+1 for Endeavour, apart from the unfortunate update of legacy NVIDIA drivers (10xx series of cards losing mainline support) this December I’ve had 0 issues

By the time I finished graduate school, reddit was dead so I never bothered getting verified on the Science subreddits. It was a bummer!

Not quite, an iron lung replaces a dysfunctional organ. I’m saying we can already grow neurons onto circuits, and it’s difficult (not impossible) to implant neurons into a body. I don’t easily see how these bio-engineered neurons make those processes easier.

Credentials: I published in this field, but I don’t have time to read the entire paper right now.

This is exciting work. Based on the key highlights, it sounds like their work focuses on how plausible it is to construct the bio-artificial neuron, and they have done so with great success.

What I would like to learn about is what advantages this technology has compared to just cultivating neurons on a microelectrode array. Are the artificial cells easier to maintain? Do they interface with electrodes without developing glial scarring like our brains do? Can they bio-engineer special proteins (e.g. optogenetic channels) easier in these cells than in mouse lines?

The discussion section is fairly anemic. The authors say this will “spearhead” additional development but I was disappointed the authors didn’t clarify what will be additionally developed.

Until these advantages are spelled out, it feels like we’re re-invented the biological wheel. We already have cells that can integrate and fire at low voltages. They’re called neurons. Why did we need artificial ones?

Ah, the old effect size vs significance issue, thanks for clarifying. I perused the link you sent, I didn’t do a deep dive. The authors could have used more precise language.

Here’s a second paper from 2017, https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/151483/1/151483.pdf , which looks at duration of breastfeeding and SIDS. Not sure if you’ve come across it, but I was surprised to see the potential protective factors don’t begin until breastfeeding has gone on for at least 2 months.

Unfortunately I think the odds that we get a randomized clinical trial looking at breast vs formula are low - I didn’t find one in my brief Google Scholar search, but I’m also not a pediatrician.

But, ultimately, the first link i provided includes breastfeeding as part of a larger suite of recommendations for co-sleeping that, if all are followed, bring the risk of SIDS down to a comparable rate with modern safe sleep recommendations.

I’ll agree that there’s a lot of conflicting information when it comes to parenting, it’s called the mommy wars for a reason. But, I’ll disagree with you that I provides pseudoscience. I’ll direct you specifically to references 11 through 13 in the link I provided. They are dated, but peer-reviewed.

I’m also confused by your link, it appears to be a meta-analysis which “found ample evidence that both breastfeeding and [pacifier] use reduced the risk of SIDS.”

Overall, I like Cribsheet’s stance again - the best baby is a fed baby, the difference between a breastfed baby and a formula-fed baby are very minor and do not result in any persistent, dramatic differences.

Surprisingly, that’s not the entire story of SIDS - but it is one of the biggest contributing factors to why co-sleeping can be unsafe. It’s also why alcohol consumption dramatically increases the dangers.

I’ll plug some work done by La Leche League, a non-profit that provides resources for breastfeeding mothers. Now, this resource is for babies who are entirely breastfed - no bottles whatsoever - so it’s not for everyone unfortunately.

Their research has shown seven factors that, if addressed, can reduce the risk of SIDS in co-sleeping arrangements to be equal to modern safe sleep arrangements. https://llli.org/news/the-safe-sleep-seven/

I would also encourage people to read Cribsheet, which provides a fantastic deep dive into the specifics of SIDS risk. Understanding more about SIDS, and learning why safe sleep guidance exist, put my mind at ease as a new parent.

Actually, no, the bio soster shares the same biological father. This was an embryo adoption, not IVF

Personally, I disagree. The baby’s bio sister is, literally, a biological sister whose DNA comes from the same parents.

The limiting factor in utero is the health of the placenta. Past a certain point, the organ no longer functions and the baby does not survive. This is why (at least in the US) inductions are required past a certain point.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9320537/

Because, I shit you not, it’s cheaper than adoption in the US.

That’s not quite the same thing - the 7 digit phone number has more to do with short-term memory capacity than visual perception. Miller’s Law of short-term memory is we can store 7 +/- 2 items at a time, depending how complex they are.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two

As much as I love that, it’s likely this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(psychology)

Night and day difference for me, thanks for upgrading!

I’m a tall guy that fenced in college. You’re a monster. But every fencer consents for this torture, so you can keep on keepin’ on.

PhD in neuroscience here. I didn’t specifically study musicology, but i did study the neuroscience of music.

The theory that holds the most water, in my opinion, is that music activates all the same parts of the brain as motor processing. It makes us want to move, and to make predictions about what’s coming next. People like makimg predictions. It’s also a pro-social activity that encourages bonding and communication. These are typically positive experiences.

Edit: you mentioned we like the breaking of patterns in music. Very true, we love syncopation. But we don’t tap our foot to the rhythm, we groove to the beat.

I studied parts of the basal ganglia, part of the dopaminergic circuits of motor control. I’m not sure if it’s a poorly written (news) article or the scientist was overstating his position - I don’t know any neuroscientists who think dopamine is “sprayed” across the brain.

Edit: The paper is a breakthrough because it’s reporting the first-ever direct imaging of dopamine signaling. But the news article mischaracterizes it.

Have you tried learning Japanese / English after learning the other? I studied Japanese and learned how to pronounce the /r/ in Japanese correctly.

For some people, the difficulty is less in production, and more in interpretation for someone who is native Japanese speaking and later learned English.

Chiming in with more context, my PhD was in neuroscience and I worked in a language lab. As others have stated, there is a critical window for learning a language. The biology behind it is fascinating.

As early as about 9 months of age, your brain begins to decide what speech sounds are important to you. For example, in Japanese the difference between /r/ and /l/ sounds doesn’t matter, but in English it does. Before 9 months, most babies can tell the difference between the two sounds, but babies living in Japanese-speaking environments (without any English) LOSE this ability after 9ish months!

Language is more than just speech sounds, though. Imagine all these nuances of language - there are critical moments where your brain just decides to accept or reject them, and it’s coded somewhere in your DNA.