James' World 2

Click the link below the picture

.

A trio of secretive Russian satellites launched earlier this year has released a mysterious object into orbit, sparking interest among space trackers and analysts.

The three satellites, designated Kosmos 2581, 2582, and 2583, launched on a Soyuz-2.1V rocket from Plesetsk cosmodrome early on Feb. 2 (GMT). Since then, the satellites, whose purpose is unknown, have displayed interesting behavior, while in a near-polar orbit roughly 364 miles (585 kilometers) above Earth.

In March, the satellites appeared to be conducting potential proximity operations, or maneuvering close to other objects in space, according to Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist and spaceflight activity tracker.

Following this, the U.S. Space Force cataloged a new object in orbit, which was possibly released by Kosmos 2581 on March 18.

Russia has provided no details about the satellites and their mission. Many Kosmos missions are classified.

The released object could be used for a number of objectives, including military experiments, such as satellite inspection or target practice, testing technology for docking or formation flying. It may also be a scientific payload or even the result of an unintentional fragmentation, though this would usually result in numerous pieces of debris.

The Kosmos (or Cosmos) designation has been used by the Soviet Union and later Russia for a very wide range of military and scientific satellites since 1962. The satellites have covered a range of apparent uses, some of which are experimental, secret, or part of military programs, including early ASAT (anti-satellite) tests and satellite inspection, reconnaissance and electronic intelligence.

Satellite trios flying in formation in orbit is not unusual. Both the United States (for example, the Naval Ocean Surveillance System) and China (Yaogan) have launched numerous sets of satellite triplets, many of which are thought to be for electronic intelligence purposes, along with other satellite series.

However, it remains to be seen what the three Kosmos satellites and their new companion will get up to in orbit.

.

The Russian Aerospace Forces successfully launched a Soyuz-2.1v light-class carrier rocket with spacecraft for the Russian Defence Ministry in February 2025 from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in the Arkhangelsk region. Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation (CC BY 4.0)

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Are kids really better for dads in heterosexual relationships—or one parent, more generally? 

Some dads on social media think so, and a TikToker has some rather direct words for them. According to the TikToker, some fathers claim it’s because they’re way better at enforcing boundaries, and she 20/10 has a different idea.

“For most of us, it’s not the case,” says Jenna, who posts as @ifitwerentfunny on TikTok and has more than 57K followers. “The real reason is because you’re not that child’s emotional well. The mother is.”

The mom gets very blunt in the video. Does she have a point, though?

“I do think that in two-parent—or more—households, one parent is seen by each child to be the emotional anchor—the person with which they have the strongest emotional bond,” explains Crystal Britt, LCSW, a therapist and co-host of the Time to Lean podcast. “This puts a lot of weight onto that parent if the other parent isn’t mindful of trying to participate in this emotional work as well. The result is one parent thinking kids are ‘easy,’ and the other parent is ‘lazy’ or ‘soft on boundaries.’”

Experts dig deeper into the truth and what parents can do to even the load.

The Idea That Kids Are ‘Easier’ for Dads

Jenna was inspired by other videos posted by fathers, claiming, “When we’re with the kids, and they’re gone, it’s easy as hell.”

The fathers have a theory: They’re better with boundaries than their wives. Jenna has another one, saying, “You’re just not the person that the child has been literally and figuratively tethered to their entire life.”

Jenna is speaking to a specific audience of cis-heterosexual couples. But that’s not to say it can’t apply more broadly to couples whose child has been figuratively—emotionally—tethered to one parent. Regardless of your situation, Jenna suggests testing it if you feel this applies to you.

She suggests asking yourself: When your partner walks into the door, does your child run over and scream “Mommy, mommy?” (Or whatever they commonly call your partner.)

Do the vibes change when that “emotional well” of a parent walks through the door? “That’s because their person just walked into the room, and we’re hardest on our people,” Jenna says.

Instead of asking, “Why are my kids so much easier for me?” Jenna recommends people ask, “What can I do to meet the emotional needs of my kids so I can take some of that off my partner’s plate?”

Of course, this isn’t the case in every heterosexual household.

“While this is not the case in every family, in many families, mothers report that they take on the bulk of the parenting load,” says Emily Guarnotta, PsyD, PMH-C, a psychologist specializing in perinatal mental health and co-founder of Phoenix Health.

Why Kids May Seem ‘Worse’ for One Parent

Zishan Khan, MD, is aware of reports that children act differently with one parent, and that mothers often bear the brunt of less desirable behaviors. He concedes it’s frustrating but explains there is a psychological reason for it. 

“Children tend to show their full range of emotions with the person they feel most secure with because they trust that this person will love them unconditionally, no matter how they behave,” says Dr. Khan, a board-certified child, adolescent, and adult psychiatrist with Mindpath Health. “Therefore, mothers, who often take on the role of the primary caregiver, naturally become the emotional regulators for their children.”

Young kids, in particular, lack the ability to process and regulate emotions fully.1

“Therefore, they ‘offload’ their stress, frustrations, and anxieties onto the parent they’re most emotionally connected to,” Dr. Khan says. “This isn’t a sign that something is wrong—it’s a sign of a strong attachment.”

In other words, Jenna has a point—and, weirdly, it’s a compliment.

“Parents should remember that if their child acts out more with one of the parents, they should try and take it as a sign of deep trust, not failure,” Dr. Khan says, adding, “This doesn’t change the fact that it can make parenting feel disproportionately difficult for the parent in that role.”

.

Parents/GettyImages/skynesher

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Temporary pacemakers can be used as a stopgap measure to regulate the heartbeat after surgery and in emergency situations. But the fact that they need to be surgically installed and removed also brings risk: moon walker Neil Armstrong famously developed fatal bleeding when surgeons removed his temporary pacemaker’s wires in 2012. Now researchers have developed a tiny temporary pacemaker that could eliminate some of that risk. Their device, just a few millimeters long, has no wires and needs minimally invasive placement. It can be injected into the body with a needle. And when its work is done, it simply dissolves.

Conventionally, temporary pacemakers comprise electrodes that are implanted in the heart muscle. These electrodes are connected to an external battery that delivers a pulse to control the heart’s rhythm and correct slow or irregular heartbeats. The new, less invasive pacemaker, which could be particularly useful in a newborn baby’s tiny heart, “consists of two electrodes—conducting metal pads—that are designed to do two things,” says Northwestern University biomedical engineer John A. Rogers, one of the co-authors of an April 2 paper in Nature that describes the device. “One is that they inject current into the cardiac tissue to stimulate contractions that lead to an overall cardiac cycle…. [The other is that they] provide a power source for driving the operation of the pacemaker.”

The mini pacemaker device does not have a separate battery. Instead, its body functions as a simple type of battery called a galvanic cell—the two electrodes, made of different combinations of magnesium, zinc, and molybdenum, react with the naturally occurring electrolytes in bodily fluids to produce an electric current.

On the side opposite of the electrodes lies a tiny light-activated switch that controls the battery’s operation. In the switch’s “on” position, an electrical pulse is delivered to the cardiac tissue; in its “off” state, nothing happens. The pacemaker is paired with a soft, flexible skin patch above the heart that monitors heart rate. When it senses an irregular or slow heartbeat, it flashes a light on and off to dictate the correct pacing. The pacemaker responds to near-infrared light—wavelengths that can penetrate deeply into biological tissues.

When the pacemaker’s job is done, it simply dissolves into the body. The device has a finite operating time of between a few days and about three weeks, Rogers says, depending on the choice of metals for the electrodes.

The current study is an advance on an earlier dissolvable pacemaker by the same team. The previous iteration used a technology called near-field communication instead of a galvanic cell; it ran on power beamed to an antenna, which made it much bigger. The extreme miniaturization is one of the advances in the new model, Rogers says. “What follows from that is that we can use multiple of these millimeter-scale pacemakers simultaneously at different locations of the heart [with the devices] operating in different wavelengths.”

The researchers are also looking at the possibility of integrating the devices with medical implants, such as replacement heart valves, that currently don’t have any kind of cardiac control mechanisms.

Thanh Nho Do, a biomedical engineer at the University of New South Wales in Australia, who wasn’t involved with the study, calls this pacemaker a breakthrough in miniaturization. It gives reliable and sustained pacing without external energy inputs, he says, and could significantly reduce procedural risks and patient discomfort.

Virginia Tech researcher Xiaoting Jia, who was also not involved in the project, says it has great potential for practical use in humans. “The team has performed comprehensive tests in animal models and in ex vivo settings [experiments outside the body]. The next important step would be to thoroughly evaluate the safety for application in humans and obtain [Food and Drug Administration] approvals for clinical use.” The researchers are working toward this via a new start-up company.

One key challenge, Do adds, is selecting suitable materials to balance functionality and safe degradation without triggering excessive immune reactions such as inflammation.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Some content on this page was disabled on April 15, 2025 as a result of a DMCA takedown notice from Guardian Media Group. You can learn more about the DMCA here:

https://wordpress.com/support/copyright-and-the-dmca/