Enlarge/ A Diamond Shruumz chocolate bar, which come in a variety of flavors.
Various federal and state health officials are sounding the alarm on Diamond Shruumz-brand Microdosing Chocolate Bars. The candy, said to be infused with mushrooms, has been linked to severe illnesses, including seizures, loss of consciousness, confusion, sleepiness, agitation, abnormal heart rates, hyper/hypotension, nausea, and vomiting, according to an outbreak alert released by the Food and Drug Administration on Friday.
So far, eight people across four states have been sickened—four in Arizona, two in Indiana, one in Nevada, and one in Pennsylvania, the FDA reported. Of the eight, six have been hospitalized.
“We are urging the public to use extreme caution due to the very serious effects of these products,” Maureen Roland, director of the Banner Poison and Drug Information Center in Phoenix, said in a press release earlier this week.
Steve Dudley, director of the Arizona Poison and Drug Information Center, added that there’s “clearly something toxic occurring” with the chocolates. “We’ve seen the same phenomenon of people eating the chocolate bar then seizing, losing consciousness, and having to be intubated.” Dudley noted that the state is aware of additional cases beyond the eight reported Friday by the FDA. Those cases were reported from Nebraska and Utah.
It’s not entirely clear what is in the chocolates or what could be causing the illnesses. The FDA said it was working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as America’s Poison Centers to “determine the cause of these illnesses and is considering the appropriate next steps.”
On its website, Diamond Shruumz says that its chocolate bars contain a “primo proprietary blend of nootropic and functional mushrooms.” The website also contains reports of laboratory analyses on their products, some of which indicate the absence of select known fungal toxins and compounds such as the hallucinogen psilocybin and cannabinoids.
Diamond Shruumz did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.
The chocolate bars are still available for sale online but the FDA said that consumers should not eat, sell, or serve them. Any bars already purchased should be discarded. Likewise, retailers should not sell or distribute them. The FDA noted that, in addition to being available online, the bars are also sold in various retail locations nationwide, including smoke/vape shops and retailers that sell hemp-derived products.
Work toward brain-computer interfaces has never been more charged. Though neuroscientists have toiled for decades to tap directly into human thoughts, recent advances have the field buzzing with anticipation—and the involvement of one polarizing billionaire has drawn a new level of attention.
With competition amping up in this space, Ars spoke with Ben Rapoport, who is a neurosurgeon, electrical engineer, and co-founder of the brain-computer interface (BCI) company Precision Neuroscience. Precision is at the forefront of the field, having placed its BCI on the brains of 14 human patients so far, with two more scheduled this month. Rapoport says he hopes to at least double that number of human participants by the end of this year. In fact, the 3-year-old company expects to have its first BCI on the market next year.
In addition to the swift progress, Precision is notable for its divergence from its competitor’s strategies, namely Neuralink, the most high-profile BCI company and headed by Elon Musk. In 2016, Rapoport co-founded Neuralink alongside Musk and other scientists. But he didn’t stay long and went on to co-found Precision in 2021. In previous interviews, Rapoport suggested his split from Neuralink related to the issues of safety and invasiveness of the BCI design. While Neuralink’s device is going deeper into the brain—trying to eavesdrop on neuron signals with electrodes at close range to decode thoughts and intended motions and speech—Precision is staying at the surface, where there is little to no risk of damaging brain tissue.
Shallow signals
“It used to be thought that you needed to put needle-like electrodes into the brain surface in order to listen to signals of adequate quality,” Rapoport told Ars. Early BCIs developed decades ago used electrode arrays with tiny needles that sink up to 1.5 millimeters into brain tissue. Competitors such as Blackrock Neurotech and Paradromics are still developing such designs. (Another competitor, Synchron, is developing a stent-like device threaded into a major blood vessel in the brain.) Meanwhile, Neuralink is going deeper, using a robot to surgically implant electrodes into brain tissue, reportedly between 3 mm and 8 mm deep.
However, Rapoport eschews this approach. Anytime something essentially cuts into the brain, there’s damage, he notes. Scar tissue and fibrous tissue can form—which is bad for the patient and the BCI’s functioning. “So, there’s not infinite scalability [to such designs],” Rapoport notes, “because when you try to scale that up to making lots of little penetrations into the brain, at some point you can run into a limitation to how many times you can penetrate the brain without causing irreversible and undetectable damage.”
Further, he says, penetrating the brain is just unnecessary. Rapoport says there is no fundamental data that suggests that penetration is necessary for BCIs advances. Rather, the idea was based on the state of knowledge and technology from decades ago. “It was just that it was an accident that that’s how the field got started,” he said. But, since the 1970s, when centimeter-scale electrodes were first being used to capture brain activity, the technology has advanced from the macroscopic to microscopic range, creating more powerful devices.
“All of conscious thought—movement, sensation, intention, vision, etc.—all of that is coordinated at the level of the neocortex, which is the outermost two millimeters of the brain,” Rapoport said. “So, everything, all of the signals of interest—the cognitive processing signals that are interesting to the brain-computer interface world—that’s all happening within millimeters of the brain surface … we’re talking about very small spatial scales.” With the more potent technology of today, Precision thinks it can collect the data it needs without physically traversing those tiny distances.
Elon Musk, back in October 2021, tweeted that “humans drive with eyes and biological neural nets, so cameras and silicon neural nets are only way to achieve generalized solution to self-driving.” The problem with his logic has been that human eyes are way better than RGB cameras at detecting fast-moving objects and estimating distances. Our brains have also surpassed all artificial neural nets by a wide margin at general processing of visual inputs.
To bridge this gap, a team of scientists at the University of Zurich developed a new automotive object-detection system that brings digital camera performance that’s much closer to human eyes. “Unofficial sources say Tesla uses multiple Sony IMX490 cameras with 5.4-megapixel resolution that [capture] up to 45 frames per second, which translates to perceptual latency of 22 milliseconds. Comparing [these] cameras alone to our solution, we already see a 100-fold reduction in perceptual latency,” says Daniel Gehrig, a researcher at the University of Zurich and lead author of the study.
Replicating human vision
When a pedestrian suddenly jumps in front of your car, multiple things have to happen before a driver-assistance system initiates emergency braking. First, the pedestrian must be captured in images taken by a camera. The time this takes is called perceptual latency—it’s a delay between the existence of a visual stimuli and its appearance in the readout from a sensor. Then, the readout needs to get to a processing unit, which adds a network latency of around 4 milliseconds.
The processing to classify the image of a pedestrian takes further precious milliseconds. Once that is done, the detection goes to a decision-making algorithm, which takes some time to decide to hit the brakes—all this processing is known as computational latency. Overall, the reaction time is anywhere between 0.1 to half a second. If the pedestrian runs at 12 km/h they would travel between 0.3 and 1.7 meters in this time. Your car, if you’re driving 50 km/h, would cover 1.4 to 6.9 meters. In a close-range encounter, this means you’d most likely hit them.
Gehrig and Davide Scaramuzza, a professor at the University of Zurich and a co-author on the study, aimed to shorten those reaction times by bringing the perceptual and computational latencies down.
The most straightforward way to lower the former was using standard high-speed cameras that simply register more frames per second. But even with a 30-45 fps camera, a self-driving car would generate nearly 40 terabytes of data per hour. Fitting something that would significantly cut the perceptual latency, like a 5,000 fps camera, would overwhelm a car’s onboard computer in an instant—the computational latency would go through the roof.
So, the Swiss team used something called an “event camera,” which mimics the way biological eyes work. “Compared to a frame-based video camera, which records dense images at a fixed frequency—frames per second—event cameras contain independent smart pixels that only measure brightness changes,” explains Gehrig. Each of these pixels starts with a set brightness level. When the change in brightness exceeds a certain threshold, the pixel registers an event and sets a new baseline brightness level. All the pixels in the event camera are doing that continuously, with each registered event manifesting as a point in an image.
This makes event cameras particularly good at detecting high-speed movement and allows them to do so using far less data. The problem with putting them in cars has been that they had trouble detecting things that moved slowly or didn’t move at all relative to the camera. To solve that, Gehrig and Scaramuzza went for a hybrid system, where an event camera was combined with a traditional one.
Enlarge/ The echidna, an egg-laying mammal, doesn’t develop teeth.
Outliers among mammals, monotremes lay eggs instead of giving birth to live young. Only two types of monotremes, the platypus and echidna, still exist, but more monotreme species were around about 100 million years ago. Some of them might possibly be even weirder than their descendants.
Monotreme fossils found in refuse from the opal mines of Lightning Ridge, Australia, have now revealed the opalized jawbones of three previously unknown species that lived during the Cenomanian age of the early Cretaceous. Unlike modern monotremes, these species had teeth. They also include a creature that appears to have been a mashup of a platypus and echidna—an “echidnapus.”
Fossil fragments of three known species from the same era were also found, meaning that at least six monotreme species coexisted in what is now Lightning Ridge. According to the researchers who unearthed these new species, the creatures may have once been as common in Australia as marsupials are today.
“[This is] the most diverse monotreme assemblage on record,” they said in a study recently published in Alcheringa: An Australasian Journal of Paleontology.
The Echidnapus emerges
Named Opalios spendens, the “echidnapus” shows similarities to both ornithorhynchoids (the platypus and similar species) and tachyglossids (echidna and similar species). It is thought to have evolved before the common ancestor of either extant monotreme.
The O. splendens holotype had been fossilized in opal like the other Lightning Ridge specimens, but unlike some, it is preserved so well that the internal structure of its bones is visible. Every mammalian fossil from Lightning Ridge has been identified as a monotreme based partly on their peculiarly large dental canals. While the fossil evidence suggests the jaw and snout of O. splendens are narrow and curved, similar to those of an echidna, it simultaneously displays platypus features.
So what relates the echidnapus to a platypus? Despite its jaw being echidna-like at first glance, its dentary, or the part of the jaw that bears the teeth, is similar in size to that of the platypus ancestor Ornithorhynchus anatinus. Other features related more closely to the platypus than the echidna have to do with its ramus, or the part of the jaw that attaches to the skull. It has a short ascending ramus (the rear end) and twisted horizontal ramus (the front end) that are seen in other ornithorhynchoids.
Another platypus-like feature of O. splendens is the flatness of the front of its lower jaw, which is consistent with the flatness of the platypus snout. The size of its jaw also suggests a body size closer to that of a platypus. Though the echidnapus had characteristics of both surviving monotremes, neither of those have the teeth found on this fossil.
My, what teeth you don’t have
Cretaceous monotremes might not have had as many teeth as the echidnapus, but they all had some teeth. The other two new monotreme species that lived among the Lightning Ridge fauna were Dharragarra aurora and Parvopalus clytiei, and the jaw structure of each of these species is either closer to the platypus or the echidna. D. aurora has the slightly twisted jaw and enlarged canal in its mandible that are characteristic of an ornithorhynchoid. It might even be on the branch that gave rise the platypus.
P. clytiei is the second smallest known monotreme (after another extinct species named Teinolophos trusleri). It was more of an echidna type, with a snout that was curved and deep like that of a tachyglossid rather than flat like that of an ornithorhynchoid. It also had teeth, though fewer than the echidnapus. Why did those teeth end up disappearing altogether in modern monotremes?
Monotremes without teeth came onto the scene when the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) appeared during the Pleistocene, which began 2.6 million years ago. The researchers think competition for food caused the disappearance of teeth in the platypus—the spread of the Australo-New Guinean water rat may have affected which prey platypuses hunted for. Water rats eat mostly fish and shellfish along with some insects, which are also thought to have been part of the diet of ancient ornithorhynchoids. Turning to softer food to avoid competition may explain why the platypus evolved to be toothless.
As for echidnas, tachyglossids are thought to have lost their teeth after they diverged from ornithorhynchoids near the end of the Cretaceous. Echidnas are insectivores, grinding the hard shells of beetles and ants with spines inside their mouths, so have no need for teeth.
Although there is some idea of what happened to their teeth, the fate of the diverse species of Cretaceous monotremes, which were not only toothy but mostly larger than the modern platypus and echidna, remains unknown. The end of the Cretaceous brought a mass extinction triggered by the Chicxulub asteroid. Clearly, some monotremes survived it, but no monotreme fossils from the time have surfaced yet.
“It is unclear whether diverse monotreme fauna survived the end-Cretaceous mass extinction event, and subsequently persisted,” the researchers said in the same study. “Filling this mysterious interval of monotreme diversity and adaptive development should be a primary focus for research in the future.”
Launched in 2000, the Zvezda Service Module provides living quarters and performs some life-support system functions.
NASA
NASA and the Russian space agency, Roscosmos, still have not solved a long-running and worsening problem with leaks on the International Space Station.
The microscopic structural cracks are located inside the small PrK module on the Russian segment of the space station, which lies between a Progress spacecraft airlock and the Zvezda module. After the leak rate doubled early this year during a two-week period, the Russians experimented with keeping the hatch leading to the PrK module closed intermittently and performed other investigations. But none of these measures taken during the spring worked.
“Following leak troubleshooting activities in April of 2024, Roscosmos has elected to keep the hatch between Zvezda and Progress closed when it is not needed for cargo operations,” a NASA spokesperson told Ars. “Roscosmos continues to limit operations in the area and, when required for use, implements measures to minimize the risk to the International Space Station.”
What are the real risks?
NASA officials have downplayed the severity of the leak risks publicly and in meetings with external stakeholders of the International Space Station. And they presently do not pose an existential risk to the space station. In a worst-case scenario of a structural failure, Russia could permanently close the hatch leading to the PrK module and rely on a separate docking port for Progress supply missions.
However, there appears to be rising concern in the ISS program at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston. The space agency often uses a 5×5 “risk matrix” to classify the likelihood and consequence of risks to spaceflight activities, and the Russian leaks are now classified as a “5” both in terms of high likelihood and high consequence. Their potential for “catastrophic failure” is discussed in meetings.
In responding to questions from Ars by email, NASA public relations officials declined to make program leaders available for an interview. The ISS program is currently managed by Dana Weigel, a former flight director. She recently replaced Joel Montalbano, who became deputy associate administrator for the agency’s Space Operations Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington.
One source familiar with NASA’s efforts to address the leaks confirmed to Ars that the internal concerns about the issue are serious. “We heard that basically the program office had a runaway fire on their hands and were working to solve it,” this person said. “Joel and Dana are keeping a lid on this.”
US officials are likely remaining quiet about their concerns because they don’t want to embarrass their Russian partners. The working relationship has improved since the sacking of the pugnacious leader of Russia’s space activities, Dmitry Rogozin, two years ago. The current leadership of Roscosmos has maintained a cordial relationship with NASA despite the high geopolitical tensions between Russia and the United States over the war in Ukraine.
The leaks are a sensitive subject. Because of Russian war efforts, the resources available to the country’s civil space program will remain flat or even decrease in the coming years. A dedicated core of Russian officials who value the International Space Station partnership are striving to “make do” with the resources they have to maintain its Soyuz and Progress spacecraft, which carry crew and cargo to the space station respectively, and its infrastructure on the station. But they do not have the ability to make major new investments, so they’re left with patching things together as best they can.
Aging infrastructure
At the same time, the space station is aging. The Zvezda module was launched nearly a quarter of a century ago, in July 2000, on a Russian Proton rocket. The cracking issue first appeared in 2019 and has continued to worsen since then. Its cause is unknown.
“They have repaired multiple leak locations, but additional leak locations remain,” the NASA spokesperson said. “Roscosmos has yet to identify the cracks’ root cause, making it challenging to analyze or predict future crack formation and growth.”
NASA and Russia have managed to maintain the space station partnership since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The large US segment is dependent on the Russian segment for propulsion to maintain the station’s altitude and maneuver to avoid debris. Since the invasion, the United States could have taken overt steps to mitigate against this, such as funding the development of its own propulsion module or increasing the budget for building new commercial space stations to maintain a presence in low-Earth orbit.
Instead, senior NASA officials chose to stay the course and work with Russia for as long as possible to maintain the fragile partnership and fly the aging but venerable International Space Station. It remains to be seen whether cracks—structural, diplomatic, or otherwise—will rupture this effort prior to the station’s anticipated retirement date of 2030.
June 2023 did not seem like an exceptional month at the time. It was the warmest June in the instrumental temperature record, but monthly records haven’t exactly been unusual in a period where the top 10 warmest years on record have all occurred within the last 15 years. And monthly records have often occurred in years that are otherwise unexceptional; at the time, the warmest July on record had occurred in 2019, a year that doesn’t stand out much from the rest of the past decade.
But July 2023 set another monthly record, easily eclipsing 2019’s high temperatures. Then August set yet another monthly record. And so has every single month since, a string of records that propelled 2023 to the warmest year since we started keeping track.
Yesterday, the European Union’s Copernicus Earth-monitoring service announced that we’ve now gone a full year where every single month has been the warmest version of that month since we’ve had enough instruments in place to track global temperatures.
Enlarge/ History monthly temperatures show just how extreme the temperatures have been over the last year.
As you can see from this graph, most years feature a mix of temperatures, some higher than average, some lower. Exceptionally high months tend to cluster, but those clusters also tend to be shorter than a full year.
In the Copernicus data, a similar year-long streak of records happened once before (recently, in 2015/2016). NASA, which uses slightly different data and methods, doesn’t show a similar streak in that earlier period. NASA hasn’t released its results for May’s temperatures yet—they’re expected in the next few days. But it’s very likely that NASA will also show a year-long streak of records.
Beyond records, the EU is highlighting the fact that the one-year period ending in May was 1.63° C above the average temperatures of the 1850–1900 period, which are used as a baseline for preindustrial temperatures. That’s notable because many countries have ostensibly pledged to try to keep temperatures from exceeding 1.5° above preindustrial conditions by the end of the century. While it’s likely that temperatures will drop below the target again at some point within the next few years, the new records suggest that we have a very limited amount of time before temperatures persistently exceed it.
Enlarge/ For the first time on record, temperatures have held steadily in excess of 1.5º above the preindustrial average.
Realistically, those plans involve overshooting the 1.5° C target by midcentury but using carbon capture technology to draw down greenhouse gas levels. Exceeding that target earlier will mean that we have more carbon dioxide to pull out of the atmosphere, using technology that hasn’t been demonstrated anywhere close to the scale that we’ll need. Plus, it’s unclear who will pay for the carbon removal.
The extremity of some of the monthly records—some months have come in a half-degree C above any earlier month—are also causing scientists to look for reasons. But so far, the field hasn’t come to a consensus regarding the sudden surge in temperature extremes.
Because it has been accompanied by significant warming of ocean temperatures, a lot of attention has focused on changes to pollution rules for international shipping, which are meant to reduce sulfur emissions. These went into effect recently and have cut down on the emission of aerosols by cargo vessels, reducing the amount of sunlight that’s reflected back to space.
That’s considered likely to be a partial contributor. A slight contribution may have also come from the Hunga Tonga eruption, which blasted significant amounts of water vapor into the upper atmosphere, though nowhere near enough to explain this warming. Beyond that, there are no obvious explanations for the recent warmth.
Enlarge/ A slowly rotating neutron star is still our best guess as to the source of the mystery signals.
Roughly a year ago, astronomers announced that they had observed an object that shouldn’t exist. Like a pulsar, it emitted regularly timed bursts of radio emissions. But unlike a pulsar, those bursts were separated by over 20 minutes. If the 22 minute gap between bursts represents the rotation period of the object, then it is rotating too slowly to produce radio emissions by any known mechanism.
Now, some of the same team (along with new collaborators) are back with the discovery of something that, if anything, is acting even more oddly. The new source of radio bursts, ASKAP J193505.1+214841.0, takes nearly an hour between bursts. And it appears to have three different settings, sometimes producing weaker bursts and sometimes skipping them entirely. While the researchers suspect that, like pulsars, this is also powered by a neutron star, it’s not even clear that it’s the same class of object as their earlier discovery.
How pulsars pulse
Contrary to the section heading, pulsars don’t actually pulse. Neutron stars can create the illusion by having magnetic poles that aren’t lined up with their rotational pole. The magnetic poles are a source of constant radio emissions but, as the neutron star rotates, the emissions from the magnetic pole sweep across space in a manner similar to the light from a rotating lighthouse. If Earth happens to be caught up in that sweep, then the neutron star will appear to blink on and off as it rotates.
The star’s rotation is also needed for the generation of radio emissions themselves. If the neutron star rotates too slowly, then its magnetic field won’t be strong enough to produce radio emissions. So, it’s thought that if a pulsar’s rotation slows down enough (causing its pulses to be separated by too much time), it will simply shut down, and we’ll stop observing any radio emissions from the object.
We don’t have a clear idea of how long the time between pulses can get before a pulsar will shut down. But we do know that it’s going to be far less than 22 minutes.
Which is why the 2023 discovery was so strange. The object, GPM J1839–10, not only took a long time between pulses, but archival images showed that it had been pulsing on and off since at least 35 years ago.
To figure out what is going on, we really have two options. One is more and better observations of the source we know about. The second is to find other examples of similar behavior. There’s a chance we now have a second object like this, although there are enough differences that it’s not entirely clear.
An enigmatic find
The object, ASKAPJ193505.1+214841.0, was discovered by accident when the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder telescope was used to perform observations in the area due to detections of a gamma ray burst. It picked up a bright radio burst in the same field of view, but unrelated to the gamma ray burst. Further radio bursts showed up in later observations, as did a few far weaker bursts. A search of the telescope’s archives also spotted a weaker burst from the same location.
Checking the timing of the radio bursts, the team found that they could be explained by an object that emitted bursts every 54 hours, with bursts lasting from 10 seconds to just under a minute. Checking additional observations, however, showed that there were often instances where a 54 minute period would not end with a radio burst, suggesting the source sometimes skipped radio emissions entirely.
Odder still, the photons in the strong and weak bursts appeared to have different polarizations. These differences arise from the magnetic fields present where the bursts originate, suggesting that the two types of bursts differ not only in total energy, but also that the object that’s making them has a different magnetic field.
So, the researchers suggest that the object has three modes: strong pulses, faint pulses, and an off mode, although they can’t rule out the off mode producing weak radio signals that are below the detection capabilities of the telescopes we’re using. Over about eight months of sporadic observations, there’s no apparent pattern to the bursts.
What is this thing?
Checks at other wavelengths indicate there’s a magnetar and a supernova remnant in the vicinity of the mystery object, but not at the same location. There’s also a nearby brown dwarf at that point in the sky, but they strongly suspect that’s just a chance overlap. So, none of that tells us more about what produces these erratic bursts.
As with the earlier find, there seem to be two possible explanations for the ASKAP source. One is a neutron star that’s still managing to emit radiofrequency radiation from its poles despite rotating extremely slowly. The second is a white dwarf that has a reasonable rotation period but an unreasonably strong magnetic field.
To get at this issue, the researchers estimate the strength of the magnetic field needed to produce the larger bursts and come up with a value that’s significantly higher than any previously observed to originate on a white dwarf. So they strongly argue for the source being a neutron star. Whether that argues for the earlier source being a neutron star will depend on whether you feel that the two objects represent a single phenomenon despite their somewhat different behaviors.
In any case, we now have two of these mystery slow-repeat objects to explain. It’s possible that we’ll be able to learn more about this newer one if we can get some information as to what’s involved in its mode switching. But then we’ll have to figure out if what we learn applies to the one we discovered earlier.
The 4,000-year-old skull and mandible of an Egyptian man show signs of cancerous lesions and tool marks, according to a recent paper published in the journal Frontiers in Medicine. Those marks could be signs that someone tried to operate on the man shortly before his death or performed the ancient Egyptian equivalent of an autopsy to learn more about the cancer after death.
“This finding is unique evidence of how ancient Egyptian medicine would have tried to deal with or explore cancer more than 4,000 years ago,” said co-author Edgard Camarós, a paleopathologist at the University of Santiago de Compostela. “This is an extraordinary new perspective in our understanding of the history of medicine.”
Archaeologists have found evidence of various examples of primitive surgery dating back several thousand years. For instance, in 2022, archaeologists excavated a 5,300-year-old skull of an elderly woman (about 65 years old) from a Spanish tomb. They determined that seven cut marks near the left ear canal were strong evidence of a primitive surgical procedure to treat a middle ear infection. The team also identified a flint blade that may have been used as a cauterizing tool. By the 17th century, this was a fairly common procedure to treat acute ear infections, and skulls showing evidence of a mastoidectomy have been found in Croatia (11th century), Italy (18th and 19th centuries), and Copenhagen (19th or early 20th century).
Cranial trepanation—the drilling of a hole in the head—is perhaps the oldest known example of skull surgery and one that is still practiced today, albeit rarely. It typically involves drilling or scraping a hole into the skull to expose the dura mater, the outermost of three layers of connective tissue, called meninges, that surround and protect the brain and spinal cord. Accidentally piercing that layer could result in infection or damage to the underlying blood vessels. The practice dates back 7,000 to 10,000 years, as evidenced by cave paintings and human remains. During the Middle Ages, trepanation was performed to treat such ailments as seizures and skull fractures.
Just last year, scientists analyzed the skull of a medieval woman who once lived in central Italy and found evidence that she experienced at least two brain surgeries consistent with the practice of trepanation. Why the woman in question was subjected to such a risky invasive surgical procedure remains speculative, since there were no lesions suggesting the presence of trauma, tumors, congenital diseases, or other pathologies. A few weeks later, another team announced that they had found evidence of trepanation in the remains of a man buried between 1550 and 1450 BCE at the Tel Megiddo archaeological site in Israel. Those remains (of two brothers) showed evidence of developmental anomalies in the bones and indications of extensive lesions—signs of a likely chronic debilitating disease, such as leprosy or Cleidocranial dysplasia.
Ancient Egypt also had quite advanced medical knowledge for treating specific diseases and traumatic injuries like bone trauma, according to Camarós and his co-authors. There is paleopathological evidence of trepanation, prosthetics, and dental fillings, and historical sources describe various therapies and surgeries, including mention of tumors and “eating” lesions indicative of malignancy. They thought that cancer may have been much more prevalent in ancient Egypt than previously assumed, and if so, it seemed likely that Egyptians would have developed methods for therapy or surgery to treat those cancers.
Skull E270, dating from between 663 and 343 BCE, belonged to a female individual who was older than 50 years.
Tondini, Isidro, Camarós, 2024
The skulls were examined using microscopic analysis and CT scanning.
Tondini, Isidro, Camarós, 2024
CT Scan of skull.
Tondini, Isidro, Camarós, 2024
Cutmarks found on skull 236, probably made with a sharp object.
Tondini, Isidro, Camarós, 2024
Several of the metastatic lesions on skull 236 display cutmarks.
Enlarge/ Astronauts Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore, wearing their Boeing spacesuits, leave NASA’s crew quarters during a launch attempt May 6.
Fresh off repairs at the launch pad in Florida, United Launch Alliance engineers restarted the countdown overnight for the third attempt to send an Atlas V rocket and Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft on a test flight to the International Space Station.
NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams were expected to awake early Wednesday, put on their blue pressure suits, and head to the launch pad at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station to board the Starliner capsule on top of the 172-foot-tall Atlas V rocket.
Once more through the door
Wilmore and Williams have done this twice before in hopes of launching into space on the first crew flight of Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft. A faulty valve on the Atlas V rocket prevented liftoff May 6, then engineers discovered a helium leak on the Starliner capsule itself. After several weeks of troubleshooting, NASA and Boeing officials decided to proceed with another launch attempt Saturday.
Everything seemed to be coming together for Boeing’s long-delayed crew test flight until a computer problem triggered an automatic hold in the countdown less than four minutes before liftoff. Technicians from United Launch Alliance (ULA), the Atlas V rocket’s builder and operator, traced the problem to a failed power distribution source connected to a ground computer responsible for controlling the final phase of the countdown.
The instantaneous launch opportunity Wednesday is set for 10: 52 am EDT (14: 52 UTC), when the launch site at Cape Canaveral passes underneath the space station’s orbital plane. Forecasters predict a 90 percent chance of good weather for launch. You can watch NASA’s live coverage in the video embedded below.
The countdown began late Tuesday night with the power-up of the Atlas V rocket, which was set to be filled with cryogenic liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants around 5 am EDT (09: 00 UTC). Kerosene fuel was loaded into the Atlas V’s first-stage booster prior to the mission’s first launch attempt in early May.
The two Starliner astronauts departed crew quarters at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center for the 20-minute drive to the launch pad, where they arrived shortly before 8 am EDT (12: 00 UTC) to climb into their seats inside the Starliner capsule. After pressure checks of the astronauts’ suits and Starliner’s crew cabin, ground teams will evacuate the pad about an hour before launch.
Assuming all systems are “go” for launch, the Atlas V will ignite its Russian-made RD-180 main engine and two solid-fueled boosters to vault away from Cape Canaveral and head northeast over the Atlantic Ocean. Wilmore and Williams will be not only the first people to fly in space on Boeing’s Starliner, but also the first astronauts to ride on an Atlas V rocket, which has flown 99 times before with satellites for the US military, NASA, and commercial customers.
The rocket’s Centaur upper stage will deploy Starliner into space around 15 minutes after liftoff. A critical burn by Starliner’s engines will happen around 31 minutes into the flight to finish the task of placing it into low-Earth orbit, setting it up for an automated docking at the International Space Station at 12: 15 pm EDT (16: 15 UTC) Thursday.
The two-person crew will stay on the station for at least a week, although a mission extension is likely if the mission is going well. Officials may decide to extend the mission to complete more tests or to wait for optimal weather conditions at Starliner’s primary and backup landing sites in New Mexico and Arizona. When weather conditions look favorable, Starliner will undock from the space station and head for landing under parachutes.
The crew test flight is a prerequisite to Boeing’s crew capsule becoming operational for NASA, which awarded multibillion-dollar commercial crew contracts to Boeing and SpaceX in 2014. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon started flying astronauts in 2020, while Boeing’s project has been stricken by years of delays.
Wilmore and Williams, both former US Navy test pilots, will take over manual control of Starliner at several points during the test flight. They will evaluate the spacecraft’s flying characteristics and accommodations for future flights, which will carry four astronauts at a time rather than two.
“The expectation from the media should not be perfection,” Wilmore told Ars earlier this year. “This is a test flight. Flying and operating in space is hard. It’s really hard, and we’re going to find some stuff. That’s expected. It’s the first flight where we are integrating the full capabilities of this spacecraft.”
Enlarge/ The rocket for SpaceX’s fourth full-scale Starship test flight awaits liftoff from Starbase, the company’s private launch base in South Texas.
SpaceX
The Federal Aviation Administration approved the commercial launch license for the fourth test flight of SpaceX’s Starship rocket Tuesday, with liftoff from South Texas targeted for just after sunrise Thursday.
“The FAA has approved a license authorization for SpaceX Starship Flight 4,” the agency said in a statement. “SpaceX met all safety and other licensing requirements for this test flight.”
Shortly after the FAA announced the launch license, SpaceX confirmed plans to launch the fourth test flight of the world’s largest rocket at 7: 00 am CDT (12: 00 UTC) Thursday. The launch window runs for two hours.
On Thursday’s flight, SpaceX officials will expect the ascent portion of the test flight to be similarly successful to the launch in March. The objectives this time will be to demonstrate Starship’s ability to survive the most extreme heating of reentry, when temperatures peak at 2,600° Fahrenheit (1,430° Celsius) as the vehicle plunges into the atmosphere at more than 20 times the speed of sound.
SpaceX officials also hope to see the Super Heavy booster guide itself toward a soft splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico just offshore from the company’s launch site, known as Starbase, in Cameron County, Texas.
“The fourth flight test turns our focus from achieving orbit to demonstrating the ability to return and reuse Starship and Super Heavy,” SpaceX wrote in an overview of the mission.
Last month, SpaceX completed a “wet dress rehearsal” at Starbase, where the launch team fully loaded the rocket with cryogenic methane and liquid oxygen propellants. Before the practice countdown, SpaceX test-fired the booster and ship at the launch site. More recently, technicians installed components of the rocket’s self-destruct system, which would activate to blow up the rocket if it flies off course.
Then, on Tuesday, SpaceX lowered the Starship upper stage from the top of the Super Heavy booster, presumably to perform final touch-ups to the ship’s heat shield, composed of 18,000 hexagonal ceramic tiles to protect its stainless-steel structure during reentry. Ground teams were expected to raise the ship, or upper stage, back on top of the booster sometime Wednesday, returning the rocket to its full height of 397 feet (121 meters) ahead of Thursday morning’s launch window.
The tick-tock of Starship’s fourth flight
If all goes according to plan, SpaceX’s launch team will start loading 10 million pounds of super-cold propellants into the rocket around 49 minutes before liftoff Thursday. The methane and liquid oxygen will first flow into the smaller tanks on the ship, then into the larger tanks on the booster.
The rocket should be fully loaded about three minutes prior to launch, and, following a sequence of automated checks, the computer controlling the countdown will give the command to light the booster’s 33 Raptor engines. Three seconds later, the rocket will begin its vertical climb off the launch mount, with its engines capable of producing more than 16 million pounds of thrust at full power.
Heading east from the Texas Gulf Coast, the rocket will exceed the speed of sound in about a minute, then begin shutting down its 33 main engines around 2 minutes and 41 seconds after liftoff. Then, just as the Super Heavy booster jettisons to begin a descent back to Earth, Starship’s six Raptor engines will ignite to continue pushing the upper portion of the rocket into space. Starship’s engines are expected to burn until T+ 8 minutes, 23 seconds, accelerating the rocket to near-orbital velocity with enough energy to fly an arcing trajectory halfway around the world to the Indian Ocean.
All of this will be similar to the events of the last Starship launch in March. What differs in the flight plan this time involves the attempts to steer the booster and ship back to Earth. This is important to lay the groundwork for future flights, when SpaceX wants to bring the Super Heavy booster—the size of the fuselage of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet—to a landing back at its launch pad. Eventually, SpaceX also intends to recover reusable Starships back at Starbase or other spaceports.
Enlarge/ This infographic released by SpaceX shows the flight profile for SpaceX’s fourth Starship launch.
SpaceX
Based on the results of the March test flight, SpaceX still has a lot to prove in these areas. On that flight, the engines on the Super Heavy booster could not complete all the burns required to guide the rocket toward the splashdown zone in the Gulf of Mexico. The booster lost control as it plummeted toward the ocean.
Engineers traced the failure to blockage in a filter where liquid oxygen flows into the Raptor engines. Notably, a similar problem occurred on the second Starship test flight last November. The Super Heavy booster awaiting launch Thursday has additional hardware to improve propellant filtration capabilities, according to SpaceX. The company also implemented “operational changes” on the booster for the upcoming test flight, including to jettison the Super Heavy’s staging ring, which sits between the booster and ship during launch, to reduce the rocket’s mass during descent.
SpaceX has a lot of experience bringing back its fleet of Falcon 9 boosters. The company now boasts a streak of more than 240 successful rocket landings in a row, so it’s reasonable to expect SpaceX will overcome the challenge of recovering the larger Super Heavy booster.
Enlarge/ AI weather models are arriving just in time for the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season.
Aurich Lawson | Getty Images
Much like the invigorating passage of a strong cold front, major changes are afoot in the weather forecasting community. And the end game is nothing short of revolutionary: an entirely new way to forecast weather based on artificial intelligence that can run on a desktop computer.
Today’s artificial intelligence systems require one resource more than any other to operate—data. For example, large language models such as ChatGPT voraciously consume data to improve answers to queries. The more and higher quality data, the better their training, and the sharper the results.
However, there is a finite limit to quality data, even on the Internet. These large language models have hoovered up so much data that they’re being sued widely for copyright infringement. And as they’re running out of data, the operators of these AI models are turning to ideas such as synthetic data to keep feeding the beast and produce ever more capable results for users.
If data is king, what about other applications for AI technology similar to large language models? Are there untapped pools of data? One of the most promising that has emerged in the last 18 months is weather forecasting, and recent advances have sent shockwaves through the field of meteorology.
That’s because there’s a secret weapon: an extremely rich data set. The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, the premiere organization in the world for numerical weather prediction, maintains a set of data about atmospheric, land, and oceanic weather data for every day, at points around the world, every few hours, going back to 1940. The last 50 years of data, after the advent of global satellite coverage, is especially rich. This dataset is known as ERA5, and it is publicly available.
It was not created to fuel AI applications, but ERA5 has turned out to be incredibly useful for this purpose. Computer scientists only really got serious about using this data to train AI models to forecast the weather in 2022. Since then, the technology has made rapid strides. In some cases, the output of these models is already superior to global weather models that scientists have labored decades to design and build, and they require some of the most powerful supercomputers in the world to run.
“It is clear that machine learning is a significant part of the future of weather forecasting,” said Matthew Chantry, who leads AI forecasting efforts at the European weather center known as ECMWF, in an interview with Ars.
It’s moving fast
John Dean and Kai Marshland met as undergraduates at Stanford University in the late 2010s. Dean, an electrical engineer, interned at SpaceX during the summer of 2017. Marshland, a computer scientist, interned at the launch company the next summer. Both graduated in 2019 and were trying to figure out what to do with their lives.
“We decided we wanted to solve the problem of weather uncertainty,” Marshland said, so they co-founded a company called WindBorne Systems.
The premise of the company was simple: For about 85 percent of the Earth and its atmosphere, we have no good data about weather conditions there. A lack of quality data, which establishes initial conditions, represents a major handicap for global weather forecast models. The company’s proposed solution was in its name—wind borne.
Dean and Marshland set about designing small weather balloons they could release into the atmosphere and which would fly around the world for up to 40 days, relaying useful atmospheric data that could be packaged and sold to large, government-funded weather models.
Weather balloons provide invaluable data about atmospheric conditions—readings such as temperature, dewpoints, and pressures—that cannot be captured by surface observations or satellites. Such atmospheric “profiles” are helpful in setting the initial conditions models start with. The problem is that traditional weather balloons are cumbersome and only operate for a few hours. Because of this, the National Weather Service only launches them twice daily from about 100 locations in the United States.
You’re driving somewhere, eyes on the road, when you start to feel a tingling sensation in your lower abdomen. That extra-large Coke you drank an hour ago has made its way through your kidneys into your bladder. “Time to pull over,” you think, scanning for an exit ramp.
To most people, pulling into a highway rest stop is a profoundly mundane experience. But not to neuroscientist Rita Valentino, who has studied how the brain senses, interprets, and acts on the bladder’s signals. She’s fascinated by the brain’s ability to take in sensations from the bladder, combine them with signals from outside of the body, like the sights and sounds of the road, then use that information to act—in this scenario, to find a safe, socially appropriate place to pee. “To me, it’s really an example of one of the beautiful things that the brain does,” she says.
Scientists used to think that our bladders were ruled by a relatively straightforward reflex—an “on-off” switch between storing urine and letting it go. “Now we realize it’s much more complex than that,” says Valentino, now director of the division of neuroscience and behavior at the National Institute of Drug Abuse. An intricate network of brain regions that contribute to functions like decision-making, social interactions, and awareness of our body’s internal state, also called interoception, participates in making the call.
In addition to being mind-bogglingly complex, the system is also delicate. Scientists estimate, for example, that more than 1 in 10 adults have overactive bladder syndrome—a common constellation of symptoms that includes urinary urgency (the sensation of needing to pee even when the bladder isn’t full), nocturia (the need for frequent nightly bathroom visits) and incontinence. Although existing treatments can improve symptoms for some, they don’t work for many people, says Martin Michel, a pharmacologist at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, who researches therapies for bladder disorders. Developing better drugs has proven so challenging that all major pharmaceutical companies have abandoned the effort, he adds.
Recently, however, a surge of new research is opening the field to fresh hypotheses and treatment approaches. Although therapies for bladder disorders have historically focused on the bladder itself, the new studies point to the brain as another potential target, says Valentino. Combined with studies aimed at explaining why certain groups, such as post-menopausal women, are more prone to bladder problems, the research suggests that we shouldn’t simply accept symptoms like incontinence as inevitable, says Indira Mysorekar, a microbiologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. We’re often told such problems are just part of getting old, particularly for women—“and that’s true to some extent,” she says. But many common issues are avoidable and can be treated successfully, she says: “We don’t have to live with pain or discomfort.”
A delicate balance
The human bladder is, at the most basic level, a stretchy bag. To fill to capacity—a volume of 400 to 500 milliliters (about 2 cups) of urine in most healthy adults—it must undergo one of the most extreme expansions of any organ in the human body, expanding roughly sixfold from its wrinkled, empty state.
To stretch that far, the smooth muscle wall that wraps around the bladder, called the detrusor, must relax. Simultaneously, sphincter muscles that surround the bladder’s lower opening, or urethra, must contract, in what scientists call the guarding reflex.
Enlarge/ It’s not just sensory neurons (purple) that can detect stretch, pressure, pain and other sensations in the bladder. Other types of cells, like the umbrella-shaped cells that form the urothelium’s barrier against urine, can also sense and respond to mechanical forces — for example, by releasing chemical signaling molecules such as adenosine triphosphate (ATP) as the organ expands to fill with urine.
Filling or full, the bladder spends more than 95 percent of its time in storage mode, allowing us to carry out our daily activities without leaks. At some point—ideally, when we decide it’s time to pee—the organ switches from storage to release mode. For this, the detrusor muscle must contract forcefully to expel urine, while the sphincter muscles surrounding the urethra simultaneously relax to let urine flow out.
For a century, physiologists have puzzled over how the body coordinates the switch between storage and release. In the 1920s, a surgeon named Frederick Barrington, of University College London, went looking for the on-off switch in the brainstem, the lowermost part of the brain that connects with the spinal cord.
Working with sedated cats, Barrington used an electrified needle to damage slightly different areas in the pons, part of the brainstem that handles vital functions like sleeping and breathing. When the cats recovered, Barrington noticed that some demonstrated a desire to urinate—by scratching, circling, or squatting—but were unable to voluntarily go. Meanwhile, cats with lesions in a different part of the pons seemed to have lost any awareness of the need to urinate, peeing at random times and appearing startled whenever it happened. Clearly, the pons served as an important command center for urinary function, telling the bladder when to release urine.
