Tango

Oh, I’ve cursed all right. But do you mean to tell me your parents made you put soap in your mouth?

I have no idea whether I have that or not because I’ve never tasted soap for comparison. Cilantro has… A flavor for me, certainly, but I have no idea if it’s the right one.

Or the Ukrainians did it to make an example that obeying Putin doesn’t make you any safer

We don’t need a new video to highlight this, we already have an old one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGAqYNFQdZ4

There’s a difference between calculating the necessary tensile strength of a chain and calculating how much energy would be required to make a chain of that tensile strength. For example, if an undiscovered element is required, does that mean it would need to be generated from nothing, so to speak, with a particle accelerator? How much energy would that take for a cosmically large chain? Or are we to assume that a massive asteroid composed entirely of this miracle material will simply pass Earth closely by?

Generally speaking, thought experiments need to yield useful conclusions before they’re worth publishing. Even if your “mithril” could exist, this thought experiment doesn’t even cover the question of whether this system of chains would yield enough energy to justify the amount of energy that would be spent creating and maintaining this cosmic-scale mechanism. And wouldn’t the “biological organisms” be constantly spending colossal amounts of energy just to prevent these chains from ripping away from their anchor points?

And not all types of energy are equal. Energy needs to useful. Even if this system could be created at an energy profit, how would we harness that energy towards useful ends? Would the energy be used to somehow boil water to turn a dynamo to generate electricity? Does enough water even exist on Earth to be put to that purpose? We can currently cause fusion reactions if we want to, but the problem is harnessing them towards useful purposes. We don’t need to invent an even bigger bomb.

Key phrase from the actual scientific article :

“In the gastrointestinal tract, obesogenic high-fat diets enhance small-intestinal stem cell activity and tumorigenesis”

That means that a high-fat diet that causes obesity DOES increase your small intestine’s propensity for developing tumors. So the news article’s hedging in its headline, saying “may increase cancer risk”, is under-selling the certainty of the science that says “high-fat diets and obesity cause cancer”. The only thing the scientific article’s investigating is whether the diet being ketogenic changes that. It concludes that it does not, that even a ketogenic diet will be cancer-causing, but this is just one study so it’s not unreasonable to want to see more consensus and peer review before accepting the findings.

However, on a more general level and ignoring ketosis, common sense should tell anyone that a high-fat diet which causes obesity will also make you more likely to get cancer, and science is also already pretty satisfied that that’s proven. So nobody should read this news headline and think that that is in doubt in any way.