prototyperspective

prototyperspective, 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

The study is here.

In 30 prospective studies with 9331 cases reporting plasma α-carotene levels, summary [relative risk] was 0.80.

10% reduction of less frequent intake of carrots seems more robustly backed by the data. Hopefully, some new study provides more info how big of an effect daily carrots have; see Figure 6.

prototyperspective, 3 months ago

Higher accuracy was achieved in an earlier study where another team used large fMRI machines (it was featured in the version for May). There participants listened to audiobooks / speech while being in the large machine; I guess long training would be easier here but it’s more limited since it’s EEG. However, they claim they have exceeded 60% by now.

prototyperspective, 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

If you don’t understand the study itself or in general if you’re interested in it, it’s always a good idea to also read a good news report on it; see this and also this. They found carrot intake rather than beta-carotene, the focus of prior studies, has this association and figure 6 was just to show that they don’t have much data on daily intake of a carrot or more.

prototyperspective, 3 months ago

Die Nachrichtenartikel-Quellen musste ich auskommentieren. Die Studien selbst sollten aber normal angezeigt werden. Liegt an dem aktuellem “post-expand include size”-Limit. Habe einige anscheinend überfällige technische Änderungen vorgeschlagen, vermutlich könnte aber auch ohne diese der Wert einfach geändert werden was das Problem lösen würde und wodurch wieder zwei Quellen pro Item angezeigt werden würden.

prototyperspective, 3 months ago

No, they just added lots of data for one of the multiple things that current emulation efforts (just like neural networks / brain-inspired AI software) so far didn’t even include (neuropeptides).

There’s no reason for why it would now be possible to simulate complex nervous system processes, but maybe this could enable getting closer to that. I don’t know what you mean with “outside behavior” though. Maybe you’re referring to the behavior in some simulation like this?

prototyperspective, 5 months ago

See wetware computer for more info about this. Some studies in “2023 in science” will get integrated there soon, there have been similar recent studies.

prototyperspective, 5 months ago

Seems like quite some progress in nanobiotech there.

prototyperspective, 6 months ago

Es ist absolut verantwortungslos und unethisch dass es in Deutschland kein Organspende-by-Default System gibt. Das würde das Problem lösen und jeder der nicht spenden möchte schickt einfach einen Brief oder macht online einen Haken. Ich denke es bedarf nur einer politischen Entscheidung um diese vielen Leben zu retten.

prototyperspective, 6 months ago (edited 6 months ago)

Danke für die ausführliche Argumentation. Bis dato ist mir unklar wieso man rational gegen diese Widerspruchslösung sein könnte, von daher ist das sehr interessant. Halte dein Hauptargument aber für falsch:

es würde die Zahl der Spender nicht nur minimal sondern fast maximal erhöhen. Die 13 Fälle, die du hier nennst, beziehen sich ja auf die Fälle, die bei der aktuellen Opt-In-Lösung in Betracht gezogen wurden. Wenn man die Zahlen aktueller frühzeitiger Todesfälle anschaut sind die Zahlen möglicher Spender deutlich höher. Man kann dann beispielsweise direkt die Transplantationsprozesse einleiten (sofern nicht im Opt-Out Register gefunden): entnehmen, konservieren, Empfänger kontaktieren, etc. Die weiteren Probleme die es sicher auch gibt, benötigen zur Lösung dennoch erst mal die Einführung des Opt-In-Systems.

Wenn die Widerspruchslösung so populär ist, dann kann man sie doch einfach einführen. Dann kann man sich danach um die verbleibenden Probleme kümmern, da dieses Problem dann wegfällt und die verbleibenden Probleme einfacher zu lösen sind (d.h. bei Opt-In Systemen kann der Prozentsatz der Fälle “Bis die Entnahmeteams in der richtigen Klinik und die Organe entnommen sind, sind sie längst nicht mehr zu gebrauchen” schnell substanziell reduziert werden).

prototyperspective, 6 months ago

They are sorted by order of appearance; it’s just 4 links and the two additional ones are the short items of the tile’s image.

prototyperspective, 6 months ago

Glad you liked it and ask about it: you can get notified via the monthly email, see the newsletter link above.

prototyperspective, 6 months ago

Thank you! You can get notified via a monthly email. Let me know if they land in the spam-folder, I don’t know if they do or did.

prototyperspective, 7 months ago

That’s why I put “While alternative explanations are possible” there.

I didn’t add it to the WP article, and nothing here suggests this to be “conclusive”…it’s just really ‘significant’ which even skeptics of this seem to agree with. Would be interesting if you have a source for “large number of assumptions” though: that doesn’t seem to be a good description what people doubting it pointed out / criticized here: www.nytimes.com/…/human-survival-bottleneck.htmlI previously had something like “Some peers doubt the study but if correct, […]” there maybe that would be clearer?

prototyperspective, 7 months ago

Here is the study (it both reduced workload and increased effectiveness), I don’t think you understood what this was about but that’s nothing to criticize with the brevity of text

prototyperspective, 7 months ago

I don’t think they were narrowing this down to one species of ancient pre-humans rather than all species thereof. The number is surely wrong, the question of the scale of magnitude is roughly accurate. Would be nice if you send it/them my way if you find them, thanks for your elaborations.

prototyperspective, 7 months ago (edited 7 months ago)

Thank you, will look into this. I had my doubts when I first heard about this but even with these sources I still think the study is significant beyond the large attention (and that itself is also a factor). I don’t think there’s much doubt that “The precision of the findings, though, may be a stretch” is true which doesn’t invalidate the study and like a critic said “The conclusions, she says, “though intriguing, should probably be taken with some caution and explored further.”

Also consider that I usually have 8 main tiles and two brief ones, the only other alternative main tiles this month were the dogxim, Y chromosome and astrocytes ones which could get summarized nicely very briefly at the bottom while this one should be included but was hard to summarize that briefly.

prototyperspective, 7 months ago

See the papers linked here

prototyperspective, 7 months ago

Yes (200k–300.000), that’s why it says pre-humans…we didn’t arise out of nowhere, it was a continuous evolution and it seems like if those had died out we wouldn’t be here. (However, that’s not settled, there are substantial reasonable doubts over these results as hinted at with “While alternative explanations are possible” and elaborated in the other comments here.)

Good question, it wasn’t a warming and even if it was, I don’t think it can easily be translated to today’s climate change. They refer to the Early-to-Middle Pleistocene Transition (not much info at that page though). If it’s linked, that doesn’t mean it caused it – I think people in that regard far too often think of (especially singular) causes instead of contributors within a complex interconnected set of causal factors. Maybe you’re interested in this non-included paper from the same month which projects an upcoming large sudden population decline – it’s just not substantiated and one can’t just compare modern humans with other animal populations.