Science

Electrochemical reaction-based stimuli-responsive materials are shaping up the era of innovative display devices. By embedding luminescent europium(III) complexes and color-changing viologen derivatives in a layered clay matrix, the device achieves simultaneous control of light emission and color at low voltage. The use of clay-based materials also highlights an eco-friendly approach to enhancing electronic device performance. This innovation could revolutionize display technology and the development of sensors, adaptable to changing light conditions.

Electrochemical reaction-based stimuli-responsive materials are shaping up the era of innovative display devices. By embedding luminescent europium(III) complexes and color-changing viologen derivatives in a layered clay matrix, the device achieves simultaneous control of light emission and color at low voltage. The use of clay-based materials also highlights an eco-friendly approach to enhancing electronic device performance. This innovation could revolutionize display technology and the development of sensors, adaptable to changing light conditions.

Most metals expand when their temperature rises. This effect is extremely undesirable for many technical applications. Now, scientists have created a new material that hardly changes in length over an extremely wide temperature range.

Engineers developed a training method for multiagent systems, such as large numbers of drones, that can guarantee their safe operation in crowded environments.

Engineers developed a training method for multiagent systems, such as large numbers of drones, that can guarantee their safe operation in crowded environments.

Researchers have explored how integrating machine and deep learning techniques can create a standardized system for evaluating rock climbing routes to provide a difficulty grading scale that promotes inclusivity, accuracy and accessibility for all experience levels. The study found that the most successful approach for determining the difficulty of a rock-climbing route used route-centric, natural language processing methods.

A recent study by management scholars underscores the importance of organizations' dynamic capabilities for greener business practices. Analyzing data from 139 manufacturing companies, the research reveals that financial and technological expertise combined with adaptability to regulations and evolving consumer demands, are key to advancing the green transition.

With the growing popularity of telehealth comes new issues with billing.

Early detection of earthquakes could be vastly improved by tapping into the world's internet network with a groundbreaking new algorithm, researchers say. Fiber optic cables used for cable television, telephone systems and the global web matrix now have the potential to help measure seismic rumblings thanks to recent technological advances, but harnessing this breakthrough has proved problematic. A new paper seeks to address these challenges by adapting a simple physics-based algorithm to include fiber optic data that can then be used hand-in-hand with traditional seismometer measurements.

When we first began searching for planets around other stars, one of the surprising discoveries was that there are planets orbiting white dwarfs. The first exoplanets we ever discovered were white dwarf planets. Of course, these planets were barren and stripped of any atmosphere, so we had to look at main sequence stars to find potentially habitable worlds. Or so we thought.

As we discovered more white dwarf planets, it became clear that some of them might retain atmospheres and water. Perhaps they were an outer planet with a thick atmosphere before their star swelled to a red giant, or perhaps some of the gas ejected by the star to become a white dwarf was captured by the world. Regardless of the method, a small percentage of white dwarf planets retain an atmosphere. But to be habitable, they would need to migrate inward to the white dwarf in order to enter the habitable zone. We knew that planets could migrate during the red giant stage of their star, but it wasn’t until recently that computer simulations showed they could move close enough and remain in stable orbits within the potentially habitable zone of a white dwarf. So we now know that while the odds are long, it is possible for white dwarf stars with water-rich atmospheres to exist.

But there’s one other problem. White dwarfs don’t have nuclear engines in their cores. They can’t continue to generate heat for billions of years, but rather cool down gradually over time. This means that on a cosmic scale, their habitable zone shrinks and moves inward over time. Any planet in the center of the zone would soon find itself on the outer edge of the zone and eventually in the cold, inhospitable beyond. But a new study contradicts this idea, at least for some white dwarfs.

Habitable zone for a paused white dwarf. Credit: Vanderburg, et al

The study notes that about 6% of white dwarfs seem to pause their rate of cooling. This is likely due to a process known as distillation. Although the core of a white dwarf doesn’t undergo fusion, there are still processes such as radioactive decay and other nuclear interactions. As neutron-rich isotopes such as neon-22 distill, the interior of the white dwarf shifts, releasing a great deal of gravitational energy. This continues to heat the star, allowing it to maintain its temperature.

The team found that this distillation process can pause the cooling of a white dwarf for 10 billion years, meaning that the habitable zone of the white dwarf would be stable for that time. That’s roughly the same timespan as the lifetime of the Sun, so there would be plenty of time for life to evolve and thrive. This only occurs in a fraction of white dwarfs, but it means that our search for life on white dwarf stars should focus on those with paused cooling.

Reference: Vanderburg, Andrew, et al. “Long-lived Habitable Zones around White Dwarfs undergoing Neon-22 Distillation.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06613 (2025).

The post White Dwarfs Pause Their Cooling, Giving Planets a Second Chance for Habitability appeared first on Universe Today.

All of us who have taken heterodox positions on even a single issue are liable to be tarred using accusations of guilt by association. Because I think that trans-identifying men should not be allowed to compete in sports against (biological) women, and that such trans people therefore don’t have exactly the same unlimited “rights” as  biological women, I am therefore often called a “transphobe”, allied with those nutjobs who don’t want trans people to have any rights—or even allied with Nazis. This of course is not an argument, but a simple slur that avoids the ethical issues, and it’s thoughtless, though such arguments do convince some of the witless. (If you want to see a site whose whole method is to go after people—especially Steve Pinker—by showing who they’ve met or are otherwise associated with, go here. The author of that site appears to know nothing of science, but uses association with hereditarians as a sign of being an overall horrible person: a “ghoul” or a “grifter.” LOL.)

Alan Sokal has pointed out the stupidity of guilt-by-association arguments in a short piece in The Critic (click below, or find it archived here):

Sokal’s introductory story is about a 12-year-old boy demonized by his teacher because he made a comment that reminded her of Margaret Thatcher. And that’s how it goes: back then, being like Thatcher in even one misconstrued way was enough to damn you to hell. Sokal then segues, unsurprisingly, into the demonizing regularly practiced by sex and gender extremists:

I’m no fan of Margaret Thatcher — to put it mildly — but should it really be a surprise that on some issues she might have the same ideas as pinko me? Is it truly so difficult for us lefties to concede that the conservatives might occasionally — OK, very occasionally — be right? (And of course vice versa.) Have we all now become so politically tribal that we are unable — or simply unwilling — to evaluate ideas on their merits?

[Philosopher Arianne] Shahvisi’s recounting of this story did not, of course, come out of the blue. The context was an essay of hers in which she accused “gender critical feminists” (the scare quotes are hers) of “fairy-tale fear-mongering that puts them in league with the far right”. One reader objected to “yet another article belittling gender critical feminists in your pages”:

Many who consider themselves left-leaning progressives are branded as being ‘in league with the far right’ for their opposition to an ideology which they regard as a dangerously regressive move by patriarchal capitalism to seize control of, and profit from, the bodies of children (increasingly young girls) and women.

— adding, astutely, that “it is telling that trans men are relatively invisible in all this: no one is chanting ‘Trans men are men’”. Unfazed by this exposure of her conflation of two radically different ideologies, Shahvisi doubled down on guilt-by-association, using her childhood story as “evidence”.

Sokal shouldn’t need to point out the obvious, but this tactic is ubiquitous these days, and we shouldn’t even engage in argument with people who judge people’s views solely by who those people associate with, or what magazines they sometimes read:

There is, in reality, nothing surprising or objectionable about the fact that people who disagree on issues X, Y and Z might nevertheless find themselves in agreement on issue W. Indeed, it is the contrary — unanimity of views within each tribe, with no overlap between them — that ought to be surprising and disconcerting.

But serious ethical and pragmatic questions nevertheless arise whenever one finds that people with whom one is ordinarily in disagreement — and whose ultimate goals differ radically from one’s own — may be on the same side as oneself on one or more discrete questions of public policy. Should one cooperate with “the other side” on those particular issues? And if so, to what extent?

Well, I regularly find myself tucked in bed with extreme conservatives, but that, to me, is not a problem, I just give my own views, and work on my own, not really “cooperating” with anybody. That’s one way to at least mitigate the tarring by association. I’ll quote Sokal at length when he extends Shahvisi’s argument:

So let’s follow Shahvisi’s example, but first set the facts straight by specifying more accurately what each tribe believes. Gender-critical feminists want to abolish, or at least to weaken, prescriptive gender norms: they want to liberate people of both sexes to pursue their own interests and talents and to follow their predilections, without regard to sex-based stereotypes or statistics. Social conservatives want to strengthen prescriptive gender norms: to reestablish a world in which men are masculine and women are feminine, in the traditional senses of the words, and everyone is at least publicly heterosexual. (These are, it goes without saying, broad-strokes generalizations; there are of course many differences of emphasis and detail within each camp.) The two philosophies are thus diametrically opposed[1].

But, despite this deep overall conflict, can there sometimes exist small points of agreement between the two tribes? Yes, there can; and this gives rise to serious dilemmas.

Should gender-critical feminists cooperate with social conservatives to ensure that post-pubescent people engaged in competitive sports should play in the category of their biological sex, not their self-declared “gender identity”? Or to ensure that puberty blockers should not ordinarily be prescribed to minors as a treatment for gender dysphoria outside of registered clinical trials?

To me the answer is obvious, at least for myself: you cannot cooperate with extreme social conservatives without giving at least some credibility to their other views—views with which you don’t agree (I would note my pro-choice stands and lifelong affiliation as a Democrat).  I will say what I think about puberty blockers (they shouldn’t be used till age 18 or so), and if conservatives want to quote me, fine. But I am not a member of any conservative organization that takes this stand, though I am friends with a group of like-minded liberals who have some gender-critical views.

Sokal winds up with the right conclusion, though: argue about policies and facts, not about associations.  Since I’m somewhat hermitic by nature, I don’t really cooperate with many organizations, and those I cooperate with, like Heterodox Academy or FIRE, have views I largely agree with.

The answer to these questions is far from obvious. But worrying about guilt by association — and worrying, above all, about the opprobrium emanating from those who, like Shahvisi and Judith Butler[2], wield it as a political weapon — mislocates the problem. Instead, what is needed is level-headed political analysis. The first and primary question is: What are the merits and demerits of the proposed policy? And if it appears that the merits outweigh the demerits, then the second question is: Do the short-term gains from tactical cooperation with “the opposition” outweigh the potential long-term liabilities? The pros and cons need to be assessed and argued carefully, not assumed a priori. People who conclude in good faith that the balance falls on the “pro” side (or, for that matter, on the “con” side) may of course be wrong — and it is perfectly fair to criticise their conclusion and their reasoning — but they should not be tarred as traitors, sell-outs or worse.

By contrast, the whole point of invoking guilt by association is precisely to circumvent this discussion — not only to circumvent the second step, but above all to circumvent the first: to denigrate the proposed policy, and render it anathema to all fair-minded people, without having to address its merits and demerits. That approach — need this really be said? — ought to be repugnant to anyone who advocates a thoughtful politics.

h/t: Jez

Meteorologists expected global temperatures to start falling after record highs in 2023 and 2024 – instead January 2025 hit a new high

Using traditional crossbreeding, researchers have created a new strain of rice that produces much less methane, a potent greenhouse gas, when it is grown in flooded fields

Taking a daily omega-3 supplement appears to slow down the rate of biological ageing by three months – and even more so if you also take vitamin D and exercise

Mars's moon Phobos is so strange that no one knows how it formed. But a forthcoming mission could solve this mystery - and a host of other puzzles connected to the solar system's deep past

Where do I begin with a piece so ridiculous, so imbued with superstition, and so dependent on seeing “truth” as “what makes you feel good”, that it would take hours to properly dissect it? I suppose I can say that this long op-ed by NYT columnist Ross Douthat, a religious Catholic and a conservative, seems to be of a piece with a new movement among liberals: softness towards religion.  All over the MSM, which includes the NYT and even The Free Press, we see articles telling us—despite the rise of “nones”—that we must have religion to keep society together; and (check the Free Press link), scholars, intellectuals, and public figures like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Jordan Peterson are become more explicitly religious. They apparently have realized something that’s escaped the rest of us. Examine your belly, and perhaps you’ll see the “god-shaped hole” invariably mentioned in these articles.

In this piece (click below or find the piece archived her , Douthat tells us that, if we’re without faith, we have to fix that situation immediately. And then he tells us how to go about choosing a faith.  Speaking personally, I can’t find my god-shaped hole, nor do I feel I need a faith to improve my well being or give meaning to my life. Moreover, I don’t understand how, if I were to follow Douthat’s instructions and find a congenial faith (his is Catholicism, but he says others will do), I could force myself to believe something that I find unbelievable.  Perhaps some propagandizing, á la Orwell, could do it, but nobody wants that kind of treatment.

First, though, I give the data from a Pew Survey of America’s “nones”—people without a formal religious affiliation—from 2007 till now. You can see a more or less steady rise over time, with a stasis or even a drop occurring rarely, and then a 3% drop between 2022 and 2023.  I suppose that people like Douthat are pinning their “god-shaped hole” hypothesis on this one year of data, as if people in 2022 suddenly realized that their lives lacked meaning without God.  But seriously, we’d need more data than this to show that Americans are becoming less religious. My own guess is that “nones” will resume their increase, and then level off at an asymptote that is higher, representing a level of agnosticism or atheism that won’t be exceeded because there are some people that really do need religion or inherit it from their parents.

Remember, too, that some of these “nones” are spiritual, panthesists, or believers in something numinous or supernatural; they’re simply those people unaffiliated with a church. But even atheists and agnostics have grown; as Wikipedia notes in its article on “Irreligion in the United States“:

According to Pew, all three subgroups that together make up the religious “nones” have grown over time: in 2021, atheists were 4% (up from 2% in 2011), 5% agnostics (3% a decade before) and 20% “nothing in particular” (14% ten years before).  In 2023, atheists are still 4%.

Here are the nones:

Other countries are even more irreligious: here’s another Pew-file-derived map from 2010: 15 years ago, showing the percentage of “nones. Many countries then, like Australia, Canada most of Western Europe and Scandinavia, and of course China (formerly a godless Communist land) have more nones than America, and this trend is also increasing.

File licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

Here’s a figure from the WaPo showing the rise of atheism (not “nones”) in Iceland, and it’s striking: there are more nonbelievers than believers.

As for other countries in Scandinavia, I urge you to read Phil Zuckerman’s book Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment.  The book is based on interviews of Danes and Swedes, and the Amazon summary notes this:

What he found is that nearly all of his interviewees live their lives without much fear of the Grim Reaper or worries about the hereafter. This led him to wonder how and why it is that certain societies are non-religious in a world that seems to be marked by increasing religiosity. Drawing on prominent sociological theories and his own extensive research, Zuckerman ventures some interesting answers. This fascinating approach directly counters the claims of outspoken, conservative American Christians who argue that a society without God would be hell on earth. It is crucial, Zuckerman believes, for Americans to know that “society without God is not only possible, but it can be quite civil and pleasant.”

Indeed, and it’s not as if the Icelanders, Danes, and Swedes have frantically turned to crystals, reiki, or other forms of woo to fill that God-shaped hole. As Zuckerman tells us, Danes and Swedes have found meaning in their life by living a secular existence. I suspect that is the case for many readers here, too. 

 

All this is to show that, at least in the West, religion is on the decline, and people like Douthat ignore all the data showing that. Rather, they are promoting faith because the world is not a particularly great place right now (some of it has to do with Trump, some with the wars in Ukraine and Gaza), and also because they are “believers in belief”, those who either aren’t religious but like the “little people” argument for belief, or, alternatively those who want to justify their own belief by showing how it helped them and could help others. I do think that religion can help some people, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who suffered from depression, but that in general it is a societal impairment: a form of delusion that we really can do without (see Pinker’s Enlightenment Now: The case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress).

On to Douthat’s Big Push for Faith:

The first thing he does is to assert, without any proof or links, that religion is on the rise and “nones” on the wane (I urge you to check out the link below):

The long rise of the Nones, Americans with no religious affiliation, has seemingly reached its limit, and a fascination with the numinous shadows our culture once again. Within the intelligentsia there is a wave of notable conversions and a striking nostalgia for belief.

The link goes to a Free Press article full of anecdotes: notable people like Jordan Peterson and Hirsi Ali who have become religious. But of course this says nothing about the general trend.  He then dismisses atheism, which is a bad thing to do.  Why go looking for the “right” religion for you when there is no evidence for a God? Later Douthat says that we don’t need to find a religion whose epistemic claims are true, but, for crying out loud, it’s a “god-shaped hole” and you must fill it by finding a religion with a god.  My definition of religion has always been Dan Dennett’s take from his book Breaking the Spell:

“social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought”

Now this may not apply to some forms of faith, like Zen Buddhism, but it’s good enough for me as it covers all the Abrahamic faiths as well as faiths like Hinduism. And remember, Douthat is concerned with filling the god-shaped hole to give our lives meaning:

The ultimate goal of the sincere religious quest is a relationship or an experience of grace that can’t be obtained through reasoning alone. But for the open-minded person who hasn’t received divine direction, a religious quest can still be a rational undertaking — not a leap into pure mystery but a serious endeavor with a real hope of making progress toward the truth.

Here we see another problem: Douthat never defines what “truth” is.  He dismisses the need to choose religions based on the empirical truth of their tenets, so I suppose he means the slippery notion of a “true” religion is “one that feels right.” And that’s how he largely proceeds in this tedious article.

To dispose of the need for empirical truths when choosing a faith, Douthat simply says that they’re all true in a way, but some are more true than others—that is, some feel more right than others:

The starting place for this endeavor is the recognition that Dawkins is simply wrong about the requirement for believers to disbelieve in every other faith. The bookstore of all religions isn’t necessarily a library of total falsehoods with one lonely truth hidden somewhere on the shelves, and embracing one revelation doesn’t require believing that every other religion is made up.

A sincere believer in Hindu polytheism, for instance, doesn’t need to assume that the singular God of the monotheistic faiths is just a fiction: Jehovah might be one deity among many, whose powers were exaggerated by his adherents but whose deeds were entirely real. Or alternatively a Hindu might interpret his faith’s pantheon as localized expressions of a single ultimate divinity and regard the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as a way of personifying that divinity as well.

. . .So the religious seeker, looking out across a diverse religious landscape, should assume that there exist less-true and more-true schools of thought, not one truth and a million fictions. And this suggests, crucially, that even if you start in what turns out to be a wronger-than-average place, you can still draw closer to ultimate reality by conforming yourself to whatever that tradition still gets right.

What does he mean by “gets right”?  But wait! There’s more!

. . . .This principle does not presume that all religions are identical, that there is no scenario in which any soul is ever lost. (Certainly it was not a matter of indifference to Lewis whether people worshiped Aslan or Tash.) The idea, rather, is that if God ordered the universe for human beings, then even a flawed religion will probably contain intimations of that reality — such that a sincere desire to find and know the truth will find some kind of reward.

Yep, any religion can fill part of that hole, perhaps not as neatly as a jigsaw puzzle, but better than atheism could.

He concludes that the more popular religions are more likely to be “true”, but that could be tautological if you define “truth” as “satisfying psychological needs”.  I still define “truth” as “what exists in the universe and can reliably be confirmed by others,” or, as the OED says:

Something that conforms with fact or reality.

NOT “something that makes you psychologically satisified”. That definition isn’t in there! Saying the more popular religions are more true is meaningless.  Douthat:

This doesn’t imply, however, that a religious search should begin at random. Rather, you should start the way you would in any other arena, by looking for wisdom in crowded places, in collective insights rather than just individual ones, in traditions that have inspired civilizations, not temporary communities.

If this sounds like an argument that the more popular and enduring world religions are more likely than others to be true, that’s exactly what I’m arguing.

Yes, if a new revelation suddenly arrives, there will be a moment when the truest faith will be one of the smallest. But if a faith claims to be much truer than the competition, it’s reasonable to expect proof of those qualities to emerge on a reasonable timeline, to see world-historical and not just individual effects. So for the novice, it makes sense to start with religions in which those effects are already manifest and there’s no question that the faith has staying power.

Here he seems to see “truth” as the OED sees it: a “true” religion makes empirical claims (“conforming with fact or reality”) that are verifiable.  But in that case no religion is truer than others!  And we all know about the conflicting empirical claims of even the major Abrahamic faiths: who was the prophet, was Jesus resurrected, what miracles were done, and so on.

I don’t want to repeat the criteria Douthat gives for choosing the best faith for you. (For example, if you don’t want too much supernatural stuff, he suggests you choose a more humanistic religion.) But there always has to be a god in it, and absent any convincing evidence for such a being (again, Douthat doesn’t discuss this), I don’t know why you should go choosing a religion in the first place, since all of them (according to my definition) include that supernatural being.

He moves more towards Christianity, of course, because he’s a Catholic.

Or the big question might be: How has God acted in history? In that case, you don’t want to start at the end of things, comparing the systems that the followers of Jesus or Muhammad or Buddha constructed to explain the revelation. You want to start with the taproot — with the allegedly divine person, the allegedly sacred book, the historical credibility of the story and the immediate consequences for the world.

If you have no strong reaction to the core stories, you can step back and use other questions to chart your path. But if you find Jesus to be a remarkable figure and the Gospels shockingly credible, if God speaks to you through the Bhagavad Gita or the Quran or the Pentateuch, if Buddha’s teaching seems like the answer to the riddles of your life — well, you probably shouldn’t simply return to the more abstract questions.

No: If you feel yourself to have a completely open mind and suddenly a specific text or figure leaps out at you, then you should take the possibility that God is speaking to you seriously; at the very least, it’s a signal that this is where you’re supposed to start.

But again: what is the evidence that God exists, much less than he’s speaking to you personally? Finally, Douthat winds up with a story that sort of pulls the reader towards Jesus:

Consider the story of religious pilgrimage offered recently by the British novelist Paul Kingsnorth. Raised to experience his isle’s Christianity as a hopeless antiquarianism, he found that spiritual interests grew naturally out of his environmentalism, which led into a commitment to Zen Buddhism, which lasted years but felt insufficient, lacking (he felt) a mode of true worship.

He found that worship in actual paganism, and he went so far as to become a priest of Wicca, a practitioner of what he took to be white magic. At which point, and only at that point, he began to feel impelled toward Christianity — by coincidence and dreams, ideas and arguments and some stark mystical experiences as well.

But it would have been unimaginable to him at the start of the journey that the Christian faith imparted to him weakly in his childhood — that “ancient, tired religion” as he put it — could have possibly been his destination in the end. Only the act of questing delivered him back to the initial place, no longer old and tired but fresh and new.

Clearly, Kingsnorth found the truth!

In the end, I consider the whole piece worthless given the lack of definition of a “true” religion and the slippery alternation between truth seen as psychological comfort and truth seen in the empirical sense as what really exists. And, of course, shouldn’t you begin your quest with evidence for god in hand?

At the conclusion of the piece, we learn that this spate of advice is taken from an upcoming book by Douthat:

This essay is adapted from the forthcoming book “Believe: Why Everyone Should Be Religious.”

That is one book I’m not going to review. And really, could Douthat tell me why I should be religious? I don’t harbor a god-shaped hole nor do I feel that my life lacks meaning. Douthat just wants to know that he’s in good company, living in a fully religious world.

h/t: Barry

More than a decade of data about the particles zipping around our sun could be used to solve many mysteries, from the behaviour of individual particles to the history of our solar system – while raising new questions

Today we have the second installment (13 total) of Robert Lang‘s photos from his visit to Brazil’s Pantanal region. Robert’s captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them.

The Pantanal, Part II: Mammals

Continuing our mid-2025 journey to the Pantanal in Brazil, we saw quite a few different species of mammal, ranging from tiny monkeys to the giant anteater. Most of these sightings came from safari jeep trips, which we typically took twice a day. But not all; on one of our first river outings, we saw a giant river otter (Pteronura brasiliensis) chowing down on a fish. These guys get up to about six feet long—but they’re still adorable. (They’re one of the most endangered mammal species in the Neotropics, according to Wikipedia):

Even higher on the adorability scale was this crab-eating fox (Cerdocyon thous) mother and kits that we happened across. We watched the kits chew on their mother and each other and tumble around as the sun went down, and eventually they all wandered off into the grass. As regular readers know, true foxes are Honorary Cats, according to our host; these foxes are not closely related to true foxes, so their honorary feline status is, as yet, undetermined [JAC: I pronounce these Honorary Cats as well]:

Another contender for the cute-ness crown is the capuchin monkey (family Cebinae; I don’t know the species here). We usually saw these in groups, but they usually headed for the trees before we got close enough for good photos. I got this one, though:

Another small mammal that we saw quite a few of is the agouti (Dasyprocta sp.) It’s one of the larger rodents of South America:

But the largest species of rodent is the capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris), of which we saw many. In fact, they wandered around our cabins at one of the places we stayed. They seem like they’re always somewhere between chill and bored, and get up to 60–70 kilos in mass. The babies, though, rival the animals I’ve already shown for cuteness. (Baby animals will do that.)  [JAC: This is the world’s largest living rodent]:

On the larger side of things, there were a few types of deer. Here’s a pampas deer (Ozotoceros bezoarticus) buck:

And a gray brocket (Mazama gouazoubira):

A few non-natives, introduced by the ranchers who own most of the Pantanal. There are feral pigs (Sus domesticus), but we saw them only once or twice:

But we regularly saw cattle, which are the primary agricultural output of the Pantanal. Most of them are light-colored Zebuines (Bos indicus), a humped breed that can survive through the long dry season, but there are a smattering of other breeds around:

The local jaguars can and do take cattle on occasion, so some of the ranchers have added a water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), larger and more aggressive, to their herd, to discourage any jaguars lurking about:

But the largest—at least, by length, though not weight—of the mammal sightings was the relatively rare giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla). We had two sightings of those, one of which we were able to approach on foot from downwide (their eyesight is terrible, but their sense of smell is acute); that was a lucky treat:

Coming soon: reptiles, invertebrates, and birds, birds, birds.

Dylan Curious is an bright and enthusiastic fellow, and he has a great YouTube channel focused on what is happening in AI around the world. But Dylan’s curiosity doesn’t stop there. Having read and enjoyed Waves in an Impossible Sea (twice!), he wanted to learn more… so he and I had a great conversation about humans and the universe for about 90 minutes. Don’t let the slightly odd title deter you; we covered a broad set of interesting topics of relevance to 21st century life, including

• In what sense is all motion relative?
• Why haven’t we already encountered intelligent life from other stars?
• Might we live in a simulation?
• Could the universe have glitches akin to what happens in computer games?
• Should the language of science be reconsidered?
• Are the particles we’re made of really waves?

Dylan is fun to talk to and I’m sure you’ll enjoy our discussion. And follow him, as I do, as a way of keeping up with the fast-changing AI landscape!

When you look at Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s "Make America Healthy Again" movement, there is a notable echo of an idea once promoted by Oprah Winfrey, namely The Secret, combined with antivax and alt-med tropes.

The post MAHA: Echoes of The Secret first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.