It's worth saying that this is true of almost all food. There are tons of essential nutrients that you basically can't absorb or use without gut bacteria, which is why microbiomes are so important for digestive health.

The fact that fructose has to be broken down first (in the liver) is essentially trivia (and information about what you can eat after antibiotics/surgery) rather than some deep statement about what is "natural" for humans to consume (which I think is what the comment you responded to was implying).

Edit: I think fructose is actually broken down in the liver, not the digestive tract. The point still stands though: the digestive system is complex, and the chain being more than one step long is normal.

It is literally seen by the eye, but it's too fast to consciously register. The images were hidden with backwards masking, meaning they essentially flashed one frame of the tested image then showed a second, different image for a long period of time afterward.

Unless you live in an area where it's being used, in which case it's been there for the last few years. The future is here, it's just not very evenly distributed.

"Pshh, drone delivery is always 10 years away" as a comment on article about it literally being used, right now, is sorta baffling to me.

You mean make the head smaller so it's still properly proportioned?

Because she hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

A fictional scenario:

Your idiot friends decide to rough up someone. You try to talk them out of it, but follow them hoping you can try to keep them out of trouble. Then three of them pull out knives and decide to stab the guy to death while you watch on in horror. Later, everyone that was there is arrested and charged, including you (which is the right thing for the police to do). Should the press release your name as "vile murderess who stabbed a man to death" before you've been convicted of anything, or even tried?

It's almost certainly not what happened here. But it might be, and we won't know until the facts come out in the trial. There will be plenty of time to release names after the trial (assuming being a minor doesn't exempt her completely). She's not going anywhere.

In general, with a few exceptions (including for public figures, whose trials will be known by the public whether they're released or not), names shouldn't be actively publicized before trial. That is regardless of the crime in question (from jaywalking to murder). Police make mistakes, and the accused is innocent until proven guilty. The severity of the crime has nothing to do with whether they actually did it.

Oh no, the poor public figures so wealthy that their personal finances are relevant to the general public! It must be so hard.

Friction in bureaucratic processes is sometimes a useful property. If there's a figure of public interest, requiring a human in the loop, requiring some forms to be filled out, requiring a justification, etc. may take a while, but it eventually gets through. Those same steps prevent Bob the Nosey Asshole from requesting the income of everyone on his block just because he wants to know, and it also (hopefully) prevents someone's stalker from requesting their income info.

To some extent, it's like Proof-Of-Work (for emails or similar systems, not necessarily cryptocurrency). Requiring the sender/requester to do some work lets legitimate users through with a minor inconvenience, but absolutely buries bad actors and spammers with the work required.

The surface of the planet hasn't changed that drastically in 140000 years. Sea levels varied, but the oceans and continents have been in almost exactly the same places.

There are no secret hidden cities at the bottom of the ocean that were above water 140000 years ago. Small settlements just offshore, yes. But in open ocean, no.

Yes. Google throughout the entire US, providing email, search, video sharing, etc. uses water equal to roughly 30% of what Phoenix, alone, uses to water its golf courses (there are roughly 100 golf courses in Phoenix). The takeaway is either that Google's water use is inconsequential on the scale of the US or that we're spending way too much water on grass for a sport that uses so much land that most people use a motorized cart to play it.

Wind turbines, maybe. Solar panels, no.

Transmission losses are low. The cost of installing and maintaining a panel 500ft in the air on top of/on the side of a skyscraper is not low.

Better to have two panels in a random field somewhere than pay twice as much to put one, expensive and inaccessible, on a high-rise. Most places have no shortage of unused space, so long as you're actually outside the city.

Yup. Programming languages or technical formulas end up having so many parenthesis that most editors support color coding or matched pair highlighting so you can sort out which is which. And you'd need more if every operation had to have parenthesis around it to clarify which order it's supposed to be done in. If you kept the left-to-right convention (despite throwing other conventions which are no more arbitrary away), you could reorder some things to remove a bit of the confusion. But it wouldn't help nearly as much as every symbol having an order of operations so you skip as many parenthesis as possible while remaining unambiguous.

That is, indeed, the whole point. You practice them so that they become second nature when you do more complicated math.

Parentheses very quickly become unreadable when you have too many of them.

3(5x^3+2)^2 becomes 3*(((5*(x^3))+2)^2) without order of operations to do the implicit grouping for you. It's not incomprehensible, but it's much harder to read. Longer equations would be awful.

You said it was blatantly obvious, but I simply don't see how it can be obvious at all, much less blatantly so.

Thin depressions in a writing surface, with no pigment, show up constantly because the pressure of something else being written overtop of it travels through to the writing surface below.

I find it much easier to believe that that is what happened here, rather than a scribe writing and doodling with imperceptibly shallow scratches that they can't see even as they're writing. Perhaps I'm missing something; maybe this particular parchment was prepared such that it had a thin, easily scraped off layer of dried surface that would show the marks to the doodler for a few minutes before becoming imperceptible for the next 1300 years. Maybe this was a palimpsest, and the marking had pigment present on the parchment before being scraped off, and only the slight compression that carried through into the lower layers remains. Perhaps there is evidence of it being scraped (surface abrasion, or similar) that would rule out pressure carrying through from an upper layer. Perhaps.

But none of that is in the article, only the statement that it was written with a drypoint stylus (with no mention of how certain that was, or what evidence supported it), so I don't see how it's "blatantly obvious" that the simplest, most mundane explanation is incorrect.

But you find it blatantly obvious. I'm curious as to your reasoning. "I'm going to state that the person above me is missing something blatantly obvious and refuse to elaborate when politely questioned" is a much sillier game to play than "please, explain".

Please, explain how it's blatantly obvious. What led you to this conclusion, other than the fact that the author said it was theirs?

The tough question is "how", aka, "who has to give up what".

The entire second section is about sugar/grain lobby shenanigans that took place decades after public officials started recommending fluoride (1961 and 1979/1986/1994 for American Heart Association and American Diabetes Association recommendations vs. 1940s for fluoridation recommendations). The diet recommendation reversals came more than a decade after fluoridation became public policy in the US, but they're presented first as an attempt to confuse the order of events for the reader.

I read the article. It's... not good. It relies on semantic trickery and intentional obfuscation to make its points. The parts that aren't nonsense ("sugar is terrible for your teeth/heart/diabetes", "fluoride would be less necessary if it weren't for excess sugar in popular foods", the actual record of events, etc.) are neither novel nor disputed.

Regardless, this belongs on /r/history, rather than /r/science. It's literally just a historical study citing snippets from other books and paper about events 50 years in the past, with 0 original research.

The "private interests" mentioned in the abstract are... dental associations.

>A dental organization was among the first to initiate the public health recommendations which started fluoride-supplemented high-carbohydrate nutritional guidelines.

Note the verbal trickery there: before that, people just had high-carbohydrate nutritional guidelines. It was only after dentists recommended fluoride that it became a fluoride-supplemented high-carbohydrate guidelines. Before that their teeth just rotted.

While it's not really disputed that the sugar lobby is both well recognized and responsible for a lot of terrible public health recommendations, this isn't the issue here. This paper seems like it was written just for the headline.

"Fluoride isn't helpful if you eat a low carbohydrate diet" is true. But that doesn't change the fact that most people eat a high carbohydrate diet, so topical fluoride is helpful for them. "Don't eat sugary foods, drink soda, or other such nonsense" is already standard advice when you go to the dentist. People just don't follow it.

Before this research, yes. But tetrataenite isn't a rare earth metal, rather it's a substitute for rare earth metals.