Tag Archives: Frightening

Is this new LEGO model hinting at the frightening reflections of life in the mirror?

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Toy trouble

Feedback may be middle-aged, but while it makes the dotage persist, we are not ashamed to admit that we enjoy playing with Lego. So we were naturally intrigued to learn about the “set” released on March 1st.Stem evolution” (science, technology, engineering, mathematics).

Builds are a treasure trove of stem-related objects. An apple tree with a DNA double helix, a space shuttle and an Isaac Newton stood nervously beneath it. They all erupt from the pages of a public book, accompanied by minifigures of chemist Marie Scowdowska Curie and agricultural scientist George Washington Carver.

It has a slightly confusing appearance, but it has deeper issues, Reddit thread Flagged us by news editor Jacob Aron; At least one reviewer. It’s very simple: DNA is the wrong way. Many biological chemicals are either left or right-handed, and in terrestrial life, DNA is always right-handed, while LEGO’s DNA molecules are left-handed.

Feedback suggested that despite what experts say, we should go ahead and build a mirror organism where important molecules have a dominant hand that is opposite to existing lives. But then we saw it Jay’s Brick Blog He had already made that statement in their reviews.

Instead, we invite paleontologists around the world to find something wrong Meter long T. Rex Skeleton Kit Lego was released on March 15th. We need to stop buying it.

The thoughts that took part?

The specific tired inevitability has led many large energy companies to rewind their commitment to renewable energy, which prefers to chase immediate profits from fossil fuels.

In late February, BP announced it Boost Oil and gas investments increased by around 20%, cutting renewable energy funds by more than $5 billion. It says this is to maximize shareholder returns. Alas, the company’s net profit was only $8.9 billion in 2024. Ah, how their hands were tied up.

On the day this announcement was made, the story was presented in the UK BBC News Homepage – One headline: “Half of Homes will need a heat pump by 2040,” the government said. Feedback briefly joined some points in our added mind. It reminds me that it’s okay. People in suits know what they’re doing.

After all, BP is not alone. A few weeks ago, Shell released the full results for 2024, but it noted that it had Reduce capital expenditures For renewable energy, it ranges from $2.3 billion to $2.1 billion. Last year, that Abandoned the 2035 emissions target. Similarly, in December, Exxon made plans. Increases that oil and gas 18% output by 2030.

In Rephrase FuturamaPhilip J. Fry: The feedback is shocking. shock! Well, I wasn’t so shocked.

The whole saga begins to wonder whether “corporate strategy” is an equal contradiction with “military information.” In the early 2000s, BP reformed from “British oil” to “beyond oil” and began to show its intention to embrace renewable energy. Then, after the cost of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, it abandoned everything and brought its focus back to fossil fuels. Fast forward to 2020 and to the company announcement A new target raft for renewable energy – many of them are now I’m getting far away Due to this recent decline in funding.

If the feedback is indecisive, it will be hard to decide how to wrap this around.

Crunch the numbers

Reporter Michael Le Page draws our attention Journal of Geek Studies. Despite its (somewhat) formal sound name, it is not peer-reviewed, but it publishes “an original contribution that combines academic topics with nerds.”

Therefore, the paper Michael found was published on March 8th and is titled “.When fighting Lancer, are bones a viable weapon? Estimate bite force of intergalactic megapredator“.

For readers unfamiliar with what a rancor is, it is a large reptile-like monster located underground in Jabba, the Palace of Hat Jedi ReturnLuke Skywalker fights. Another Lancer appeared in the 2021 series Boba Fett’s bookBut the less said about it, the better.

Authors Thomas Clements and Stephan Lautenschlager are trying to understand one key moment Jedi Return. To avoid eating, Luke picks up the long bones, lodges vertically to Lancer’s mouth, and opens his jaw. However, Luke’s reprieve is temporary, and Lancer is biting so hard that he smashes his bones into two.

Is this viable? The pair simulates the muscles and bones of Rancor’s jaw, and estimates that they could bite with the force of around 44,000 Newtons. “It allows you to snap large, long bones vertically.” Reassuring, “The bite power of living vertebrates does not approach rancor,” the great white shark and salted crocodile show off 16,000 to 18,000 Newtons.

During his journalistic career, feedback was repeatedly told by his editors, and repeatedly told to write stories that led to practical advice and “news that can be used.” Well, it’s here. Reader: Every time you challenge the crocodile territory, have one or two femurs just in case.

Have you talked about feedback?

You can send stories to feedback by email at feedback@newscientist.com. Include your home address. This week and past feedback can be found on our website.

Source: www.newscientist.com

The detrimental effects of banning frightening concepts may outweigh the sense of security it provides

Posted on by
Reply

Yuichiro Chino/Getty Images

In 1818, Mary Shelley invented a technology that has been used for both good and bad in the centuries since. It's called science fiction.

Although you might not think that literary genres count as technology, science fiction has long been a tool for predicting and critiquing science. Shelley’s Frankenstein Considered by many to be the first serious science fiction novel, it was so powerful that South Africa banned it in 1955. This story set the formula with a story that still serves today as a warning against unintended consequences.

As far as we know, the exact science that the eponymous Victor Frankenstein used to create is impossible. But today researchers can restore dead human brains to something resembling life. Experiments are underway to restart cell activity (but importantly not consciousness) after death to test its effectiveness in treating conditions such as Alzheimer's disease (see “Fundamental treatments that bring people back from the brink of death”).

It reminds me of many science fiction stories that feature similar scenarios and I can’t help but imagine what will happen next. The same is true for the study reported in “1000 people’s AI simulation accurately reproduces their behavior.” In this study, researchers used the technology behind ChatGPT to recreate the thoughts and actions of specific individuals with surprising success.

The team behind this work blurs the lines between fact, fiction, and what it means to be human.

In both cases, the teams behind this research are blurring the lines between fact, fiction, and what it means to be human, and their research is being conducted under strong ethical oversight. We are deeply aware that there are ethical concerns in the details. It was announced early on. But now that the technology is proven, there is nothing to stop more violent groups from attempting the same thing without oversight, potentially causing significant damage.

Does that mean the research should be banned for fear of it falling into the wrong hands, as Shelley’s book was? Far from it. Concerns about technology are best addressed through appropriate evidence-based regulation and swift punishment of violators. When regulators go too far, they miss out on not only the technology but also the opportunity to criticize and debate it.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

One simple reason why baby sharks are are more frightening than adorable

Posted on by
Reply

When it comes to cuteness, it’s all subjective. Depending on the species, baby sharks can be as small as palm-sized infants like small spotted cat sharks that hatch from “mermaid's purse” egg cases or directly from their mothers as long-bodied pups with outstretched arms.

This is especially true for sand tiger sharks, although it’s surprising how these tiny creatures grow so big. Sand tiger sharks are one of the many species where fertilized eggs hatch inside the female’s body and develop in the womb.

It’s quite common for shark fetuses to feed on unfertilized eggs, a behavior seen in over a dozen species. Sandwich shark embryos are even more developed, with ultrasound scans showing them swimming between the uterus prongs, likely searching for more sustenance.

After a year of gestation, female sand tiger sharks give birth to one or two large pups, considered the survivors of a fierce intrauterine battle. While their size at birth helps protect them from many predators, they are also at risk of getting caught in fishing nets, pushing them closer to extinction.

Researchers studied shark carcasses caught in nets across South Africa to understand why unborn sand tiger sharks engage in cannibalism. They found that females carrying more advanced embryos produced fewer fetuses due to intrauterine competition.

DNA testing revealed that sand tiger shark fetuses are born to multiple fathers in a litter, showing a complex mating system where the offspring of one dominant male tend to outcompete their half-siblings.

It’s unclear why this occurs, but it could be a strategy for females to select the best mate or for the strongest sperm to produce the most viable offspring. This article dives into the intriguing world of baby sharks and their complex familial relationships.

This article addresses questions like: “How cute are baby sharks in real life?” – Jacob Barnett, Peterborough

For inquiries, contact us at: questions@sciencefocus.com or message us on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram (remember to include your name and location).

Explore more fun facts and fascinating science topics on our ultimate science pages.

Read more:

Source: www.sciencefocus.com