Hi! I am sorry, I know it is not entirely obvious from the community’s description (the community itself has been abandoned it seems), but the community is hosted in a non-political science/nature instance.
I think it is better if I remove the community altogether because it is not moderated and it will inevitably invite this kind of politicized questions.
I will do so in a bit. Perhaps this other community is better for this: https://lemmy.world/c/nostupidquestions
Thanks a lot for sharing! It has been nice thinking about this topic again.
When I wrote my response I was hyper-focused on the concept of “antenna-like” resonances due to the wavelength of the radiation, so it was interesting to read about the 500 Hz resonances that I assume are due to natural frequencies of tiny hairs or other oscillators in bees. I did not even consider these.
I have in the past heard about some micro-wave and also IR-assisted chemistry. It does make some intuitive sense that the excitation of particular modes that displace molecules or groups of molecules along a reaction coordinate might help speed up a specific reaction pathway, but I remember a few years ago that the data was not there to support that. I believe a professor at my university was doing some experiments in which the reactants are placed within a cavity that is resonant with such a mode in an attempt to increase reaction rates via some cavity enhancement. From what I can see they have not published on this topic yet, but it seems to be related to this concept: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article/154/19/191103/565904
I am very curious about your LoRa bee sensors. What kind of sensors are you using?
It looks like that account was deleted by someone with access to the account. Most likely by the account owner. When a user deletes their account there is no form to fill in a reason, the data is just wiped.
Great, added. Thank you!
Awesome, thank you! I have added you as a moderator.
I think the difference in time is too big. Also, in the talk page’s archive it is stated that the wikipedia was updated because of this meme, and not the other way around. This is from the talk page:
Thanks a lot for looking into this!
While the iPSC technology has not yet advanced to a stage where therapeutic transplants have been deemed safe, iPSCs are readily being used in personalized drug discovery efforts and understanding the patient-specific basis of disease.
I am not super familiar with the topic, but I have been told of some successful animal studies on implanting the organoid tissue into the animals from which the stem cells were derived.
This other article from 2013 lists a few concerns, and I think this is the closest to what you were looking for: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3931018/#sec3
Yeah, that covers nicely what I was wondering about. Especially the reason 1 (embryonic proteins not present during immune system education) and reason 2 (epigenetic changes). I can appreciate that these mechanisms might possibly cause issues, but I would be curious to learn the actual magnitude of their impact.
Yamanaka named iPSCs with a lower case “i” due to the popularity of the iPod and other products.
Oooh, that’s why! I do think iPSC looks nicer than IPSC. Not a big apple fan, though
Looking through the archived history of the talk page, I can confirm that the claim on the wiki page is derived from the viral post, and not the other way around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gulf_of_Mexico/Archive_3#Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl
How did I miss that?!
My timeline is incorrect then. Since the post from sassymetischick.bsky predates the wiki edit, it is more likely that the wiki edit was made in response to this meme, and not the other way around. This pretty invalidates what I said above…
I still can’t find any evidence of this being an actual trend, but I no longer have a good guess about the origin.
I have banned multiple of those accounts for DM spam. Banned a new one just now.
I’m not sure this is a bot. I suspect it might be a real person who doesn’t realize how they’re coming across. Initially, I thought it might be a strategy to get attention, but if that were the case, I’d be surprised by their persistence with a strategy that isn’t very effective.
I suppose it is kind of effective if we are making posts about them… Hmm…
I prefer not making too many assumptions other than to assume no malice. But of course the DM spam will not be tolerated.
They have gone from:
Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. … Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That’s a promise.
To (paraphrasing) “Ahh, well, we don’t have ownership, we just have a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content. We can also process your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Policy… Ah, and, of course, we may change the policy in any way we want and you automatically agree with it by continuing using the service”.
In the past, they used language that included very specific limits on how the data could be used. Now, they make no promises and obfuscate the possibilities by providing ‘examples’ of ways that the data might be used.
If they were serious about privacy, the minimum would be to be transparent and specific about the data use. The lack of specificity makes it abundantly clear that they intend to use the data in ways that users would disapprove.
Cuando quieras! 😁
Yes, but that version is in German. That website also has one in English: https://annas-archive.org/slow_download/24154814bfe1e676d79509c3db1f74a4/0/0
Let’s see…
Woah, interesting. The author is José López Portillo. I thought he shared the name with a former Mexican president, but, nope, the author is a former Mexican president.
The title of the English version is a bit different, but the text appears to be the same. It is a novel, and I can find no mention of the gulf of Mexico or of Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl in this book. To me it looks like a mistake in the citation.
The claim appears to come from this text (citation 1): https://www.scribd.com/document/703207646/Dioses-prehispanicos-de-Mexico-mitos-y-deidades-del-panteon-Fernandez-Adela-1992-Mexico-D-F-Panorama-Editorial-9789683803061-cbee5
Unfortunately, that book does not contain references nor is it stated where this claim comes from.
EDIT: As indepndnt mentioned in a comment below, the OP was posted on February 14, which pre-dates the wikipedia edits. So, my conclusions below about the timeline are not valid.
Hah, sure, let’s investigate 🕵️♂️
The term ‘Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl’ was added as a potential Aztec name to the English wikipedia page on February 15, 2025, by user ‘Mxn’.
The description of the edit is the following:
Frum says the Aztecs had no specific name for the gulf, which is plausible in a practical sense, but Fernández gives a specific religious name and is more of a reliable source on this topic
If we investigate a bit further, we can see that the term Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl is described to be a name for the ‘Gulf of Mexico’ in the spanish Wikipedia: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl
This page was updated to include the description of Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl as the ‘Gulf of Mexico’ in September 16, 2018. I don’t have access to the citation so I don’t know if the citation specifies if this term is still known/used.
If you check the history you will find that the same ‘Mxn’ fixed a typo in this page on February 15, 2025.
So, from this sequence of events it is highly likely that the term ‘Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl’ was included into the Gulf of Mexico wiki page as a result of the user Mxn performing an active search for Aztec names for the Gulf of Mexico, and finding this connection between the term an the gulf by searching on Wikipedia. This information did not come from recent news about the term being used by natives.
I can find no evidence of native people referring to the gulf of Mexico as ‘Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl’ more frequently or at all. I can find no mention of this becoming viral in Mexico.
I find it highly unlikely that:
AND
More likely…
And this concludes my little investigation 🧐
Always exciting to learn about new perspectives on consciousness!
I have searched for the “Cellular Basis of Consciousness (CBC)” theory and I do not personally find it very compelling. I appreciate that the hard problem of consciousness is very difficult to address using the scientific method, but I suspect that consciousness arises from a form of processing that requires computations of the kind performed by animal brains. I don’t think that the kind of biophysics that allows cells to sense and respond to the environment are enough to create a conscious experience.
About the: “third state”. Cells are alive, independently of the multi-cellular organism that they come from. I don’t agree that changing the way that the cells are organized constitutes some “third state”.
Despite my disagreements, it is still nice to read and think about. Thanks for sharing.
Interesting! I wonder if it is already technically feasible to culture tooth-like pieces from the patient’s stem cells. Instead of extracting and carving a tooth, it would be cool to grow the tissue in some kind of structured 3D matrix. Patient gets to keep their canine then.
That said… Do you know if tissue grown from a patient’s own stem cells is generally not rejected by the immune system? I am not sure if cells need to differentiate within the body to get labeled by some molecular markers that make them immunocompatible, or if having the same genetic makeup is good enough.
These are being developed by a Dutch company: https://www.oneplanetresearch.com/innovation/ingestibles-for-gut-health/
Hello!
Yes, the !biology@mander.xyz community is a community for general biology-related content.
There are also more specific communities that focus in more specialized topics, such as such as !palaeontology@mander.xyz.
If you have an interest in a specific topic, feel free to create a community that reflects that interest. Some instances are very general while others try to limit communities to those that fit a range of topics, so it is best to create a community in an instance for which the topic is in scope.
The split between “Today” and “Tomorrow” is at midnight, not when one sleeps/wakes up.
This comes up often after midnight when my girlfriend asks me about “tomorrow”. Why discuss breakfast for tomorrow when we still haven’t had breakfast today??