Because people are not so interested in reinventing the wheel a thousand times when there could be just 3 optimal open source solutions.

Also many products are plain useless or even harmful to society such as mundane noneducational distracting addictive mobile games.

It's because the education system is utterly outdated across the world. No digital literacy, media literacy, or health literacy in the curriculum but lots of things you'll never need and forget to never be useful again within a few months. Studies should investigate things relating to this subject.

It's also because of the quality of search engine results but both are directly linked, people need to learn how to use search engines etc.

Could you license this image under CCBY so that it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? I'd add it to here. Let me know if that's okay or if CCBY is mentioned somewhere.

Thanks, spending many days on going through >2k studies, the criteria-based selection and integrating most of these into Wikipedia (the image itself takes less time). Happy to see it's appreciated.

Thank you! You can get notified via a monthly email. Let me know if they land in the spam-folder, I don't know if they do or did.

It's more or less only (that is mainly) useful for building components that you then use in your man-made tracks. It's a tool, just like AI image generators are tools albeit there the replacement use-case is substantial. AI-generated voice also needs to be considered in this context I think.

That's why I put "While alternative explanations are possible" there.

I didn't add it to the WP article, and nothing here suggests this to be "conclusive"...it's just really 'significant' which even skeptics of this seem to agree with. Would be interesting if you have a source for "large number of assumptions" though: that doesn't seem to be a good description what people doubting it pointed out / criticized here: https://www.nytimes.com/... I previously had something like "Some peers doubt the study but if correct, [...]" there maybe that would be clearer?

Here is the study (it both reduced workload and increased effectiveness), I don't think you understood what this was about but that's nothing to criticize with the brevity of text

No, they just added lots of data for one of the multiple things that current emulation efforts (just like neural networks / brain-inspired AI software) so far didn't even include (neuropeptides).

There's no reason for why it would now be possible to simulate complex nervous system processes, but maybe this could enable getting closer to that. I don't know what you mean with "outside behavior" though. Maybe you're referring to the behavior in some simulation like this?

Thank you, will look into this. I had my doubts when I first heard about this but even with these sources I still think the study is significant beyond the large attention (and that itself is also a factor). I don't think there's much doubt that "The precision of the findings, though, may be a stretch" is true which doesn't invalidate the study and like a critic said "The conclusions, she says, “though intriguing, should probably be taken with some caution and explored further."

Also consider that I usually have 8 main tiles and two brief ones, the only other alternative main tiles this month were the dogxim, Y chromosome and astrocytes ones which could get summarized nicely very briefly at the bottom while this one should be included but was hard to summarize that briefly.

See the papers linked here

Yes (200k–300.000), that's why it says pre-humans...we didn't arise out of nowhere, it was a continuous evolution and it seems like if those had died out we wouldn't be here. (However, that's not settled, there are substantial reasonable doubts over these results as hinted at with "While alternative explanations are possible" and elaborated in the other comments here.)

Good question, it wasn't a warming and even if it was, I don't think it can easily be translated to today's climate change. They refer to the Early-to-Middle Pleistocene Transition (not much info at that page though). If it's linked, that doesn't mean it caused it – I think people in that regard far too often think of (especially singular) causes instead of contributors within a complex interconnected set of causal factors. Maybe you're interested in this non-included paper from the same month which projects an upcoming large sudden population decline – it's just not substantiated and one can't just compare modern humans with other animal populations.

Es ist absolut verantwortungslos und unethisch dass es in Deutschland kein Organspende-by-Default System gibt. Das würde das Problem lösen und jeder der nicht spenden möchte schickt einfach einen Brief oder macht online einen Haken. Ich denke es bedarf nur einer politischen Entscheidung um diese vielen Leben zu retten.

Ich finde das einen super Vorschlag und finde Kialo klasse – würde es gut finden wenn man strukturierte Debatten bzw Argumentenkarten von dort hier einbetten könnte.

Ich glaube allerdings nicht dass das so einfach geht. Sollte aber mal jemand testen – Kialo hat so ein Embedding. Deinem letzten Absatz bzgl "eher relaxed etwas bequatschen" stimme ich zu – man könnte es aber einfach nur ermöglichen, heißt ja nicht dass alle Debatten damit ersetzt werden. Man könnte eben Argumentationsposts erstellen oder bestimmte Argumentenzweige einbetten.

Argüman ist die beste FOSS Alternative aber womöglich wird Kialo bald open source, ich habe sie mal gefragt und warte noch auf weitere Details.

Instead of arguing against, here's an arguments map (for and) against: Does pineapple belong on pizza?, Kialo

Yes, the issue is that many of the most obvious things are not getting researched or substantiated. Moreover, the two studies provide useful data on this. Costs stats

Sadly, many of the most valuable things scientists could investigate are no-shit-sherlock things. These are highly impactful and important studies. I've been tracking over a thousand of the top studies per month for over three years, since recently even with extra attention to policy-relevant studies as these are rare and often drown. I could give lots of examples of similar cases such as this recently featured first review of measures to prevent risks from bioresearch/labs or yet unstudied things with nothing to cite.
Maybe that inspires some to become scientists themselves because that is required to be able to meaningfully publish valuable research on such subjects that matter in the real world.

See wetware computer for more info about this. Some studies in "2023 in science" will get integrated there soon, there have been similar recent studies.

They are sorted by order of appearance; it's just 4 links and the two additional ones are the short items of the tile's image.

Glad you liked it and ask about it: you can get notified via the monthly email, see the newsletter link above.

Better to look at the sources for the short-items. BBQ also isn't healthy, but presumably you aren't doing that as often as using a gas stove and aren't standing right next to it all the time. There some studies on that too, e.g. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01494 Here's a study I once included about wood-burning which can be a significant cancer hazard in winter days in some regions: https://www.theguardian.com/... https://doi.org/10.5194%2Facp-21-17865-2021