![\"New](\"https:\/\/images.newscientist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/25154647\/SEI_210313832.jpg\")
<\/div>Hardened children<\/h2>\n
\u201cIt is well known that the best means of preventing colds is hardening,\u201d writes<\/a> Sidikova Maryam Amankeldievna in the Journal of Medicine, Practice and Nursing<\/i>. To prevent parents from going overboard, she warns that only healthy children \u201ccan be hardened with water procedures\u201d.<\/p>\n Hardening may be best, but it isn\u2019t the one-and-only method of cold prevention. Amankeldievna, a researcher at Samarkand State Medical University, Uzbekistan, also advocates rubbing. \u201cRubbing,\u201d she specifies, \u201cshould be done all year round.\u201d Done properly, rubbing \u201cis carried out in the following order: first the arms, then the legs, chest, stomach and back\u201d.<\/p>\n Hardening need not be water-based. Amankeldievna also approves of air. \u201cAir hardening is a milder factor,\u201d she writes, \u201cand is allowed for children of all health groups.\u201d<\/p>\n Sunlight is another alternative. But sunlight hardening is problematic: \u201cSunbathing,\u201d says Amankeldievna, \u201cis possible only with the permission of a doctor.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are a rapid reader, it is easy to keep abreast of everything that is well known: just read the thousands of new research papers published every week. But not everyone is a rapid reader.<\/p>\n As a service for slower readers, Feedback aims to round up some of the things that \u2013 as testified in scientific literature (see above) \u2013 are officially well known. Each is documented in a statement that begins \u201cIt is well known that\u2026\u201d.<\/p>\n Here are some well-known examples.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The forgetful functor is well-known. Cary Malkiewich and Maru Sarazola write in a preprint study:<\/a> \u201cIt is well-known that the stable model structure on symmetric spectra cannot be transferred from the one on sequential spectra through the forgetful functor.\u201d<\/p>\n Some really complicated things are well known. Frank Nielsen, writing in the journal Entropy<\/i>, mentions<\/a> one: \u201cIt is well known that skewed Bhattacharyya distances between the probability densities of an exponential family amount to skewed Jensen divergences induced by the cumulant function between their corresponding natural parameters, and that in limit cases the sided Kullback-Leibler divergences amount to reverse-sided Bregman divergences.\u201d<\/p>\n Heinz Kohut\u2019s papers on narcissism are well known. Allison Merrick, writing<\/a> in the journal Psychoanalysis, Self and Context<\/i>, reminds us it is \u201cwell known that Heinz Kohut\u2019s papers on narcissism brought forth a re-evaluation of a patient\u2019s healthy self-regard\u201d.<\/p>\n Ronald Fagin and Joseph Halpern, in a paper called A new approach to updating beliefs\u201d<\/a>, note that it is \u201cwell known that the conditional probability function is a probability function\u201d.<\/p>\n And Luca Di Luzio, Admir Greljo and Marco Nardecchia, writing in Physical Review D<\/i>, assure us that \u201cit is well known<\/a> that massive vectors crave an ultraviolet (UV) completion\u201d.<\/p>\n How many of these well-known things do most people know? The answer to that question is unknown. If you know of a way-too-little-known well-known thing that screams for its moment in the sun, please send it (with documentation) to: Well-known things, c\/o Feedback.<\/p>\n Reader Jennifer Skillen tells Feedback how thinking about thinking led to a mother-son collaboration during one of their shared reading sessions, which began years ago with The Very Hungry Caterpillar<\/i> and now encompass New Scientist,<\/i> along with other more adult material.<\/p>\n \u201cThe other day when I started reading the cancer section of \u2018How to think about\u2026\u2019 [New Scientist<\/i>, 25 May, page 42], my son said, \u2018Mum, how about reading it substituting the word fascist for cancer.\u2019 Well, nothing is too much trouble for me when it comes to my son, so I did,\u201d says Jennifer.<\/p>\n \u201cSurprisingly, the article read very well with the substitution; it both continued to make sense, but was also very funny. It seems both cancer cells and fascist cells respond to changes in the environment, and can divide rapidly.\u201d<\/p>\n Feedback agrees, and provides some snippets from the article<\/a> so readers can make up their own minds: \u201cCancer cells compete for access to nutrients, and only the fittest survive\u2026 They\u2019re evolving to become the best cancer cell they can become and that typically is bad news.\u201d<\/p>\n Jennifer and her son have thus been wondering about other word pair substitutions that readers may have found for New Scientist<\/i> articles, where the substitution \u201cmakes sense, increases knowledge and amuses\u201d.<\/p>\n The question \u201cWhat\u2019s inside?\u201d leads to many a surprise, sometimes involving an eel. Rohit Goel at Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences in India and his colleagues reveal one of those surprises.<\/p>\n Writing in the The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology<\/i>, the researchers describe \u201ca rare example<\/a> of an interesting postmortem artifact of the presence of moray eels within a corpse\u201d.<\/p>\n The team says that to the best of its knowledge, \u201cthis is the first reported case of such a finding\u201d.<\/p>\n Marc Abrahams created the Ig Nobel Prize ceremony and\u00a0co-founded\u00a0the magazine Annals of Improbable Research. Earlier, he worked on unusual ways to use computers. His website is\u00a0<\/em>improbable.com<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n Got a story for Feedback?<\/b><\/p>\n You can send stories to Feedback by email at feedback@newscientist.com<\/a>. Please include your home address. This week\u2019s and past Feedbacks can be seen on our website<\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\nWe all know that<\/h2>\n
The fascist disease<\/h2>\n
Eely gross<\/h2>\n