303elliott

303elliott t1_j4x82s7 wrote

Reply to Siri pulled a false alarm at the gym and caused 15 armed police officers to show up by CubingSoda

Really interesting premise. While mostly speculation, it sounds like something caused Siri to dial emergency services (maybe shock activated, maybe erroneous pressing on the screen), and the operator heard the gym trainer saying something along the lines of "good shot", which prompted the operator to assume it was an active shooting situation.

2

303elliott t1_iz9hbfc wrote

Reply to comment by Pascalwb in A new study focuses on the crucial question of why people are more vulnerable to catching colds during the months of winter. The answer hinges on an evolved defense system, innate to the human nose, that is numbed by frigid temperatures. by BoredMamajamma

This is a little different. In the US they have the same belief, and there's a lot of evidence that staying warm actually does prevent getting sick because your body isn't wasting energy on extra metabolism, energy which could be instead used on your immune system. His belief was strictly about inhaling cold air. No open windows at night, no going out without a scarf covering your mouth.

1

303elliott t1_iz9gykb wrote

Reply to comment by WellIllBeJiggered in A new study focuses on the crucial question of why people are more vulnerable to catching colds during the months of winter. The answer hinges on an evolved defense system, innate to the human nose, that is numbed by frigid temperatures. by BoredMamajamma

Huh. I mean, that would actually make sense. Viruses love clinging to moisture, and sometimes reducing viral load is enough to not get sick, depending on the virus

2

303elliott t1_iz6ss45 wrote

Reply to comment by stockjonesmackboy in A new study focuses on the crucial question of why people are more vulnerable to catching colds during the months of winter. The answer hinges on an evolved defense system, innate to the human nose, that is numbed by frigid temperatures. by BoredMamajamma

There wasn't enough information in the article for me to come to a direct conclusion. Their own conclusion was that developing these vesicles artificially could be a solution, which has nothing to do with temperature. But your question does have me curious!

I had a friend who is Mexican, he told me he always wore a scarf out in the cold because Mexican culture believed directly inhaling cold air could make you sick. Looking back, I wonder if there was more wisdom in that claim than I originally gave him credit for

36

303elliott t1_iy6ck9m wrote

Reply to ELI5: Sugar free drinks contribute to obesity? by YakkoRex

There are a lot of conflicting studies, many of which have their own flaws. As far as I can tell, we don't have any fully accepted theories. The best I could find was a phenomena known as compensation, where people are "ingesting calories later to compensate for energy deficit caused by [artificial sweeteners]". Basically, you trick your body into thinking it's going to get a lot of sugar, and then you don't give it any, so it sends messages to your brain that it's still hungry for sugar, leading you to eat more than you would have if you drank a soda.

The study

8

303elliott t1_iy1kkg3 wrote

Reply to comment by peenutbuttherNjelly in ELI5 If fevers are the body’s defense against viruses, and the body’s top most interest is the preservation of life, then why does the body allow fever temperature to get life threatening high (104+)? by TheFaytalist

You say we don't have any control over it, and then follow that up by saying we've intervened to an unimaginable degree lol. What I'm saying is people will not naturally evolve a fever limiter, because death by fever is prevented with modern medicine. There's no evolutionary incentive for it, so if it happens, it's just a mutation that's not selected out. Therefore it's unlikely to be widespread.

1

303elliott t1_iy1g6b0 wrote

Reply to comment by peenutbuttherNjelly in ELI5 If fevers are the body’s defense against viruses, and the body’s top most interest is the preservation of life, then why does the body allow fever temperature to get life threatening high (104+)? by TheFaytalist

I love your enthusiasm, but you seem a bit misguided. Evolution has essentially stopped for humans, as natural selection no longer determines our survival. If anything, more evolved humans will be those that are better at getting laid with modern technology.

2

303elliott t1_iy0oc1f wrote

Reply to ELI5 If fevers are the body’s defense against viruses, and the body’s top most interest is the preservation of life, then why does the body allow fever temperature to get life threatening high (104+)? by TheFaytalist

Everything evolved because it was passed along. This doesn't mean the trait is perfect, but rather that it's good enough to survive evolution. One adaptation humans have to an infection is a fever. If you have unwanted guests, then turn up the temperature until they leave. Usually, this works great. You run a fever, the unwanted guests die off, and everything goes back to normal. But what if they don't die? Unfortunately there's not a backup plan for that. We keep cranking up the heat, waiting for the signal that the threat is gone, until we start causing damage to ourselves. Because this is relatively rare, we didn't evolve a better system. Thankfully, we did evolve a higher intelligence, which allowed us to discover medication, so this issue rarely leads to death if medical intervention is allowed

12