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
Sensitive subject
The suggestion reads many academic articles and often we are overwhelmed by their headlines, which does not have so much meandroing and clearly diggenerous and circumclocatoric. Worst things are the academies allegedly with a preface with a reference for a high humorous pop culture.
However, sometimes we walk through the research, whose title is and the point is. We love a 2000 biology structural biology paper “Ribosome is ribozima“It is an absolute efficiency model (you know what the two names mean). And then the February role of BiRixiv has brought our attention New scientist Chris Simms Assistants, Title “A rough mental map of the breast is anchored on the nose“.
Maybe it may be a bit of context. Some parts of the human body are more sensitive to touch than others. Face – especially lips – and finger tips are very sensitive, and the backs are much less.
This is one of the classic experiments you can do at home. Get a steak or other tool and a gently ready-to-time pair. Below you will know that if you move the location of successive pokes, even if you rejoice in the lips or fingers. But if you are happy on his back, they will be awesome if you move. That is, because your backs are nervous sensitive to touch.
The authors of this new Arseprint saw a gap in literature. “While the touch of the touch of Akuity in the limbs and face, the trunk Akuity has less attention has less attention … Largely aside with the breast,” they write.
Let’s not drag the suspense. Breasts have a very low touch of touch, worse than the back. Apparently, “touches needed to be between 3 and 4 times in the chest, rather than in hand, to provide location discrimination performance”.
Opinion is not sure what this is Caroline created Perez When he thought of Invisible womenDocumenting the mial modes of women excluded from Scientific research. But, as part of basic information, it seems to have its use.
The main rip in Feedback is that we wanted to fly to the wall for the contracting process. “What do you want to do?”
Even more longer words
In early November 2024, there was a few feedback materials, for a short hiatus (it has long been completed) in the global Idiozia, so we filled the column Torrent of more and more longers – Or, as we said at the time, we worked in sesquipedalianism.
Except we did it wrong. Francis Wenban-Smith wrote to point our mistake: “2 short letters were your column” Floccinacinipihipihipihipihipication. “The correct word is: ‘FlostructionCinihilipilification’.”
If you can’t see the difference between these two letters blizzard, and we wouldn’t blame, obviously, the latter has an extra “Li” before “pili”. I would like to make sure the review has given us readers.
In the process of confirming that we were written by FloccinauciniCiniCiCinipilification, feedback has entered two well-known search engines. The correct version highlighted the entry of the dictionary as an answer. Incorrect versions Our article (How has it been), was a summary of the fake word above. Here are the opening lines:
“The word Floccinipipinification is long, meaningable or trivial. The longest word in the Oxford English dictionary was 1982. Floccinaucinipihipilation is 12 syllable 12 syllable. I have nine, but it is not e.”
Readers count until 29, unlike Alas, they will notice all these claims about the number of letters and syllables, about a bar about the letter e. The opinion is proud to embark on our continuous contamination in our small way, information ecosystem.
Do not secure dating
They like so much in life, dating is micro-directed. You can still use giant appliances, but increasingly proliferation sites increase.
Perhaps the niche of all is not uncommon, aimed at those who do not vaccinate Covid 19. Or, more specifically: “While we do not support any type of vaccine, it does not fit any size for non-Covid-19 injection or MRNA-based injection.”
As a technological analyst Benedict Evans Put the wires: “Someone built a whole company around Darwin Awards“.
The suggestion didn’t have a lot of questions, that is, how is it: How does the company decide who can do? Maybe this is so not having to say, but you can not prove negative.
By searching for the usual questions, we recommend that the most healthy reality (sic) is the most desired to choose the security and security system. The unverified certified member is unnecessary. “Love, Like Sars-Cov-2, it is in the air.
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.
