Unblinded, tiny sample size (n=10), and a ridiculous attempt to trademark a pure 100Hz tone.
I'm gonna wait for a much better study reproducing this before I put any stock in it, personally.
I'm gonna wait for a much better study reproducing this before I put any stock in it, personally.
There are multiple experiments with 82 total participants. One of those experiments does indeed have a sample size of 10.
Yup, this is still “wait and see”. For these kinds of papers my stance is: “cool read, I won’t click the share button”.
It would be completely bonkers for an antiemetic to commonly induce an emetic urge in any but rare exceptional cases.
Most seasickness drugs are just first-generation antihistamines sometimes combined with a caffeine analogue to counteract the sleepiness.
Dramamine/Gravol (dimenhydrinate) is just benadryl (diphenhydramine) plus the caffeine analogue theophylline.
Bonine/DramamineII (meclizine) is also a first-generation antihistamine.
Promethazine is also a first-generation antihistamine.
Non-antihistamine antiemetics like ondansetron or scopolamine transdermal patches require a prescription from a doctor and therefore aren't commonly used for motion sickness except for occupational seafarers. And it would still be absolutely stupid if the drugs given to prevent nausea commonly caused nausea.
The nausea part. The person I'm replying to specifically said "queasy".
See: antidepressants can increase suicidal ideation, cannabis (used for nausea) can cause nausea at higher doses, etc.
I think you're making the error of conflating probabilities here. It's not uncommon for drugs to have uncommon side effects, but those side effects are still uncommon. Every once in a while benadryl makes a person paradoxically excited, but most people who take benadryl get sleepy.
CTRL+SHIFT+I and in the console
let o, a=new AudioContext();
document.addEventListener("mousedown",function(){
if (o) {o.stop(); o = undefined}
else{ o=a.createOscillator(); o.type="sine"; o.frequency.value=100;
o.connect(a.destination);o.start()}
})
Anyway, if the researchers are not blinded there are many possible sources of errors.
Perhaps they do the first test in the morning, the sound just before lunch and the second test in the afternoon is made by another person that is more/less friendly to the rats, or the rats has the stomach more full/empty.
After changing a program and running benchmark, I sometimes run it again if the new program is not faster as I expected. I even gave a second chance to deterministic test, that is as useful as it sounds. It's possible that if the rat does not collaborate the researchers hit's the equivalent of Ctr-F5 just to be sure.
It's hard to be 100% neutral, so a method is to not know to ensure all rats have exactly the same test conditions.
Using the heavy hand of the state to threaten violence against people who make a particular tone... yes that is really so ridiculous.
The tone is question is quite close to G2. So, if your guitar is slightly sharp, you'll be making this tone when playing one of the most common chords.
It’s a registered trademark. A registered trademark is a legal designation that provides exclusive rights to a brand name, logo, or other distinctive symbol used to identify a specific product or service; they registered Spice Sound or whatever as a trademark.
They did not patent 100Hz.
You would only be liable if you walked around playing your sharp guitar with a sign that said “Get your Spice Sound here” heh
I’m not defending it, and it reminds me of that woman in Baltimore who pissed everyone off by trademarking “Hon”, causing the whole city to revolt against her.
But it’s far from “threatening violence,” and they’re not patenting the sound.
And what happens to you if you don’t abide by the legal protections of the trademark? The government must ultimately use violence or the threat of violence to enforce its rules.
So in this case I suppose they might be able to Trademark ’Antivomotone’ as a word mark to describe the tone, but no-one is going to be able to trademark the tone itself.
CVEs are almost a starting point of truth. The threats can be verified, tested against/for, etc.
They're also tied up in insurance liabilities.
If there are no CVEs, there will be no cyber security insurance.
Follow the rabbit hole.