News Feeds

Nearly two years after Boeing’s botched Starliner mission to the International Space Station, NASA put the mishap in the same category as the Challenger and Columbia space shuttle disasters — and said the spacecraft wouldn’t carry another crew until dozens of corrective actions are taken.

Theory says that, under the right conditions, massive stars can collapse directly into black holes without exploding as supernovae. But observational evidence of the phenomenon has been hard to get. Now astronomers have found some sequestered in archival data.

Imagine you are at a puzzle night with friends. Someone poses this question: “You roll two dice. At least one shows a six. What’s the probability both show a six?”

The table splits: Half the people argue that the dice are independent, so the answer must be one in six. The other half insists it’s one in 11. They may refer to the image below: There 11 equally-likely ways that a roll of two dice can show at least one six (bottom row and rightmost column), and in one of these rolls, they are both sixes.

So who’s right? Both—and neither. The correct answer is: “We can’t answer this without more information.” Depending on how you came to the information that there was at least one six, the answer can be one in six or one in 11.

Many so-called probability “paradoxes” arise from vague framing. In practice, data are generated by processes. Those processes define the pool of possibilities—and thus the probabilities. When the information-generating process isn’t specified, reasonable people can come up with different answers because they’re answering different questions.

Double-Six Puzzle

Let’s return to the opening question. To reveal the ambiguity, I’ll frame it in two ways:

Puzzle 1: You roll two dice. One of them falls under the table and you can’t see it. The other one lands on top of the table, and it’s a six. What is the probability that both dice landed on a six?

Puzzle 2: You are rolling two dice blindfolded. A machine is programmed to ding if and only if at least one of them lands on a six. You keep rolling until the machine dings. What is the probability that both dice landed on a six?

Solutions

Puzzle 1: The probability that both dice landed on a six is one in six. In this scenario, you’ve learned a fact about a particular die: the one you can see is a six. The first die doesn’t affect the second, so the six possible outcomes of the second die are equally likely.

Puzzle 2: The probability that both dice landed on a six is one in 11. In this scenario, you don’t have information about a particular die; the ding of the machine only tells you a property of the pair. This roll passed a filter that admits only outcomes with at least one six. Among the 36 ordered outcomes of two dice, 11 contain at least one six. Only one of those 11 outcomes is the double six.

Both of these puzzles answer the question “You rolled two dice. At least one shows a six. What’s the chance both show a six?” However, since they have different information-generating processes, they have different solutions.

Boy or Girl Paradox

In Martin Gardner’s famous “Boy or Girl Paradox,” sometimes called the “Two-Child Problem,” he poses this question: “Mr. Smith has two children. At least one is a boy. What is the probability that both children are boys?”

If this puzzle sounds familiar, that is because it is like the dice puzzle. Even if we adopt the assumption that births are like coin flips (i.e., independent, equally likely boy or girl, no multiple births), the puzzle is unanswerable. Gardner initially proclaimed the answer was “one in three,” but later admitted that the puzzle was ambiguous. The problem is that it does not tell us how we learned that at least one child is a boy.

Imagine you randomly meet a man named Mr. Smith at the park. He’s with one child, and that child is a boy. He mentions he has another child at home. What is the probability the child at home is a boy?

Seeing the boy in the park tells us nothing about the child at home. The possibilities are simply: “boy at the park, girl at home” or “boy at the park, boy at home.” Those two possibilities are equally likely, so the answer is one in two. The “child at the park” is like the die you can see and the “child at home” is like the die under the table.

When the information-generating process isn’t specified, reasonable people can come up with different answers because they’re answering different questions.

Now imagine you have a list of all men named Mr. Smith in your city who have two children and at least one boy. You pick a man at random from that list. What are the chances both his children are boys? The four ordered possibilities in all two-child families are GG, GB, BG, and BB. However, your list excludes GG. That leaves GB, BG, BB–three equally likely families, only one of which is BB. So the probability is one in three. This “filtered list” setup is like the machine-ding scenario: your knowledge is based on a property of the pair, not a particular child.

In both stories, it is true that Mr. Smith has two children and at least one is a boy. The answers differ because we came to know that fact in different ways.

The Monty Hall Problem

The best-known version of the Monty Hall problem was posed by Craig F. Whitaker to Marilyn vos Savant in a 1990 issue of Parade magazine, one of the most widely read publications in the country at the time:

Suppose you’re on a game show, and you’re given the choice of three doors: behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, “Do you want to pick door No. 2?” Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

Marilyn answered, “Yes; you should switch. The first door has a 1/3 chance of winning, but the second door has a 2/3 chance.”

The magazine received over 10,000 letters, including many from highly educated readers, insisting that this answer was wrong. Don Edwards, from Sunriver, Oregon, suggested: “Maybe women look at math problems differently from men.” A Georgia State University professor, one W. Robert Smith, PhD, advised: “I am sure you will receive many letters on this topic from high school and college students. Perhaps you should keep a few addresses for help with future columns.” Another PhD correspondent, a University of Florida professor named Scott Smith, exclaimed:

You blew it, and you blew it big! Since you seem to have difficulty grasping the basic principle at work here, I’ll explain. After the host reveals a goat, you now have a one-in-two chance of being correct. Whether you change your selection or not, the odds are the same. There is enough mathematical illiteracy in this country, and we don’t need the world’s highest IQ propagating more. Shame!

Today, it’s widely accepted that Marilyn was right. People have even built computer simulations that reproduce the result. The story is often cited as a reminder that probability can be counterintuitive, and as a lesson that confidence and credentials don’t make us immune to mistakes. Those are valuable lessons—but I think much of the pushback came from a simpler reason: the problem phrasing was too vague.

For Marilyn’s solution to be correct, the game must guarantee from the start that the host will open a door showing a goat. This needs to be explicitly stated as a rule of the game. Many readers assume that the host knowing what’s behind the doors implies that he is guaranteed to open a goat door. But even if the host knows, that alone does not tell us what he is obliged to do. Marilyn’s answer relies on the following assumptions:

1.     The host always opens a door after your initial choice.
2.     He never opens the door with the car.

Simulations built to show why Marilyn’s answer is correct have these assumptions built into their programming. But if those conditions aren’t guaranteed, the probabilities change.

If we make the above two assumptions, then Marilyn’s advice is correct–you should switch. This can be explained simply:

• If your initial choice was a goat door, switching will certainly give you the car. Since there is a 2 in 3 chance your initial choice was a goat, there is a 2 in 3 chance you will win if you switch.

• If your initial choice was the car door, you will certainly lose if you switch. Since there is only a 1 in 3 chance your initial choice was the car, there is a 1 in 3 chance you will lose if you switch.

This reasoning treats the host’s action as guaranteed and therefore uninformative about your original choice. If the host’s behavior is left unspecified, the fact that he opened a goat door can give you different information. Here are two variations of the puzzle that help to demonstrate that.

Optional Opening Variation

On a game show, there are three doors. Behind one is a car; behind the others, goats. After contestants choose a door, the host sometimes opens another door to show a goat (he never reveals the car). If he does open a door, he then offers you the chance to switch to the other closed door. It’s your turn: You pick a door, and the host opens a goat door. He offers a choice to switch to the other unopened door. What should you do?

You can’t answer this until you know the host’s policy—how often he opens a door given that a contestant’s initial pick is the car versus a goat. If the host is much more likely to open a door for contestants who initially picked the car, then seeing him open a door increases the likelihood that the car is behind your chosen door. Different policies lead to different conditional probabilities, so the question is unanswerable without more information. 

Random Door Variation of the Monty Hall Problem

On a game show, there are three closed doors. Behind one is a car; behind the others, goats. After contestants pick a door, the host randomly opens another door. If he reveals a car, it’s game over. It’s your turn to play! You choose a door. The host randomly opens another door. It’s a goat! He offers a choice to switch to the other unopened door. What should you do?

It can help to think of this game being played many times. One third of players initially pick the car. For them, the host will always reveal a goat. Two thirds of players initially pick a goat. For them, the host reveals a goat half the time and reveals the car the other half. If we consider all games, we can split the players into three equal groups:

1. Picked the car and saw a goat
2. Picked a goat and saw a goat
3. Picked a goat and saw the car

All of these scenarios are equally likely, so a third of the players will be in each group. Since the question tells you that, in your game, the host opens a door that has a goat, you know that you are in either group 1 or 2. Since it is equally likely that you are in either one, switching or staying makes no difference.

Once you state the host’s policy clearly, many people who previously found the problem baffling finally see where the answer comes from.

The crucial difference is that here the host could have shown the car but didn’t. In this variation, the host is more likely to open a goat door if your initial pick was the car door. In other words, the host opening a goat door gives you information about your initially chosen door: it increases the probability that it has a car from ⅓ to ½.

A Clearer Phrasing

Here is a clear way to pose the problem such that Marilyn’s answer is correct:

You are about to go on a game show. The game is always played in the same way: The player is shown three closed doors. Behind two of them are goats; behind one is a car. The player wins if they pick the door with the car. After the player picks a door, the host opens another door, and it's always one with a goat behind it. Then the host offers the player the chance to switch to the other closed door. He does this in every game. What should you do to maximize your chances of winning? 

You may have noticed that I also specified that you win if you pick the car door (not that you win what’s behind the door). This is because sometimes people say they prefer a goat over a car.

Clarity is crucial, whether you’re posing a puzzle or talking with someone who sees things differently than you do.

The problem with the Monty Hall problem is that the standard wording is often too vague. Marilyn’s answer is correct only under a particular set of rules about what the host will do, but those rules are frequently left out. Once you state the host’s policy clearly, many people who previously found the problem baffling finally see where the answer comes from.

For readers familiar with Bayes’s theorem, I leave you with a challenge:

You’re playing a game with the same setup as above, but now you’re told the host opens a door 75 percent of the time when the contestant initially picks a goat, and 25 percent of the time when the contestant initially picks the car. In your game, the host opens a door to show a goat. Should you switch or stay?

The “Obvious” Interpretation

For many such probability puzzles, one might object, “But the most natural interpretation is obviously X.” Natural to whom? When a puzzle leaves out the information-generating process, people may assume different backstories and end up answering different problems. What seems obvious to you may not be to someone else.

This lesson applies beyond puzzles. In many disagreements, people talk past each other because they understand the same term in different ways or are working from different assumptions. When you make those terms and assumptions explicit, you may find you disagree on less than you thought. Even if you don’t, that precision lays the groundwork for a more productive discussion. Clarity is crucial, whether you’re posing a puzzle or talking with someone who sees things differently than you do.

Astronomers have found a candidate Jellyfish Galaxy only about 5 billion years after the Big Bang. This is earlier than expected, since the ram pressure stripping responsible for it wasn't thought to be possible so early in the Universe's history. The galaxy could explain the puzzling "Red Nugget" galaxies, but first it has to be confirmed.

The early Universe was a busy place. As the infant cosmos exanded, that epoch saw the massive first stars forming, along with protogalaxies. It turns out those extremely massive early stars were stirring up chemical changes in the first globular clusters, as well. Not only that, many of those monster stars ultimately collapsed as black holes.

Spinosaurs have sometimes been portrayed as swimmers or divers, but a new species of these dinosaurs bolsters the idea that they were more like gigantic herons

I haven’t been very assiduous in collecting annoying phrases lately, so I have only two. Readers are invited to add their selections:

“Medaled”.  This is everywhere in the Olympic reporting, and of course it means “get a medal”. But which medal? If you’re reporting on how many medals a country has gotten in total, you can say “America now has 24 medals”.  You don’t say “America has medaled 24 times.” The past-tense verb is used instead to apply to individuals or teams within a sport (figure skaters or gymnasts, for example). For example, you can say that “Mikaela Shiffrin has medaled three times”, but that leaves out the fact that these are gold medals. Curiously, you don’t say that someone “gold medaled,” though that is more informative.

If you’re going to say “medaled”, then you should say that Watson and Crick “Nobeled” in 1962 and Percival Everett “Pulitzered” for fiction last year.  The verb “medaled” is not only annoying, but uniformative.

“Do better”.  This is a favorite of social-justice warriors when impugning or correcting someone who made an ideological misstep.

An AI definition:

To “do better” in social justice, focus on sustained action over performative gestures: educate yourself with credible, diverse sources, actively support minority-owned businesses, and donate time or money to grassroots organizations. Amplify marginalized voices, advocate for systemic policy changes (like voting rights), and practice empathy and deep listening in difficult conversations.

So the phrase in itself can refer to doing real good, but all too often it’s performative.  As an example, one could say, in light of the preceding article: PEN America, “Do better and focus on Israel’s genocide.”  I find the phrase patronizing and usually uttered by the entitled. It’s also rude.

Here’s one example from HuffPo, of course (the rag still exists!): “Men: We have to do better.” Sorry, but I’m doing the best I can, and resent the implication that all men are harassers or abusers of women (read the thing).

Your turn.

We know galaxies by their powerful illumination, generated by multitudes of stars. But some galaxies can be very dim. These are hypothesized to be dark galaxies, or dark matter galaxies. They're theoretical, and only candidates have been identified, but researchers may have confirmed the very first one.

After a Falcon 9 rocket stage burned up in the atmosphere, vaporised lithium and other metals drifted over Europe. This growing type of pollution could destroy ozone and form climate-warming clouds

Every day, it seems, another group gets ideologically captured, valorizing Palestine (or Hamas) and demonizing Israel.  This is dispiriting for Jews, but the latest such capture—of the free-expression literary group PEN America—is especially depressing.

The decline of PEN American was first evidenced to me when, in 2015, it decided to give a “freedom of expression” award to the magazine Charlie Hebdo, many of whose writers (and a few others) were killed in an attack by al-Qaeda, presumably for making fun of Islam and Muhammad. The award was formally called the “PEN/Toni and James C. Goodale Freedom of Expression Courage Award”, and was to be conferred with other awards at a literary gala banquet.

But six PEN members refused to be “table hosts” at the banquet, and then 139 other members (now 242) signed a letter taking issue with the award. Why? Because although Charlie Hebdo is well known to be an “equal opportunity offender,” whose metier is mocking everyone, including politicians and religions, those PEN members said that it was a no-no to mock Islam because its adherents were “already marginalized, embattled, and victimized.” From the letter:

In the aftermath of the attacks, Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons were characterized as satire and “equal opportunity offense,” and the magazine seems to be entirely sincere in its anarchic expressions of principled disdain toward organized religion. But in an unequal society, equal opportunity offence does not have an equal effect.

Power and prestige are elements that must be recognized in considering almost any form of discourse, including satire. The inequities between the person holding the pen and the subject fixed on paper by that pen cannot, and must not, be ignored.

To the section of the French population that is already marginalized, embattled, and victimized, a population that is shaped by the legacy of France’s various colonial enterprises, and that contains a large percentage of devout Muslims, Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons of the Prophet must be seen as being intended to cause further humiliation and suffering.

Our concern is that, by bestowing the Toni and James C. Goodale Freedom of Expression Courage Award on Charlie Hebdo, PEN is not simply conveying support for freedom of expression, but also valorizing selectively offensive material: material that intensifies the anti-Islamic, anti-Maghreb, anti-Arab sentiments already prevalent in the Western world.

It’s embarrassing to read the letter and see the list of signers who apparently surrendered their backbones in the face of Islamist outrage. This is a shameful episode.

But wait! There’s more! Two years ago PEN America canceled its literary gala because of controversy about the organization’s stand—or rather, lack thereof—on the war in Gaza. As Jennifer Schuessler reported in the NYT (she’s followed PEN for a while). (Bolding is mine.)

The free expression group PEN America has canceled its 2024 literary awards ceremony following months of escalating protests over the organization’s response to the war in Gaza, which has been criticized as overly sympathetic to Israel and led nearly half of the prize nominees to withdraw.

The event was set to take place on April 29 at Town Hall in Manhattan. But in a news release on Monday, the group announced that although the prizes would still be conferred, the ceremony would not take place.

“We greatly respect that writers have followed their consciences, whether they chose to remain as nominees in their respective categories or not,” the group’s chief officer for literary programming, Clarisse Rosaz Shariyf, said in the release.

“We regret that this unprecedented situation has taken away the spotlight from the extraordinary work selected by esteemed, insightful and hard-working judges across all categories. As an organization dedicated to freedom of expression and writers, our commitment to recognizing and honoring outstanding authors and the literary community is steadfast.”

In recent months, PEN America has faced intensifying public criticism of its response to the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attacks on Israel, which killed roughly 1,200 people, according to Israeli authorities, and Israel’s military response in Gaza, which has left about 34,000 people dead, according to health officials there.

In a series of open letters, writers have demanded that PEN America support an immediate cease-fire, as its global parent organization, PEN International, and other national chapters have done.

. . .In recent months, PEN America has faced intensifying public criticism of its response to the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attacks on Israel, which killed roughly 1,200 people, according to Israeli authorities, and Israel’s military response in Gaza, which has left about 34,000 people dead, according to health officials there.

In a series of open letters, writers have demanded that PEN America support an immediate cease-fire, as its global parent organization, PEN International, and other national chapters have done.

In March, a group of prominent writers, including Naomi Klein, Lorrie Moore, Michelle Alexander and Hisham Matar, announced that they were pulling out of next month’s World Voices Festival, one of PEN America’s signature events. And over the past several weeks, growing numbers of nominees for the literary awards, including Camonghne Felix, Christina Sharpe and Esther Allen, announced that they were withdrawing their books from consideration.

In a letter that PEN America leadership received last week, 30 of the 87 nominated writers and translators (including nine of the 10 nominees for one prize) criticized the group’s “disgraceful inaction” on the situation in Gaza, accusing it of “clinging to a disingenuous facade of neutrality while parroting” what the letter characterized as Israeli government propaganda. The letter also called for the resignation of the group’s longtime chief executive, Suzanne Nossel, and its president, the novelist Jennifer Finney Boylan, along with that of the group’s executive committee.

“PEN America states that ‘the core’ of its mission is to ‘support the right to disagree,’” the nominees stated. “But among writers of conscience, there is no disagreement. There is fact and fiction. The fact is that Israel is leading a genocide of the Palestinian people.”

That letter drew a brief but forceful response last week in which the organization described the war in Gaza as “horrific” but challenged what it said was the letter’s “alarming language and characterizations.”

“The perspective that ‘there is no disagreement’ and that there are among us final arbiters of ‘fact and fiction’ reads to us as a demand to foreclose dialogue in the name of intellectual conformity, and one at odds with the PEN Charter and what we stand for as an organization,” the organization said in a statement.

In other words, PEN America was criticized for organizational neutrality: the writers wanted it to take a stand against the “genocide” of Israel.  They even claim “there is no disagreement” about this!  That is a crock, and again the PEN America membership shamed itself.  But the turmoil continued, and, as you see below, its chief executive, Suzanne Nossel, eventually was forced out (characterized by the NYT as “leaving the organization”).

A new article in Tablet magazine summarizes the recent anti-Israel and anti-Jewish stands of PEN America and PEN International.  It’s not a pleasant read.  I’ve reproduced a few excerpts (indented) below:

Here’s yet another action that appears to be antisemitic:

PEN America has quietly retracted its public statement condemning the cancellation of comedian Guy Hochman’s recent speaking engagements. In its original statement, PEN rightly “condemned placing a litmus test on someone to appear on stage,” calling such tests a “profound” violation of free expression and affirming that “shutting down cultural events is not the solution.”

That principled stance did not last.

This reversal is particularly striking given PEN America’s longstanding history of condemning the cancellation of controversial figures across the political spectrum, including music artist Kehlani (on two separate occasions) and political commentator Milo Yiannopoulos. PEN has even defended the right to gather for Moms for Liberty, an organization that actively fuels the book-banning campaigns PEN America claims to oppose.

In these cases, and many others, PEN defended a clear and consistent principle: Free expression must be upheld even when the speech is unpopular, provocative, or deeply offensive to some.

Yet, following internal and external pressure driven by anti-Israel—and, in many cases, overtly antisemitic—activism, PEN reversed itself. In doing so, it abandoned its own stated standards and effectively endorsed the very discrimination it had previously acknowledged as wrong.

The message this sends is unmistakable: PEN America supports free expression, except when Jews are involved. When it comes to Jewish artists and Israeli voices, PEN now appears willing to endorse ideological litmus tests, condemnation, cancellation, and boycotts.

Hochman has been accused of “inciting genocide in Gaza”. I’m not sure what he said, but I doubt it was “kill all the Gazans, civilians or not.” And regardless, PEN America is supposed to foster free expression, not foster it and then withdraw. Note their hisory of supporting other controversial artists, including, for crying out loud, Milo Yiannopoulos.  There’s more (bolding is mine):

This incident does not stand alone. It follows PEN America’s recent deeply flawed report alleging that Israel intentionally sought to destroy Palestinian culture and education in Gaza, a report reliant largely on information supplied by Hamas, riddled with glaring omissions, and marred by demonstrably false and inflammatory claims.

By downplaying the atrocities and the horrors of Oct. 7 and largely dismissing Hamas’ own actions that led to the current situation in Gaza, PEN America further silenced Israeli and Jewish voices in literature and culture.

That bias is not confined to PEN America alone. It echoes the inherent bias, anti-Zionism, and antisemitism embedded in the recently passed “Resolution on Freedom of Expression in Palestine and Israel” at the 90th PEN International Annual Congress. Notably, Palestine was granted membership in PEN International, while Israel was rejected, a decision that speaks volumes about whose voices are deemed worthy of protection and whose are excluded.

Compounding this pattern, PEN America forced out its longtime CEO, Suzanne Nossel, after she was labeled a “Zionist” and refused to have the organization publicly declare that Israel was committing genocide. This episode sent a chilling message to Jewish professionals: Adherence to certain political dogmas is now a prerequisite for leadership within the organization.

Yes, the organization cannot afford to have a “Zionist” (they mean “a Jew”) as CEO, especially a “Zionist” who won’t sign on to the ridiculous “genocide” canard.  One moore bit of information:

Over the past two years, many leaders in the literary and cultural world have attempted to engage PEN’s leadership in good faith. The pattern has been consistent: They listen, offer no meaningful response, and then double down on a hostile anti-Zionist and anti-Israel posture.

In doing so, PEN America has helped legitimize antisemitic discrimination at a moment when antisemitism in the United States is at historic levels. This is not an isolated failure of judgment, but a structural rot in the organization, one that reflects leadership choices, institutional culture, and a governing board that has failed to intervene.

This past week, the organization formalized the leadership of interim co-executives Summer Lopez and Clarisse Rosaz Shariyf, a move that signals continuity rather than course correction and suggests the organization is unlikely to return to viewpoint-neutral principles anytime soon.

Especially because of its supposed mission to foster free speech and open discourse, it’s important for PEN America (and PEN International) to remain viewpoint neutral, like the University of Chicago—except on issues that threaten the organization’s mission. Those issues would involve censorship. But PEN America is now okay with censorship so long as it’s Jews and Israel who are being censored.  The organization’s ridiculous “genocide” stand serves only to chill the speech of members (notably Jewish ones) who dissent. The supposed “genocide” in Gaza (actually the declared mission of Hamas, not Israel), is contentious and not something that PEN should weigh in on.  But as we all know, among left-wing intellectuals in America the going ideology is to praise Palestine, ignore the horrors and war crimes of Hamas, and to damn Israel, full speed ahead. PEN America has been captured by this ideology.

Jennifer Schuessler wrote about Nossel’s resignation firing in the Oct. 31, 2024 NYT. By all accounts Nossel did a good job with the organization. Her only flaw was to be a “Zionist” and to refuse to sign on to the “genocide” canard:

Suzanne Nossel, the chief executive of the free expression group PEN America, is leaving the organization, six months after escalating criticism of the organization’s response to the war in Gaza led to the cancellation of its literary awards and annual literary festival.

Nossel will become the president and chief executive of Freedom House, a nonprofit organization based in Washington that promotes democracy and human rights around the world. PEN America announced that it has elevated two current senior members of its leadership team, Summer Lopez and Clarisse Rosaz Shariyf, to serve as interim co-chief executives, effective immediately, with a national search for a permanent leader to follow.

Nossel, a Harvard-trained lawyer, took the helm at PEN America in 2013, after previously working at the U.S. State Department, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International USA. During her tenure, its membership increased to more than 4,500, while its annual revenue grew to about $25.8 million, up from $4.3 million.

The group, by far the largest of the national PEN International chapters worldwide, also expanded beyond its traditional focus on the literary world, starting initiatives relating to free speech on campus, online harassment, book bans and the spread of state laws restricting teaching on race, gender and other “divisive concepts.”

I’m glad that Nossel has found a home where, I hope, she can promote free expression and human rights and not be required to condemn Israel and its “genocide”, but PEN America seems to be a lost cause now, but just one more organization that has abandoned its principles in favor of ideology (viz., the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center).

Tablet author Ari Ingel, director of the Creative Community for Peace, ends his article this way:

If PEN America is serious about its mission, its board must urgently reevaluate who is running the organization, issue a clear and public apology to the Jewish community, and recommit itself to defending free expression without exception or favoritism.

That ain’t gonna happen. It’ll be a freezing day in July (in the Northern Hemisphere) when PEN apologizes to the Jews.

Here’s Nossel, and I wish her well:

Emma.connolly5, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Here’s a 4-minute video in which Nossel explains and defends PEN America’s principles (she has a book on free speech):

Scientists have taken a major step toward mimicking nature’s tiniest gateways by creating ultra-small pores that rival the dimensions of biological ion channels—just a few atoms wide. The breakthrough opens new possibilities for single-molecule sensing, neuromorphic computing, and studying how matter behaves in spaces barely larger than atoms.

Lunar dust remains one of the biggest challenges for a long-term human presence on the Moon. Its jagged, clingy nature makes it naturally stick to everything from solar panels to the inside of human lungs. And while we have some methods of dealing with it, there is still plenty of experimentation to do here on Earth before we use any such system in the lunar environment. A new paper in Acta Astronautica from Francesco Pacelli and Alvaro Romero-Calvo of Georgia Tech and their co-authors describes two types of flexible Electrodynamic Dust Shields (EDSs) that could one day be used in such an environment.

An exotic type of dark matter could explain some of the characteristics of our galaxy’s central supermassive black hole, but many cosmologists are leery of the idea

Symbiotic bacteria living inside insect cells have lost much of their DNA over hundreds of millions of years, much like the ancient microbes that evolved into mitochondria

Scientists at the University of New Hampshire have unleashed artificial intelligence to dramatically speed up the hunt for next-generation magnetic materials. By building a massive, searchable database of 67,573 magnetic compounds — including 25 newly recognized materials that stay magnetic even at high temperatures — the team is opening the door to cheaper, more sustainable technologies.

Scientists at the University of New Hampshire have unleashed artificial intelligence to dramatically speed up the hunt for next-generation magnetic materials. By building a massive, searchable database of 67,573 magnetic compounds — including 25 newly recognized materials that stay magnetic even at high temperatures — the team is opening the door to cheaper, more sustainable technologies.

A surprising breakthrough could help sodium-ion batteries rival lithium—and even turn seawater into drinking water. Scientists discovered that keeping water inside a key battery material, instead of removing it as traditionally done, dramatically boosts performance. The “wet” version stores nearly twice as much charge, charges faster, and remains stable for hundreds of cycles, placing it among the top-performing sodium battery materials ever reported.

An assessment of nearly 900 dogs has identified 12 breeds prone to brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome, which can affect dogs' ability to sleep and exercise

Antibodies harvested from the blood of paediatricians are up to 25 times better at protecting against the common respiratory infection RSV than existing antibody therapies, and are now being developed as preventative treatments

Just a few hundred light-years from Earth, the famous variable star Mira A is huffing and puffing its outer layers to space. Its most recent mass-loss event ejected more material at higher velocity than in past events. A team of astronomers led by Theo Khouri, Chalmers University in Sweden discovered two large clouds of material expanding away from Mira A in observations done by the Very Large Telescope and ALMA telescopes in South America in 2015 and 2023. Those clouds form two lobes of a cosmic "heart" shape surrounding the star. That structure is basically a cloud of dust at the edges, filled by gas from the star.