u/CatsDoingCrime

I'm trying to get a better understanding of in-silico models for replacing animal testing in drug development (i.e. computer simulation of drug pathways/effects rather than like, actually testing on an actual animal).

I know there's been a lot of work in the field, and a few years back, iirc, in-silico outperformed animal models for cardiac drug testing (which hopefully means a more widespread adoption???)

I don't really feel i have a good grasp on how these in-silico models work. I'm assuming it's an ML thing, though I've seen stuff about QSAR too, but I don't really know where to start for an actual technical description of how these models work.

I'm hoping some computer ppl here may know. So, anyone got good resources/materials to start getting a better technical understanding of these models? Any papers?

Thanks!

So, this is a bit of a niche question, but it's been bugging me ever since I played the game a while back.

Fundamentally, Prohibition (arguably the US's first War on Drugs) kicked off around the 1920s, it's kind of what they're famous for.

That first war on drugs was ended by FDR, but a new one got kicked off int he 70s by Nixon in his attempt to criminalize the New Left (though this second war on drugs wasn't focused on alcohol, rather weed and heroin, but the principle still stands).

Anyways, before Volstead, americans drank quite a lot right? That was part of the reason the Temperance movement kicked off. When prohibition kicked in, profits in illegal trade of alcohol skyrocketed and that's what led to the famous gangster violence and the rise of the mafia that the 20s saw.

But pre-volstead, alcohol was largely legal right? So.... would there have been illegal moonshing? Why? Why was it illegal?

What did illegal (and therefore highly profitable) alcohol markets look like pre-Volstead if they existed at all?

In the game, this gang of moonshiners was connected to regional gangs and crime, and in particular, the family of ex-slaver confederates who turned to crime (amongst other things) post-emancipation in order to maintain their status and wealth. The raid on this gang leads the Van Der Linde gang to conflict with the ex-slaver family and is a key reason they need to flee "Mississippi".

How realistic is something like that? Would ex-slavers or ex-confederates have gotten involved in the illegal alcohol trade?

I'm not entirely sure how to check when this atrocious bill is scheduled to be voted on. Ik it passed house and is on way to senate, idk exactly when the senate is scheduled to vote on it though. Have they set a day? What do y'all think the odds are of it passing?

So this question's title may sound kind of vague, but let me be a bit clearer on what I'm getting at.

One of the things that most frustrates me, personally, about american foreign policy is, for lack of a better word, its arrogance. What I mean by this is that American political leadership is very happy to go around the world starting wars and bombing people, and then act as though they CAN successfully control the aftermath of these wars and operations, or that the aftermath will be easy and predictable instead of chaotic.

Iraq is kind of a perfect example of this arrogance. Once you topple the big bad, Saddam, then democracy will naturally spring up in its place and everything will be hunky dory. There was very little planning that went into the aftermath of that conflict.

The Iran and Venenzuelan operations are also kind of emblematic of this. But we can go back in history too. Afghanistan was another PRIME example of this thing (I mean US support for Mujahadeen -> soviet withdrawal -> continued insurgency until ussr collapse -> PDPA collapses -> civil war with various mujahadeen warlords duking it out -> warlords suck and are extremely abusive -> taliban arises in opposition to warlords backed by ISI -> taliban take over and are legitimately popular with large segments of population cause not warlords -> are extremists and resentful of US -> shelter Bin Laden -> 9/11)

Our leaders often just kind of see themselves as the only real actor and fail to account for the fact that other countries may react or have planned for american interference or that the aftermath of what we have done is somehow controllable or entirely predictable.

And so, very consistently, the US over-estimates its own capabilities and starts fights that it cannot get out of, or have long term consequences that it didn't fully understand or predict (like an Iranian toll booth). Essentially, the US acts like it does not have limits to its power, it acts as though it not only SHOULD reshape the world but CAN.

And that's one of my biggest frustrations with US foreign policy, and why I tend to advocate for a much more restrained US that keeps its hands to itself and stays out of foreign conflicts. But the US does not really know HOW its actions will affect others and the knock on effects of that.

But what exactly ARE the limits of US power. What can the US reasonably expect to achieve abroad via foreign engagements? What are the actual boundaries of that power?

For me, I think it's clear that the US can destroy stuff, it's less clear we can rebuild in the aftermath. But I'm curious as to your thoughts. What do you think the limits of US power are? What can the US actually achieve abroad?