all on a nikon optiphot 2. Its a neat scope, p sure its been modified bc its got topdown and passthrough lighting, which isnt standard for models w its stage/power setup. Similar ones were used for microchip work in the 80s/90s, and fluorescent ones are around (which i want) for molbio stuff. The neat thing about the series is theyve got a topdown camera mount over the slide. curr camera is super shit and washes out color p hard, but im not gonna buy a dslr for work.

the bacteria one is at 400x iirc, w the colored portion being contrast shadowed to convey some depth. the phase contrasted portion is lit top down, but the uncolored, non shaded area (outer portion) is lit by bottom up lighting so theres no sense of depth. Its v boring to look at but is what i use for 90% of my work

sorry, forgot to check back

here's a bunch of bacteria around a hyphae:

here's a comparison shot of some yeast inside water droplets. First is under episcopic brightfield, second under episcopic differential contrasting

thanks man, preciate it

hello
site dead?
thanks
(willing to join a team if necessary)

edit:
also do u guys wanna see my microphotography ive been looking at cilliates and shit

nah local twitter is less a thing than it was a few years ago
moat my irl friends use insta now unless they're politics nerds

that would be molecular genetics
you basically never work with telomeres for micro organisms

youre bad at the pretending to be smart thing

actual active doses of meth and and normal amphetamine are actually not that different of experiences (relatively sure I haven't done meth, so just going off what I've read). The biggest differences are in amount and route of ingesting. Smoking gives you a higher peak and addicts typically take something close to 100mg of IR equivalent at a time, both of which will get you addicted to regular amphetamine too. If you're regularly taking equivalent doses of meth/amphetamine, you're only slightly more likely to get more addicted to meth, since it is a bit more euphoric on the whole and makes it easier to form the response.

I take a lot of adderall, fwiw, and I know what you're talking about to some extent. I find it depends heavily on the sort of work you're doing, your motivation, etc etc. At work I mostly program, read articles, or write so its not a big deal if I hyperfocus for 4-8 hours, cause no one really interacts with me anyway. Days that I have to do stuff down on the production floor are rough, though. It gets better as you get more and more used to the actual ride, but its still pretty easy to lose yourself (I wrote a 3 page footnote on the history of the Darwinian individual yesterday :( )

u know this thread rocks cause the falsely attributed anti-semitic dogwhistle from a pedophile white supremacist isn't even the worst post

1. developing a stim habit just to finish high-school or w/e is dumb
2. it still requires you to actually start doing shit, otherwise you just clean your house

salts are great for productivity, but they dont really do much for actually starting a project ime. Theres not really a workaround other than building better organizing habits to get you to actually begin things. then snorting shit actually helps

reccing ^ Ciggs/ vapes / shit that you can do every couple hours to take breaks. if you get in the habit, it helps workflow a ton cause you dont burn out as quick and it's less miserable, so you dont end up psyching yrself out on starting the next thing

in theory. in my field, advisors can pretty much take you on whenever they want, especially if you're independently funded
my proposal was basically derived from my work, anyway, and the potential advisors whove seen it felt confident in my chances (as confident as can be at least), and I'm kinda half sure I'll be able to make two Applications b/c the rules are weird

did you submit anything? shit v nearly killed me, I spent prolly 20 hours a weekend on it this month

I finished my GRFP application, feel fairly confident & submitting tomorrow
if I get it, theres advisors at Harvard & GA tech who are kinda interested in my stuff (also one at MIT but he does open ocean so eh)

if I dont prolly just gonna stay at my brewery tho

Politics & Truth by Foucault, a history of the Rwandan genocide, a supplement/"how-to" of Derrida & Deconstruction currently

over the past 6 mos:
was into German idealism for a while, read most of Kant & Hegel, kinda lost interest after and switched to Marxist analysis & structuralism. I read Logic of Scientific Discover and some of Fisher's texts a few months ago and wanna start getting into more epistemology/scientific philosophy

outside of that, I read a decent amount of stuff for work/school. most is kinda boring to non-ecologists/evo-reseaarchers, but "Life in Moving Fluids" was something I read a few weeks ago that was both really approachable and still a strong introduction to fluid mechanics

being homophobic in a thread about encouraging a safe and welcoming space for LGBT+ community members is a bad look

also, please stop posting

@vis

fraternal birth order isnt a new discovery. the problem with your post is the application of genetic determinism to explain homosexuality, while clearly having a (being charitable) high-school level understanding of immunology and physiology. The extent to which it is genetically determined (predisposed, to be more accurate) is a fairly intense field of study, but your proposed mechanism and presumed source offer incompetent and mechanistically inconclusive explanations, respectively. Further, any attempt to define homosexuality as a predominately genetic phenomena is spurious in the absence of more rigorous study. Your (presumed) source offered no variance assessments between homologs of hetero- and homosexual carriers, so arguing that the heritability* of homosexuality at all is a poor interpretation of the data I gave you. Considering you haven't posted a source yourself, I'd reccomend diving a bit deeper into the peer reviewed literature before making further claims. I'd also reccomend brushing up on comparable phenomena where maternal immunoresponse results in developmental "defects"**, e.g. rh-factor induced hemolytic disease in newborns. In doing so, you'd notice that the response is triggered not by immunoperception across the placenta, but rather by child-to-mother blood transfer occurring during delivery. In the absence of a similar exposure (e.g. one in which the fetal/neonatal nervous tissue is introduced into maternal circulation for immunorecgonition), I really look forward to hearing how you explain the maternal immune response arising to begin with. I'd like reiterate that the protein of consequence here is an embedded surface protein in fetal neuronal tissue, and not in free serum, and so there needs to be some mechanism by which fetal neuronal tissue is exposed to maternal immune cells.

thanks!

*I use heritability in the rigorous sense here, cf.
** I use the term defect here cautiously. Within the broader framework of evolution I do not like the term as it carries significant negative connotation, and within this subject it risks characterizing, in light of further study demonstrating genetic causation of homosexuality, homosexuality itself as a disorder or defect i.e. something to be "corrected"