Recent comments in /f/science

notesundevil t1_jb8d6p5 wrote

Reply to comment by ShrimpCrackers in Study reveals that although private automobiles continue to be the dominant travel mode in American cities, the share of car trips has slightly and steadily decreased since its peak in 2001. In contrast, the share of transit, non-motorized, and taxicab trips has steadily increased by giuliomagnifico

It’s a service, it does not need to pay for itself. Just like the postal service.

1

Cheetahs_never_win t1_jb8bgv1 wrote

Reply to comment by Playingwithmyrod in Global food consumption alone could add nearly 1 °C to warming by 2100. Seventy five percent of this warming is driven by foods that are high sources of methane (ruminant meat, dairy and rice). by Plant__Eater

"If we continue eating full rations, we'll be out of food in 2 months and starve. If we supplement 50% we can survive to harvest and produce food and rations."

"Eating things that produce cow farts at present projections means we'll boil alive in 80 years. If we dial it back, we'll survive to 140 years and hopefully have a solution."

You said checks notes they said we're not allowed to eat anything.

9

JoeRogansNipple t1_jb8az4q wrote

Reply to Study: Cannabinoids Can Reduce the Viability of Human Bladder Cancer Cells by Defiant_Race_7544

In vitro, wait for actual clinical trials.

https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42238-023-00174-z

>Our results indicate that cannabinoids can reduce human bladder transitional cell carcinoma cell viability, and that they can potentially exert synergistic effects when combined with other agents. Our in vitro results will form the basis for future studies in vivo and in clinical trials for the development of new therapies that could be beneficial for the treatment of bladder cancer in the future.

99

walruskingmike t1_jb87cr3 wrote

Reply to comment by IamPurgamentum in Humans Started Riding Horses 5,000 Years Ago, New Evidence Suggests by geoxol

You keep shifting your goalpost and ignoring like half of what I say in each comment. Now suddenly early horses were chosen because they're so much smarter than zebras and donkeys. Did you ever think that maybe horses have been bred for their intelligence? They're also nearly half a meter taller now too, because we bred them for it. Did you personally compare the intelligence of early horses to zebras? Hell, even to Przewalski's horse, if you want to get comparative about it. Because if not, you have no point here, just more guesses.

We're back to child cavalry now, are we? What exactly can you get done more with a child on the back of a horse that you couldn't get done by just having the horse pull something? Bear in mind, that in order to tame a horse for riding so that it won't buck you off, you need someone to break it in while on its back, a back that won't hold an adult; even modern horses don't like this process when feral and they've been bred for this for thousands of years. So now you need tweens breaking them in. So you're arguing that a culture decided to have their children try to be the first horsemen, something that's incredibly dangerous and at that point hadn't been tried; and for what reason, you still haven't said. Not to mention, there is exactly zero evidence for child-only horsemanship in either history or archaeology; but hey, it makes you think you're clever.

I guess all of history, anthropology, and archeology are wrong, though, and some dude on the internet is right. You got me. Go ahead and respond in whatever way makes you feel smartest if you really feel like you need the last word. I won't be reading it.

2

AutoModerator t1_jb86yym wrote

Reply to Study: Cannabinoids Can Reduce the Viability of Human Bladder Cancer Cells by Defiant_Race_7544

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Mutex70 t1_jb86db8 wrote

Reply to comment by Playingwithmyrod in Global food consumption alone could add nearly 1 °C to warming by 2100. Seventy five percent of this warming is driven by foods that are high sources of methane (ruminant meat, dairy and rice). by Plant__Eater

Sustainable foods are already largely cheaper than "normal food".

i.e. peas, lentils, grains and tofu are already cheaper than meat, and contribute far less greenhouse gases.

>However, we also found that technologically available improvements to production practices, decarbonization of the energy sector, health-motivated changes in dietary habits and reductions in food waste could together decrease the anticipated warming by >55% compared with sustained dietary consumption rates, avoiding 0.5 °C relative to a business-as-usual baseline for a high-population-growth scenario. Further avoided warming potential lies within residual emissions that could be addressed by reductions in food loss throughout production stages or future technological innovations.

Basically: improve production processes, stop using fossil fuels to farm, encourage healthier diets and reduce food waste.

8