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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

There are tons of options for that, mainly energy storage such as batteries, hydro, and green hydrogen. Nuclear is not needed and too expensive among other things.

It's because the education system is utterly outdated across the world. No digital literacy, media literacy, or health literacy in the curriculum but lots of things you'll never need and forget to never be useful again within a few months. Studies should investigate things relating to this subject.

It's also because of the quality of search engine results but both are directly linked, people need to learn how to use search engines etc.

Seems like quite some progress in nanobiotech there.

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.

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).

It's more or less only (that is mainly) useful for building components that you then use in your man-made tracks. It's a tool, just like AI image generators are tools albeit there the replacement use-case is substantial. AI-generated voice also needs to be considered in this context I think.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

See the papers linked here

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.

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.

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

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: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/31/science/human-survival-bottleneck.html I previously had something like "Some peers doubt the study but if correct, [...]" there maybe that would be clearer?

Thanks, spending many days on going through >2k studies, the criteria-based selection and integrating most of these into Wikipedia (the image itself takes less time). Happy to see it's appreciated.

Yes, the issue is that many of the most obvious things are not getting researched or substantiated. Moreover, the two studies provide useful data on this. Costs stats

Sadly, many of the most valuable things scientists could investigate are no-shit-sherlock things. These are highly impactful and important studies. I've been tracking over a thousand of the top studies per month for over three years, since recently even with extra attention to policy-relevant studies as these are rare and often drown. I could give lots of examples of similar cases such as this recently featured first review of measures to prevent risks from bioresearch/labs or yet unstudied things with nothing to cite.
Maybe that inspires some to become scientists themselves because that is required to be able to meaningfully publish valuable research on such subjects that matter in the real world.

Because people are not so interested in reinventing the wheel a thousand times when there could be just 3 optimal open source solutions.

Also many products are plain useless or even harmful to society such as mundane noneducational distracting addictive mobile games.

If you can glance over 100 posts in 10 seconds that is of little importance. The issue is that nobody enabled good ways to do so. Also people should rather devote their times to priority purposes such as editing Wikipedia or developing open source software that is not some niche repo but e.g. MediaWiki or Lutris.

It's destined for a another study by independent researchers. As simple as that. Also more than one and substantially larger ones would be good given the simplicity, more or less innocuous study design, and the potential benefits. Maybe people assume that if a study says something, you're supposed to immediately take that as the truth. That is never the case. This study is just a very clear case for more good studies on this.

Everything that sounds strange or like what people often call sham-science or funded by some people I don't like must be pseudoscience and I don't provide any reasons but only name-call

Loeb is based and people who think UFOs or potential interstellar material readily retrievable at the seabed shouldn't be studied is out of his/her mind.

Here is some info on the few studies conducted on UAP so far. NASA is starting research on them as well but likely won't bring nearly as much as Garry Nolan's study of materials did or the Galileo Project will. I have good faith in this community, I think most people aren't so narrow-minded ignorant.

Ich finde das einen super Vorschlag und finde Kialo klasse – würde es gut finden wenn man strukturierte Debatten bzw Argumentenkarten von dort hier einbetten könnte.

Ich glaube allerdings nicht dass das so einfach geht. Sollte aber mal jemand testen – Kialo hat so ein Embedding. Deinem letzten Absatz bzgl "eher relaxed etwas bequatschen" stimme ich zu – man könnte es aber einfach nur ermöglichen, heißt ja nicht dass alle Debatten damit ersetzt werden. Man könnte eben Argumentationsposts erstellen oder bestimmte Argumentenzweige einbetten.

Argüman ist die beste FOSS Alternative aber womöglich wird Kialo bald open source, ich habe sie mal gefragt und warte noch auf weitere Details.

Here are some correlations of language skills and other intelligence factors or evaluations (e.g. IQ) via a study (recently integrated the info into the article: Neurogenetics – language GWAS

However, I largely agree – see for example this argument / its sources

Instead of arguing against, here's an arguments map (for and) against: Does pineapple belong on pizza?, Kialo

Thank you! This one is a bit late (I'll start working on the next one in a few days already).

Better to look at the sources for the short-items. BBQ also isn't healthy, but presumably you aren't doing that as often as using a gas stove and aren't standing right next to it all the time. There some studies on that too, e.g. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01494 Here's a study I once included about wood-burning which can be a significant cancer hazard in winter days in some regions: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/17/wood-burners-urban-air-pollution-cancer-risk-study https://doi.org/10.5194%2Facp-21-17865-2021

Could you license this image under CCBY so that it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? I'd add it to here. Let me know if that's okay or if CCBY is mentioned somewhere.