Feedback brings you the freshest updates in science and technology from New Scientist. If you have intriguing items you’d like to share with our readers, feel free to reach out at [email protected].
The Ultimate Tent
Ophthalmologist Gas Gazard took a closer look at the promotional emails he received from Wildbound, which advertised an innovative range of tents by the Colorado-based company Big Agnes featuring a new waterproofing technology called HyperBead.
Marketing often diverges from reality, yet one phrase caught his eye: “It’s waterproof at a molecular level.” This material purportedly allows rain to drip off without relying on coatings or chemicals.
Such claims prompt intriguing questions. Is it waterproof on other levels? And the assertion of no chemical use implies the tent might be a force field of sorts.
We await the Nobel Prize for Big Agnes in the field of physics.
In Other Words, Honestly…
Have you ever been less than truthful on a form? I certainly have. Once, we claimed to have a sense of humor on dating sites, yet our interactions suggest we’re more nagging than entertaining.
Interestingly, if you sign your name at the start rather than at the end of a form, you are more likely to be truthful. This was discovered by Harvard behavioral scientist Francesca Gino in a 2012 study.
Gino has conducted fascinating research on integrity, showing that feelings of injustice can lead individuals to seek redemption through good deeds. She also found that people feeling unjustly treated often take care to “cleanse” themselves through altruistic actions. Additionally, networking can invoke feelings of impurity, though not when focused on gaining promotions. Moreover, those who commit injustices often become more creative afterward.
Why share this? It leads us to one of the most ironic headlines I’ve ever encountered: New York Times: “Harvard Professor of Integrity Loses Tenure Over Data Forgery Accusations“.
Indeed, a sincere researcher has been dismissed for misconduct. On May 27, Harvard announced that Gino had been stripped of her tenure following an extensive investigation spurred by a group of researchers and the blog DataColada, which accused her of data manipulation across four studies—findings that have since been retracted by the journals that published them.
In an honest spirit, Gino has denied the allegations and is pursuing legal action against both the university and the blog. Her website states, “With expert support, I was wrongfully rejected during the Harvard investigation process. This lawsuit reveals the weakness of their case and the falsity of these claims.”
Meanwhile, Feedback looked at her LinkedIn profile, noting her new focus on “executive coaching and leadership development.” Could a self-help book be in the works?
Always Delete
Feedback often finds itself experiencing nightmares related to our writing career. One recurring fear involves editorial comments ending up in published drafts, such as “I don’t understand this section,” “Can we condense this?” and our ultimate pet peeve—”Is this really necessary?” In these dreams, we forget to remove these notes, and readers are exposed to our editor’s critiques.
Consequently, when readers began sharing excerpts from newly published books that still contained AI prompts, it invoked a wave of empathy. One unfortunate author, Lena MacDonald, inadvertently included in her fantasy romance novel Darkhollow Academy: 2nd Year a note that read, “I rewrote this to align better with J. Brie’s style, adding tension, deeper undertones, and raw emotional context beneath the supernatural elements.” Oops!
MacDonald, a dedicated teacher by day and writer by night, insists she turned to AI for assistance due to budget constraints on hiring an editor.
Similarly, KC Crowne, author of Dark Obsession, a romance set in the world of organized crime in Chicago, faced reader backlash for a similar situation. Crowne openly admitted to using AI for “minor editing” and “brainstorming” but has remarkably amassed over 150 published works since 2018 with her debut Her Mountain Dad.
Feedback is particularly struck by two observations: a voracious appetite for new content despite ongoing concerns about reading habits, and the furious backlash from readers discovering AI’s involvement in novel writing. It suggests a possible backlash against content produced by ChatGPT and similar technologies.
Of course! This concludes with a rewritten ending, tying back to the initial mention of editor notes but now featuring a punchline rich in irony reminiscent of David Lodge’s storytelling.
Have you provided Feedback?
You can send your stories to [email protected]. Please include your home address. Check our website for this week’s and previous feedback.
Source: www.newscientist.com