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.

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?

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.

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.

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.