I realised I have a sort of explanatory image at hand.

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.

One suggestion for securing your base before leaving is to make a construction tank. Tanks can be driven remotely and have equipment grid. You can put personal roboport in there and use it as your clumsy impersonation for building outside your roboport coverage from anywhere.

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…

And how did it end? Was it published? Did they get off the fucking mailing list? Wikipedia doesn’t say.

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.

Not everyone feels the need to read such articles. I’m glad for this summary. Provided it’s true, but it’s entirely believable.

You mean like official EU data? https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/demo_r_d3dens/default/map?lang=en And “go see in person” is a very bad advice to anything data-related in most cases. Compating population density anywhere in Europe with Netherlands isn’t fair. Poland, Hungary and Romania (and north Balkan as well, it seems) have denser population than rural France, for example. Spain is less densely populated, but still has about as many tennis courts, so it must have much more per capita. It just isn’t a population density map. It is another Iron curtain division map, but even so, Czechia and Slovakia stand out as exceptions. There is interesting information in there.

Are we looking at the same pictures? Spain is less dense, but Poland seems mostly denser than rural France and Balkan roughly the same.

Is it, though? Is Spain, Poland and Balkan so much less populated than Germany or France?

A solution to this problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9pD_UK6vGU

Yes. Behind the toilet.

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.

Cool, thanks for the info!

How does Plantnet fare in tropics?

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.

Rubroboletus satanas is definitely poisonous. On the other hand, Imleria badia is very good. Bruising blue doesn’t really say anything about edibility.

I’m not an expert, though.

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.

Well, if you want to head that way, there’s Etruscan shrew. Less than 2 grams of weight and 4 cm of length.

I moved the template to the newly opened area of the canvas.

https://canvas.fediverse.events/#x=921&y=276&zoom=1&tu=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FgbA1i7V.png&tw=43&tx=536&ty=339&ts=ONE_TO_ONE