Really embarrassing also for the journals that published the papers – and which are as guilty. They take ridiculously massive amounts of money to publish articles (publication cost for one article easily surpasses the cost of a high-end business laptop), and they don’t even check them properly?

As most who have already commented here, I’m somewhat unimpressed (and would expect more analytical subtlety from a scientist). Wittgenstein already fully dissected the notion of “free will”, showing its semantic variety of meanings and how at some depth it becomes vague and unclear. And Nietzsche discussed why “punishment” is necessary and makes sense even in a completely deterministic world… Sad that such insights are forgotten by many scientists. Often unclear if some scientists want to deepen our understanding of things, or just want sensationalism. Maybe a bit of both…

dealt untold damage onto the collective psyche

Couldn’t think of a better way to put it!!

Unfortunately the original article is based on statistical methods that are today acknowledged, by a large number of statisticians, to be flawed (see this official statement and this editorial of the American Statistical Association). So the findings might be correct, and yet again they might not be.

Fantastic, thank you!

Absolutely amazing!! I suppose you’ve seen some renderings like this one.

However, these molecules don’t really have a will or a scope, and in fact I don’t like how they are deceivingly represented in some of these animations. These animations show, say, some aminoacid that goes almost straight towards some large molecule and does this and that. And one is left with the question: how does it get there and how does it “know” that it should get there? The answer is that it’s just immersed in water and moved about by the unsystematic motion of the water molecules. Some aminoacids go here, some go there. In these animations they only show the ones that end up connecting with the large molecule. OK, this is done just to simplify the visualization, but it can also be misleading.

Similarly with molecules like kinesin, which seem to purposely walk around. Also in that case there’s a lot of unsystematic motion, that after a while ends in a particular more stable configuration thanks to electromagnetic forces. Simulations such as this or this give a more realistic picture of these processes.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that the whole thing isn’t awe-inspiring or mind blowing. It is. Actually I think that the more realistic picture (without these “purposeful” motions) leads to even more awe, because of the structured complexity that comes out of these unsystematic motions.

Got it ;) But I hadn’t heard about the award! can you share some link about that? Cheers!

Edit: found it! Well done EFF! (I’m a proud member.)

Got one! XNA. Here’s an article example (boo behind a paywall).

Cool! Let’s see what kind of material people bring out :)

I remember I did a search 5 or more years ago, and it was actually tricky because I only got something after searching for very specific terms, which in turn I had gotten from other searches. I’m trying to remember what they were…

It does seem to work, thank you very much! I’ve also been deleting some desktop files that were corrupted (although not used by any mime type), that may have also helped.

When I used to run simulations, a current of the size of the Gulf Stream could be turned on (with winds and Earth’s rotation), from nothing, in around 400 years (see p. 68). Then it maintained steadily. But turning off or changing in important ways can happen much faster. I’d like to know as well. There should be open-access articles in that journal about this.

I had never seen that menu before, thank you!! I’ll try that and report back.

It should appear if you do a search in your instance about “communities”, with this string:

!typography@lemmy.world

The community link should appear, and if you click on it you should be redirected to it through your instance.

PS: give my regards to Merry and Pippin! :)

Sounds interesting, go ahead!

Not in https://browse.feddit.de/ either. It can take several days.

Interesting – it doesn’t appear in https://browse.feddit.de/ yet! Then I delete the one I just created, I don’t like redundancy.

Great community! Sorry must go – peeing myself after seeing the first posts there 🤣

What I don’t understand is where you found the magnitude of 0.1 Gyr. According to Weinberg (§1.8), for instance, our galaxy only is around 13 Gyr. As Harrison reports (Table 5.3), the Earth alone is around 5 Gyr, and the universe from 10 to 20 Gyr. Maybe it was a typo in your comment?

Great recommendations about books, thank you. As a physicist I take Wikipedia with more than a pinch – say several kg – of salt, because it frequently contains incorrect or outdated things, anyone can write whatever they please there, and there’s nobody behind it that you can write to asking for clarification or where they got their statements from…

Feel free to give more references about these points, I’m always happy to read more.

This article gives a slightly more understandable and not too sensationalistic summary: https://phys.org/news/2023-07-age-universe-billion-years-previously.html