The reason this worked is, that the back-action of the moon on the sun is very insignificant. For a "real" chaotic three-body system, you need three bodies that interact with each other on comparable scales.
From the artcile: "The numbers were small — 13 metformin-exposed boys were born with genital defects. But after the researchers adjusted for factors including parental ages and maternal smoking status, they found a 3.39-fold rise in the odds of a genital defect. “The rate per se was surprisingly high,” Wensink says."
> after the researchers adjusted for factors including parental ages and maternal smoking status
The exact adjustments made can change the solidity of the finding into anything from "rock solid" to "complete trash". Seemingly solid studies are routinely trashed by third party method reviewers that the initial peer reviewers missed. So we'll know better when they get around to it.
>But after the researchers adjusted for factors including parental ages and maternal smoking status, they found a 3.39-fold rise in the odds of a genital defect
If they didn't adjust for obesity, then it's really pointless to attribute this to the drug. Age and smoking status is not enough.
I did indeed not read that properly. I'd have to check the actual publication. It's at least suspicious that they don't mention it, since obesity is probably the first thing you should think of when saying diabetes.
i'll call n the total number of patients. if n * 9 / 1000 = 13, you'll find out that n is around 1400, which is a pretty high number in discovery studies. Maybe not for diabetes though, i remember hosting anonymized data from a lot more patients two years ago, i felt this was THE subject all the medical founding was put into (that and air quality and its effect studies).
Not all food is done once it reaches the desired temperature. A lot of food, e.g. tough meats, need to stay above a certain temperature for a long time until they're done.
There is a gradient of temperature from the surface to the inside of the food. Depending on the composition, it will take more or less time for the thermal energy to propagate.
In addition, cooking involves chemical reactions. Now, I’m not a biochemist, but if I had to guess, most cooking chemical reactions are probably endothermic (short of setting your food on fire), in which case the chemical reaction comes f cooking will remove thermal energy from your cooking medium (e.g. water or oil) and your cooking medium will cool down even if you had perfect insulation.
Well, kinda? For example: smoking. You cook it for a long time at a low heat, but that's more about heating it up slowly as opposed to bringing it to a temperature and holding it there. And ultimately you (well, you're supposed to) gauge its doneness by its temperature; smokers still follow the "the vessel is hotter than your target heat" rule.
And to further that, there's a lot of state change happening at those temps, often why things hold at exact temps for a bit (eg boiling), so they can take plenty of energy to go up a tiny amount. Biscuit for instance has "the rest" at around 165-175. It also sweats a lot and cools itself off unless you wrap it.
Boiling something is more about pulling water out than it is finishing the food. But it's definitely one of the corner cases - for the reason you mention: the temperature increases are small.
But temperature for boiled things is still important - see candy for example. The temperature directly indicates the amount of water left in the mixture.
All that said, resting is a distinct step from heating that is often required for a food to end up as you expect it to. IWO, yeah, food isn't always ready to eat after heating.
That's a great (and long) thread. Reminds me of a pet theory I have: that the post-scarcity utopia of the Federation is based on expansionism, and not sustainable.
They've managed to turn Earth into a paradise and give (mostly) everyone great life quality, but they did this by doubling down on exponential growth, which manifests in the constant need to get more and more planets to join the Federation.
You can see the expansionist vibes all over the show, and they've even been hinted at by various aliens in DS9 (although without any mention of economic implications).
I really think this is right, it would be nice to have a Star Trek like sci fi series that actually tried to tackle the issues. As a series it's been a source of inspiration for decades. It's a shame modern Star Trek is just generic sci-fi drama.
That thread points out some interesting observations about typical Star Trek inconsistencies (another one would be to think about why someone should move to a colony in the first place or rather about why not everyone can simply travel between planets as they like). But the objection against desalination is pointless. We can manage that problem already today (e.g., by drying up the brine or by pumping it into old oil wells). There is absolutely no reason to assume water would be scarce in the 24th century of TNG.
They might have some sort of immigration quotas for the Earth, and if the population is approximately what it is now, then there's going to be a lot of open space, farmland, and wilderness still. That's assuming you have cities with a lot of people packed close together, and rural areas with sparse population. That seems much better than the alternative of turning the entire land-surface of the Earth into a uniform-density suburb.
There's a pretty big difference between being able to colonize the universe and being able to colonize planets near to you. As an example, the Federation wasn't even able to map out a single galaxy nevermind colonize it.
