Opinion are news about the latest science and technology on the sides of known scientists. You can send the items you believe in the reader opinion by email feedback@newscientist.com
Fix it! Or not
Feedback is as fond of a real crime, so the next weird wizard is so occasionally finished the fingers of 1888-91 Whitechapel callers and mythical legendary ripper jack. Actually, we didn’t get much more than Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell From hellWhich (Spoiler!) Murder is linked to the British establishment and Freemason, believed to create the evil psychic force that would perpetuate the murders. But the “ripperology” area extends beyond a eccentric graphic novel.
So our attention was drawn Latest news Report calls Fresh survey – Protected by Karen Miller, a Catherine Eddowes after the descendantThe five women were killed.
It is believed that he was in Edrowes, a police officer, who received a policeman at the time and gathered more than a century in his family. Shawl was created at auction in 2007 and bought by ripperist Russell Edwards. He organized a shawl for DNA tests, results Of these, they were published in 2019. Jari Louhelain and Genetic David Miller obtained Mitochondrial DNA (MTDNA) from two people. One had genetic markers with Karen Miller in common, suggesting that he came from Eddows. The other had a distant distant from Aaron Kosminski, the barber suspect was suspect at the moment of murders.
For Edwards, this is the evidence that Kosminski was a killer – a scenario that has promoted his book Designation of Jack The Ripper. Other ripperologists They are skeptical: Katie Charlwood social scientist stated It’s not a reliable honesty chain to make hutand No evidence Five kills all the same people did.
Feedback is certainly this story will be forever rumor, but we want to add something – one of the latest news received news is not received. We looked at the 2019 study and found that the editors had added oneConcerns statement“In August 2024.
“Third parties posed after publication”, as well as the editor letters. And then the bomb shell comes: “Through research, publishers and editor-headed efforts to obtain the original raw data of MTDN analysis. However, the authors have noted that data were not available due to the failure of the instrument data and other complications. “
Yes, you read well – MTDNA evidence cannot ever be verified, as the authors lost. Perhaps Moore had around the evil psychic reason.
Equation of love
Here is a romantic story. News Alexandra Thompson has attracted our attention “Formula for love: Member Merit and appreciation is the meaning of the actor“.
The authors argue that romantic love is a means of “meaningful and deserving”. Opinion is not sure about that, but let’s go. This is a “probability of the actor in love with a partner” that determines a “Tri-Factorial router model”.
Specifically: “The love of the partner depends on the actor’s perceptions and (2) that they appreciate the actor and are significant. We assume that these two factors are multiplied to determine the likelihood of the actor’s partner.”
In other words, it is the probability of falling someone to you, how much they appreciate it and how much you care about the meaning of your life.
This opinion has tried to extrapolate on dating advice. The frequency of the suggestion that should be tough seems counterproductive, the number of estimates that you show with your partner is the predictor that falls for you. Instead, I find a good idea to seek a partner who despair in life because they have a greater tendency to fall in love. However, this may have its declines, not at least a distinctive option that a partner can join a cult.
Good luck away, people.
Bite his hand
Jacob Aron and the news editor Financial TimesThe suggestion learns that Anthropic AI has not wanted potential employees to use AI when writing job applications. The job ads say: “While people encourage you to use AI systems … We want to evaluate communication skills supported with AI.” But why, anthropic? Could it be an AI letters that are not unbearable?
Made of a strange coincidence, that is, within a few days after breaking the news, the AI deep Chinese company has exceeded US technological giants. Openai immediately complained, saying “To review Deuses can distinguish our models inappropriately distilled “- that is, it is responsible for copyright robbery.
In short, these companies don’t like to be bombed with ai-writer and don’t like to train their work without permission to train an AI. AI companies almost certainly as a writer, and those who have not seen a penny in return, only feedback can say: “Bwahahaha, whit you.”
Have you received an opinion story?
You can send stories by email feedback@newscientist.com. Enter your home address. This week and past opinions can be Viewed on our website.
