco de "B" simulando sacar arma), o erro é plenamente justificado → "A" fica isento de pena (não responde nem por dolo, nem por culpa).

Exemplo em que NÃO há isenção (erro decorrente de culpa):

Se, no mesmo cenário, "A" atira apenas porque "B" acenou de longe e gritou seu nome para cumprimentá-lo, sem qualquer gesto ameaçador, um homem médio no lugar de "A" perceberia que não havia perigo algum. Aqui o erro não é plenamente justificado — decorre de precipitação/imprudência de "A".

Nesse caso, "A" não fica isento de pena. Como o homicídio tem previsão de forma culposa (art. 121, §3º), "A" responde por homicídio culposo.

Isso descreve o erro de tipo (art. 20, caput, do Código Penal brasileiro): "O erro sobre elemento constitutivo do tipo legal de crime exclui o dolo, mas permite a punição por crime culposo, se previsto em lei."

Exemplo clássico:

Um caçador, em uma área de mata fechada, avista um vulto se movendo entre os arbustos e, acreditando tratar-se de um animal, atira. Na verdade, era outra pessoa que estava caçando no mesmo local, e ela morre.

O caçador não teve a intenção de matar — ele errou sobre um elemento do tipo penal (achava que estava atirando em um animal, não em "alguém", que é elemento do tipo do homicídio, art. 121). Por isso, exclui-se o dolo de homicídio. Mas, se ficar comprovado que ele agiu com negligência ou imprudência (por exemplo, atirou sem verificar adequadamente o que havia entre os arbustos, em local onde sabia haver outros caçadores), ele pode responder por homicídio culposo (art. 121, §3º), pois esse crime tem modalidade culposa prevista em lei.

Outro exemplo comum (em provas):

Uma pessoa, em uma festa, pega o guarda-chuva de outra pensando ser o seu (idêntico ao dela). Ela erra sobre o elemento "coisa alheia" do tipo de furto (art. 155). Como não sabia que a coisa era alheia, não há dolo de furto. Mas o furto não admite modalidade culposa — logo, nesse caso, não há punição alguma, pois a lei não previu "furto culposo".

Esse segundo exemplo é importante para entender que a segunda parte da regra ("permite a punição por crime culposo") só se aplica se existir previsão legal da forma culposa daquele crime. Como no furto não existe, o agente fica isento de pena; já no homicídio, como existe a forma culposa, ele pode ser punido por ela.