Great .. I'm so deathly allergic to hemp that I have an EpiPen for it

Damnit man I’m not a scientist!!

Is there any studies on bipolar disorder and Alzheimer’s? The way they describe how this mechanism works, it really sounds like what I do when I’m not on keto. I have always felt I have more impulse control when in ketosis.

If this study has some merit I wonder if there’s some correlation between bipolar and Alzheimer’s which could explain the hereditary nature as bipolar is universally accepted as genetic. Also crazy to think all of these could be metabolic disorders.

"new" foods.

Aka, "Hey, I remember why this stuff was banned to begin with. Let's try again!"

I probably would have never been born due to my parents making more intelligent choices

It seems very bird like, more than I expected. I would have thought the ankylosaurus larynx would have been at least a little different from birds. But that paper suggests it’s almost identical to the larynx of a very large bird. So maybe all dinosaurs were as vocal as modern birds.

I think they feel bad about a situation they don't have control over, and sedentary being equated to couch potato made them want point out that not everyone is choosing the lifestyle that they themselves are forced to live, because many make assumptions, and they wanted to make sure people know that not all people are in the situation by choice. Because people do make assumptions.

This is an understandable response when you feel like you may be judged unfairly based on others' choices, and you have none.

What was your point in phrasing it in a way to make them feel worse?

[removed]

That's why all my notifications have been disabled for years. Plus my phone's constant nagging is annoying.

You are not going to believe this... dumber.

Do fruits count as fructose here?

[removed]

I mean, having a device in my pocket that offers 24/7 accessibility to a functionally infinite number of distractions hasn't done my ADHD any favors...

Not where i live, but i can imagine its bad in the states.

[removed]

Ok Doc. Give to me straight.. how long have I got?!

[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

no, we’ve just gotten better at diagnosing it in roughly 50% of the population.

the cell phones didn’t give women ADHD, they’ve had it all along.

No. We don't have that stuff over here and people still get Alzheimers.

Haven't read the study, but OPs summary mentions fructose in general. So some fruits would cause that effect too.

The issue here is that if the study only proved correlation, they failed to determine whether the claim they were investigating was true:

> It has been suggested that smartphone use may have negative effects on our cognitive processes

Therefore their interpretation of the results is totally unsupported:

> This suggests that smartphone excessive smartphone checking is a distracting behaviour [sic]

The article says they compared the same individuals across multiple days, but that doesn't investigate whether smartphone use causes distraction or pre-existing distraction causes smartphone use. That's the concern in the original comment.

Also they had a "sample of 181 iPhone users from a local university" which may not be representative of any other demographic.

So while the results may be interesting, we're still far from answering many of the questions we're asking, and we can't yet act positively on this information.

> It's also no secret within academic climate science circles that the IPCC has long been politically motivated to underestimate the scale of the problem. Which is why very few climate scientists actually believe that the Paris Accord is realistic. We all know there is no chance the world can avoid 1.5 C mean global warming and that we will likely see a potentially disastrous 2 C increase by 2050. Many already assume that there will be no remaining carbon budget even for the 2 C target

That's an enormous number claims regarding what climate scientists believe, but the only source presented for any of it is a non-peer-reviewed report from an Australian think tank whose previous reports were criticized as alarmist, misleading, and lacking scientific credibility by scientist reviewers

And looking at the report itself, it's easy to see why. Their number 1 "critical understanding" cherry-picks only the IPCC scenarios which support their narrative:
> "Current (CMIP6) climate models project on average a warming of 0.3°C for the decade to 2030 (across the SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios)."

By contrast, the IEA expects CO2 emissions to fall 15-20% by 2030, putting the world roughly in line with the IPCC's SSP1-2.6 pathway -- a pathway they totally ignore*.

It's reasonable that they would want to include higher-emission pathways as well to examine the danger of less likely scenarios, but to exclusively examine higher-emission scenarios and completely ignore lower-emission scenarios that are as or more plausible? It's clear cherry-picking of data to establish a chosen narrative.

On to their number 2 "critical understanding":
> "Due to model limitations, we will not know exactly how the climate crisis will unfold until it’s too late.6 One example is the failure to predict the intensity of extreme heat and flood events in Europe and North America in 2021."

i.e., they're conflating climate and weather.

One heat wave or one flood is weather; by contrast, climate is the broad long-term trend. Failing to predict a particular flood or heat wave no more "proves" the IPCC models wrong than a cold winter "proves" the climate is not warming. They're making an utterly unscientific argument here.

Not everything they say is wrong -- notably they're quite right that warming has already caused significant effects and even 1.5C (which is unlikely) will cause more -- but enough demonstrably biased and unscientific claims are thrown in that this report could never pass robust peer review and is not a scientific source.

[removed]