Feedback brings you the latest in science and technology news from New Scientist, alongside the latest updates in the field. You can reach out to Feedback@newscientist.com to share intriguing items that may captivate our readers.
The Collapse of a Whale
This section focuses on unusual measurement units and how to effectively communicate information scales. Keen readers may remember discussing how Christopher Dionne’s large datasets can be related to the blue whale genome (April 12).
Bruce Horton remarks that it’s a solid analogy. “The major takeaway from using the blue whale’s size for reference is that most people are familiar with it, making size visualization easier for the audience,” he explains. “However, few people can visualize blue whale DNA, which undermines this analogy.”
He raises a valid point. The concept still echoes the early 2000s during the Human Genome Project, which created comparisons to illustrate the vastness of DNA information. Often, these comparisons included stacks of Bibles reaching to the moon. Nowadays, we utilize what’s gathered from The Wheel of Time series.
Fortunately, Bruce offers a clever solution. He references a 2005 study from the Parody Science Journal. An Unlikely Research Chronicle highlights a study involving slugs: Snail-Based Data Transfer Protocol. Researchers placed giant African land snails on a two-wheeled cart with CD or DVD wheels. Although snails moved slowly, they transferred data at a speed of 37,000 kilobytes per second, outperforming current broadband connections.
The study concluded that this method is easy to visualize and comprehend, making it generally recommended.
Bruce suggests we await further developments and introduces a new unit conceptualized by Ken Taylor and his wife. They own an orchard with a damson tree known for its erratic annual yield. Consequently, they’ve coined the term “cramble,” denoting the quantity of desserts one can create per harvest. Ken shared, “2024 was particularly disappointing, yielding only three crumbles.”
Stunning Discoveries
“Who would have thought it?” news editor Alexandra Thompson remarked, turning heads toward the feedback section when she encountered a press release titled: “Some SUVs Heighten Risks of Death or Severe Injury, New Research Shows.”
The stark reality reveals that large SUVs pose a greater risk of fatal collisions compared to smaller vehicles. One might expect feedback to respond with sarcasm regarding this apparent truth: indeed, heavier objects will impart more force than lighter ones at equivalent speeds. Yet, a fundamental virtue of science is to challenge common knowledge instead of simply affirming it.
Here, we invite contributions for the category “No Kidding, Sherlock.” The more distressing and obvious the revelation, and the lengthier the methodical experimentation, the better. If ants invade, does it diminish our enjoyment of picnics? If a faucet leaks, does my water bill increase? I’d appreciate at least one enlightening question.
Licking the Badger
Historian Greg Jenner made a surprising discovery in April, stating on Blue Sky: “If you input a random sentence into Google and append ‘meaning,’ you’ll receive an AI-generated explanation for the idiom or phrase you’ve concocted.”
This is how Greg’s quirky phrase, “You can’t lick a badger twice,” prompted Google AI to interpret it as “You can’t deceive someone twice after they’ve already learned your trick.” However, to be fair, interpretations may vary among the US populace. Moreover, these constructions are often artificially generated. Nevertheless, that didn’t deter AI from dispensing extensive explanations. “In this context, ‘licking’ suggests cheating or misleading someone.” The badger anecdote does not hold any factual foundation.
Many submitted their own unique phrases with Google’s analyses. For example, Kit Yates coined, “Don’t run the miles without hitting it with a hammer,” interpreted as “a motivational phrase emphasizing the struggles involved in achieving goals.” Feedback especially appreciated its “frequent” occurrence in torrents of nonsensical dialogues.
Kai Kupferschmidt shared, “It’s better to have tentacles in the tent than mice on rat chairs.” Google deemed it “a humorous idiom, suggesting it’s preferable to find oneself in an uncomfortable situation rather than in a more perilous one.” Feedback found many amusing aspects in this, but it begs the question: why are illicit tentacles seen as uncomfortable, yet not dangerous? A nod to HP Lovecraft indicates tentacles are rarely a good sign.
Regrettably, the “meaning” feature appears to be disabled now. I attempted to coax Google into explaining “Don’t rub Roe Deer’s Cabbages,” but to no avail.
While utilizing AI to generate AI responses can yield novel answers, it won’t prevent individuals from concocting nonsensical excuses rather than admitting they lack knowledge.
This situation underscores the challenge of integrating technology into platforms that aim to serve as precise information sources. Currently, Feedback harbors a lack of trust in Google’s findings. Ironically, this suggests that AI may indeed be correct: one cannot truly lick a badger twice.
Have you provided feedback?
You can send your stories to feedback@newscientist.com, including your home address. This week’s feedback and past editions are available on our website.
Source: www.newscientist.com
