• 0 Posts
  • 16 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 21st, 2023

help-circle

  • Sure.

    The problem is that the brain is not a squishy uniform cell mess that just reacts to some chemicals (dopamine/serotonine/…). All of those are neurotransmitters to specific classes of neurons that have a very specific topological position to perform their function.

    So if you just throwing in random neurons here and there, they won’t do anything. They are not contributing to any pathways.

    Serotonin re-uptake inhibitors and dopamine generator drugs (aka opioids) make the signal send by the “correct” neurons that are there stronger, contributing to the desired effect.

    The problem with Alzheimers is the death of “correct” neurons, that occurs before Alzheimer is manifested. So just injecting new ones is unlikely to do anything.

    Moreover, the neurons don’t just live outside brain. They need to be immortalized to live in a Petri dish. And to acheive it, the only way we can go now is to add factors that in the context of human organism are considered as cancerous.

    So it’s a combo of “unlikely to be efficient” and “potentially likely to lead to cancer”. With Parkinson the tradeoff might be acceptable, but this kind of projects is definitely that raises some red flags for me.







  • No, no - it’s just as scientists predicted. In the worst-case “no-mitigation” scenario and with attempts from them to explain that +2 global will likely be +10 in peak temperature increase over land (read US, Europe, Asia). As in, both mean and std will increase, but without ocean’s mitigation over land.

    Fucked is not the correct word - there is a +50 predicted before the end of decade in Strasbourg, where I am from. There is not a single building built there made to resist that kind of temperatures, nor a single tree or crop that could stand that for a day.

    And it’s a relatively “safe” area as far as long-term projections go…






  • Because military people got really good at not dying unless they are hit directly. You can nuclear nuke an entrenched frontline and you and you only create a couple of kilometers of breach in the front. You advance and very angry mobile reserves cut you off and destroy your ass.

    That’s one of the reasons tactical nukes are no longer a thing.

    That and the fact that AA systems got really good - even against hypersonic maneuvering missiles.

    So you realistically you now only use them on poorly protected targets of strategic importants (open air weapons stockpiles, command centers, troop concentrations, …). But you still need infantry and tanks to take and hold terrain.