Hi Maya. Thanks for your interest. If you would like to know more, I have made some samples available from the book here: www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2ecwj...
Hope you can access them okay?

Well done! Their score of 345 trumps our highest score of 325 playing for @imperialcollegeldn.bsky.social in 1995-6 championship

bsky.app/profile/quad...

„Die gefährlichste Weltanschauung ist die derer, die die (mikrobielle) Welt nie angeschaut haben.“ Humboldt (fast)

Our letter was published. amp-theguardian-com.translate.goog/science/2024...

Stimmt. Danke! Interessant, dass ihr critical thinking aus dem Englischen übernehmt, während wir Weltanschauung aus dem Deutschen übernehmen. 😉

A ceasefire is needed now to save lives and move humanitarian aid into #Gaza.

Our latest report has the details: www.doctorswithoutborders.ca/gaza-death-t...

🤦🏻‍♂️🤷🏻

Not claiming that pathogens cannot enter brain but that there is no resident normal commensal complex microbial community in the human brain.

@katharineviner.bsky.social please could you give us courtesy of a response to this letter? Or better still publish it in full and/or retract the unbalanced article to which it refers. I have been @theguardian.com reader all my adult life and it would be shame to have to break that habit over this!

@theguardian.com Could your editor please engage in the courtesy of a reply to our letter sent to you yesterday on this misleading article? You can see it has generated much interest here on BlueSky, but should reach your entire readership if you care about balanced and accurate reporting.

I have injected AI generated Socratic dialogues into PhD student training. Eg mmbdtp.github.io/modules/meta... Students said they were surprised how polite such discussions were—even though AI generated they reflect the tone of the originals.

Well we didn’t get a transcript of all that was said between the two of them so choice of emotionally charged quote is nonetheless a choice particularly without balanced coverage. But will see what guardian editor makes of it. I expect revisions. But isn’t it nice to have reasonable discussion here?

And any discussion of debates in Guardian article is unbalanced. Calling people dinosaurs? Is that really permissible in balanced scholarly discourse?

More clear I hope in revised version of the letter, where we refer specifically to the non-peer-revioewed study led by Lathe. Not sure whether by original article, you mean the Guardian piece or something referred to therein?