Stanford Medicine's Scope blog covers biomedical research, infectious disease, and health science for a general audience.
HN links it as a source for specific research, such as the Lyme disease drug and sea squirt neurodegeneration studies, in health and medicine threads.
From TA https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2023/07/26/how-an-ultra-sensitive-on-off-switch-helps-axolotls-regrow-limbs/ :
> Axolotls, they discovered, have an ultra-sensitive version of mTOR, a molecule that acts as an on-off switch for protein production. And, like survivalists who fill their basements with non-perishable food for hard times, axolotl cells stockpile messenger RNA molecules, which contain genetic instructions for producing proteins. The combination of an easily activated mTOR molecule and a repository of ready-to-use mRNAs means that after an injury, axolotl cells can quickly produce the proteins needed for tissue regeneration.
From "Reactivating Dormant Cells in the Retina Brings New Hope for Vision Regeneration" (2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35871887 :
> "Direct neuronal reprogramming by temporal identity factors" (2023) https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2122168120#abstract :
> Abstract: Temporal identity factors are sufficient to reprogram developmental competence of neural progenitors and shift cell fate output, but whether they can also reprogram the identity of terminally differentiated cells is unknown. To address this question, we designed a conditional gene expression system that allows rapid screening of potential reprogramming factors in mouse retinal glial cells combined with genetic lineage tracing. Using this assay, we found that coexpression of the early temporal identity transcription factors Ikzf1 and Ikzf4 is sufficient to…
I think there are arguments for both sides, and it is far from being discussed since evidence suggests that excessive social media use can lead to behaviors resembling addiction. There are issues like depression, anxiety, and poor sleep [1][2][4]. It triggers brain responses similar to addictive substances, reinforcing compulsive use[5][8]. Some studies argue that it may not meet the clinical criteria for addiction[3][7].
There is need for further investigation
[1] Is social media bad for you? The evidence and the unknowns - BBC https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180104-is-social-media-bad-for-you-the-evidence-and-the-unknowns [2] Social Media Addiction Statistics - The Lanier Law Firm https://www.lanierlawfirm.com/social-media-addiction/statistics/ [3] Is social media addictive? 'Digital detox' study suggests not - Science https://www.science.org/content/article/social-media-addictive-digital-detox-study-suggests-not [4] Research trends in social media addiction and problematic social ... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9707397/ [5] The Addictiveness of Social Media: How Teens Get Hooked https://www.jeffersonhealth.org/your-health/living-well/the-addictiveness-of-social-media-how-teens-get-hooked [6] Our Social Media Addiction - Harvard Business Review https://hbr.org/2022/11/our-social-media-addiction [7] Special Report: Is Social Media Misuse A Bad Habit or Harmful ... https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.pn.2024.04.4.5 [8] Addictive potential…
> It is not
No, it is. I think you missed my point though.
> because in that instance we have incontrovertible evidence of the truth.
This is irrelevant to my point. You said that I was wrong to say the issue we were discussing is not debatable because it is still being debated. I pointed out that's a fallacious argument because you can claim anything is debatable then as long as at least two peoples are debating it. That's kind of self-evident and clearly I wasn't trying to claim as otherwise, as explained preciously. As such, intentional or not, I see that as a kind of strawman.
> In psychology we’re working on much shakier ground and it’s widely understood there’s little we know for sure. The field is rife with reproducibility issues.
Absolutely, it's why it's a soft science. But we're still able to overcome that difficult and come up with useful data and testable models, and we've done that with willpower. Of course we don't completely understand it, but it's beyond a doubt that at least some people can increase it.
Here's an excerpt from an interview with Kelly McGonigal[1]
The research also shows that willpower decreases over the course of the day, as your energy gets "spent" on stress and self-control. This has become known as "the muscle model" of willpower. Like your biceps or quadriceps the willpower "muscle" can get exhausted from effort.
But that doesn't mean we're all doomed to run out of willpower by noon. I prefer to talk about becoming a willpower…
> Americans earn 30% more than Finlanders adjusting for PPP.
You're taking PPP to mean much more than it actually does. Just consider the fact that there's no accepted "PPP" measurement methodology.
But even assuming one existed (pick your favorite), it only effectively encodes one specific consumption profile - one that e.g. takes into account the health care costs of a 30-year-olds with healthy 4-year-old kids, but not that of your average 50-year-old which are considerably different.
> taking into account higher cost of health care, lower cost of most other things, we still have 30% more on average.
Averages are totally the wrong tool to measure anything like that - especially when disparity in the US is so much higher.
Compare the proverbial USElbonia to Eulbonia:
In USElbonia, 1% make $16100/month, 99% make $100/month' avg=$260/month
In EUlbonia, 1% makes $400/month, 99% make $200/month, avg=$202/month
USElbonians, make, on the overage 30% more - but every single EUlbonian is at least 100% better off than 99% of the USElbonians.
Real stats are not quite as bad, of course - but disparity in the US is ridiculously high. But there are many respects in which all EU people are better off than US people which do not make it into any PPP comparison -- e.g., http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/ "Unless you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, you are one medical emergency away from bankruptcy" - I can't find a real European comparable, but…
Problems with modern dating have worsened from various perspectives::
- Social media platforms, such as Instagram and TikTok, have significantly influenced dating expectations. They have set high standards that women often use to choose their partners. A few years ago, Instagram was the primary influencer, but now it’s TikTok. This influence ranges from physical appearance, where men on TikTok even went to the extent of breaking their jaws to achieve a certain look, demonstrating the power of peer pressure, to lifestyle expectations, for instance, college girls often expect their potential partners to regularly take them out for dinner and parties. Working women might expect men to earn a substantial income, around 300k or 500k a year, and also provide travel, gifts, etc. (all of these have videos of women demanding them you can look then up), There’s also an expectation for men to conform to a woman’s lifestyle and mentality. If he doesn't, she can easily find another partner on a whim. Therefore, as a man, you are expected to have a good job, earn a substantial income, own a car, a house, maintain good looks and fitness, be outgoing, mentally healthy, and cover expenses such as dinners and shopping. On the other hand, a woman is often just expected to be slightly above average looking.
- Dating apps have significantly altered the landscape of dating, often hindering the potential for forming long-term relationships or settling down. These apps are designed with…
Antibodies mostly target the attachment heads of RNA viruses, which mutate very quickly to evade them. But that mutation also applies to its own reproductive mechanisms, like RNA polymerase, which degrades in the presence of evolutionary pressure from the immune system against the attachment proteins, so the latter strains become dormant because they lose reproductive integrity. It then takes conditions lacking an immune response to evolve back to a working polymerase and attachment head.
I think it is interesting to note that the immune system itself is largely responsible for spreading most RNA viruses: inflammation, coughing, sneezing etc. Is this us evolving population-level (probably more like Dunbar number than 8B) defense in response to the general threat of viruses, or is it a weakness that each individual virus evolves to exploit. It seems to me that this involuntary spreading behavior is much more pronounced in humans than other mammals.
https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2020/04/03/how-coronaviruses-infect-us-how-infectious-viruses-created-us/
https://mbio.asm.org/content/2/5/e00150-11