lemming
@lemming@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on Little dude ATP 1 week ago:
I realised I have a sort of explanatory image at hand.
- Comment on Little dude ATP 1 week ago:
It has a part that is embedded in a mitochondrial membrane and works as a rotor. The other part is sticking out from the membrane and is responsible for synthesis of ATP from ADP and phosphate. An off-axis part of the rotor pushes the stator, it changes shape and pushes ADP and phosphate together, until they fuse to ATP.
To make the rotor move, it makes use of membrane potential. One side of the membrane has a lot more H⁺ (just protons, really) than the other. The excess H⁺ want to go to the other side. The membrane doesn’t let them through. It is hydrophobic on the inside, so it does’t let through anything charged (like H⁺) or polar (like water). This is the potential and it has quite a lot of energy. ATP synthase lets the H⁺ through by binding them to the rotor in the membrane in a particular place and releases them in another in such a way that forces the rotor to turn almost a full turn before they can leave and stops it from rotating the other way. As mentioned, the rotation is transfered to the stator, changing its shape and thus creating ATP. As a side note, multiple H⁺ are bound on the rotor along its circumference, so each rotation is powered by the potential energy of multiple protons.
Of course, it’s a bit more complicated than that, but I don’t think there’s anything downright wrong or misleading in what I wrote. I hope I managed to make it understandable. Also, I recommend animations of the synthase on youtube.
- Comment on Let him go!! 5 weeks ago:
Oh, thank you. I stopped reading when it started to talk about someone else 9 years later, I thought it would be some other controversy. I wish he crowdsourced the $150 though. I wonder how many citations it could have gotten…
- Comment on Let him go!! 5 weeks ago:
And how did it end? Was it published? Did they get off the fucking mailing list? Wikipedia doesn’t say.
- Comment on PROteen Gamerz 5 weeks ago:
I think pokemon used to be an oncosuppressor gene, but since its mutations caused cancer, Pokemon owners threatened (or mayvbe even sued), until the name was changed.
- Comment on Slapping Chicken 2 months ago:
I didn’t check the calculation, but I guess it assumes perfect conversion of motion to heat. But it’s good to know that if you can get a perfectly static chicken, you can hypersonic-slap it cooked.
- Comment on Ya girl going in a Q1 3 months ago:
Do they actually work? I don’t have actual experience, but I heard that they are only used by people who might benefit from them and thus the authors are automatically suspicious to the reviewer, plus you almost always cite your previous papers in a pretty obvious way, so it’s hardly blind anyway.
- Comment on Machine Learning 3 months ago:
Cool, thanks for the info!
- Comment on Machine Learning 3 months ago:
How does Plantnet fare in tropics?
- Comment on Mushroom Guides 4 months ago:
That didn’t sound right, my experience that depending on luck and season, somewhere between 50 and 90 % of big mushrooms I come across in a forest are poisonous or at least disgusting. I admit it’s a very wild estimate and I’m very far from knowing all the mushroom I come across, but still, that seems like a big contradiction. So I followed your link to the primary article.
I suspected that they might only count potentially lethal mushrooms, but no, it indeed seems they count even those that only make you nauseous. The problem is in the other number. The 100 000 means all funghi, it includes for example all yeasts. Most funghi don’t create mushrooms that anyone would consider picking. So the ratio you calculated below is WAY off.
I would also like to note that the number 100 seems to come from a very simple PubMed search. Basically, if nobody wrote a paper about someone being sick after eating a mushroom, they wouldn’t find it. I don’t think that would mean that many foraged mushrooms would be missed, but it is a limitation worth knowing about.
- Comment on Mushroom Guides 4 months ago:
Rubroboletus satanas is definitely poisonous. On the other hand, Imleria badia is very good. Bruising blue doesn’t really say anything about edibility.
- Comment on Mushroom Guides 4 months ago:
Not so much Amanita phalloides as Amanita pantherina, that one looks much more similar. But I agree, if you know what you’re doing and don’t pick mushrooms with which you don’t have experience with and aren’t sure about, you’re good.
I used to pick up even Amanita rubescens, an acual (although edible and tasty) Amanita, so even more similar to poisonous ones. But I didn’t have an opportunity for quite a few years and now I wouldn’t dare, until I got an opportunity to verify with someone experienced and trustworthy.
- Comment on Least Weasel 4 months ago:
Well, if you want to head that way, there’s Etruscan shrew. Less than 2 grams of weight and 4 cm of length.
- Comment on Simpin 4 science 4 months ago:
There are also wimps. They might be dark matter.
- Comment on Flirting 4 months ago:
I really like RING - really interesting new gene.
- Comment on Physics 4 months ago:
And his wife’s was Smith. They combined their names when they married.
- Comment on Physics 4 months ago:
It should be said that this is from Science Abridged Beyond the Point of Usefulness by Zach Wienersmith.
- Comment on Physics 6 months ago:
Cosmology and astrophysics are considered classical? I would expect both quantum physics and relativity to play a major role nowadays.
- Comment on Brb 7 months ago:
For plants, PlantNet works very well for me.
- Comment on PROOF 7 months ago:
- Comment on Still wondering why people from Alaska didn't post about the eclipse 7 months ago:
For partial eclipses, very cool is watching the light underneath trees. The small holes between leaves work a bit like camera obscura, so they effectively project crescents of the sun on the ground.
- Comment on Still wondering why people from Alaska didn't post about the eclipse 7 months ago:
That sounds very interesting. The time I saw total eclipse, at 99 % I was to excited about totality and it was cloudy. But I think I remember seeing the shadow rushing over the landscape.
- Comment on Still wondering why people from Alaska didn't post about the eclipse 7 months ago:
What percentage was the eclipse? It probably got dim, but human eyes are very good at filtering out wide range of intensity changes to handle both full sun and cloudy sky. You really only notice an eclipse maybe at 80-90 %. But it isn’t that special even at 99 %. On the other hand, total eclipse is absolutely incredible.
