Philippa Kaur

Josie Ford
Hybrid learning
A man in a hide jerkin and disposable face mask sits knapping flints against the backdrop of an unaccountably large, bright red tractor. Rounding a corner, a 3-metre-high luminous yellow grinning gummy bear suddenly looms over us, from which we flee through a door into a side room where Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham is talking soulfully about 100 per cent renewable trams.
Not Feedback’s latest cheese dream – although close – but sure signs we were on the shop floor at New Scientist Live Manchester, as part of our drive to bring the office stationery cupboard to you.
Like many people, Feedback currently finds being in real places with real people a discombobulating experience that requires several deep-breathing exercises and us remembering to wear something on our bottom half. Many attendees in Manchester weren’t actually in Manchester, but watching it all from the safety of their own underpants at home, which brings its own challenges, it turns out. When digital attendees complain that the main stage is freezing, getting someone to turn up the thermostat in the hall doesn’t cut it. Lesson learned as the boundaries between the virtual and physical worlds slowly melt, as indeed the people in the hall did.Advertisement
The truth is out there
“Don’t think of a black hole as a Hoover, think of it as a couch cushion”. Astrophysicist Becky Smethurst – Dr Becky to her legion of YouTube fans – won the prize for the most unexpected metaphor of the event, her point being that you are less likely to get sucked into a black hole than to lose your car keys down the side of one. Or something like that.
Meanwhile, we were delighted to learn from Dallas Campbell and Suzie Imber’s talk on how to leave Earth about the 1638 book The Man in the Moone, written by Church of English bishop Francis Godwin, in which the protagonist flies to the moon in a chariot towed by moon geese. We would take this option, which strikes us as classier than the unspeakably vulgar rockets favoured by today’s billionaire class.
We also now know the current location of the first sandwich in space, what an industrial vacuum does to a marshmallow and how to make a rocket with half an Alka-Seltzer and a 35-millimetre film canister. That’s definitely one not to try at home. For anyone tempted, all the talks are available in the metaverse.
Going nuclear
The 3-metre-high mutant gummy bear was, it turns out, advertising the benefits of nuclear power. Feedback regards this as brave, as we also do the UK Atomic Energy Authority titling a talk “Nuclear Fusion: Forever 30 years away”.
Still, we learn that a gummy bear is about the same size as a uranium fuel pellet, that one fuel pellet produces enough power to drive an electric car 20,000 miles and so a 3-metre-high gummy bear would make enough electricity to power 2 million electric cars for a year in the UK. This makes us happy.
Blowing in the wind
Meanwhile, out in the real world, the real world was still going on. The gummy bear is possibly a more appropriate unit of power for a family magazine than that contained in a tweet from the Victorian Trades Hall Council that Paul Campbell forwards us following our session on “how big is a gigawatt?” in last week’s Feedback.
It celebrates the announcement of 2 gigawatts of wind power capacity to be installed off the Australian state’s coast in the coming 10 years, or as the tweet has it in an accompanying picture: “SH**LOADS OF POWER. SH**LOADS OF JOBS”.
Clue: it wasn’t “shed”. We idly wonder if this is now a unit of power and how many horses it would take to produce it. Around 2.7 million, we make it. They would be a truly magnificent sight riding in the waves, although we do wonder whether any of this counts as clean energy.
Butt out
While our back was turned, we also discover that a portion of Twitter declared 1 to 8 March InverteButt Week in celebration of the backsides of creatures without backbones.
We doubt the world truly needed this, but then again, with past headlines in this august publication such as “Comb jelly videos are rewriting the history of your anus”, perhaps people in glass houses shouldn’t throw… slugs.
This leads us to delve rather more deeply than we might otherwise have done into the lifestyle and morphology of the bristle worm Ramisyllis multicaudata, a detailed study of which, published last year, seems to have been a prime mover of InverteButt Week. The worm lives, with delightful specificity, within sponges in Darwin Harbour, northern Australia. Its single head is buried deep within the sponge, but its body randomly branches out into up to 1000 rear ends that poke hopefully out of it. The gut is continuous throughout all these branches, yet doesn’t seem to process any food, leading to speculation that the worm has “adopted a fungal lifestyle”.
This sounds pleasingly louche, like flying with the moon geese. Even more fun is that, when it comes to reproduction, new heads – complete with brains and eyes – start forming and bud off from the worm’s butts. Cute.
Got a story for Feedback?Send it to feedback@newscientist.com or New Scientist, Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TTConsideration of items sent in the post will be delayed
You can send stories to Feedback by email at feedback@newscientist.com. Please include your home address. This week’s and past Feedbacks can be seen on our website. More

Living for likes and subscribers can be a poisoned chalice or a dream come true, according to Get Rich or Lie Trying by journalist Symeon Brown

Humans

16 March 2022

By Chris Stokel-Walker

THE influencer economy, fuelled by the ability of social media to instantly reach millions of people, has changed the way we work, rest and play. For some, the rise of this new way to make a living has been a boon – demolishing gatekeepers, minting a new era of celebrities and making millionaires of people who might otherwise be trapped in a dead-end job.
But this has been far from a uniformly good thing for society. As Channel 4 News journalist Symeon Brown uncovers in Get Rich or Lie Trying, the seedy side of social media can be as harmful as it is helpful.
Brown’s reporting sees him go back to the streets of London where he grew up to hear from school friends who have fallen prey to pyramid schemes dressed up as online cryptocurrency investments. He also heads to Los Angeles, where he meets nipped and tucked influencers seeking the perfect body, often ruining their health in the process.
Get Rich or Lie Trying is a chastening read, clearly showing that the lowlights of online fame are as depressing as its highlights are inspiring. Brown races through the influencer economy and the different industries it touches, from the sweatshops churning out poor-quality clothing to ensure that scrolling teenagers can keep up with the latest red carpet looks on a budget, to the surgeons that perform Brazilian butt lifts, a risky procedure where fat is taken from other parts of the body and injected into the buttocks.
At times, Brown hurtles through first-person stories so fast that there is hardly a chance to blink. Those he highlights as exploiting social media – or being exploited by it – sometimes pass by too quickly for us to remember who they are or why we should care. It feels a bit like the relentless hamster wheel of the algorithms that drive social media platforms, and the whole experience can become a bit discombobulating.
At times, you struggle to see who to feel sorrier for: the young woman cajoled into performing a sex act on camera, or the man who is paid to receive insults online. Sometimes, they blur into a catalogue of horrors that becomes difficult to unpick and reflect on.
The book’s stronger sections are those that bring the action closer to home and address some deeper, more systemic issues. A chapter on how social media’s unique voice is often driven by authentic Black voices that are then co-opted and copied by richer, white entrepreneurs without qualms is particularly powerful, and begins to tackle wider problems entrenched in social media.
Elsewhere in the book, the bigger picture is lacking, however. We know, for example, that the drive to achieve physical “perfection” is an issue, and research has made clear both the role that social media platforms play in perpetuating this and the effects of such ideals on mental and physical health. Yet Brown spends surprisingly little time questioning what can be done about the broken bodies and livelihoods left behind in the race to get famous on social media, or even who is to blame.
The book does a much better job of highlighting just how perilous living a life designed to go viral can be – and how quickly the thing that made you famous can become passé. It raises important questions about the value we place on superficial appearances, and how social media all too often encourages us to sacrifice thinking deeply in favour of a neat sound bite.
Overall, Get Rich or Lie Trying is well worth reading – but, like social media, at times it would do well to go deeper and dwell a little longer.

More on these topics: More

By Sam Wong
Zhanna Tretiakova/Alamy
IF YOU eat at fancy places, you may have encountered orbs of sauce or puree, held inside a membrane, that burst in your mouth. Making them involves a little chemistry, but it can be done at home.
Now a staple of modernist cuisine, the spherification technique was patented in 1942 by food scientist William Peschardt and later popularised by chef Ferran Adrià at El Bulli restaurant in north-east Spain in the 2000s.
To try it, you need two special ingredients that can be ordered online. One is a salt called sodium alginate, which comes from brown algae. Alginate is formed … More

The threats of cyberwarfare and online disinformation loom over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but even in this online age, war is still life or death for those in the firing line

Humans

| Leader

16 March 2022

Sean Gallup/Getty Images
THE ever-growing threats of cyberwarfare and online disinformation are now in the spotlight amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. With the NATO military alliance reluctant to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine, or engage in any other actions that could ignite a much wider conflict, the internet has inevitably become a key battleground.
But that isn’t to say there haven’t been surprises. On page 8, one expert expresses shock at the volume of online fake news about the war. Clearly, the invasion isn’t the first war associated with this issue – researchers and think tanks have also monitored online propaganda in other recent conflicts, including in Syria and Libya – but it is … More

Netflix’s new film about recent Boeing plane crashes is a damning account of why the disasters happened and who was responsible

Humans

16 March 2022

By Elle Hunt

AS STORM Eunice buffeted much of the UK last month, a surprising focal point emerged: the live webcam stream of arrivals at London Heathrow Airport. At one point, 200,000 viewers tuned in to watch passenger planes struggle against the wind to land safely.
This mixture of fascination and fear typifies our relationship with flying. It feels risky, but we don’t really expect a crash.
Downfall: The Case Against Boeing, directed by Rory Kennedy and new to Netflix after a positive reception at Sundance in January, opens with the usual reassurances about the safety of air travel: tens of thousands of flights pass without incident daily all over the world. Many of these use Boeing planes, a fact that, until recently, was considered to be a good thing. Trust in the company was such that there was a phrase in the aviation industry: “If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going.”
[embedded content]
Then, in October 2018, all that changed. A Lion Air flight crashed into the sea with 189 people on board, minutes after departing from Jakarta in Indonesia. All passengers and crew were killed. Five months later, an Ethiopian Airlines plane crashed in similar circumstances, and with a similarly tragic outcome. The type of plane in both cases was a 737 Max, a recently released update of the Boeing 737.
These crashes brought to an end the safest period for commercial flying in the history of aviation. It also cast doubt on Boeing’s reputation as a model of safety and the premier aeroplane manufacturer in the US.
The black box of the Lion Air flight revealed a failure of the “angle-of-attack” sensor that measures the angle of the nose ofthe plane while in flight. Simulations and testimony from pilots paint a sickening picture of the desperate battle to regain control of the aircraft.
Boeing traced this to a software failure: an erroneous activation of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), new to the 737 Max. Pilots could have switched it off, had they known it existed. But Boeing hadn’t told them it was a feature of the updated 737, let alone trained them on it.
The former Wall Street Journal reporter Andy Pasztor, who acts as the audience’s guide through the story, says a senior executive at Boeing told him that the airline “didn’t want to overwhelm” pilots.
The anger of pilots and unions at this omission seems justified. Dennis Tajer at the Allied Pilots Association calls it “disrespectful”, adding: “You want to know as much about your airplane as possible.”
In the fallout, Boeing, having previously enjoyed its position as the pilots’ advocate, briefed journalists against Lion Air and the flight’s pilot, Bhavye Suneja, saying (to quote Pasztor) that “an American pilot would never have gotten into this kind of a situation”. The testimony of Suneja’s widow stands in dignified contrast to this. “I knew my husband. I knew how he flew,” she says.
“Simulations paint a sickening picture of the desperate battle to regain control of the aircraft”
After the first crash, while a software fix was in the works, 737 Maxes continued to fly. Then came the Ethiopian Airlines crash. The US Federal Aviation Administration did nothing, but many countries grounded the 737 Max planes, and put pressure on then US president Donald Trump to take action.
The subsequent government investigation found “repeated and serious failures” by Boeing. In November 2021, the airline admitted total responsibility for the Ethiopian Airlines crash.
Boeing’s contribution to the film is limited to a supplied statement in corporate-ese at the end. Combined with the depth of research, this lack of participation makes the film seem like a damning report rather than a one-sided one.
Downfall is a brisk, level-headed account of a company’s colossal failing, and the lengths that it will go to preserve reputation and profit margins, even at the expense of safety. But what makes it memorable viewing is the reminder of the trust we need when we take to the skies.

More on these topics: More

A new family tree of apes that lived in the Miocene between 23 and 5.3 million years ago reveals which are our close relatives and which are only distant cousins

Humans

16 March 2022

By Michael Marshall
Dryopithecus, an extinct ape from the MioceneJOHN SIBBICK/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY
A huge study of fossil apes clarifies which extinct species are most closely related to humans. But it can’t resolve one of the most controversial questions in human evolution: whether the last common ancestor we shared with living African apes like chimpanzees lived in Africa or Eurasia.
Primatologist Kelsey Pugh at the American Museum of Natural History in New York looked at apes that lived during the Miocene epoch, between 23 and 5.3 million years ago. She focused on those from the middle … More

The current reference human genome is based on a handful of people but the new Pangenome project will incorporate DNA from hundreds of people all around the world

Humans

16 March 2022

By Michael Marshall
DNA sequence dataShutterstock / Gio.tto
The human genome is being sequenced again – but better. A new project to read DNA from a large number of people has launched, with the aim of sequencing the “pangenome”, a version of the genome that reflects the full genetic diversity of our species.
The human genome, the set of DNA that every person carries in their cells, was first read or “sequenced” between 1990 and 2001. However, this first genome was incomplete because many chunks couldn’t be reconstructed. Geneticists have improved it since, with the last major … More

A psychological study shows people can be over-confident in their ability to perform tasks for which they have no formal training

Humans

16 March 2022

By Christa Lesté-Lasserre
Pilot working through a simulation a simulation exerciseChris Urso/Tampa Bay Times/ZUMA Wire/Alamy
People can be so confident they can teach themselves skills they actually lack – including the ability to land a commercial jet – that they could actually put themselves and other people in serious danger.
“People think, ‘Well, if it really mattered, like in an emergency, I could land the plane’,” says Maryanne Garry at the University of Waikato, in New Zealand. “But … that requires skills that most people just don’t have.”
Garry and her colleagues enlisted 780 volunteers for their psychological study. Half of the study participants were asked to watch an approximately 4-minute-long silent YouTube video showing two commercial pilots landing a plane in a mountainous area.Advertisement
The scientists then gave each participant a hypothetical scenario:
Imagine you are on a small commuter plane. Due to an emergency, the pilot is incapacitated and you are the only person left to land the plane.
They then asked the participants how confident they would feel – on a percentage scale – about responding to the situation.
They found that people who had watched the video were up to 30 per cent more confident in their ability to land a plane without dying, compared to the confidence ratings of people who had not watched the video. But even people who had not watched the video gave themselves an average confidence score of 29 per cent for their ability to land the plane without dying, says Garry.
Some participants who watched the video were asked prior to doing so how confident they were they could land the plane as well as any trained pilot. After watching the video, their self-confidence rose: they were up to 38 per cent more confident that they could perform as well as any trained pilot. In general, men were significantly more confident in their abilities than women were, she adds.

The results were particularly surprising, the researchers say, given that the respondents in general were convinced that landing a plane requires a great deal of expertise. They ranked the required skill level for landing a plane at an average of 4.4 out of 5, says Garry. Trained pilots learn to land planes after hundreds of hours of training and education in physics, engineering, and meteorology, she adds.
Garry says the findings suggest that people “tend to inflate their confidence about certain things” as a result of what she calls a “rapid illusion”, meaning they see images that make them believe they are capable of feats for which they actually have no skill. She adds that the findings suggest this applies to a “disturbing proportion of ordinary people”.
While overconfidence has its benefits – for example, giving people a boost that helps them take on life’s challenges – it can also be detrimental when it puts people’s lives in danger, says Kayla Jordan, also at the University of Waikato.
“It’s pretty surprising that people become more confident they could carry out this highly-specialised feat – while at the same time telling us they know that landing a plane requires a great deal of expertise,” says Jordan.
Journal reference: Royal Society Open Science, DOI: 10.1098/rsos.211977

More on these topics: More