Feedback is the latest science and technology news of new scientists, the sidelines of the latest science and technology news. You can email Feedback@newscientist.com to send items you believe readers can be fascinated by feedback.
Delicate topics
Feedback reads many academic articles, but we often suffer from their titles, which is not despicable and clearly unclear. What’s even worse is that it is the preface to the academy, which is said to be said to be a reference to humorous pop culture.
However, sometimes you come across research with a lively title and key points. We love the 2000 structural biology paper.”Ribosomes are ribozymes“This is an absolute model of efficiency (suppose you know the meaning of two nouns), and there is a February paper on Biorxiv. New Scientist Contributor Chris Sims, titled “The rough mental map of the breast is fixed to the nipple“.
It may probably require a bit of context. Parts of the human body are more sensitive to touch than other parts of the body. The face, especially the lips – and the tips of the fingers are very sensitive, but our backs are much less.
This is one of the classic experiments you can do at home. Get chopsticks and other dull tools and happily thrusts your partner gently. Whether you’re poking them with your lips or fingertips, or even just millimeters, you’ll know if you’re moving the continuous pork location. But if you thrust them back, they’ll be awful to decide if you’ve moved it or not. This is because the back has less touch sensitive nerves there.
The authors of this new preprint discovered a gap in the literature. “Tactile vision has been extensively studied in the limbs and face, while the torso vision has attracted much less experimental attention. The breasts are largely ignored,” they write.
Do not drag the suspense. The breasts have very low tactile vision, which can be seen as even worse than the back. Apparently, “Touch had to be 3-4 times further away from the chest than the hand to get comparable position identification performance.”
Feedback is not sure what this is at all Caroline Cleared Perez I had it in mind when she wrote it Invisible womandocumenting the myriad ways in which women have been excluded from scientific research. However, as part of the basic information, it appears to have its purpose.
The main point of feedback is that you want to be a wall fly due to the recruitment process. “What do you want to do with me?”
Even longer words
In early November 2024, I paddled the column with a long, increasingly long torrent of words as I had a bit of lack of feedback due to a short break (for a long time) of Global Idiosai.
Apart from that, we did it wrong. Francis Wenban Smith wrote to point out our mistakes: “You were two letters short in an attempt to pad out your column with ‘Flocsinocinosis’. The correct word is “Floccinaucinihi Lipilification.” “
If you can’t see the difference between the blizzards of these two letters – and we will not blame you. I couldn’t clearly do that, so the second has an extra “li” just before “piri”. Feedback would like to assure readers that they have been given harsh stories.
In the process of verifying that I actually misspelled Floccinaucinaucinihi Lipilification, the feedback entered two versions into popular search engines. The correct version brought up dictionary entries as highlighted responses. The wrong version brought up our article (embarrassing). Above that was an AI summary of the fake words. This is the opening line:
“Flocsinisia is a long term meaning to view something as unworthy or trivial. It was the longest word in the Oxford English Dictionary until 1982. Flocsinisia is a 29-letter word with 12 syllables. It contains nine me, but no e.”
Unlike AI, readers who can count to 29 will notice everything that claims that the number of letters and syllables is wrong. Feedback is proud to contribute to the continuous pollution of our information ecosystems in our own small ways.
Unsafe date
Like many others in life, dating is becoming a micro-target. You can also use huge apps like Tinder, but there is also an increasing number of dating sites that have never been seen before.
Perhaps all niches are aimed at people who have not been vaccinated against Covid-19. Or, more precisely, “We don’t support any kind of vaccination, but the raw treatment is specifically tailored to non-vaccination or mRNA-based injections for Covid-19.”
As a technology analyst Benedict Evans Place in thread: “Someone built an entire company around the Darwin Awards“.
Feedback has many questions about uninjected, the most pressing of which is how does the company decide who can participate? Perhaps this is so basic, so there’s no need to say it, but it can’t prove to be negativity.
After scrutinizing the site’s FAQ, we found the answer. [sic] We have a foundation of trust and we operate in an honorary system. However, we recommend “Raw Verified” upgrades for those who want the most security and security when selecting a future partner. The untreated verified member has proven vaccinated via affidavit. “Like Sars-Cov-2, love is in the air.
Have you talked about feedback?
You can send stories to feedback by email at feedback@newscientist.com. Please include your home address. This week and past feedback can be found on our website.
Source: www.newscientist.com
