science

We’re not sure if it’s exciting or not that scientists just discovered new ‘lifeforms’ inside of our bodies. Tiny bits of RNA, smaller than a virus, colonize bacteria inside our mouths and guts and have the power to transfer information that can be read by a cell.

Dubbed ‘wildly weird’ by the team of Stanford scientists writing about the find in Nature, the discovery now has a name: obelisks. And we ... don’t really know their end goal.

“It’s insane,” said Mark Peifer, a cell and developmental biologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, according to Science. “The more we look, the more crazy things we see.”

Named obelisks because of their rod-shaped structures, they are even smaller than viruses, but they can still transmit instructions to cells. What they’re saying, however, we just don’t know.

It looks more like a worn sock than a fearsome predator. It moves slower than an escalator. By most accounts, it is a clumsy and near-sightless relic drifting in the twilight waters of the Arctic, lazily searching for food scraps.

But the Greenland shark, an animal one researcher (lovingly) said, “looks like it’s already dead”, is also one of the least understood, biologically enigmatic species on the planet.

But this month, scientists made a groundbreaking discovery: the sharks are not, in fact, blind. The newly published findings upend commonly held beliefs and expose the challenges of studying a shark that has long resisted the reaches of science. But the disruptive nature of the research also underscores the challenges scientists face in predicting how a rapidly changing climate might harm or help the elusive fish.

Podcasts provide highly diverse content to a massive listener base through a unique on- demand modality. However, limited data has prevented large-scale computational analysis of the podcast ecosystem. To fill this gap, we introduce a massive dataset of over 1.1M pod- cast transcripts that is largely comprehensive of all English language podcasts available through public RSS feeds from May and June of 2020. This data is not limited to text, but includes metadata, inferred speaker roles, and audio fea- tures and speaker turns for a subset of 370K episodes. Using this data, we conduct a founda- tional investigation into the content, structure, and responsiveness of this ecosystem. Together, our data and analyses open the door to contin- ued computational research of this popular and impactful medium.

Link to the study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-03097-0

Per the article,

"These sharks appear to have adapted their physiology to be able to optimize their energy use," Prof. Rummer said. "This work challenges the narrative that when things go wrong—such as warming oceans—that reproduction will be the first thing to go.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.nz/post/33287055

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/45811590

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/45810913

Cows are not usually credited with thinking on the hoof. They eat, they chew, they stand in fields performing an activity that may look like contemplation but is generally written off as digestion.

They are not typically thought to plan, let alone solve problems. A new study suggests we may have underestimated them.

The research describes what experts claim is the first documented case of flexible, multi-purpose tool use in cattle, observed in a cow named Veronika.

...

Veronika is a Swiss brown cow kept not for milk or meat but as a pet by Witgar Wiegele, an organic farmer and baker in Austria. More than a decade ago he noticed her using a long-handled brush, holding it in her mouth to scratch awkward parts of her body.

When video footage of this behaviour reached Alice Auersperg, a cognitive biologist at the University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, it struck her as unusual, largely because Veronika used the brush in different ways to scratch different parts of her body.

“It was immediately clear that this was not accidental,” Auersperg said. “This was a meaningful example of tool use in a species that is rarely considered from a cognitive perspective.”

Auersperg and her colleague Antonio Osuna-Mascaró conducted a series of trials. They placed a long-handled brush on the ground and recorded how Veronika used it.

...

When scratching broad, thick-skinned regions such as her back or rump, Veronika tended to use the bristled end, applying it with sweeping, forceful movements. When targeting softer, more sensitive areas of her lower body, she switched to using the handle to scratch herself, moving more slowly.

Because Veronika directs tools at her own body, researchers describe this as egocentric tool use, which is usually regarded as less complex than tool use aimed at external objects. Even so, flexible, multi-purpose use of a single tool is rare. Outside humans, it has previously been demonstrated convincingly only in chimpanzees, the researchers say in their paper.

They wrote in a study published in the journal Current Biology that the findings “invite a reassessment of livestock cognition”.

...

The researchers suspect that Veronika’s life circumstances have played a role in the emergence of this behaviour. Most cows do not reach her age and they are rarely given the opportunity to interact with a variety of potentially useful objects.

Her long lifespan, daily contact with humans, and access to a rich physical landscape probably created favorable conditions, they said. If that is true, there may be nothing very exceptional about Veronika, other than the opportunities she has been given to exercise her brain.

...

Archive link

Byline: A study has outlined eight indicators of toxic masculinity in heterosexual men — and finds that ‘manliness’ is not necessarily a problematic aspect of masculinity.

How rife is the problem of ‘toxic masculinity’ in Western societies? A research study run in New Zealand has found that only a small percentage of men surveyed fell into the worst category of hostile toxicity — and that a desire to feel ‘manly’ wasn’t necessarily indicative that a person held socially damaging views.

In 2024, Sanders and his colleagues published a ‘toxic masculinity scale’, identifying 28 questions that assessed the degree of toxicity expressed by white male university students in the United States. Psychology doctoral candidate Deborah Hill Cone at the University of Auckland in New Zealand and her colleagues have now added to this with a more all-encompassing view of toxicity and a larger, broader sample of men in a study published in Psychology of Men & Masculinities.

The team dug into the results of the 2018–19 New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study, a broad survey with responses from nearly 50,000 people. More than 15,000 of the participants identified as heterosexual males and had answered relevant questions such as “being a woman/man is an important part of how I see myself” and “inferior groups should stay in their place”.

In a statistical analysis, the respondents fell into five groups. The good news is that only the smallest group (3.2% of the men) was characterized by the researchers as ‘hostile toxic’, whereas the largest group was ‘atoxic’ (35.4%)... Hill Cone and her colleagues found two moderate groups split between those who were more- or less-tolerant of people from sexual and gender minorities (LGBTQ+) , and a ‘benevolent toxic’ group, whose members got relatively high scores in measures of sexism but not in hostility... The odds of men in the sample having the hostile toxic profile were higher for those who were older, single, unemployed, religious or an ethnic minority, as well as those high on scales of political conservatism, economic deprivation or emotional dysregulation, or who had a low level of education... “The entitled rich tech bro or frat boy didn’t really appear” in the hostile toxic group, says Hill Cone. Instead, the hostile toxic group was made up mainly of marginalized, disadvantaged men... Importantly, how central ‘being a man’ was to someone’s sense of self wasn’t particularly predictive of which group they landed in. Although the men in the hostile toxic group did tend to report that their gender was important to them, so did many men in the other categories.

Of course as pointed out: this is a well-executed study but is only in New Zealand. Results may vary depending on location. Results are overall not surprising.

The two featured key studies are both open access:

• The toxic masculinity scale developed by Sanders et al.
• The featured study by Hill Cone et al. itself

"—a breakthrough that could significantly advance clean energy technologies and consumer electronics such as motors, robotics, MRI machines, data storage and smart phones."

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2023/11/twin-diet-vegan-cardiovascular.html

https://news.northeastern.edu/2026/01/07/string-theory-neuron-connections/