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:

• User Mxn added an obscure Aztec term to the Wiki page two weeks ago

AND

• This same obscure Aztec term coincidentally began being used by Mexican natives, and this trend became popular enough to be noticed by foreign media but not by Mexican media

More likely…

• Mxn actively looked for a term and updated the English wiki
• Someone read the English wiki, thought this would be a nice story, made the meme

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.

• In the general case, I think that we would not be able to tell. Unless the programmers explicitly program into the simulation the tools for us to interact with the external world, we would not be able to collect evidence of something external to the simulation. We are limited.

• I am agnostic to whether we live in a simulation or not, but I don’t think that this hypothesis brings a lot in terms of answering existential questions. We could live in a simulation inside of a simulation inside of a simulation inside of a simulation… meaning that there is an infinite depth of simulations when we choose to consider this possibility. In my view, being the first rung of existence or being a million simulations deep is the same. Discovering that we are in a simulation just shifts the existential question one universe higher.

• I have been reading some texts about theories of how the brain thinks (predictive coding), and it seems like what we experience as “consciousness” might be the result of our brain simulating what our next sensory experience will be. So, in that sense, we are all experiencing our brain’s predictive simulation.

Ooh, cool! 😁 That detector seems to be working only in “Geiger mode”, which means that it can count the number of X-rays/Gamma particles but it does not estimate their energy. So, the dedicated devices are still better in that they allow you to identify the source of the radiation by measuring the counts and the energy distribution simultaneously.

It probably would not be too difficult to build the open gamma detector into something like a pinephone. I don’t think that has been done yet.

My experience with phone zoom has been underwhelming so far, but I would like to check out the Samsung S2x’s 10x zoom when I have the chance!

Still, I really like using binoculars because they transport me next to what I am looking at and do so in very high definition. I do have >100€ binoculars though, colors look very nice through them. I think it will be difficult to replicate via a screen.

I think it would be an interesting hypothesis to test.

I looked a bit more and extended my search into brines, and was able to find another set of data in the following paper:

Roupas, P., Keogh, J., Noakes, M., Margetts, C., & Taylor, P. (2010). Mushrooms and agaritine: A mini-review. Journal of Functional Foods, 2(2), 91-98.

This one is not freely available, but it is found in SciHub and I can also share the PDF if needed.

This relevant section discusses that mushrooms canned in liquid and in brine were measured to have less agaritine, which makes sense. I think that lactofermentation helps degrade even more due to the acid, additional metabolic activity, and possibly a bit more oxygen.

I agree that it would be nice to research. I am surprised that it hasn’t been (or at least it is not easy to find). I did find research on other methods such as heating and drying, but I could not find lacto fermentation…

Agaritine content of mushrooms

The agaritine content in fresh A. bisporus mushrooms in Swit- zerland has been reported to be in the range of 94–629 mg/kg fresh weight. Canned mushrooms contained 1–55 mg/kg drained weight with 3–103 mg/L in the liquid. The highest agaritine values were reported in dried commercial mush- rooms amounting to 2110–6905 mg/kg (Fischer et al., 1984). In Sweden, Andersson et al. (1999) measured agaritine in fresh mushrooms and 35 canned mushroom products (A. bisporus). Two fresh samples contained 212 and 229 mg/kg, respectively. Agaritine levels in brine were generally slightly lower than the levels detected in canned mushrooms. Canned whole mushrooms contained 14.9 ± 6.7 mg agaritine per kg product whereas cut mushrooms contained 18.1 ± 7.8 mg/kg. The wet canning process was shown to reduce the level of agaritine in A. bisporus by 10-fold resulting in lower levels in canned products. On a portion basis, somewhat higher amounts of agaritine may be found in some other food prod- ucts (mushroom soup and pasta sauce) containing A. bisporus (Andersson et al., 1999).

Yes. The camera pixels generate a current in response to light. You can add some filters to block certain wavelengths of light (like UV) from getting to the camera sensor, and tune the pixels so that they respond more to to specific colors. But X-rays and gamma rays can just pass through the filter. Often they will pass through sensor as well, but, in the cases that they do get absorbed by the sensor, they can also produce a current that to the camera’s readout electronics looks like other light would.

The gamma detectors I mentioned are very very sensitive. They respond to single X-ray/Gamma ray particles. These detectors can count how many individual particles collide with a small crystal cube every second. These crystals are special in that they produce a very tiny flash of light when an X-ray or gamma particle collides with them. As an added bonus, these sensors can directly measure the energy of the particles by measuring the strength of the flash, and from this information they can construct not only the total counts but also a spectrum. With this extreme sensitivity these detectors can measure small quantities of radiation that come from space, from rocks, and from other materials.

I looked for a video of a phone going through an X-ray machine, and found these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8iSoPhtY3s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1YaroH6lHA

The white specks that you can see near second 25 (first video) and second 34 (second video) could be a result of the X-rays. I am not sure, but it seems reasonable to me. On contrast, when I put my radiacode through the X-ray machine in the airport the radiacode reacts very strongly and becomes saturated.

Radiation detectors. Such as the Radiacode or the Open Gamma Detector.

Binoculars are quite portable, very useful, and phones don’t do a good job at zooming in like that.

Smart watches integrate with phones but the phones by themselves are not so good at measuring the heart rate and other parameters directly.

Mini projectors. UV flashlights. Tools in general… There is so much actually. What type of gadgets are you looking for?

Only those who complete life without believing in a God pass into the next stage of the simulation.