ArcticDagger

joined 2 years ago
[–] ArcticDagger@feddit.dk 2 points 4 months ago

Awesome, that seems like a great find!

 

cross-posted from: https://feddit.dk/post/10418282

Abstract:

Egg cooks are challenged by the two-phase structure: albumen and yolk require two cooking temperatures. Separation or a compromise temperature to the detriment of food safety or taste preference are the options. In the present article, we find that it is possible to cook albumen and yolk at two temperatures without separation by using periodic boundary conditions in the energy transport problem. Through mathematical modeling and subsequent simulation, we are able to design the novel cooking method, namely periodic cooking. Comparison with established egg cooking procedures through a plethora of characterization techniques, including Sensory Analysis, Texture Profile Analysis and FT-IR spectroscopy, confirms the different cooking extents and the different variations in protein denaturation with the novel approach. The method not only optimizes egg texture and nutrients, but also holds promise for innovative culinary applications and materials treatment.

From the article:

Fig. 1: Simulation of periodic cooking. Results of the simulation of the cooking of an egg with the periodic cooking method: a periodic time-varying BC imposed, b evolution of the thermal profile over time, c evolution of the degree of cooking over time at different distances from the center of the egg and d evolution of the cooking rate over time at different distances from the center of the egg. The distances from the center selected to construct the graphs of figures c and d are identified by the lines in figure b. The precise legend for figures c and d is given only in figure d.

[–] ArcticDagger@feddit.dk 10 points 5 months ago

Good point

I believe the original article is open access: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adr8243

In there, they show the following figure (figure 6):

Where the authors say that 12 μg/ml microplastics in the blood is representative for humans

 

cross-posted from: https://feddit.dk/post/9969468

From the article:

Risky play is associated with greater resilience, self-confidence, problem-solving and social skills such as cooperation, negotiation and empathy, according to studies by Sandseter and others. When a study in Leuven, Belgium, gave four- and six-year-olds just two hours a week of opportunities for risky play over the course of three months, their risk-assessment skills improved compared with those of children in a control group2. In this study, the risky play took place at school, in a gym class and in the classroom.

 

cross-posted from: https://feddit.dk/post/9778976

Abstract

The disparity in environmental impacts across different countries has been widely acknowledged1,2. However, ascertaining the specific responsibility within the complex interactions of economies and consumption groups remains a challenging endeavour3,4,5. Here, using an expenditure database that includes up to 201 consumption groups across 168 countries, we investigate the distribution of 6 environmental footprint indicators and assess the impact of specific consumption expenditures on planetary boundary transgressions. We show that 31–67% and 51–91% of the planetary boundary breaching responsibility could be attributed to the global top 10% and top 20% of consumers, respectively, from both developed and developing countries. By following an effective mitigation pathway, the global top 20% of consumers could adopt the consumption levels and patterns that have the lowest environmental impacts within their quintile, yielding a reduction of 25–53% in environmental pressure. In this scenario, actions focused solely on the food and services sectors would reduce environmental pressure enough to bring land-system change and biosphere integrity back within their respective planetary boundaries. Our study highlights the critical need to focus on high-expenditure consumers for effectively addressing planetary boundary transgressions.

From the paper - definition of the top global consumers:

The global 10th percentile level of final demand is about US$27,000 per year, equivalent to the European average in 2017. The global 20th percentile level is about US$12,000 per year, comparable to the threshold of high-income countries defined by the United Nations in 2017.

 

cross-posted from: https://feddit.dk/post/9189541

Abstract:

Working from home has become standard for employees with a university degree. The most common scheme, which has been adopted by around 100 million employees in Europe and North America, is a hybrid schedule, in which individuals spend a mix of days at home and at work each week1,2. However, the effects of hybrid working on employees and firms have been debated, and some executives argue that it damages productivity, innovation and career development3,4,5. Here we ran a six-month randomized control trial investigating the effects of hybrid working from home on 1,612 employees in a Chinese technology company in 2021–2022. We found that hybrid working improved job satisfaction and reduced quit rates by one-third. The reduction in quit rates was significant for non-managers, female employees and those with long commutes. Null equivalence tests showed that hybrid working did not affect performance grades over the next two years of reviews. We found no evidence for a difference in promotions over the next two years overall, or for any major employee subgroup. Finally, null equivalence tests showed that hybrid working had no effect on the lines of code written by computer-engineer employees. We also found that the 395 managers in the experiment revised their surveyed views about the effect of hybrid working on productivity, from a perceived negative effect (−2.6% on average) before the experiment to a perceived positive one (+1.0%) after the experiment. These results indicate that a hybrid schedule with two days a week working from home does not damage performance.

 

Abstract:

Working from home has become standard for employees with a university degree. The most common scheme, which has been adopted by around 100 million employees in Europe and North America, is a hybrid schedule, in which individuals spend a mix of days at home and at work each week1,2. However, the effects of hybrid working on employees and firms have been debated, and some executives argue that it damages productivity, innovation and career development3,4,5. Here we ran a six-month randomized control trial investigating the effects of hybrid working from home on 1,612 employees in a Chinese technology company in 2021–2022. We found that hybrid working improved job satisfaction and reduced quit rates by one-third. The reduction in quit rates was significant for non-managers, female employees and those with long commutes. Null equivalence tests showed that hybrid working did not affect performance grades over the next two years of reviews. We found no evidence for a difference in promotions over the next two years overall, or for any major employee subgroup. Finally, null equivalence tests showed that hybrid working had no effect on the lines of code written by computer-engineer employees. We also found that the 395 managers in the experiment revised their surveyed views about the effect of hybrid working on productivity, from a perceived negative effect (−2.6% on average) before the experiment to a perceived positive one (+1.0%) after the experiment. These results indicate that a hybrid schedule with two days a week working from home does not damage performance.

[–] ArcticDagger@feddit.dk 40 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ahh that's wack. The article it's based on is open-access: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07856-5

[–] ArcticDagger@feddit.dk 5 points 10 months ago

Plenty. If you scroll down, there's tens of research articles linked. You just have to click on the circles for most of the articles :-)

Here's an excerpt from the bottom of the article':

The most conclusive long-term study on sleep training to date is a 2012 randomized controlled trial on 326 infants, which found no difference on any measure—negative or positive—between children who were sleep trained and those who weren’t after a 5 year follow up. The study includes measurements of sleep patterns, behavior, cortisol levels, and, importantly, attachment.

[–] ArcticDagger@feddit.dk 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's an interesting point. But maybe there are some compounds that can induce a state that fools people who've never tried psychoactive compounds? I've heard of studies using dehydrated water as a placebo for alcohol as it induces some of the same effects:

Like ethanol, heavy water temporarily changes the relative density of cupula relative to the endolymph in the vestibular organ, causing positional nystagmus, illusions of bodily rotations, dizziness, and nausea. However, the direction of nystagmus is in the opposite direction of ethanol, since it is denser than water, not lighter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water

[–] ArcticDagger@feddit.dk 2 points 11 months ago

To a certain extent I agree, but I also think it's a tricky topic that deals a fair bit with the ethics of medicine. The Atlantic has a pretty good article with arguments for and against: https://web.archive.org/web/20230201192052/https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/12/the-placebo-debate-is-it-unethical-to-prescribe-them-to-patients/250161/

Yes, in your three situations, I'd agree that option C is the best one. But you're disregarding a major component of any drug: side effects. Presumably ecstasy has some nonnegligible side effects so just looking at the improvement on the treated disease might now show the full picture

[–] ArcticDagger@feddit.dk 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I agree that it's a shame that it's so difficult to eliminate the placebo effect from psychoactive drugs. There's probably alternative ways of teasing out the effect, if any, from MDMA therapy, but human studies take a long time and, consequently, costs a lot of money. I'd imagine the researchers would love to do the studies, but doesn't have the resources for it

I think the critique about conflicts of interest seems a bit misguided. It's not the scientists who doesn't want to move further with this. It's the FDA

[–] ArcticDagger@feddit.dk 12 points 11 months ago (11 children)

But if they know they're getting ecstasy, the improvement might originate from placebo which means that they're not actually getting better from ecstasy. They're just getting better because they think they should be getting better

 

But Marks points out that the FDA typically follows the advice of its independent advisory committees — and the one that evaluated MDMA in June overwhelmingly voted against approving the drug, citing problems with clinical trial design that the advisers felt made it difficult to determine the drug’s safety and efficacy. One concern was about the difficulty of conducting a true placebo-controlled study with a hallucinogen: around 90% of the participants in Lykos’s trials guessed correctly whether they had received the drug or a placebo, and the expectation that MDMA should have an effect might have coloured their perception of whether it treated their symptoms.

Another concern was about Lykos’s strategy of administering the drug alongside psychotherapy. Rick Doblin, founder of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), the non-profit organization that created Lykos, has said that he thinks the drug’s effects are inseparable from guided therapy. MDMA is thought to help people with PTSD be more receptive and open to revisiting traumatic events with a therapist. But because the FDA doesn’t regulate psychotherapy, the agency and advisory panel struggled to evaluate this claim. “It was an attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole,” Marks says.

[–] ArcticDagger@feddit.dk 2 points 11 months ago

That's a super cool link. Thanks for sharing!

 

From the article:

But for the general public, the implications of the study are simpler. “A microwave is not a pure, pristine place,” Porcar says. It’s also not a pathogenic reservoir to be feared, he says. But he does recommend cleaning your kitchen microwave often — just as often as you would scrub your kitchen surfaces to eliminate potential bacteria.

[–] ArcticDagger@feddit.dk 2 points 11 months ago

I think those are all good questions that I don't think anyone really have conclusive answers to (yet). Hopefully the researchers will have the funds in the future to investigate those and more!

[–] ArcticDagger@feddit.dk 16 points 11 months ago (4 children)

From the article:

Squeezed in alongside their main projects, the investigation took eight years and included dozens of participants. The results, published in 2016, were revelatory [1]. Two to three months after giving birth, multiple regions of the cerebral cortex were, on average, 2% smaller than before conception. And most of them remained smaller two years later. Although shrinkage might evoke the idea of a deficit, the team showed that the degree of cortical reduction predicted the strength of a mother’s attachment to her infant, and proposed that pregnancy prepares the brain for parenthood.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.4458

view more: next ›