James' World 2

Click the link below the picture

.

Every year, Halloween enthusiasts adorn their homes with synthetic cobwebs. But humans aren’t the only creatures who decorate their abodes.

Spiders bedeck their webs with “stabilimenta”—various woven patterns that are typically made of a different kind of silk than the rest of the web. In a new study published Wednesday, researchers reported that they found that these “web decorations” may help the spiders detect certain vibrations that can help them find their prey.

Arachnologists have debated the function of these ornaments for decades. Early researchers in the field called such a decoration a “stabilimentum” (Latin for a “support”) because they believed the structures helped stabilize webs. But this hypothesis has been proven wrong, says Gabriele Greco, a bioengineer at the University of Pavia in Italy and co-author of the recent study, which was published in PLOS One.

Scientists have also proposed that stabilimenta shield spiders from harsh ultraviolet rays, convey water for the arachnids to drink, or can either visually attract or repel prey. There is just one function that researchers widely agree on: stabilimenta help spiders of some species hide from predators. But “there are many different types of [web] geometries,” Greco says, “and this makes the possibilities of new functions available to spiders.”

A creature landing or moving on a spider web generates force. This force can become a vibration that travels through the silk that the spider can perceive. While reading old papers, Greco was unable to find any research into how stabilimenta shape those vibrations.

He and his colleagues chose to study Argiope bruennichi—a large spider that has yellow, black, and white stripes and spins classic webs with spiral patterns—because the species is easy to find and one of the only spiders that produces stabilimenta in Italy, said Greco. He and his colleagues took images of six different types of stabilimenta in the forests of Sardinia over the course of two years.

There was the classic, or “normal,” stabilimentum—a dense, thick, zigzagging thread. Similarly, the “juvenile” stabilimentum that was produced by juvenile spiders zigzagged, but it was not as thick. The researchers called web decor that was woven on only one side from the center of the web “reduced.” “Drafted” stabilimenta appeared as incomplete or thin zigzags. And some webs had no stabilimenta at all. Lastly, the team categorized a “platform” stabilimentum: a thick and dense network of silk, woven in a symmetric pattern in the middle of the web.

Once these structures were photographed, the researchers created computer simulations to model how vibrations spread through the various webs. They tested the effect that different directions of impact had on each web.

In the simulations, the team first found that stabilimenta had no effect on waves from the force of an object landing perpendicular to the web or hitting it from the side toward the center. “Until here, I was happy because this is exactly what I expected,” Greco says.

But sometimes prey gets stuck in a web and thrashes from side to side, emitting vibrations parallel to the spiral. Greco was surprised to find that stabilimenta in the platform shape can play a huge role in transmitting that vibration. In the simulations, a platform stabilimentum made it possible for some vibrations to reach the web’s far side by improving connectivity among the threads—a process that, in nature, would help the waiting arachnid detect prey. (A similar but milder effect came through with other stabilimentum shapes.)

“This adds one more piece to the puzzle,” says Todd Blackledge, a biologist at the University of Akron, who was not involved in the study, “I think the really important take-home message of this paper is that they did not find a big, dramatic effect” of stabilimenta overall. He emphasizes that because the study was based on modeling, we still need to ask, “Does this really apply to real spiders in the real world?”

Greco sees this study as a starting point to categorizing stabilimenta’s effects on vibration, and next, he hopes to study such spooky effects in the wild.

.

Spiders such as this Argiope bruennichi sometimes adorn webs with zigzagging stabilimenta.  Pierluigi Rizzo (member of Aracnofilia – Italian Society of Arachnology) (CC-BY 4.0)

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Dallas Cowboys defensive end Marshawn Kneeland was found dead with a self-inflicted gunshot wound after evading authorities, crashing a car, and fleeing on foot, Texas police said Thursday.

At around 10:33 p.m. Wednesday, Texas Department of Public Safety troopers attempted to stop a car for a traffic violation near Frisco, the Frisco Police Department said in a statement.

The driver allegedly refused to stop, prompting a pursuit that required assistance from Frisco police.

“After losing visual of the vehicle, troopers located it minutes later, crashed on southbound Dallas Parkway near Warren Parkway,” the statement said.

Police said that the man, later identified as Kneeland, 24, ran away.

During the search for Kneeland, officers said they received information that he had “expressed suicidal ideations.” He was found at 1:31 a.m. local time, “deceased with what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound,” the statement said.

The Plano Police Department said in a statement that officers responded “to a call for a welfare concern” at an address associated with Kneeland around 11:40 p.m. Wednesday. They did not make contact with anyone at the residence, the statement said.

Dallas Cowboys defensive end Marshawn Kneeland was found dead with a self-inflicted gunshot wound after evading authorities, crashing a car, and fleeing on foot, Texas police said Thursday.

At around 10:33 p.m. Wednesday, Texas Department of Public Safety troopers attempted to stop a car for a traffic violation near Frisco, the Frisco Police Department said in a statement.

The driver allegedly refused to stop, prompting a pursuit that required assistance from Frisco police.

“After losing visual of the vehicle, troopers located it minutes later, crashed on southbound Dallas Parkway near Warren Parkway,” the statement said.

Police said that the man, later identified as Kneeland, 24, ran away.

During the search for Kneeland, officers said they received information that he had “expressed suicidal ideations.” He was found at 1:31 a.m. local time, “deceased with what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound,” the statement said.

The Plano Police Department said in a statement that officers responded “to a call for a welfare concern” at an address associated

The case and manner of death will be determined by the Collin County Medical Examiner’s Office, the police statement added. Police said they are investigating the case as a possible suicide.

“It is with extreme sadness that the Dallas Cowboys share that Marshawn Kneeland tragically passed away this morning,” the Cowboys said in a statement.

“Marshawn was a beloved teammate and member of our organization. Our thoughts and prayers regarding Marshawn are with his girlfriend, Catalina, and his family.”

In a statement, Kneeland’s agent also confirmed his death overnight, but neither he nor the team said where or how the NFL player died.

“I watched him fight his way from a hopeful kid at Western Michigan with a dream to being a respected professional for the Dallas Cowboys,” Jonathan Perzley said in a statement, asking for “privacy and compassion” for those close to Kneeland.

“Marshawn poured his heart into every snap, every practice, and every moment on the field. To lose someone with his talent, spirit, and goodness is a pain I can hardly put into words. My heart aches for his family, his teammates, and everyone who loved him, and I hope they feel the support of the entire football community during this unimaginable time.”

The Cowboys selected Kneeland with their second-round pick in the 2024 draft, the 56th overall selection. He played in 11 games during his rookie season and appeared in seven in 2025, recording his first career sack in Week 1.

.

Marshawn Kneeland in Inglewood, Calif., in 2024.Ric Tapia / Getty Images file

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Emily Bazelon: Hi, David. There are many legal controversies for us to dig into. Let’s start with the news — the argument at the Supreme Court on Wednesday in the case challenging President Trump’s tariffs. Do you think it went as badly for the Trump administration as I do? Were you surprised by anything? And how were you counting up the justices’ votes?

David French: Hi Emily! I agree with you that, on balance, the argument did not go well for the Trump administration, but it wasn’t a slam dunk on the anti-tariff side either. There was one surprising element to me — two of the court’s most conservative justices seemed to be sharply at odds with each other during the argument. Justice Gorsuch’s questioning was damaging for the administration’s case, while Justice Alito very clearly planted his flag for Trump’s tariffs.

At a couple points, Alito virtually took over the oral argument, pressing Neal Katyal, one of the attorneys who represented the plaintiffs challenging the tariffs, for several minutes at a time on a number of fronts. His most effective line of questioning concerned whether the term “regulate” could encompass imposing a fee. I thought Katyal handled Alito’s questions well, but I do think that exchange slightly shifted the momentum of the argument, at least for a time.

Based on the oral argument, I’d say that four votes seem strongly against the administration’s position (Gorsuch, Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson), two are softer votes against the administration (Barrett and Roberts), two seemed moderately sympathetic to Trump’s case (Kavanaugh and Thomas), and Alito was ready to defend Trump’s tariffs like he was making a goal-line stand in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl.

Is there any moment that truly stood out to you?

Emily: Two. Barrett zeroed in on the text of the statute Trump has relied on, in a way I thought was devastating. The question is whether the phrase “regulate … importation” gives Trump the authority he’s seeking. Barrett pointed out that those words are not tariffs or duties or imposts (that last one was not on my vocab list, I confess) or any of the other terms Congress traditionally has used for taking money from foreign sellers of goods that come into the United States. Barrett asked for an example, any example, of another law that functions the way the solicitor general, D. John Sauer, says this one does — “Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase, together, ‘regulate importation,’ has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?” she said.

Sauer could only come up with the precursor statute to the one Trump is using, which Barrett already knew about.

My point is that Justice Barrett, a determined textualist, seems very doubtful that the words in the emergency law Trump used to impose the tariffs mean what he says they mean. For textualists, that should be a death knell.

Alito, however, clearly read the same words differently. He thinks regulating importation equals tariffs. To me, it’s a great example, among many, of why textualism does not point to The One True Answer of how to interpret a law in the way that adherents of this method often claim it does.

The other moment was Gorsuch’s closing mic drop. “It does seem to me — tell me if I’m wrong — that a really key part of the context here is the constitutional assignment of the taxing power to Congress,” he said. “The power to reach into the pockets of the American people is just different, and it has been different since the founding.”

In other words, he’s suggesting that Trump is usurping one of the most important functions that the founders gave to Congress to ensure that the president would not be able to act like a king. That’s the crux of why Trump’s claim of authority here is such a blow to the constitutional separation of powers. Tariffs, as some of the justices pointed out, are taxes by another name. They raise revenue by imposing costs that companies can eat or pass on to consumers.

If the president can declare an emergency at a whim, as Trump has done by declaring a run-of-the-mill trade deficit a national emergency, and then tariff whoever he wants at whatever rate, which he has also done — Ontario, how dare you run an anti-tariff ad that uses Ronald Reagan’s actual words against this president? — then Congress is not a coequal branch. Not even close. Congress is just … sitting on the sidelines. The president can dun countries or maybe even companies he doesn’t like, raise all the revenue he wants, and Congress can’t do a thing about it unless it can come up with a veto-proof majority to revoke his self-declared emergency powers. Justice Gorsuch pointed out that under this scheme, as a practical matter, Congress can never get its taxing power back.

David: That Gorsuch quote is key — it felt to me like he was summarizing his own theory of the case, a theory rooted in the founding ideas of the country. Taxation is a core enumerated power of Congress, and the idea that it delegated its core enumerated authority through a broad, vague statute governing international economic emergencies seems to strike Justice Gorsuch as implausible.

As you note, there was another portion of the oral argument that brought this point home. Justice Gorsuch asked the solicitor general about the “retrieval problem” — the difficulty of taking power back from the president. It takes only a bare majority of Congress (with presidential assent) to delegate the power, but a supermajority to retrieve the power — unless a president actually wants to surrender the power Congress has given him or her.

This creates, in Gorsuch’s words, a “one-way ratchet” that results in the president accumulating more and more power at the expense of the legislature.

Gorsuch’s observation has profound implications beyond the tariff case. One way that administrations expand presidential power is by arguing that the judiciary isn’t the proper branch to check the president, that, in some instances, only Congress has the authority.

But, as Gorsuch notes, that check is often completely illusory in the absence of congressional supermajorities. I can think of a number of circumstances where Gorsuch’s observation is relevant, including — most notably — in the disputes over Trump’s deployments and attempted deployments of the National Guard. The administration is arguing that the courts shouldn’t second-guess the president and that if Congress wants to amend the statute that grants him the power to deploy the troops, it can. But is that a real check when Congress can’t act on its own absent a veto-proof supermajority?

We’ve been talking a lot about the weaknesses in the administration’s position, but I fear that might leave readers with the wrong impression — that the outcome of this case is a foregone conclusion. I think the administration has a path to victory here. It can argue that the words “regulate … importation” in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (the full name of the statute before the court) should be read to encompass tariffs, especially when combined with the broad discretion presidents enjoy to conduct foreign affairs.

.

Aleksey Kondratyev for The New York Times

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., recently announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will launch a review of the safety of the abortion pill, mifepristone. Health researchers say they’re concerned that the review will be politicized and based on flawed reports. More than 100 studies published over the past few decades have shown that the drug, which was approved by the FDA in 2000, is safe and effective at ending a pregnancy.

Given Kennedy’s history of misrepresenting scientific evidence about vaccines, autism, and Tylenol, some scientists say they worry that the health secretary will base the FDA report on unreliable sources.

“Based on what we have seen from this administration to date,” says Peter Lurie, the FDA’s former associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, “there is every reason to fear that this study will be a cherry-picking, data-contorting exercise designed to support a predetermined conclusion of lack of safety.”

In a statement to Scientific American, Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said the agency “is conducting a study of the reported adverse effects of mifepristone to ensure the FDA’s risk mitigation program for the drug is sufficient to protect women from unstated risks,” echoing an earlier statement from HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon.

Kennedy has frequently promoted the FDA review when addressing conservative critics who are impatient for the Trump administration to outlaw or dramatically limit abortion. Antiabortion groups were infuriated by the FDA’s recent approval of a second generic version of mifepristone.

In a post on the social media site X, Kennedy pledged to “review all the evidence—including real-world outcomes” for mifepristone, which is currently used in almost two-thirds of abortions in the U.S.

Kennedy has provided no timeline for the review’s release and few details about what it will encompass. But in a September 19 letter to state attorneys general, Kennedy cited a report from the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank, that claims mifepristone is more dangerous than FDA analyses suggest and calls for ending telehealth prescription of the drug. The availability of Mifepristone via telehealth has contributed to an increase in abortion nationwide in spite of total bans on abortion in 12 states.

That report has serious methodological flaws, says Ushma Upadhyay, a professor of reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, who dismisses it as “junk science.” She notes that the think tank report was neither peer-reviewed nor published in an established medical journal. The report also does not disclose the specific source of its data, which makes it impossible for other scientists to verify or try to reproduce its findings, she adds. In addition, it provides a false picture of mifepristone’s safety by misclassifying routine follow-up procedures as “serious adverse events,” Upadhyay says.

Kennedy has signaled that the president will be making final regulatory decisions about mifepristone. At a Senate budget hearing in May, Kennedy told lawmakers that “the policy changes will ultimately go through the White House, through President [Donald] Trump.” He said the think tank report “indicates that, at very least, the [drug] label should be changed.”

“Cherry-Picking” Evidence

Some scientists are concerned about Kennedy’s role in the review. When talking about autism and vaccines, Kennedy has often bolstered his arguments with “questionable sources that merely look real,” says Timothy Caulfield, research director at the Health Law Institute of the University of Alberta, who studies health misinformation. “He seems to do this mostly with wedge issues—vaccines, abortion, etcetera —that play to a political agenda.”

Kennedy has succeeded in raising doubts about the safety of proven interventions, including Tylenol, Caulfield says. “Doubt mongering is a very effective strategy, especially in the health space,” he says. “Once that doubt is present, it can have a large impact on the public’s health beliefs and behaviors.”

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, a leading antiabortion group, said in a statement on the group’s website that the FDA review “represents an historic opportunity” to reduce the use of the abortion pill “if handled thoroughly.” The group wants the FDA to conduct an “original investigation” rather than review published studies. It claims that there’s not enough evidence to show that the availability of Mifepristone by mail is safe and that previous studies on the drug were written by people who favor wide distribution of the pill.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, a nonprofit global human rights organization that advocates for abortion access, filed a lawsuit in September against the HHS and the FDA in an attempt to force the Trump administration to reveal the process and sources it will use to review mifepristone’s safety. “The public deserves to know what and who is behind decisions being made about their health and access to vital medications,” says Liz Wagner, a senior federal policy counsel at the organization.

Misleading Statistics

Basing the FDA review on the conservative think tank’s report on mifepristone would produce misleading results, Upadhyay says. A wealth of research has found mifepristone to be safe—so safe that the FDA under the Biden administration began allowing it to be dispensed via telehealth instead of requiring that pregnant people see doctors in person. Prescribers and pharmacies must meet special certification requirements to dispense the drug, and pregnant people are required to sign a patient agreement, Upadhyay says.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Cars

At a campaign rally in September 2024, Trump extended his grocery pledge to cars, telling supporters: “We’re going to get the prices down… groceries, cars, everything”.

However, the average price of a new car topped $50,000 (£38,411) for the first time ever in September, up from $48,283 (£37,092) in January, according to Kelley Blue Book, a US vehicle valuation research company.

Car prices typically rise 2-3% a year, explained Erin Keating from Cox Automotive.

“Tariffs, which have been the biggest factor in the automotive industry over the last 12 months, have been nothing but inflationary.”

She explained new car prices are increasing by about 4% a year, with tariffs contributing at least one percentage point.

“We really think in 2026 that’s going to go higher because most of the manufacturers are holding their fire on raising prices directly due to tariffs, but they’re going to have to come in at some point.”

Keating did point to tax breaks for people in Trump’s spending bill, which she believes may incentivise people to buy new cars.

When asked about the rising price of cars, a White House official told BBC Verify the administration had taken historic regulatory actions to “reverse the left’s radical energy scam and save billions annually”.

Gasoline

.

Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

The older generation always discounts the workplace complaints of the younger generation. In my 20s, there seemed to be an endless supply of commentary about how we millennials were lazy and entitled, just like the members of Generation X before us were slackers. Members of Gen Z get the bad rap of being “unemployable,” because apparently, they do not prize achievement for its own sake, or they’d rather be influencers because the internet has broken their brains.

Gen Z-ers don’t even deserve this perfunctory slander, because the entire process of getting and keeping an entry-level job has become a grueling and dehumanizing ordeal over the past decade.

Certainly, the job market seems grim in this moment. Michael Madowitz, the principal economist at the Roosevelt Institute, described it as “an awful traffic jam.” “If you’re just out of college, you’re trying to merge into a freeway and nobody is letting you in,” he explained. Employers at companies like Airbnb and Intuit almost sound excited talking to The Wall Street Journal about staying lean and culling the number of employees they have, as long as it creates short-term profits.

But the whole experience of work for young people has been tortured for far longer than the economy has been stalled. Earlier this year, my colleague David Brooks spoke to a college senior who called young Americans “the most rejected generation,” describing the hypercompetition that has bled into all aspects of life, even for the most privileged college-educated strivers.

Because most job applications are submitted online, the bar to applying is so much lower than it was in the analog world decades ago, and so for any open role, applicants are competing with hundreds of people. The sense of scarcity and lack starts earlier, because so many selective colleges boast about their record-low admissions rates.

But now artificial intelligence is performing the first few rounds of culling, including early screening, which is further dehumanizing and gamifying the application process. Richard Yoon, who is an economics major at Columbia, told me that when his peers have multiple interviews for jobs in finance, he asks if they heard back from any of them. They tell him: “You don’t understand. Like 19 of those 20 interviews were with bots.”

It’s customary for job seekers to review their résumés for keywords they think A.I. likes, Yoon told me, so that they might have a chance of getting through the digitized gantlet and one day making human contact that could possibly lead to a job offer. Or at the very least, a real-life networking connection. Yoon called the process “dystopian.”

But once you actually have a job, the real dystopia begins. Young people feel as if jobs offer far less mentorship and more micromanaging. Stevie Stevens, who is 27 and lives in Columbus, Ohio, told me that she left a full-time job in July at an exhibition design and production firm because she felt hyperscrutinized and undersupported. “Managers expect you to do six jobs in a 40-hour workweek. My company had mediocre benefits and offered little to no professional growth or training,” she told me.

Stevens also said that what she calls “surveillance state technologies” — apps that synthesized her personal data to determine her level of effort — are part of that feeling of micromanagement. Though she doesn’t have benefits through work now and deals with more uncertainty as a freelancer, she is happier because she has autonomy and control over her time and her efforts.

For the past several years, employers have used “bossware” to track worker productivity. A Times investigation in 2022 found that across professional fields and pay grades, employers were tracking keyboard use, movements, and phone calls, and docking employees for time that they perceived to be “idle.”

That kind of tracking doesn’t account for things like conversations with peers, thinking — you know, with your brain — or, if you work in a warehouse, taking a rest so your body doesn’t fall apart. At least older workers knew a time before this tracking was ubiquitous, and at this point might be senior enough to have the leverage to push back against the most extreme types of surveillance.

It’s no wonder, then, that a working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in July found that young worker despair has been rising in the United States for about a decade. Its co-authors, David Blanchflower and Alex Bryson, analyzed data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a yearly federal health survey of 400,000 Americans, focusing on how many bad mental health days — ones described as containing “stress, depression and problems with emotions” — a worker had in the past month. They then created a mental despair measurement using the number of bad mental health days, comparing mental despair across demographic, employment, and educational characteristics.

Blanchflower and Bryson found that for workers under 25, mental health is now so poor that they are generally as unhappy as their unemployed counterparts, which is new in the past several years. The rise in despair is particularly pronounced among women and the less educated. Last year, job satisfaction for people under 25 was about 15 points lower than it was for people over 55. This was true in the same year that satisfaction rose for every other age group, according to a survey from the Conference Board. The unhappiness of young workers seemed so pronounced in the past year, whether because of the rapid rise of A.I., the uncertainty of the market, or some other rancid combination of post-Covid malaise and general disaffection.

I called Bryson to find out more about why young workers are so unhappy. He has two hypotheses. One is that the perception of work satisfaction has changed: Young people expect to be happier than previous generations were, in part because they’re using social media to compare themselves to some of their peers, only to then find themselves disappointed by the tedium of their own 9-to-5s. But the other hypothesis is in line with what I’m hearing from young people: The workplace is markedly worse.

.

Eleanor Davis

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

You generally have reasons, good or bad, for your beliefs. You can reflect on those reasons: “Why do I think there’s a serial killer in the attic? It’s because the floor creaked.” And, paragon of rationality that you are, you can also adjust your beliefs when additional evidence demands it: “Having scoured the attic, baseball bat in hand, I must conclude that it’s just an old, creaky house.”

This cognitive skill is known as belief revision. It’s long been considered a hallmark of human rationality that distinguishes us from other animals. It relies on a reflective awareness of our own thought processes—thinking about thinking, or metacognition—that other species don’t obviously possess. But a new study, published today in the journal Science, shows that our closest evolutionary relatives also reason in surprisingly sophisticated ways.

In a series of experiments, researchers tested chimpanzees at the Ngamba Island Chimpanzee Sanctuary in Uganda to see how the animals juggled different sources of evidence. Each experiment revolved around food hidden in one of several boxes: The chimps would pick the box they thought was most promising based on an initial clue. Then they’d get another clue that sometimes conflicted with the first. Given the chance to update their decision, they almost always chose the box predicted by a rational-choice model and only changed their mind when the new information was stronger than what they already knew. “The chimps knocked it out of the park,” says Brian Hare, an evolutionary anthropologist at Duke University, who was not involved in the study. “It’s obvious this is so easy for them.”

Most impressively, the animals even accounted for clues that undermined earlier evidence. If they heard something bouncing around inside box 1, they would assume, at first, that it was an apple—but then the experimenter would pull out a stone. Realizing they had been misled, the chimps would immediately opt for box 2, even though it appeared uninspiring a moment before. This was “the cherry on top,” says study co-author Jan Engelmann, a comparative psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley. “None of us thought they could do it because it’s just so complex.”

Of course, lots of animals obey reason without reflecting on it; an amoeba is acting rationally, in some sense, when it follows chemical signals toward food. This “unreflective responsiveness to evidence,” as it’s been called, is a mere shadow of human rationality. But Engelmann argues that chimpanzees’ ability to scrutinize evidence and gauge the certainty of their own knowledge comes much closer to the real thing. “It’s very hard to explain the chimps’ behavior without appealing to some notion of reflection,” he says.

Christopher Krupenye, who studies animal cognition at Johns Hopkins University and was not involved in the study, agrees. He’s agnostic about the content of that reflection—without language, it’s unclear how animals could mentally represent the propositions that make up human beliefs (“I hear rattling, so there’s probably an apple in the box”). It’s possible the chimps think primarily in pictures. Regardless, Krupenye says, “all of this suggests they’re not just driven by simple, emotional responses. They have rather complex awareness.”

Clearly, however, there’s still more to human rationality. According to study co-author Hanna Schleihauf, a comparative psychologist at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, the crucial ingredient may be social interaction—we’re able to sharpen our beliefs through discussion. “This is really what makes humans so special,” she says. “We give and ask for reasons.” Indeed, some cognitive scientists think our reasoning skills evolved so that we could argue with one another.

This study reminds us that those skills evolved from somewhere—namely, from cognitive abilities that were already present in the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees and bonobos. More than 150 years ago, Charles Darwin predicted that our extraordinary mental powers would turn out to be extensions of capacities found throughout the animal kingdom. If chimpanzees are truly capable of reflection, the gap between us and our primate cousins narrows a bit further. As Hare puts it, there’s no need to search the stars for intelligence akin to our own. “We already know we’re not alone,” he says. “There are beings here, considering the world in a way that we think of as being rational.”

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Traditionally, a new mom’s own mother serves as a sturdy pillar and soft place to land, all wrapped into one. But new data suggests that’s not the case for many. A third of new moms enter motherhood without their mother by their side, according to a report from The Motherless Mothers (TMM) and Peanut, an app connecting people at every stage of parenting.

The findings also suggest that rates of depression and other perinatal mental health conditions are higher in those who are mothering without their mothers because of death, illness, or estrangement.

“Moms usually offer a kind of comfort that’s hard to replace, especially when everything feels new and overwhelming,” says Nona Kocher, MD, MPH, a Miami-based board-certified psychiatrist. “During pregnancy and early motherhood, that kind of support matters more than ever.”

Troublingly, many mothers reported not feeling supported in their struggle, particularly during health care visits. The report says maternal well-being can be helped with one question during check-ups: “Do you have support from your mother or a maternal figure?”

But there are ways for these news moms to find support elsewhere and improve their postpartum experience, experts share.

Why Mothering Without a Mom Can Be So Hard

The worldwide report of more than 2,300 respondents found pronounced effects of mothering without a mother.

• 81% of respondents report having a perinatal mental health condition, which is more than four times the U.S. average of 20%.2
• In particular, motherless mothers in the U.S. are 5.4 times more likely to experience perinatal depression than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-reported national average of 12.5%.
• 85% of respondents say that motherhood reopened their grief.

These feelings are understandable—expected even—as mothers are often emotional anchors for their daughters during this transition period, says Kiana Shelton, LCSW, a licensed therapist with Mindpath Health.

“During pregnancy and postpartum, a mother can provide normalization when everything feels uncertain,” Shelton explains. “When that maternal presence is missing, there’s not just a lack of support, but a loss of grounding. This absence can intensify feelings of isolation, anxiety, and identity confusion, all of which can increase the risk of perinatal/postpartum depression.”

Catherine M. Cunningham, MD, the section chief of psychiatry at Hackensack Meridian Ocean University Medical Center, agrees, saying perceived loss or a lack of social support is one of the strongest indicators for postpartum depression. And parenting without a mom leaves a gaping hole for many since mothers often provide instrumental support and emotional scaffolding needed in the postpartum period.

“Instrumental support involves practical help with newborn care, meals, and other household tasks to buffer stress and reduce sleep deprivation,” explains Dr. Cunningham. “Emotional scaffolding includes reassurance and validation, modeling of the maternal caregiver role, and a sense of community and family identity.”

When that maternal presence is missing, there’s not just a lack of support, but a loss of grounding. This absence can intensify feelings of isolation, anxiety, and identity confusion, all of which can increase the risk of perinatal/postpartum depression.

Loss Doesn’t Just Mean Death

Importantly, Peanut and TMM, a registered charity and community for mothers navigating parenthood, define the loss of a mother broadly to include death, illness, distance, and estrangement. The latter is critical to acknowledge, as research shows about 6% of adults are estranged from their mothers.

“Estrangement is different from separation due to death or illness, because it involves a choice, whether from the daughter, the mother, or both,” says Geralyn Fortney, LPC, PMH-C, a licensed professional counselor and regional clinic director with Thriveworks. “With that comes questions, and sometimes guilt, shame, or blame.”

After birth, some may experience a strong desire to reach out to their estranged mother, “even if the person knows that it might not be in their best interest,” says Fortney. “People yearn for that connection, which can be overwhelming.”

As for illness, it presents a gray area that’s significantly challenging for a new mother to navigate, especially if she’s assisting with her parent’s care. “If illness is severe, anticipatory grief may be present as well,” adds Fortney.

Death, of course, is permanent, and Fortney isn’t surprised to learn that the perinatal stage rekindled grief in moms.

“People often think they have ‘moved on,’ but are retriggered by the birth of their child,” Fortney says. “The desire to reach out, to share this milestone, to have their mother present can be overwhelming.” 

Unsurprisingly, Moms Aren’t Finding Enough Support

Mothering without a mother figure is challenging enough. But the women who took the new Peanut and TMM survey shared that they aren’t receiving support from people involved in their care. About 74% said their health care providers never asked if they had maternal support, and only half of those who were asked said they received meaningful help.

“The grief of mothering while motherless is rarely acknowledged in our culture,” says Emily Guarnotta, PsyD, PMH-C, psychologist and founder of Phoenix Health. “When a new baby arrives, society focuses its attention on the new baby, not the mother. Our culture also has a lot of discomfort when it comes to grief and family issues.”

.

Photo:  Parents/GettyImages/PeopleImages

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

The White House did not say, in response to questions, who paid for the renovation, how much it cost or which contractor built it.

The bathroom is only the latest remodel that Mr. Trump has undertaken at the White House, including the demolition of the East Wing. He has wide latitude as president to make changes, although critics have raised questions about the funding and lack of transparency.

President Harry Truman redid the bathroom in 1945, and Mr. Trump has repeatedly criticized its style.

Speaking to donors this month, Mr. Trump called the bathroom’s style “not good.”

“Art Deco doesn’t go with, you know, 1850 and civil wars and all of the problems,” Mr. Trump said. “But what does is statuary marble. So I ripped it apart and we built the bathroom. It’s absolutely gorgeous and totally in keeping with that time.”

Edward Lengel, who served as the chief historian of the White House Historical Association, said of the photos Mr. Trump posted: “It doesn’t look anything like 1860s interiors to me.”

Michael F. Bishop, the former executive director of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, said the bathroom was a sitting room in the president’s day and was unlikely to have included marble.

“The present-day bathroom only takes up a portion of the Lincoln sitting room,” Mr. Bishop said. “They created a bathroom in the corner of this room. Trump’s change to the bathroom is not remotely a crime against historical preservation or anything like that. It was just a fairly dated-looking bathroom.”

The historian Harold Holzer, the author of many books about Mr. Lincoln, said that when Mr. Lincoln moved into the White House in 1861, there were two water closets on the second floor, including one adjacent to the rooms where he lived with the family.

When Mary Todd Lincoln complained about the overall poor condition of the White House, Mr. Holzer said, he reminded her that it was better than any other house they had ever lived in.

“Lincoln had an outhouse in Springfield, and heaven knows what when he lived in log cabins with his parents, so the plain bathroom was fine with him,” Mr. Holzer said. “He thought it was a majestic step up.”

During his second term, Mr. Trump has wasted no time making changes to historical elements of the White House, arguing that parts of it are dated or too small. He tore down the entire East Wing, which had stood for more than a century, to make way for a planned 90,000-square-foot, $300 million ballroom that he said was necessary for receiving dignitaries.

His plans for the size of the ballroom continue to expand.

Mr. Trump has said that he and a group of donors — not the taxpayers — are footing the bill for the ballroom. His staff has released a list of donors, but has not said how much each one has given. The money is being deposited in the Trust for the National Mall, a nonprofit, tax-exempt entity that is not subject to transparency laws.

He also has added gold moldings and gold decorations throughout the Oval Office, and gold ornaments to the Cabinet Room. He cut down the White House’s historic magnolia tree, which President Andrew Jackson planted in 1829 in memory of his wife, Rachel.

He removed a photo of Hillary Clinton and replaced it with an image of his own face colored with the American flag. He added marble floors and a chandelier to the Palm Room.

He paved over the Rose Garden grass to add a patio. Along the West Wing colonnade, he added gold-framed photos of every American president except his predecessor, Joseph R. Biden Jr., whom he depicted as an autopen.

Mr. Trump and White House staff members say the president is granted wide latitude to make renovations on the property. Mr. Trump has said he is not subject to zoning regulations or permitting requirements.

.

The Lincoln bathroom has been renovated to include marble walls and gold fixtures. The view remains the same. Credit…Donald Trump, via Truth Social

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Ahead of a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday, President Donald Trump said the U.S. will resume nuclear testing, ending a 33-year moratorium.

“Because of other countries’ testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis,” Trump announced on his social media platform, Truth Social.

The U.S. last tested a nuclear weapon in an underground experiment in the Nevada Test Site in 1992, a marker of the end of the cold war. That last test concluded a decades-long testing program that included more than 1,000 detonations conducted by the civilian Department of Energy, which oversees the U.S. nuclear stockpile.

The Project 2025 report, now acknowledged by Trump as an indicator of his administration’s policies, had called for resuming U.S. nuclear testing to ensure the performance of the nuclear stockpile. Trump’s announcement follows recent Russian tests of a nuclear-powered cruise missile and a nuclear-capable underwater drone, but there have not been any known nuclear detonations recently made by either Russia or China. Both of those nations are signatories to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which the U.S. has signed yet never ratified. (China also hasn’t ratified the treaty, and Russia revoked its ratification in 2023, however.) China last tested a bomb in 1996, and the Soviet Union last tested one in 1990. Both countries have expressed concern about Trump’s announcement, and Russia has threatened to start its own tests.

To ask what is at stake in Trump’s call to resume U.S. nuclear tests, Scientific American spoke with Jeffrey Lewis, an expert on the geopolitics of nuclear weaponry at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies.

We haven’t done a nuclear test since 1992. So what is the argument for doing this? Are there any technical benefits to resuming testing?

The question is: What sort of testing are we talking about? The U.S can presently test nuclear weapons in every way, shape or form—except for doing explosive tests that create yield. The U.S. now does so-called subcritical tests about 1,000 feet under the Nevada desert. And so it’s very unclear what the president means.

Are we talking about a full-yield test out in the desert? Or are we talking about small lab experiments that produce much less yield? It’s very unclear. And all of those [tests] have different yields [that have] different purposes.

But if I were to back up to issue one sweeping statement, it would be: No, [there aren’t any benefits to resuming testing] because the U.S. already conducted more than 1,000 nuclear tests. It has a vast trove of data that underlies the most sophisticated computer models imaginable. The U.S. knows more about its nuclear weapons today than it did in the period when it was testing them. The only countries that will really learn more if testing resumes are Russia and, to a much greater extent, China.

Project 2025 called for resuming underground nuclear tests, though. Would Trump’s announcement seem to point in that direction—basically, to the U.S. once again blowing up such weapons underground?

During the last [Trump] administration, [officials] spoke of being ready to resume nuclear testing. And they discovered that it would be a couple of years before they could do it. Then they started talking about doing uninstrumented tests, which are literally pointless.

You get no data from an uninstrumented test. It’s just a demonstration. All you do is demonstrate that we have functional nukes. It’s really unclear why you would do that.

What would this do to the nonproliferation movement, with the whole idea of a testing moratorium going out the window?

It’s possible the test ban collapses. But it is also possible that the nonproliferation treaty [the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which entered into force in 1970] collapses because that requires the U.S., Russia, and other nuclear-weapon states to make good-faith efforts to work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons.

But non-nuclear-weapon states have made it clear that this test ban is literally the bare minimum. And most of those countries aren’t very happy that the U.S hasn’t ratified the [CTBT]. But the fact that there has at least been an end to nuclear testing has been really important to sustaining a sense around the world that nonproliferation is a common good rather than just an effort at a nuclear monopoly by a few countries.

Normally, I am not one of those people who believes in that kind of symbolic stuff. But so much of [the Trump administration’s] foreign policy seems to be about being transgressive. Whatever effect a resumption in testing would have on our domestic politics, it also affects how people abroad see us. It becomes difficult to persuade people to do the things we want them to do when we seem reckless and selfish.

There’s also this matter of modernizing the U.S nuclear program, a long-running effort that’s over budget and delayed. How would new nuclear testing play into that?

If there were a technical reason to resume testing, you could imagine that would reduce the need for modernization, because successful testing would suggest that the existing systems are in excellent shape.

That said, I don’t think this is a sincere effort to get additional data to be more informed about the state of the U.S. arsenal. I think this is intended as a transgressive act that’s supposed to bully the Russians and the Chinese and aggravate the president’s domestic enemies.

So why do it?

Well, the real fundamental question here is: What the hell does [Trump] mean in that Truth Social post? Because Russia hasn’t conducted a nuclear test, it’s tested nuclear-capable or nuclear-powered assets.

And the Russians and Chinese aren’t accused of doing clandestine things at their test sites—or, at least, they haven’t been accused of that on an unclassified basis. And the Department of Defense doesn’t have any role in this, really, because nuclear testing is handled by the Department of Energy. So you just kind of stare at Trump’s statement, and you’re like, “What?”

I just don’t know what any of this means. I thought I was an expert, and I can’t parse the words he’s using.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________