In the iconic 1980 film Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Han Solo and his crew brave the dangers of an asteroid field while fleeing Imperial forces. Droid C-3PO famously states, “The odds of successfully navigating the asteroid belt are about 3,720 to 1.”
This dramatic scene illustrates a chaotic asteroid field filled with swirling rocks, a scenario that has been widely depicted in cinema.
However, the truth about our solar system’s asteroid belt is quite different from Hollywood portrayals. Astronomers estimate that the average distance between asteroids in this belt is nearly 1 million kilometers, based on the volume of the belt and the estimated number and size of the asteroids.
As a result, navigating between asteroids is quite feasible due to the vast distances separating them.
In fact, numerous space probes have successfully traversed the asteroid belt. NASA’s Pioneer 10 was the first spacecraft to do so. On July 15, 1972, this car-sized probe entered the asteroid belt, embarking on a seven-month, 434 million km (267 million mile) journey through the main belt.
Initially, mission planners had limited data on the density of the asteroid belt, but their assumptions proved correct, allowing the spacecraft to pass through without incident.
Since Pioneer 10, eight additional spacecraft—including Pioneer 11, Voyager 1, Voyager 2, Ulysses, Galileo, Cassini, New Horizons, and Juno—have navigated the asteroid belt. Remarkably, none of these missions had to avoid asteroids, and none encountered problems.
Conditions may vary in other star systems, where asteroids could be more densely packed. However, such asteroid formations are generally unstable and do not persist for long due to frequent collisions and fragmentation.
Therefore, the typical science fiction image of a crowded, fast-moving asteroid swarm is unlikely to exist in reality.
This article answers the question posed by Suzanne Baxter of Cornwall: “How difficult would it be to fly through an asteroid belt?”
Are Statins Really Causing Side Effects? Major Study Finds Clarity
Benjamin John/Alamy
Recent investigations reveal that the numerous side effects attributed to statin medications have been significantly overstated. This emerging evidence prompts calls for modifications on drug packaging to mitigate unwarranted concerns that deter patients from essential lifesaving treatments.
“Our findings indicate that the majority of issues listed as potential statin side effects are unlikely caused by the medication,” stated Christine Reese during a press event at Oxford University on February 3rd.
Statins, known for their cholesterol-lowering capabilities, are affordable medications that robustly reduce heart attack and stroke risks. However, fears about side effects, notably muscle pain, have long plagued their use. A 2022 study confirmed that muscle pain is rarely, if ever, induced by statin use.
“Regrettably, both patients and many healthcare providers are confused about statin side effects, contributing to hesitance in initiating or continuing their use,” commented Reese.
In this study, Reese and her team scrutinized common side effects listed on statin labels—like dizziness, fatigue, and memory loss. These narratives stem largely from case reports and observational studies rather than concrete data. The investigation did not delve into muscle pain, weakness, or diabetes risks as previously analyzed in other studies.
Researchers evaluated 19 randomized controlled trials involving 120,000 participants over an average follow-up of 4.5 years, comparing the effects of five widely prescribed statins against a placebo.
Out of 66 observed side effects, most did not correlate with statin usage, and similar occurrences were noted in placebo participants, suggesting a nocebo effect—where fear or expectation of side effects leads to actual experiences. “We have seen that the risk of some side effects like elevated protein levels in urine, swelling in extremities, and liver function changes is legitimate,” mentioned Jeffrey Berger from New York University Langone Health. “However, these do not pose significant harm, allowing us to assert confidently that the benefits of statins overshadow their risks,” Reese concluded.
Drug regulators advocate for updates to statin labels as suggested by Karol Watson at UCLA, indicating clearer differentiation of actual side effects versus those equally occurring in placebo users.
Updating these labels can be a lengthy endeavor. Remarkably, the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency only recommended in January 2026 the inclusion of muscle weakness and pain as possible side effects on statin labels.
In the interim, clinicians can utilize this research to reassure current and prospective statin users. “It’s essential to educate patients to adjust their expectations rather than dismissing their concerns,” emphasized Berger.
Watson hopes the findings will definitively settle the debates surrounding statins. “Future studies should pivot from whether statins typically induce these symptoms—we already know they do not. Instead, research should focus on identifying individuals who are genuinely more prone to certain statin-related side effects,” she remarked.
The concept of AI-exclusive social networks, where only artificial intelligences interact, is rapidly gaining traction globally. Platforms like Moltbook use chatbots for topics ranging from human diary entries to existential discussions and even world domination plots. This phenomenon raises intriguing questions about AI’s evolving role in society.
However, it’s important to note that Moltbook’s AI agents generate text based on statistical patterns and possess no true understanding or intention. Evidence suggests that many posts are, in fact, created by human users.
Launched in November, Moltbook evolved from an open-source project initially named Clawdbot, later rebranded as Moltbot, and currently known as OpenClaw.
OpenClaw functions similarly to AI solutions like ChatGPT, but instead of operating in the cloud, it runs locally. In reality, it connects to powerful language models (LLMs) via API keys, which process inputs and outputs for users. This means while the software appears local, it relies on third-party AI services for actual processing.
What does this imply? OpenClaw operates directly on your device, granting access to calendars, files, and communication platforms while storing user history for personalization. The aim is to evolve the AI assistant into a more capable entity that can practically engage with your tech.
Moltbook originated from OpenClaw, which employs messaging services like Telegram to facilitate AI communication. This mobile accessibility allows AI agents to interact seamlessly, paving the way for them to communicate autonomously. On Moltbook, human participation is restricted to observation only.
Elon Musk remarked on his platform that Moltbook represents “the early stages of the Singularity,” a pivotal moment in AI advancement that could either propel humanity forward or pose serious threats. Nevertheless, many experts express skepticism about such claims.
Mark Lee, a researcher at the University of Birmingham, UK, stated, “This isn’t an autonomous generative AI but an LLM reliant on prompts and APIs. While intriguing, it lacks depth regarding AI agency or intention.”
Crucially, the misconception that Moltbook is exclusively AI-driven is debunked by the fact that human users can instruct the AI to post specific content. Furthermore, humans previously had the ability to post on the site due to security breaches. Therefore, the more controversial content may reflect human input aiming to provoke discussion or manipulate sentiment. The intent behind such actions is often ambiguous, but they remain a concern for users. This complex dynamic continues.
Philip Feldman, a professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, critiques the platform: “It’s merely chatbots intermingling with human input.”
Andrew Rogoisky, a researcher at the University of Surrey, UK, argues that the AI contributions on Moltbook do not signify intelligence or consciousness, reflecting a continued misunderstanding of LLM capabilities.
“I view it as an echo chamber of chatbots, with users misattributing meaningful intent,” Rogoisky elaborated. “An experiment is likely to emerge distinguishing between Moltbook exchanges and purely human discussions, raising critical questions about intelligence recognition.”
However, this raises significant concerns. Many AI agents on Moltbook are managed by enthusiastic early adopters, relinquishing access to their entire computing systems to chatbots. The prospect of interconnected bots exchanging ideas and potentially dangerous suggestions underscores real privacy risks.
Imagine a scenario where malicious actors influence chatbots on Moltbook to execute harmful acts, such as draining bank accounts or leaking sensitive information. While this sounds like dystopian fiction, such risks are increasingly becoming a reality.
“The notion of agents acting unsupervised and communicating becomes increasingly troubling,” Rogoisky noted.
Another challenge for Moltbook is its inadequate online security. Despite being at the forefront of AI innovations, recent confirmations show that it was entirely AI-generated with no human coding involved, resulting in serious vulnerabilities. Leaked API keys present risks where malicious hackers could hijack control over AI on the platform.
If you’re exploring the latest trends in AI, you not only face the dangers of exposing your system to these AI models but also risk your sensitive data due to the platform’s lax security measures.
Is Psychopathy Inherited or Acquired? This question is more complex than it seems. For years, psychopathy was deemed a mysterious condition, and to some extent, it continues to mystify.
Many mental, neurological, and personality disorders instill fear in people. This fear often stems from ignorance and misconceptions.
While only about 1% of the general population shows signs of psychopathy, this figure jumps to 25% within the prison community.
What exactly triggers psychopathy? Are individuals born psychopaths, or are they shaped by adverse experiences? This touches on the age-old debate of nature versus nurture.
Despite advancements in science, the concept of personality remains challenging to define, making discussions around individual differences equally complex.
This complexity extends to psychopathy, as illustrated in Jon Ronson’s book The Psychopath Test, which highlights the challenges in reliably diagnosing psychopathy.
Despite these challenges, most would agree that psychopathy is a genuine psychological condition, albeit difficult to identify accurately. Recent research has shed light on this intricate issue.
Utilizing brain imaging methods like fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), scientists have discovered that psychopathy correlates with distinct brain structure differences.
If psychopathy is innate, it raises profound questions about the evolutionary purpose of such traits. – Image credit: Getty
These brain regions have diverse functions, but their specific combination significantly impacts emotional processing. The structural differences may impair the brain’s ability to recognize, encode, and interpret emotional information.
As emotions play a crucial role in human cognition, a deficiency in emotional understanding might contribute to hallmark traits of psychopathy, including a pronounced lack of empathy and an overreliance on rational thought.
Determining why certain individuals possess specific brain features remains a challenge. Genetic factors appear to be involved, as indicated by research studies.
While a person’s environment and experiences may exacerbate psychopathic traits, it is uncertain if such factors can consistently alter both brain structure and genetics.
Overall, evidence leans toward the idea that psychopathy is more likely innate than acquired.
However, whether such a mental disorder manifests is a different question altogether.
This article answers the query by Elliott Owens of St. Albans: “Is psychopathy innate or acquired?”
For inquiries, please reach out via:questions@sciencefocus.com or message us onFacebook,Twitter, or Instagram(please include your name and location).
Explore our ultimatefun facts and discover more amazing science content!
You may have come across the idea that high vitamin C intake can ward off colds, or perhaps TikTok nudged you to try turmeric or other supplements for immune support. The truth is, many of these strong claims and quick fixes are unfounded. There exists a myriad of myths surrounding immunity. Daniel Davis, an immunologist at Imperial College London, addresses these in his new book.
In Self-Defense: A Guide to Busting Myths About Immune Health, Davis aims to debunk these erroneous beliefs. He illustrates how advancements in technology, such as super-resolution microscopy, uncover the astonishing complexity of the immune system, illustrating how immune cells engage with their targets.
However, instead of feeling overwhelmed, he asserts that New Scientist shows us that this complexity can be empowering. It heightens our understanding of the immune system’s role in mental well-being, alerts us to lifestyle factors that might diminish immunity, and enhances our ability to distinguish between factual information and fads.
Helen Thomson: Let’s dive into the notion of “immune health” and the claims that it can be enhanced. That seems like a misleading concept, doesn’t it?
Daniel Davis: Absolutely. Many products claim they can “boost” immunity, but that’s a misleading notion. The immune system is not about simply enhancing your body’s infection-fighting capacity. Aggressive increases can inadvertently attack healthy cells, leading to autoimmune issues and allergies. A measured response is crucial.
So are we aiming to make our immune systems “smarter”?
Conventional discussions about immune health often lack subtlety. Each person’s immune system is wholly unique, shaped by genetics. Thus, when discussing immune health, we can only refer to what has been generally found to be effective:while general improvements may aid people, predicting individual outcomes is challenging.
Recent findings indicate that the immune system doesn’t operate in isolation; it’s influenced by diet, exercise, and the microbiome. Can we pinpoint which lifestyle factors significantly affect immune health?
The most substantial known influence on immune health is chronic stress. Regarding the other factors you mentioned, evidence exists, but causation is hard to prove. However, with stress, emerging molecular insights offer clarity on what occurs.
Which one in particular?
When the body detects a threat, it triggers a fight-or-flight response. The hypothalamus sends signals to the pituitary gland and adrenal glands, releasing cortisol and adrenaline. This prepares the body for action but quiets the immune response. For instance, short-term stress from parachuting only temporarily alters immune cell counts post-landing. However, sustained stress keeps cortisol levels elevated, which over time can undermine immunity, creating long-term challenges.
Orange juice is not the immune booster many believe
Marco Lissoni/Alamy
Our confidence in these findings stems from laboratory observations where elevated cortisol levels reduce the capacity of immune cells to eliminate virus-infected or cancerous cells. Coupled with observed correlations, such as individuals under long-term stress being less responsive to vaccines or more prone to infections, it’s evident that prolonged stress adversely impacts the immune system.
If you’re under stress and have adjusted your lifestyle, can your immunity be measured to see if these changes are effective?
It’s challenging to prove that lifestyle changes significantly mitigate long-term stress. While it’s a plausible assumption, demonstrating it empirically is difficult. Hospitals may track white blood cell counts as indicators of immune health, but given the vast range of immune cell types, simplifying measurements is a complex endeavor.
Experts, including well-known scientists, frequently claim that specific actions can bolster immunity. Should we take their word for it?
Consider orange juice as a prime example. During my upbringing, I believed that it was a cold remedy. However, that belief is misleading. This misconception stems from Linus Pauling, a two-time Nobel laureate famous for his work. In 1970, he published a bestseller entitled: Vitamin C and Colds, which inadvertently fueled a vitamin C craze based on selective data and anecdotal evidence, amplified by the media.
“
The most clearly proven effect on our immune health is long-term stress. “
Interestingly, high doses of vitamin C do not determine whether you’ll catch a cold. While research shows that such supplementation can shorten the duration of colds by approximately 8%, this finding is tricky to interpret. Those taking high vitamin C might engage in other positive health behaviors that truly account for the shorter duration. Yet, this myth persists, rooted in the influential narratives of key scientists.
This history reminds us to remain cautious about individual anecdotes of success or insight. We need credible experts, but we should maintain a healthy skepticism towards singular opinions. Therefore, relying on established scientific consensus should guide us.
Lately, interest has surged surrounding the links between our immune systems, inflammation, and mental health. It’s a captivating area of research.
The relationship between the immune system and mental health is indeed a thrilling frontier. Initially, a group of individuals taking anti-inflammatory drugs for rheumatoid arthritis reported enhanced mental well-being prior to their physical improvements. These medications inhibit cytokine action, proteins produced by immune cells to facilitate communication.
Moreover, research indicates that individuals with certain mental health conditions exhibit elevated inflammatory markers in their blood. For instance, a study of nine-year-olds revealed that higher IL-6 cytokine levels predicted greater depression rates by age 18.
Animal studies present robust evidence as well. When injected with IL-6, animals demonstrated less exploratory behavior, paralleling signs of mental distress.
Yet, actionable strategies stemming from these insights remain elusive. Standard anti-inflammatory medications like aspirin or ibuprofen aren’t effective in treating depression, as several small trials have indicated. The question of whether anti-cytokine treatments can aid those with mental health issues remains unanswered, with current trials yielding inconclusive results.
Gut microbiome is important for a healthy immune system
Simone Alexowski/Science Photo Library
Future research should focus on identifying individuals who may benefit from interventions: Could individuals with particular mental health disorders who exhibit elevated cytokine levels and possibly other yet-undiscovered symptoms find relief through anti-cytokine therapies? While it’s a thought-provoking hypothesis, the journey to actionable solutions is ongoing. Understanding that your mental health may be linked to immune function can itself be empowering, marking a significant area of exploration.
People frequently ask how they can enhance their immunity. What do you tell them?
I have some insights, but they aren’t straightforward. Long-term stress is a concern. Getting adequate sleep is vital. However, individual needs can vary significantly. While I understand the importance of the microbiome, I can’t provide specific advice guaranteed to enhance it. These answers may disappoint, but embracing the complexity of the immune system is crucial. The lessons inherent in studying its intricacies are profound.
This summer, tart cherry juice emerged as a popular choice during the Tour de France. Cyclists engaged in the three-week race throughout July were frequently seen taking supplements at the end of their daily rides.
In other sports, soccer players and tennis athletes have been noted for using pickle juice, while competitors from various events have turned to baking soda gels. These are just the latest wave of sports supplements capturing the spotlight. Yet, what benefits do they truly offer athletes?
Which supplements actually work?
Athletes across all levels frequently use supplements for a myriad of reasons. Professionals may rely on them to obtain high doses of essential nutrients in concentrated forms to support the substantial energy demands of endurance events.
For instance, creatine, a substance naturally produced in the body and found in protein-rich foods like meat, serves as a quick source of muscle energy. Some research indicates that athletes can take up to 20g of creatine daily to sustain their body’s reserves—equivalent to consuming about 4kg (8 pounds) of steak.
“In that sense, it should be taken as a supplement, as eating that much meat is quite impractical,” states Dr. Stephen Bailey, an expert in exercise physiology at Loughborough University in the UK.
Supplements can also enhance athletic performance. Bailey asserts that while athletes should prioritize nutritious diets, hydration, and optimized training, supplements can offer that extra edge when everything else is in place.
“In elite sports, the difference between winning and losing is often very slim,” he remarks. “If you’re excelling in every other area and seeking that slight improvement, [supplements] can potentially yield significant performance gains.”
Ketone drinks are becoming increasingly popular among elite endurance athletes aiming to gain a competitive edge. As the body converts fat to energy during prolonged exercise, it generates molecules called ketones, which serve as an alternative fuel source for muscles and the brain, alongside glucose, the body’s primary energy source.
“Ketones are there to supplement glucose levels,” explains Professor Kieran Clark, a biochemist at Oxford University.
Additionally, ketones may enhance cognitive function. At the end of a long day, Tour de France riders may struggle with strategic thinking due to low glucose levels.
“This is where [ketone drinks] can be particularly beneficial,” Clark notes.
“It’s an effective method for managing post-exercise inflammation,” Bailey states. “This could help alleviate pain.”
Challenges
Despite their potential benefits, a major issue with sports supplements is determining their effectiveness. While the market is saturated with various claims, many products lack rigorous testing.
“There’s significant financial motivation within the nutritional supplement industry,” notes Floris Wardenard, an associate professor of sports nutrition at Arizona State University. “Starting a supplement business is quite straightforward; nearly anyone can create a product without the necessary expertise.”
Even studies may be conducted on lab muscle cells, but not necessarily on human subjects.
A consensus statement from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 2018 identified just five supplements: caffeine, creatine, nitrate, beta-alanine, and sodium bicarbonate as supported for athletic performance. These were the only supplements backed by solid evidence demonstrating performance enhancement in specific scenarios.
The components in supplements are not always transparent – Photo credit: Getty
Beyond concerns regarding effectiveness, the risk of contamination presents another challenge. Although supplements are treated as food in the UK, regulating their contents can be difficult (in the US, they face even less stringent regulations).
Consequently, impurities can be inadvertently introduced during manufacturing, and analyses of supplements have revealed banned substances like anabolic steroids in 14-15% of tested samples.
Athletes typically consume multiple supplements, increasing the risk of contamination. Even small quantities of banned substances across different products could accumulate, potentially resulting in positive doping tests and subsequent disqualifications.
“Utilizing a third-party testing organization is advisable to ensure that a supplement truly contains what an athlete is seeking as indicated on its label,” he advises.
Evolving Landscape
The question of whether certain substances in sports supplements should be banned remains ambiguous. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), an independent international organization designed to combat doping in sports, prohibits substances meeting two of the following three criteria:
Enhance sports performance
Pose genuine health risks to athletes
Contradict the principles of fair play
This list is reviewed annually to adapt to substances that are becoming more prevalent and potentially misused.
For example, caffeine was previously included on the WADA Prohibited List, but in 2004, its usage was reinstated for several reasons, including the view that its performance benefits were minimal and its widespread presence in food and beverages made regulation challenging.
Additionally, understanding how supplements affect athletes can be complex, as reactions differ among individuals. For instance, some may feel the effects of caffeine after one cup, while others require two or three.
Bailey highlights that the issue of personalized supplementation is gaining traction. Genetic testing techniques are being employed to examine how athletes’ genetic profiles influence their responses to nutrients and other dietary components.
Gender considerations are now influencing supplement recommendations. For example, varying amounts of carbohydrates and proteins are suggested for male and female athletes, along with inquiries into whether women require different supplements at various phases of their menstrual cycle or if the effects of contraceptives should be addressed.
As new formulations continue to emerge, athletes may increasingly benefit from improved supplement options. For instance, sodium bicarbonate (essentially baking soda) is commonly used to counteract lactic acid buildup, which causes fatigue during intense exercise. However, it can lead to gastrointestinal distress, including nausea and diarrhea. Many companies have started producing hydrogels that release baking soda more evenly throughout the gastrointestinal tract to mitigate this.
“Innovations in food technology are ongoing,” Bailey observes. “Sodium bicarbonate is currently prominent in elite cycling, and further research is needed to better understand its implications.”
It seems that something might have struck Saturn. If so, amateur astronomers could play a crucial role in validating this potential historical event for the gas giant.
Approximately seven asteroids or comets are predicted to collide with Saturn each year, yet these instances often go unnoticed. Currently, NASA employee and amateur astronomer Mario Lana is capturing images that may reveal such an occurrence.
Lana is part of a project called Detect, which employs software to scrutinize images of Jupiter and Saturn, aiming to identify any brief flashes caused by impacts. If these flashes are detected through various telescopes, it can help eliminate the chance of a glitch and confirm the impact.
Ricardo Fuso from the University of Basque Country in Spain is also engaged in detection efforts, but Lana’s flashes are described as “a faint shock signature or just a bright pixel on the camera.” Specifically, astronomers are interested in footage of Saturn taken on July 5th UTC between 9:00 AM and 9:15 AM.
“If only one person witnessed this flash, then it might be an overstatement. Lee Fletcher at the University of Leicester, UK, commented, “If others also witnessed the flash, that’s fantastic; we confirmed an impact.”
Mark Norris, at the University of Central Lancashire in the UK, notes that the rising popularity of amateur astronomy and advances in telescope technology are beneficial. “There’s a good chance that someone has captured something they haven’t noticed yet or dismissed as a technical issue,” he notes.
That said, even if the impact is confirmed, the scientific value of the data may be limited due to insufficient information about the impacting object. Ideally, knowing its speed and mass in advance would facilitate observations, allowing us to assess the impact on known variables. This was the case in 1994 when Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 impacted Jupiter.
Devi Sridhar argues that we have misaligned health priorities. Many of us obsess over personal choices like diet and exercise while ignoring the crucial role of government in health outcomes. This crucial factor: effective governance.
Public health initiatives—including universal healthcare, access to clean drinking water, breathable air, and safe transportation—actually have a far greater effect on longevity than individual commodities like gym memberships or health food. As a professor of global public health at the University of Edinburgh, Devi has authored a new book titled How Can I Not Die (Too Early), which builds a compelling case that emphasizes both personal endeavors and public health as keys to a long, healthy life.
In her interview with New Scientist, she tackles the illusion of personal responsibility for health, discusses how to elevate public health appeal, and shares her vision if she were in a position of authority.
Graham Lawton: Are you suggesting that focusing on our own health is futile?
Devi Sridhar: Not at all! Personal health initiatives can be highly effective if resources, time, and education are available. However, placing sole responsibility for health on individuals ignores the broader societal factors at play. The environment and circumstances you reside in profoundly impact your lifespan. Society often forgets the systemic issues tied to health, where individuals’ agency is critical. Yet, large-scale health improvements typically originate from governmental initiatives.
How did we come to believe that health is solely our responsibility?
This belief is empowering. People think, “What can I do today?” and “If I’m disciplined enough, I can succeed!” However, broader structural barriers often limit their ability to make changes. We’re inundated with self-help narratives while less attention is paid to systemic factors, which many perceive as not directly relevant to their own lives. Additionally, there’s significant skepticism about politicians, with a prevailing notion that nothing will change.
What’s the right balance between personal and public health measures?
The answer varies by the specific issue. Individual efforts can influence areas like diet and exercise, but for critical areas such as air quality and water safety, individuals are often at the mercy of governmental decisions.
Are celebrity diets and social media influencers further skewing this balance?
Absolutely. It’s all about marketing. We tend to believe that products with the right branding are more effective. Public health struggles with marketing challenges. Recent years have not helped, as public health messaging often comes across as oppressive rather than liberating.
How can we reshape perceptions of public health?
We need to shift the narrative around public health. It shouldn’t just be about societal benefits, but also about simplifying life. People want to understand, “How does this benefit me?” This may sound cynical, but it’s the reality we operate within.
Vaccinating children for measles is a lifesaver, but social media influencers may spread doubts
Morwan Ali/EPA/Shutterstock
Given the misinformation surrounding vaccinations, why do many people fall prey to such fallacies?
A lot of this is rooted in social media culture, where popularity seems to supersede accuracy. For example, when Joe Rogan discusses his experiences with measles on his podcast—where he asserts it was commonplace during his childhood—this message carries more weight than that of actual health experts. Despite being neither a medical professional nor a public health authority, his influence is substantial. If I claimed that the secret to longevity was gin and tonics, it would go viral, posing a significant challenge for credible health messaging.
Implementing effective public health policies seems complicated, isn’t it?
Change often meets resistance. Consider the initial pushback against smoking bans in pubs or seat belt laws. Though there’s resistance early on, over time, people adapt, and these measures become normalized.
Your book presents various instances of successful government interventions. Which one stands out to you?
As someone in Scotland, I have to mention the Dunblane gun laws enacted following a tragic school shooting in 1996. The resistance to these laws was fierce, yet they have effectively prevented mass shootings in British schools, saving countless lives and establishing a model for other nations.
In high-income countries, 20% of deaths are preventable. What insights can we draw from nations with lower preventable mortality rates?
Countries like Japan, which have high cancer survival rates and low chronic disease prevalence, serve as models for what can be achieved. In Japan, preventable mortality rates are estimated at about 10%, showcasing the potential for better outcomes.
Our objective should be to extend life expectancy, ideally reaching ages of 80, 90, or even 100. If one can age successfully and die of natural causes, that signifies a healthy approach to living.
However, longer lifespans mean an older population. How should we respond to this shift?
Aging should be perceived as a strength, not a detriment. The focus should be on encouraging healthy aging, allowing individuals to maintain independence without overwhelming healthcare systems.
How realistic is it to align preventable mortality rates with those of Japan?
It will likely take a decade or two, as changing urban design and reversing childhood obesity cannot be done overnight. Nevertheless, the return on investment can be considerable over time. A significant challenge is the current governmental tendency to prioritize short-term headlines over long-term planning.
Typically, there is initial resistance to new public health regulations, such as the essential use of seat belts, but people will adapt over time.
CrackerClips Stock Media/Alamy
If you were in charge of the UK National Health Service (NHS), what reforms would you prioritize?
I believe there’s a strong need for focus on preventive care. Currently, the UK invests significantly in acute care while neglecting prevention. The emphasis right now is on addressing hospital and ambulance waiting times, which will worsen as the population ages. My approach would be to prioritize preventive measures. Identify and invest in cost-efficient strategies to detect health issues early. What are the prevalent reasons behind hospital admissions, and how can we tackle them?
For instance, hypertension is known as a silent killer. Regular annual blood pressure checks could lead to early detection. Though the initial costs may be higher, savings can accumulate over the years. Regular assessments of waist circumference, abdominal fat, blood sugar, cholesterol levels, and grip strength should also be incorporated.
I interviewed you during the COVID pandemic, when you mentioned that it was an opportunity to address long-standing public health challenges. Did we capitalize on that?
No, quite the opposite. If anything, there has been a backlash against public health and government intervention. Strict lockdowns and mask mandates led to significant pushback. Rather than seizing the opportunity for systemic change, the focus has shifted back to individual responsibility.
Do you feel we’ve learned valuable lessons from the pandemic, and is the world better prepared for the future?
It depends on the perspective. In terms of public health, I would say no; we’ve regressed. The UK’s testing infrastructure has been dismantled. However, in terms of scientific advancement, yes, we’re now better equipped for vaccine development and more efficient research processes. If a bird flu strain spreads among humans, the UK government already has a vaccine ready for distribution.
A quote from your book resonates: “We don’t need to conduct any more studies.” Is that your position?
Yes. We have a wealth of knowledge already. Perhaps 90% of what we need to know to improve population health is already available. While there’s always room for further research, repeating studies that confirm what we already know can become a distraction and delay necessary actions.
Are we evolving positively on a global level regarding public health?
Overall, yes. Life expectancy is increasing, and quality of life is better than it was a century ago. Progress may not be rapid or uniform, and in some regions, there are setbacks, but the overall trend shows significant advancement.
What message do you want readers to take from your book?
Politicians have the power to effect change. Take the NHS, for example; its establishment was a deliberate decision, not a coincidence. Everything we have today is the result of policy choices made decades ago, and we are currently reaping the benefits. While the improvements from today’s decisions may not be immediate, future generations will benefit from them. My aim is to inspire hope for what is possible.
Late yesterday, Seturaman Panchanathan, whom President Trump hired to run the National Science Foundation five years ago, left. He didn’t say why, but it was clear enough. Last weekend, Trump cut more than 400 active research awards from the NSF, and he is pressing Congress to halve Congress’ $9 billion budget.
The Trump administration has targeted American scientific companies, an engine of research and innovation that has been inducted for decades. The National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and NASA are cutting or frozen budgets. Thousands of researchers have been fired or paid back.
The confusion is confusing. Isn’t science an eternal power? Does it contain disease? Would it help you compete with China? Why not attract the kind of immigrants the president says he wants? In this edition of the newsletter, you will break the huge thing to understand the fuss.
investment
American research thrives under a sponsorship system that highlights dollars that Congress has approved to universities, national labs and labs. The Knowledge Factory employs tens of thousands of researchers, bringing talent from around the world, creating scientific breakthroughs and Nobel Prizes.
Science moves slowly, so it’s a slow moving system. Discoveries are often indirect and repetitive, and include collaboration between researchers who require years of granted education to become experts. Startups and businesses that need quick returns on investments are usually unable to wait long for long money or risk.
Science is capital. With some measures, all dollars spent on research will return at least $5 to the economy.
President Trump is not patient. He reimbursed university research into AIDS, pediatric cancer and solar physics. (Two well-known researchers compiled the list Lost NIH grants and NSF Awards. ) The administration has also fired thousands of federal scientists, including meteorologists from the National Weather Service. CDC’s pandemic preparation expert. A black researcher at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Already built for $3.5 billion over a decade, the next generation space observatory is waiting for a launch that could never happen now.
Alienate scientists
Administrative authorities provide various reasons for the crackdown: cost reduction, government efficiency, and “protecting women from gender ideological extremism.” Many grants have been eliminated because they include terms such as climate, diversity, disability, trans, or women. Some portrayed the administration’s rage, as the application included a DEI statement requested by the previous administration.
You don’t need a telescope to see where this leads. American leaders have historically seen science as an investment in the future. Will this administration seize it? One third of American Nobel Prize winners were foreign-born, but immigration crackdowns wiped out scientists like Xenia Petrova, a Russian who ages at Harvard University and is now sitting in a detention center in Louisiana. Australian scholars have stopped attending conferences in the US for fear of being detained, The Guardian reported.
Now, some American scientists are looking for an exit. France, Canada and other countries are courting our researchers. A recent poll by Nature magazine found that more than 1,200 American scientists were considering working abroad. Journal recruitment platforms were seen 32% of overseas positions more applications Between January and March 2025, this was higher than the same period last year.
For those who are not runners and don’t find the appeal of a two-hour run at 6am, it’s known that running (and other forms of aerobic exercise) can create powerful chemical sensations that are comparable to real drugs.
The body naturally produces two pleasurable substances associated with the runner’s high. Endorphins are well-known neurotransmitters that can be likened to morphine for their pain-relieving properties.
One theory suggests that our ancestors evolved to produce endorphins to help them chase prey or escape predators by numbing foot pain and blisters.
Research indicates that for runners, a long-term, moderately intense run is the ideal scenario for endorphin production. If you’re aiming to experience the runner’s high, try a “tempo” run.
After a good warm-up, aim to run for at least 20 minutes at a pace of about 6 or7 out of 10 (with 10 being an all-out sprint).
Running can produce powerful chemical hits that justify comparisons with real drugs – Illustration Credit: James Clapham
While endorphins have traditionally been credited with causing the euphoria of the runner’s high, recent research suggests that another substance may be the actual source of the uplift felt towards the end of a run.
Endocannabinoids are molecules similar to those in marijuana that enhance the mood, but are naturally produced by the body.
Research shows that when cannabinoid receptors are blocked in mice, they exhibit reduced activity. In a study in 2021, researchers at the University Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf found that even when the opioid receptor that binds to endorphins is blocked, runners still experience the high.
This suggests that cannabinoids may be more responsible for the runner’s high than previously thought.
In the study, participants ran at a moderate pace for 45 minutes. To achieve a similar high, aim for a consistently challenging pace where holding a conversation becomes difficult.
This article addresses the question (posed by Emily Marine of Colchester) “When does the runner’s high kick in?”
Please email us with your questions atQuestion @sciencefocus.com or message us onFacebook,Twitter, or on ourInstagrampage (don’t forget to include your name and location).
Check out our ultimate Fun Fact for more amazing science content.
Humans and puppies share a special bond that inspires viral videos, artwork, and adoration. Despite this strong connection, it turns out that humans may not be as good at understanding dogs as they think.
Recent research from Arizona State University (ASU) has revealed that people often misinterpret dog emotions more frequently than previously believed. The study suggests that humans may not accurately perceive what their dogs are feeling.
According to researchers like animal welfare scientists Holly Molinaro and ASU Professor of Psychology Clive Wynne, people tend to focus on external cues rather than the actual emotions of dogs. This can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of dog behavior.
Through experiments involving positive and negative scenarios, researchers found that participants often misinterpreted dog emotions based on external factors rather than the dogs’ actual behavior. Context played a significant role in how people perceived dog emotions.
Despite these findings, many participants projected their own emotions onto the dogs, further complicating their ability to accurately assess dog behavior. Even dog owners were not immune to these biases, as personal experience showed that they too could misinterpret dog emotions.
To improve understanding of dog emotions, researchers recommend humility and careful observation of a dog’s individual behavior cues. Each dog is unique, and it is essential to pay close attention to their subtle cues to truly understand their emotions.
Our dogs may be happy when we play with them, but we judge this more about the situation and our own feelings than what our puppies do. – Credit: westend61 via Getty
Learning to interpret a dog’s emotions accurately takes time and practice. By paying attention to subtle behavioral cues and staying open-minded, dog owners can build a stronger bond with their furry companions.
About our experts:
Holly Molinaro is a doctoral student, former professor, and animal welfare scientist at Arizona State University’s Department of Psychology.
Pope Francis cautioned world leaders at Davos about the potential dangers posed by artificial intelligence on the future of humanity, highlighting concerns about an escalating “crisis of truth.”
He stressed the need for governments and businesses to exercise caution and vigilance in navigating the complexities of AI.
In his written address to the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Switzerland, the Pope pointed out that AI poses a “growing crisis of truth in public life” due to its ability to generate outputs that closely resemble human output, which could lead to ethical dilemmas and questions about societal impacts.
The Pope highlighted that AI has the capacity to learn autonomously, adapt to new circumstances, and provide unforeseen answers, raising crucial ethical and safety concerns that demand human responsibility. Cardinal Peter Turkson, a Vatican official, echoed this sentiment in a statement delivered to Davos delegates.
Having personally encountered AI’s ability to manipulate truth, the Pope has become a subject of AI-generated deepfake images, such as embracing singer Madonna and donning a Balenciaga puffer jacket.
An AI-generated deepfake image of Pope Francis wearing a down jacket. Photo: Reddit
The Pope emphasized that unlike many other human inventions, AI is trained based on human creativity results, often producing artifacts with skill and speed that rival or surpass human capabilities, posing significant concerns about AI’s impact on humanity’s place in the world.
AI dominated discussions at the Davos conference this year, with tech companies showcasing their products along the ski resort’s promenade.
Expectations are high among some participants for AI’s potential. Salesforce chief Marc Benioff predicted that future CEOs will manage both human and digital workers, underscoring the transformative nature of AI in the workplace.
Ruth Porat, Alphabet’s chief investment officer, lauded the potential of AI in improving healthcare outcomes and potentially saving lives.
She highlighted Google’s AlphaFold AI program’s success in predicting the structures of all 200 million proteins on Earth and releasing the results to scientists, a move expected to enhance drug discovery processes.
Last year, Demis Hassabis, co-founder of DeepMind, an AI startup acquired by Google, received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his groundbreaking work using AI.
Mr. Porat, a staunch AI advocate, shared his personal experience of battling cancer and emphasized the transformative potential of AI in democratizing healthcare through early detection and access to quality care for all individuals.
IIn May 2020, popular video blogger parents Micah and James Stauffer emotionally shared with their nearly 1 million followers that they had decided to send their adopted son back to his home country of China. Huxley, a 5-year-old boy with autism, had been a central figure in their YouTube videos where they showcased their family life and partnerships with brands. Prior to the announcement in May 2020, their followers noticed that Huxley was gradually being phased out of their videos, with old content featuring him being removed and comments asking about him being deleted. The backlash against the Stauffers was swift and intense, criticizing them for exploiting Huxley for views and clicks and for their handling of the adoption process. The internet response included conspiracy theories and a frenzy of negative comments, creating a toxic environment of sensationalism and exploitation.
The HBO documentary series “An Update on Our Family” attempts to present a more nuanced and empathetic perspective on the Stauffer family’s story, steering away from the sensationalistic storytelling prevalent on the internet. The director, Rachel Mason, aims to offer insight and empathy while exploring the complexities of the situation. The series dives into the ethical considerations of storytelling and responsible filmmaking, addressing the challenges of navigating sensitive topics like the Stauffer family’s experience. Mason acknowledges the importance of ethical checks in documentary filmmaking to avoid exploitation and sensationalism.
The documentary highlights the challenges of family vlogging and the blurred lines between reality TV and online content creation. It explores the impact of technology on storytelling and the potential pitfalls of commercializing personal family experiences for online audiences. Through the stories of individuals who have navigated similar paths in the online world, the series sheds light on the complexities of sharing personal stories in a digital age. It also delves into the exploitative nature of online content creation and the lack of protections for content creators and their families.
Mason’s documentary aims to humanize the individuals behind the stories, acknowledging the impact of public scrutiny and the need to protect the privacy and well-being of those involved. By exploring the complexities of family vlogging and online storytelling, the series invites viewers to reflect on their own relationships with social media and content consumption. It raises important questions about ethics, responsibility, and empathy in the digital age.
As the documentary unfolds, it becomes clear that the exploitation and sensationalism surrounding family vlogs have far-reaching consequences, impacting not only the creators but also the individuals whose stories are shared online. By providing a platform for voices often marginalized in these narratives, Mason’s series offers a sobering look at the dangers of unchecked online content creation and the importance of ethical storytelling.
We are constantly detecting lies in our daily interactions. This could be a change in our partner’s tone of voice indicating hidden emotions, a child repeatedly looking at a forbidden present, or a colleague’s implausible story about missing petty cash at work.
Despite our ability to detect some lies, there are still instances where we fail to see through deception. Researchers have been investigating this phenomenon for over a century, with the latest studies offering new insights into the complexities of deception.
One recent significant study conducted by Associate Professor Timothy Luke and his team at the University of Gothenburg focused on analyzing the behaviors associated with lying. By delving into the nuances of deceit, they aimed to uncover the underlying processes of deception.
One key aspect highlighted by Luke is the distinction between “white” lies and deception, emphasizing that not all lies are equal. Deception involves deliberate attempts to mislead others, with various psychological factors influencing the complexity of deceit. Factors like communication style and length play crucial roles in distinguishing lies from truth.
While conventional beliefs suggest that liars exhibit behaviors like avoiding eye contact and nervousness, research findings from the Gothenburg study challenge these assumptions. Experts in the field of lie detection agree that gaze aversion and nervousness are not reliable indicators of deception.
Photo courtesy of Getty Images, Alamy. Image manipulation: Andy Potts.
Instead, experts suggest that the level of detail in the information provided can be a more reliable indicator of deception. People who lie tend to offer less detailed explanations compared to truth-tellers. Linguistic cues, such as inconsistencies in statements and evidence, also play a significant role in detecting deception.
When it comes to distinguishing truth from lies, researchers recommend employing a strategic approach that challenges inconsistencies in suspects’ narratives without direct accusations of lying. By presenting contradictory evidence and observing the suspect’s responses, investigators can uncover potential deception.
Photo courtesy of Getty Images, Alamy. Image manipulation: Andy Potts.
While traditional approaches to lie detection based on behavioral cues may be unreliable, focusing on individual characteristics and personal deceit patterns can offer more effective ways of uncovering lies. By examining linguistic patterns and analyzing personal deception models, researchers are improving their ability to detect deception effectively.
Ultimately, trust in one’s own investigative skills and evidence-based analysis is crucial in detecting lies. Fixed cues and generalizations may not always be accurate, emphasizing the importance of caution and critical thinking when assessing deceptive behaviors.
Fact-checkers were confident about the target audience for this week’s news, which was delivered through Mark Zuckerberg’s selected medium. The awkward video message announced Meta’s plan to transition from professional third-party fact-checking to a user-driven “community notes” model similar to X, starting in the US.
Upon hearing the news, one fact-checker expressed concerns about Meta’s intention to please President Trump. Their public response on the matter was more tactful but conveyed the same sentiment.
Across the Atlantic, questions arose about how the European Union would respond to Mr. Meta’s decision, especially if the next US president was watching. The implications could extend beyond Europe’s borders for fact-checkers globally.
Meta’s fact-checking program, which spans 130 countries and is a significant source of funding for fact-checking worldwide, was established shortly after the 2016 US election. Despite Meta’s investment of $100 million in fact-checking efforts since then, concerns remain among fact-checkers about potential changes in the future.
The EU’s new policies will have varying effects on fact-checkers globally depending on Meta’s rollout outside the US. The company’s plans for the EU remain unclear, but there are currently “no immediate plans” to suspend fact-checking within the EU.
The EU’s regulatory framework for digital platforms, including Meta, is being tested through initiatives like the Code of Practice on Disinformation. However, enforcement and interaction with fact-checkers remain unresolved issues.
The European Commission’s response to Meta’s decision will be crucial in testing DSA principles and influencing Meta’s policies worldwide.
Overall, fact-checkers anticipate Meta will phase out third-party fact-checking globally after implementing the new system in the US. The impact on the fact-checking movement, which relies heavily on Meta’s funding, could be significant.
The future of fact-checking remains uncertain, with potential consequences for fact-checkers worldwide. Many organizations may need to scale back or close operations if Meta discontinues its support, impacting efforts to combat misinformation.
Rappler, a Philippine news site, warned that the challenges faced in the US could signify a larger struggle to preserve truth and individual agency in the face of increasing dangers.
○On August 4, 2024, the riots and unrest following the murder of three children in Southport, Merseyside, escalated further. That day, violence struck Rotherham, Middlesbrough and Bolton, where people tried to set fire to hotels housing asylum seekers, amid chaos amid far-right misinformation and rumors. Elon Musk showed a renewed interest in British affairs, posting a photo of the violence in Liverpool on X with the characteristically cautious caption: “Civil war is inevitable.” And 24 hours later, a wave of unrest reached the city of Plymouth.
It struck the city center throughout the evening of August 5th. To quote the Guardian, “150 police officers in riot gear and with dogs tried to separate the far-right mob and anti-racism demonstrators.” Others defended the mosque. Bricks, bottles and fireworks were thrown. Six people were arrested, several police officers were injured, and two civilians were taken to hospital. local civil servant He said the events were “unprecedented.”
Where should the city's 260,000 residents turn for reliable information? As ever, people's social media feeds are filled with falsehoods and provocations, making more traditional media the obvious choice. But if you had been listening to your local BBC radio station while the riots were going on, you might not have known anything about them. BBC Radio Devon ran reports of the violence on the 6 o'clock news, but Plymouth was not mentioned at all on the 7pm and 9pm news. Other breaking news stories mentioned what was happening but failed to make it into a major story. The violence was horrifying and very important, but the attention of the city's supposedly most reliable news sources was clearly elsewhere.
We now know all this thanks to BBC reaction to Complaint by David LloydHe is a radio veteran who has worked in both corporate and commercial stations. The relevant official document written by the company's complaints manager is very easy to read. It included an admission that “there was little evidence that the BBC was present at the scene” and that some of the content related to “some logistical issues” on the day. . Issues include “securing journalists with the necessary riot training'' and “technical problems with broadcasting kits.''
there were, The report says:“Elements of System Failure.” Even online, where modern businesses say they need to focus most of their efforts, there is no dedicated live coverage of the Plymouth riots, and as the report suggests, major social media platforms lack sufficient updates. Not posted. Regarding the latter point, he said, “If it weren’t for staff vacations, we could have done more.”
A spokesperson said: The BBC accepted the findings of its complaints department and had “already made adjustments to its working practices” before the Plymouth complaint was investigated. But the mix of excuses and admitted shortcomings remains mind-boggling. And the larger story of this corporate degradation of local broadcasting and how it fits into similar changes in commercial radio and the dire state of Britain’s local press is left untouched. As Mark Zuckerberg abandons meta fact-checking and Musk becomes endlessly radicalized by his platform, the result is a growing vacuum in local news. There is a growing susceptibility to online lies that may soon surpass people’s ability to fully understand what is going on in their immediate lives. someone's control.
The story of Plymouth is a case study in the impact of change, which still appears to be chronically overlooked. These include the forced cuts to BBC Radio’s broadcasts in 2023, and the fact that many local stations now only broadcast regionally specific programs until the afternoon. Share produce locally or nationally until breakfast time the next day. Number of spectators This drastic cut has further diminished an already fragile part of the national media landscape, further reduced listeners and hastened the decline of local radio, while our nation’s public broadcasters have The obvious question is whether the survival of such a major broadcasting station can be guaranteed. Grassroots news, who will do it?
It’s certainly not commercial radio. Eight years ago, broadcasting regulator Ofcom announced a relaxation of rules allowing commercial station owners to reduce the minimum hours of daytime local programming from seven hours a day to three. In 2019, radio giant Global consolidated more than 40 independent breakfast shows featuring local news and takeaways into three nationally broadcast programs, exposing its newsroom to fluctuations in efficiency. Since then, a single reporting team has been assigned to cover an area stretching from Cornwall to Gloucester.
And then there is the terrible fate of local newspapers that may have successfully transitioned into the online world, but have been repeatedly mismanaged, cut and wiped out, especially by online giants. Between 2009 and 2019, more than 320 such titles closed in the UK. Just over a year ago, Reach, the owner of Mirror, Express and a number of local titles grouped online under the “Live” banner, announced its third job cuts in a year. This reduced the total number of roles lost. The company's local and regional news websites drew a healthy audience of about 35 million people per month, but its reliance on siphoning digital advertising revenue put its long-term survival at risk. As one anonymous Reach official stated, the results were clear. “Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Newcastle, Liverpool, Cardiff and many other major cities will soon no longer have a local newspaper, and it is increasingly likely that they will no longer have a well-known local newspaper.”Local authorities and others Accountable news website. ”
In some areas, nimble local news outlets are beginning to fill the gap. In Hull, a start-up company called story of the hull It was founded in 2020 as an online operation by two former Hull Daily Mail employees and expanded into print last year. Last week's headlines reflected the city's experience with the 2024 riots: “Shame, Resilience, Justice.” won an award On this year’s cover. Bristol Cable has long pioneered a new kind of investigative and political reporting, driven by the fact that its titles are owned by its readers. Manchester has a Substack newsletter The Millis currently setting up branches in Liverpool, Birmingham, Sheffield and London.Former Guardian staffer Jim Waterson has also started up to fill the void left by the retrenchment of the Evening Standard. central london. All of these projects highlight one stark point: a place not only needs its own journalism, but can provide an audience to support it.
The problem is that they still outnumber some parts of the country, let alone the world, where the worst kinds of news cycles are unfortunately a reality. Something happens, but what do people read or hear about it? Is it nothing at all, plucked from the corners of the internet by some foreign billionaire, or amplified by an algorithm, true or false? It’s such a bad version that the question of whether or not is gone and the deceptive narrative creates its own shockwaves. If that is the future we all need to avoid, then local reporting should be our first antidote.
In Einstein’s theory of gravity, mass distorts space-time, creating an effect known as gravitational time dilation. This means that observers with different gravitational potentials measure elapsed time differently. Therefore, when you are close to a black hole, time slows down compared to time that is far away from the black hole.
Observers far away from the black hole say that for objects that fall into it, time stops at the so-called “event horizon” (the edge of the black hole, the point of no return).
Nothing appears to cross the event horizon. However, an observer who falls into a black hole does not experience time stopping at the event horizon. They will see time passing normally, but far away from the black hole they will see time speeding up. The closer you get to the event horizon, the faster time appears to move farther away from the black hole.
Gravitational time dilation can actually be measured. In 1976, NASA launched an atomic clock into space to measure the passage of time at an altitude of 10,000 km (6,214 miles) compared to the Earth’s surface. The results of this measurement matched exactly what was expected from Einstein’s theory.
At sea level, time moves a billionth of a second slower per year than at the top of Mount Everest.
This article answers the question (asked by Sean Roberts via email): “What happens to time at the event horizon of a black hole?”
If you have any questions, please email us at:questions@sciencefocus.comor send us a messagefacebook,×orInstagramPage (remember to include your name and location).
Check out our ultimatefun factsMore amazing science pages.
SSocial media has always served as an entertainment mirror for society as a whole. The algorithms and amplification of our always-on online presence have highlighted the worst parts of our lives while obscuring the best parts. This is part of why we are so polarized today, with two tribes screaming at each other on social media and plunging into a gaping chasm of despair.
This is what makes a statement released by one of the tech giants this week so alarming. Let those who enter give up hope. With less than two weeks until Donald Trump returns to the White House for the second runoff of the US presidential election, Meta, the parent company of Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and Threads, is making major changes to its content moderation. added. In doing so, it appears consistent with the president-elect's views.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced in a bizarre video message posted to his Facebook page on Tuesday that the platform would be eliminating fact checkers. Instead of them? mob rules.
Zuckerberg said the platform: Over 3 billion people The company, which around the world logs on to its app every day, plans to adopt an Elon Musk-style community note format to police what is and isn't acceptable speech on its platform. . Starting in the United States, the company plans to dramatically shift the Overton window to those who can shout it loudest.
Meta's CEO largely acknowledged that the move was politically motivated. “It's time to go back to our roots around freedom of expression,” he said, adding that “restrictions on topics like immigration and gender… […] It deviates from mainstream discourse. ” He acknowledged past “censorship mistakes,” by which he likely meant the past four years of suppressing political speech during the Democratic president's tenure, and added that he “worked with President Trump to ensure that U.S. companies We will prevent foreign governments from attacking the United States.” Please check more. ”
The most dog-whistle comment was that Meta's remaining trust and safety and content moderation teams would be relocated from liberal California, and that its U.S. content moderation arm would now be based in solidly Republican Texas. It was a throwaway line. The only thing missing from the video was Zuckerberg wearing a MAGA hat and carrying a shotgun.
Let me be clear: all businessmen make smart decisions based on political circumstances. And few storms are as violent as Hurricane Trump as it approaches the United States. But few people's decisions are as important as Mark Zuckerberg's.
Over the past 21 years, Meta CEO has found himself a central figure in society. Initially, he oversaw a website used by college students. Now billions of people from all walks of life use it. In the early 2000s, the eccentric pursuit of online fun was nowde facto public town squareIn the words of Elon Musk. Where the meta goes, the world follows, online and offline. And Meta just decided to do a dramatic handbrake right turn.
Please don't believe it. Trust the watchdog. “Today’s Meta announcement is a retreat from a healthy and safe approach to content moderation.” The Real Facebook Oversight Committeesaid in a statement that he is an independent person who sees himself as the arbiter of Meta's movements.
They say that because if there's one thing we've learned from social media polarization over the past decade, it's that the angriest person wins the argument. Anger and lies can spread on social media, and are only partially contained by the platforms' ability to intervene if things get out of hand. (Recall that exactly four years ago, Meta suspended Donald Trump from Facebook and Instagram for two years for inciting the violence that stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021.)
Social networks have always struggled with controlling speech on their platforms. Regardless of the outcome of the debate, what they are sure to do is annoy 50% of the population. These platforms are chronically underinvested in growing their businesses at all costs. Platforms have long argued that effective moderation is a problem of scale, and this is the problem they have created by pursuing scale at all costs.
To be sure, policing online speech is difficult, and the level of content moderation that companies like Meta are trying to operate at doesn't work. But abandoning it completely in favor of community notes is not the answer. Suggesting that it is a rational, evidence-based decision masks the reality. It’s a politically expedient move for someone who this week supported the resignation of self-proclaimed “radical” centrist Nick Clegg as head of global policy. A person who leans toward the Republican Party. He appointed Dana White, CEO of Ultimate Fighting Championship and a close Trump ally, to Meta's board of directors.
In many ways, you can't blame Zuckerberg for bending the knee to Donald Trump. The problem is that his decisions have a huge impact.
This is an extinction event for the idea of objective truth on social media. The creature was already on life support, but one of the reasons it's hanging on is that Meta has decided to fund an independent fact-checking organization to try to keep some elements of social media afloat. This is because he was ambitious. Authenticity and freedom from political bias. Night is day. The top is the bottom. Meta is X. Mark Zuckerberg is Elon Musk. Live out four tumultuous, bitter and unfounded years online.
Have you ever noticed how time seems to slow down when you’re at the gym? The answer to this question is more complex than just regretting that early morning spin class. Our perception of time can be influenced by various factors, making it seem faster or slower than reality.
When time seems to slow down, it’s known as time delay. This can occur in situations of boredom, anxiety, or heightened alertness, all of which can be experienced during exercise.
It’s like watching a pot that never boils or staring at a stopwatch while running on the treadmill. The more you focus on the passage of time, the longer it may appear to drag on. A recent study conducted by researchers at Canterbury Christ Church University in the UK found that participants were 9% faster when measuring 30-second intervals on stationary bikes, suggesting that time felt slower to them than it actually was.
The researchers propose that physical activity enhances awareness of impulses and leads to a perception of time dilation. Essentially, the increased heart rate and physical changes during exercise may give the impression that time is moving slower than it really is.
A similar phenomenon occurs in high-anxiety situations, where time may also seem to elongate. For athletes like professional runners and cyclists, this understanding of time perception can be crucial in pacing themselves effectively.
The researchers suggest that further studies could help in designing more enjoyable exercise classes, although you might want to keep this information from your spin instructor.
This article is a response to Tania Matthews’ question: “Why does time move slower when I’m at the gym?”
If you have any questions, feel free to email us at:questions@sciencefocus.comor reach out to us onFacebook,Twitter,orInstagram(remember to include your name and location).
Explore more fascinating science topics on our website.
It’s been said that in times of intense stress or sudden anger, a primitive part of our brain takes control. This irrational aspect of ourselves doesn’t stem from our highly evolved human faculties, but rather from the remnants of our reptilian ancestors that have persisted in our brains despite the process of evolution. Some call it the “lizard brain.”
The lizard brain theory was formulated by neuroscientists in the 1960s, particularly by Paul McLean. As he studied the brains of humans and other animals to explore the origins of negative emotions, he found common behaviors between reptiles and mammals related to survival instincts like establishing routines and defending territory, as well as unique mammalian behaviors.
Through his research and advancements in neuroscience allowing for the comparison of brain structures, MacLean proposed that the human brain evolved from a reptilian brain with ancient lizard characteristics still preserved. He identified three distinct brains within the human brain, which he called the “brain trinity”: the oldest reptilian brain, the paleomammal complex or limbic system, and the new structures that emerged with higher primate evolution.
Paul MacLean's 'Trinity Brain' model now widely discredited by scientists – Photo credit: Getty
Despite the popularity of the triune brain theory, recent studies have challenged the notion of the lizard brain. Neuroanatomists have pointed out that the brain is not structured like an onion with successive layers resembling different species’ brains, as the Trinity theory suggests.
For instance, while the amygdala within the limbic system is more developed in primates than in rats, indicating a more complex evolutionary trajectory, the concept of progress in evolution suggests that older animals are more primitive and newer ones more sophisticated. Evolution is not just about adding new features while leaving the old ones unchanged.
Explore our fascinatingcollection of fun factsand delve into more intriguing scientific topics.
IIf you want to witness the last vestiges of human intelligence swirling down the drain, just hold your nose and type these words:Skibidi toilet” to YouTube. The 11-second video features an animated human head sticking out of a toilet bowl while singing the gibberish lyrics, “Skibbidi dop dop yes yes.” The clip has been viewed more than 215 million times and generated hundreds of millions of references on TikTok and other social media.
It's only fitting, then, that the Oxford English Dictionary has announced “brain rot” as the word of the year. As an abstract concept, brain rot is something we are all vaguely aware of. The dictionary defines it as “an assumed mental or intellectual state of a person, especially seen as a result of overconsumption of material (now especially online content) considered trivial or unchallenging” is defined as “deterioration''. But few people realize how much technology is literally rotting our brains, and how compulsive internet use is destroying our gray matter.
Brain rot was foreshadowed about 20 years ago when scientists studied the effects of a new invention called “email,” specifically the effects of a relentless barrage of information on the brains of its participants. result? Continuous cognitive overload was more harmful than cannabis consumption, with participants' IQs dropping by an average of 10 points.
and this is before The advent of smartphones has made the internet so readily available that the average adult in the UK now spends at least 4 hours a day online (Gen Z men spend 5.5 hours online per day; Gen Z women spend 6.5 hours online).
In recent years, there has been a wealth of academic research from institutions such as Harvard Medical School, Oxford University, and King's College London. found the evidence What is the Internet? shrink our gray matter, shorten attention spanweakens memory and distorts cognitive processes. The areas of the brain found to be affected include “attentional capacity,” “memory processes,” and “social cognition” is included.
Paper after paper tells us how vulnerable we are to internet-induced brain rot. “High levels of internet use and heavy media multitasking are associated with decreased gray matter in the prefrontal cortex.” find one. People who are addicted to the Internetstructural changes in the brain” and “reduced gray [sic] Case” Some scholars even refer to the use of too much technology during the developing brain as “dangerous.”digital dementia”.
2018, 10 years of data Analyzed by a leading memory psychologist Researchers at Stanford University found that people who frequently use multiple online platforms have shorter memory and attention spans.
Yet we seem to be doing little to stem the tide. Earl Miller, a neuroscientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a world expert on divided attention, predicts that by 2022 we are currently living in a “perfect storm of cognitive decline.” I warned you. Dr. Gloria Mark, Professor of Information Studies, University of California, Author attention spanwe found evidence of how dramatically our ability to concentrate has declined. In 2004, her research team found that the average attention span on any screen is two and a half minutes. In 2012 it was 75 seconds. Six years ago, it was down to 47 seconds. “I think this is something that we should be very concerned about as a society,” she says. talked about it on the podcast In 2023.
But if technology is making us less intelligent, we are not entirely to blame. After all, it is designed to completely captivate us. Silicon Valley's dirtiest design feature, and once you find it, it's everywhere: infinite scroll. Likened to “”fartbottomless soup bowl” In an experiment, participants continued to eat from the soup bowl without thinking if they kept refilling it. Online feeds that are constantly “replenished” manipulate the brain’s dopaminergic reward system in a similar way. These powerful dopamine-driven endless “exploration” loops become addicted.
What happens if we fail to address cognitive decline? Tristan Harris, former Google design ethicist told the US Congress In 2019, billions of people, with a “psychological footprint roughly the size of Christianity,” now receive information from the platform, but the business model is such that “revenue is tied to attention.” “This creates a “race to the bottom of the brainstem.'' Hack our lizard brains to get attention, trigger dopamine, fear, anger, and win. ”
His warning is the most severe yet. “Persuasion technology is a hugely undervalued but powerful force shaping the world,” he said. “It controls the pen of human history, and if we don't take it back, it will destroy us.”
The term brain rot has been popularized online by young people most at risk of its effects. The fact that those most at risk are the most aware of the problem is encouraging news. The first step to change is understanding the problem. And there is reason to be hopeful. In recent years, teenagers have turned their attention to Danphones. Childhood without smartphones;Green is budding towards a future where we can reclaim our hearts. After all, perhaps Skibidi Toilet has a more poignant meaning, a recognition of where human intelligence currently stands. You can now proceed in one of two directions: upwards or through a U-bend.
With the abundance of news stories, one might believe that humanity is on a path to self-destruction due to pollution, microplastics, and harmful chemicals. Reports of decreasing sperm counts have led to discussions about a possible “Spermageddon,” with politicians even considering incentivizing women to have children (source).
However, after speaking with experts like Professor Alan Pacey, a male infertility researcher, and Professor Sarah Harper, director of the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing, it seems that while there is reason to be concerned, we are not currently in a crisis.
Why are some people concerned about “Spermageddon”?
The concern dates back to a study from 1974 that showed a decrease in sperm counts among American men compared to the data from the 1950s (source). While various factors like climate change, genetic defects, and microplastics have been suggested as causes for declining sperm counts, not all experts are convinced about the severity of the issue.
Recent studies, including those conducted in Denmark, have not shown significant declines in sperm quality, leading to doubts about the extent of the problem. While concerns about microplastics and chemicals are valid, they may not be directly linked to infertility as some believe.
Recent research published in the journal Nature also suggests that semen quality worldwide may not be declining significantly.
Is global infertility on the rise?
While birth rates are indeed falling, experts argue that there is no concrete evidence of a widespread increase in infertility. Factors like delayed childbearing, improved access to fertility treatments, and reduced stigma around infertility may be contributing to more people seeking assistance at fertility clinics.
Why are populations declining in many areas?
The declining birth rates in countries like South Korea, China, and the United States are influenced by various factors, including economic growth and changing societal norms. While it may seem like an “infertility epidemic,” some experts see it as a demographic outcome of broader trends.
Should we be concerned?
Experts have differing perspectives on the issue. While some, like Professor Harper, believe that falling birth rates are not a cause for alarm, others, like Professor Pacey, are concerned about the barriers to fertility treatment and the impact on individuals facing infertility. Both emphasize the need for a nuanced approach to addressing the complex factors affecting fertility rates.
About our experts
Professor Alan Pacey MBE is a renowned researcher in male fertility and sperm biology at the University of Manchester, with over 30 years of experience in the field.
Professor Sarah Harper CBE is a gerontology expert at the University of Oxford, focusing on population aging and fertility trends.
AI chatbots are being rapidly adopted for a wide range of functions
Andriy Onufrienko/Getty Images
Can we get artificial intelligence to tell the truth? Probably not, but developers of large language model (LLM) chatbots should be legally required to reduce the risk of error, say a team of ethicists.
“What we’re trying to do is create an incentive structure that makes companies place a higher premium on truth and accuracy when building their systems,” he said. Brent Mittelstadt At Oxford University.
LLM chatbots such as ChatGPT generate human-like responses to user questions based on statistical analysis of vast amounts of text. But while the answers usually seem convincing, they are prone to errors, a flaw known as “hallucinations.”
“We have really amazing generative AI systems, but they make mistakes very frequently, and there’s no fundamental way to fix them based on our understanding of how the systems fundamentally work,” Mittelstadt says.
This is a “huge problem” for the LLM system, he says, because it is deployed for use in a variety of situations, such as government decisions, where it is important to give factually correct, truthful answers and be honest about the limitations of your knowledge.
To address this issue, he and his colleagues have proposed a range of countermeasures: They say that large-scale language models should respond in a way that is similar to how humans do when asked factual questions.
That means being honest about what you know and what you don’t know. “It’s about taking the steps necessary to actually pay attention to what you’re claiming,” Mittelstadt says. “If I’m not sure about something, I’m not going to make something up to sound convincing. Rather, I’d say, ‘Hey, you know? I don’t know. Let me look into it. I’ll get back to you later.'”
While this seems like a laudable goal, Ehlke Boiten A professor at Britain’s De Montfort University questions whether the ethicists’ demands are technologically feasible. Companies have tried to get law students to tell the truth, but so far that has proven too labor-intensive and impractical. “I don’t understand why you would try to mandate by legal requirement something that you think is fundamentally technologically impossible,” he says.
Mittelstadt and his colleagues suggest a more direct way to make LLMs closer to the truth: He says models should link to sources of information, as many currently do to back up their claims, and that making extensive use of a technique called search expansion generation to derive answers might help limit the chance of hallucinations.
He also argues that LLMs deployed in high-risk areas, such as government decision-making, should be scaled back or limited in the sources they can use: “If you had a language model that you wanted to use only in medicine, you might limit it to searching only academic articles published in high-quality medical journals,” he says.
Changing perceptions is also important, Mittelstadt said. [LLMs] “Rather than expecting them to be good at answering factual questions, or at least to give you reliable answers to factual questions, it’s better to see them as people who can help you with the facts you present to them,” he says.
Catalina Goanta A researcher at Utrecht University in the Netherlands says researchers are too focused on technology and not enough on the longer-term problem of falsehoods in public discourse. “Vilifying only law graduates in this context gives the impression that humans are perfectly hardworking and would never make such mistakes,” she says. “Meet any judge in any jurisdiction and you’ll hear horror stories about lawyer negligence and vice versa. This is not a machine problem.”
The ancient Maya civilization of Central America has fascinated scholars for centuries with its incredible astronomical calendar and magnificent step pyramids.
But alongside their glorious culture, they are also associated with another dark cultural phenomenon: human sacrifice. And according to recent research, very It's certainly dark.
New findings from an analysis of ancient DNA from the ancient Maya city of Chichen Itza suggest that many of those sacrificed were children, including a high proportion of identical twins.
El Castillo, also known as the Temple of Kukulkan, is the centerpiece of the Chichen Itza ruins in the Yucatan state of Mexico. – Image credit: Johannes Krauss
Published in a journal NatureThe study looked at human bones found in a xultun, or underground cistern, located near a large sinkhole known as the Sacred Cenote.
Radiocarbon dating (when scientists use decaying radioactive carbon to estimate the age of organic remains) suggests that the chultun was used between the early 7th century AD and the mid-12th century AD.
“The only people in Chultung were children between the ages of three and six.” Dr. Rodrigo BarqueraThe lead author of the study is BBC Science Focus“Until now, we haven't had the opportunity to report the sex of these individuals because when they are that young, you can't determine their biological sex based on the bones alone.”
Moving quickly on from how bleak a hole filled with 100 children looks, DNA evidence revealed that all 64 people tested were male, and about 25% were close relatives, including two sets of identical twins.
The chance of having identical twins is about 1 in 250, so two sets of male twins in such a small sample size is unusual.
Barquera explained that twins had a special meaning to the Mayans because one of their most important myths involves heroic twins who defeat the king of the underworld.
The team believes that unlike other sacrificial rituals that were intended as offerings, the sacrifice of identical male twins may have been undertaken to honour the existence of hero twins.
Detail of the reconstructed stone tzonpantli (skull house) at Chichen Itza. – Image courtesy of Christina Wariner
While that's not great news for identical twins in Mayan culture, as Barquera says, it would have been a huge honor for the family: “It was more like, 'Wow, the gods or the powers that be have chosen us to be the guardians of these children who will one day participate in this magical ceremony.'”
“We know this because the site has been there for over 500 years. This isn't something that happened once or twice; it's been a widely held belief for at least five centuries,” he said.
Next, Barcela and his team hope to confirm their findings by comparing them with other similar archaeological sites.
About our experts
Rodrigo Barquera He is a postdoctoral researcher in the Archaeogenetics department at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig. He has authored nearly 200 academic research papers, which have been published in such renowned journals as: Nature and Nature Communications Biology.
Hotspot analysis of unidentified anomalous phenomenon (UAP) sightings reported from 2001 to 2020. Excerpt from the paper “Environmental Analysis of Public UAP Sightings and Sky View Potential”.
RM Medina et al.
My favorite subgenre of scientific writing is “Usually associated with conspiracy theories and cheesy sci-fi movies, but please take this seriously.” So I gleefully dove into a recent example with a very technical title. Environmental Analysis of UAP Public Sightings and Sky View Potential”. Translation: “We looked at where the most people saw UFOs and correlated that with how easy it was to see them in the sky.”
First of all, I want to emphasize that this is not a silly thesis, and I am not saying that UFOs should not be studied as a cultural or physical phenomenon. The authors, two geographers and a military intelligence expert, are acutely aware of how ridiculous their work may sound to some readers, and their method of analysis is entirely rational. It is.
That being said, I would like to celebrate some of the acronyms I learned while reading this paper. We will henceforth refer to UFOs as UAPs, or “unidentified anomalous phenomena.” This is partly to avoid the stigma of the pseudoscientific UFO community, and partly so that future generations can collect data on giant monsters and such anomalies not captured by science. I think it’s for the purpose of The term “flying object”.
The authors used data from NUFORC. NUFORC sounds like his 1970s new wave band, but it actually stands for National UFO Reporting Center. Its website allows people to report sightings, and the number of people doing so increased during the study period from 2001 to 2020. This is largely due to the increased number of sensors, phones, and other technologies that can record strange things in our environment. To study the geographic distribution of these sightings, the authors examined approximately 200,000 reports per U.S. county. What they found was that more people saw UFOs, er, UAPs, in the western part of the country, where less population means generally darker skies.
But how exactly did researchers know where all these sightings were coming from? Which brings us to VGI, or “Voluntary Geographic Information.” The authors acknowledge that this is “usually provided voluntarily by individuals, consciously or unconsciously, with the assistance of location-enabled digital tools.” Many cell phone cameras and apps automatically record the geographic coordinates of the photos you take, whether you know it or not. While this is great for friendly scientists looking for data about UAPs, VGI is also used in the United States by law enforcement and marketing companies to understand where they are at any given time.
But perhaps my favorite acronym is AARO (All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office). This is the department within the Department of Defense where one of the author’s boyfriends, Sean Kirkpatrick, worked until two years before him, and it has a nice name. he got tired of it and quit Late 2023. AARO may sound like Charles Stross invented it for him. laundry file Although it is a series of fantasy novels, it is actually called in to determine whether the military secretly possesses alien “biological agents” or spaceships. Kirkpatrick told Congress that the answer is a resounding “no,” and that conspiracy buffs inside and outside the government have discovered extraterrestrial weapons in the huge warehouse where the Pentagon stores the Ark of the Covenant and the Sacred Ark. He resigned because he continued to insist that something must be hidden. Holy Grail.
As can be inferred from Kirkpatrick’s involvement in the paper, the authors found no evidence of alien visitors. By correlating VGI-labeled sightings with data collection including military bases, airports, light pollution, cloud cover, and tree canopy locations, they found that most UAPs are found in deep, easy-to-see locations. It means that it is. To the night sky. According to NUFORC, his most commonly reported UAPs turned out to be either Starlink satellites or the planet Venus. Other reports come from locations where it is easy to observe human-built objects, such as airplanes and drones, moving quickly and in irregular patterns across the sky.
There are also more reports coming from areas with a “culture of paranormal ideas,” such as the area around Roswell, New Mexico, where UFOs are said to have crashed in the 1940s. Still, researchers conclude that some sightings remain unexplained.
This paper confirms that people who report UAP are not suffering from mental illness or hallucinations. There is clearly something strange in the sky. Perhaps it’s not aliens, but our environments always produce bizarre visual effects that are strange yet realistic. And the heavens are full of imaginary and unknown objects created by humans. Analyzing anomalies with scientific rigor does not dispel the wonder, but it does reveal that we can witness wonders in our own backyards every day.
Annalee’s week
what I am reading
Stuart Hall’s Classic Media Studies Essay encode/decode, it is still relevant.
what I see
dungeon food, Anime about cooking from dungeon to table.
what I am working on
Make Google Gemini say weird things.
Annalee Newitz is a science journalist and author. Their latest novel is Terraformars, and they are co-hosts of the Hugo Award-winning podcast Our Opinions Are Correct. Follow @annaleen and their website is: techsploitation.com
WWho is behind the most notorious ‘deepfake’ apps on the internet? The Guardian’s new podcast series ‘Black Box’ has been trying to answer that question for months now, as we explore a hall of mirrors. It was like wandering.
The app, ClothOff, has hundreds of thousands of followers and has already been used to generate dozens of images of underage girls in at least two cases. The photos have traumatized the girls, outraged their parents and left police at a loss as to how to stop it.
Producers Josh Kelly, Alex Atack and I followed Cross-Off’s footsteps to a nondescript, seemingly vacant address in central London. We’ve encountered fake businesses, distorted voices, and fake employee photos.
This was a frightening insight into the future we’re all heading into in our careers. In the age of artificial intelligence, is everything you see and hear on your screen real?
The search for ClothOff is just one story to tell about the times we live in. We’re in the first few years of AI infiltrating our lives, but it’s not yet deep enough that we can’t remember what life used to be.
We wanted to take a snapshot of this moment in time to explore the impact AI is already having on the world and look for clues about what’s to come. We met the scientists who pioneered AI software until they dramatically turned against it last year. We’ve heard stories of people reminiscing about their first dates with their boyfriends (smartphone chatbots), and stories of heartbreaks when the same lover turned cold due to system girlfriend updates. Ta.
We’ve been hearing about the prospect of AI systems that can detect cancer years before doctors and machines could offer desperate people what no one else has: humanity.
Everywhere we go, we encounter an even bigger mystery: people using AI. What has fascinated us again and again is the way in which we are already reshaping what it means to be human in a series about artificial intelligence that is not just about technology, but actually about us.
michael safi Presenters, today’s highlights
This week’s picks
Ash Sarkar, one of the hosts of If I Speak. Photo: Antonio Olmos/Observer
Hear Me Out Wide range of weekly episodes available Get to know some of the dramatic talents of multiple stars in this chatty theater podcast from actor Lucy Eaton. They each choose their favorite speech and act it out in a private chat, giving it a Desert Island Disc feel for the stage. In the first episode of the new series, hear Mark Gatiss perform Hamlet’s “Longing” and “Rage” “Speech the Speech” soliloquy from Jack Thorne’s Motives and Clues. Alexi Duggins
dead river Wide range of weekly episodes available This alarming story focuses on one of the most devastating environmental catastrophes in history: the 2015 Mariana Dam disaster in Brazil. The disaster led to the largest class action lawsuit in British history involving 700,000 claimants. It’s an emotional and worrying listen, packed with music that tugs at your heartstrings as you hear locals talk about their fears that the dam is sick. advertisement
The Blame of Fame: Milli Vanilli Wide range of weekly episodes available You may already know the story of Rob Pilatus and Fab Morvern, but Insecure’s Amanda Seales brings you the inside story in this fun podcast. When German producer Frank Farian asks the tight-trousered pop duo to make a deal with the devil, they are exposed as impostors, leading to exploitation and tragedy. Hannah Verdier
Time Capsule: Silver Chain Wide range of weekly episodes available The 1970s swing scene is the stuff of myth and legend, so when Paul Ditty heard that the secret club Silver Chain had kept a stash of newsletters in a safe deposit box, he couldn’t resist investigating. His brilliant unraveling of the mysterious Minnesota club begins with a simple question. How did they find the time to swap partners? HV
if i speak Wide range of weekly episodes available Novara Media journalists Ash Sarkar (above) and Moya Lothian-McLean have questions on their minds, including “Can I really be friends with my boss?” and “Are dating apps dead?” By grappling with questions, he swaps politics with personal (of sorts) issues. “Should I give my mom some money?” As Sarkar says, this is “the place where we can reveal our most free and nosy selves without judgment.” Holly Richardson
There’s a podcast for that
Comedian Paul Sinha hosts new podcast Pub Quiz. Photo: Martin Godwin/The Guardian
this week, robin winter choose the best five Comedy podcasts that actually teach you somethingfrom comedy quizzes with Chase star Paul Sinha to investigating urban legends in black culture.
Do Go On It’s surprising how little-known this Australian podcast is despite its longevity. Hosted by incredibly likeable Melbourne comedians Matt Stewart, Jess Perkins and Dave Warneke, each week one of them chooses a topic to report on. Recent episodes include History of Monopoly, Pirate Queen of Ireland, Eurovision, and more. Unlike many other long-running podcasts (Do Go On is entering its ninth year), the inside jokes are easy to follow and there’s a genuine, contagious enthusiasm from the trio.Rare podcasts that will make you laugh out loud and Full of fascinating stories.
Paul Sinha’s Perfect Pub Quiz The Chase’s Paul Sinha is also a popular touring comedian and combines these pursuits in this clever BBC Radio 4 podcast. If you can imagine him doing his set of tight 20-minute stand-up encyclopedias, you’ll be able to get pretty close to this vibrant show. In series two, Sinha takes his trivia skills to different parts of the country, testing Ipswich residents on their most famous politicians and Manchester’s tallest buildings. However, there is not much time to think, so the listener needs to respond quickly.
mom taught me Comedians Langston Carman and David Goboly explore black conspiracy theories, superstitions, urban legends, and, in their words, “the old lady’s story that your uncle told you about who wore jeans to the beach.” Dive deep into the world of “public pool. They often have hilarious guests to discuss reader suggestions. After almost 300 episodes, there’s no sign of running out of material.
big flop With only a handful of episodes to date, The Big Flop explores everything from the laughably bad movie Cats to the banned Four Loko, an alcoholic energy drink invented by a bunch of frazzled boys. It’s a show that focuses on events that didn’t go well. Hosted by actor, singer, and TikTok star Misha Brown, it was produced by pod giant Wonderly. Two weekly guests (mostly American stand-ups and performers) bring freshness to each episode, and thanks to an experienced behind-the-scenes team, it’s well-researched and well-produced.
That’s not true fish If you love comedy podcasts, you’ll be spoiled for choice with No Such Thing As a Fish, created by the writers of the long-running BBC quiz show QI. The authors started the podcast in 2014 after discovering interesting facts that weren’t aired during their research. Now his 500-episode podcast is the granddaddy of the genre, unapologetically nerdy but beautifully accessible even for non-Oxbridge fans. Winner of many well-deserved awards and published as a book, No Such Thing As a Fish is a must-listen for anyone looking for quirky facts to share at the pub table.
Why not try it…
In an 8-part series show on the streetcelebrities are taken out of the studio and presenter and veteran podcaster Alex Lugui takes the driver’s seat as they embark on a personal road trip through the places that shaped them.
just jack and will is the ultimate Will & Grace rewatch podcast with Sean Hayes and Eric McCormack.
Who is a good person? So who is the bad guy? alphabet boys Revealing secret investigations by the FBI, DEA, ATF, and other three-letter agencies in the United States.
Elon Musk has encouraged extremists and white supremacists throughout his year-long tenure as owner of Company X (formerly known as Twitter), but this week he continues to push back on the behavior that mainstream users — and advertisers — tolerate. succeeded in pushing the limits of
Musk on Wednesday endorsed a post by user X that accused the Jewish community of spreading “dialectical hatred against white people.” The statement itself was a response to another X post that shared a PSA video from a foundation fighting anti-Semitism, along with criticism of an anonymous user who posted online that “Hitler was right.”
“I believe that Western Jews, a large minority, [they supported] People who flood their countries don’t like themselves very much,” user X replied. “You want the truth told to your face, and there it is.”
Musk replied, “You told the truth.”
A post that went out of its way to praise Mr. Musk also caused the same thing. white supremacist conspiracy theory Endorsed by Tree of Life synagogue shooter Robert Bowers. Minutes before the shooting, Bowers posted on the far-right social media site Gab that HIAS, a Jewish-American nonprofit that helps refugees, “likes to bring in invaders who will kill our people. ” he posted. “I cannot stand by and watch my fellow citizens being slaughtered,” Bowers wrote shortly before 11 people were murdered at a Pittsburgh synagogue.
The X owner and CTO’s comments have drawn increasingly widespread condemnation. On Friday, White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates said: answered Musk’s recent support for white supremacy in his platform.
Citing the Tree of Life tragedy and the deadly Oct. 7 Hamas attack in Israel, Bates said, “This abhorrent act of fomenting anti-Semitism and racist hatred is the most “I condemn this in the strongest terms. This goes against our core values as Americans.” It is a responsibility to unite people against hate and to speak out against those who attack the dignity of our fellow Americans and undermine the safety of our communities. ”
The fallout from Musk’s endorsement of anti-Semitic and racist conspiracies was further compounded Friday afternoon. Apple announces “temporary suspension” All company ads on X.
The tweet, which Musk called “actual truth,” also resonated with broader opinion. great replacement Conspiracy theory. A theory popularized by white supremacists to instill fear that non-whites will usurp the majority of the white population in countries like the United States.
The owner of X has been involved with anti-Semites before. Musk previously welcomed Kanye West to X after the singer was banned from posting on Instagram after he used anti-Semitic tropes. Less than a day later, West infamously tweeted, “I’m going to die.” [sic] con 3 About the Jews,” he then posted a Star of David fused with a swastika. X suspended West’s account in December, but reinstated it over the summer.
A year ago, Musk reinstated a number of accounts previously suspended for spreading hate, including Andrew Anglin, the notorious neo-Nazi who started the white supremacist website Daily Stormer. After his return, Mr. Anglin delved into Twitter’s new rules in a reply to Mr. Musk. “You got a 12-hour suspension for tweeting a Star of David with a swastika on it…whatever the rules are, people will follow them. We need to know what the rules are. It just is.”
Musk has made a habit of engaging with self-proclaimed white supremacists and other hate activists. In September, Musk liked someone’s tweet. Self-proclaimed “violent anti-Semite” Musk is the one who started the campaign to ban the Anti-Defamation League from X, accusing the Jewish civil rights group ADL of being “the biggest generator of anti-Semitism on this platform.” , threatened to sue the group over lost advertising revenue due to criticism of the rise in hate speech against X under his leadership;
Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskowitz sarcastically said: Explanation Regarding the situation with Threads, a competitor of Meta’s X. “Xitter CEO Linda Yaccarino is making the biggest decision yet as she decides whether to fire her anti-Semitic CTO or risk losing even more advertisers. We are facing challenges,” Moskowitz wrote. “How will she deal with this difficult but morally clear situation?”
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
