How to Harvest Snow and Ice as Drinking Water

What is SHTF and How to Prepare For It

Family Photographs on the Cheap

Biden to Classify Houthis As 'Sort of' Terrorists‚ but Not Real Terrorists

Tickling the Tail of a Sleeping Dragon

A year-long study has found what people have been complaining about on hard-to-find Reddit posts for a while now: Google is getting worse.People have complained online that Google's search results have taken a dive in quality over the last year or so. The new study called it "a troubling sign that a noticeable number of social media users are sharing their observation that search engines are becoming less and less capable of finding genuine and useful content satisfying their information needs.""Reportedly‚ a torrent of low-quality content‚ especially for product search‚ keeps drowning any kind of useful information in search results."A particularly spammy area‚ focused on by researchers at several German universities‚ is product review queries. The team monitored 7‚392 such queries over the course of a year on search engines Google‚ Bing‚ and DuckDuckGo.  The problem mainly seems to stem from search engine optimization (SEO)‚ i.e. content created and tailored towards ranking on search engines‚ rather than focusing on useful quality information. This can take the form of pages crammed full of keywords‚ or else holding back key information until far down an article in order to increase read time (think of articles about how to change your phone settings that insist on telling you about what a phone is at the top). In product reviews‚ affiliate marketing – where marketers or influencers are paid for getting people to click on or buy a product – is also playing a role."Our findings suggest that all search engines have significant problems with highly optimized (affiliate) content—more than is representative for the entire web‚" the team explained‚ adding that "only a small portion of product reviews on the web uses affiliate marketing‚ but the majority of all search results do."Unfortunately‚ it's a problem that could get worse as people utilize chatbots to churn out more and more content‚ trying to stay ahead of search engines' ability to downrank such content by tweaking their algorithms."We further observe an inverse relationship between affiliate marketing use and content complexity‚ and that all search engines fall victim to large-scale affiliate link spam campaigns‚" the team wrote. "However‚ we also notice that the line between benign content and spam in the form of content and link farms becomes increasingly blurry—a situation that will surely worsen in the wake of generative AI."There are a number of explanations for the decline in search engine usefulness‚ including what is termed "enshittification"‚ where companies "abuse their users to make things better for their business customers" before "finally‚ they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves."Marissa Mayer‚ the 20th employee to join Google‚ who went on to serve as CEO of Yahoo‚ believes that the problem is down to the Internet itself becoming worse.“I do think the quality of the Internet has taken a hit‚" Mayer told Freakonomics. "When I started at Google‚ there were about 30 million web pages‚ so crawling them all and indexing them all was relatively straightforward. It sounds like a lot‚ but it’s small. Today‚ I think there was one point where Google had seen more than a trillion URLs.”Mayer added that it was natural for people to blame Google when they aren't getting the quality search results they used to‚ but she sees Google's results as more of a window into the web itself."The real question is‚ why is the web getting worse?"The study has been made available online by the Webis Group.

Salmon is a great source of protein‚ omega-3 fatty acids‚ and various important nutrients – it also makes a great hat (if you happen to be an orca in the late 80s)‚ but that’s neither here nor there.When buying it in the grocery store you have two options: wild caught or from the farm. But does it really matter which you choose?What’s the difference?The difference between the two lies in how they’re caught or raised. As you might expect‚ wild salmon are caught in their natural environment‚ be that oceans‚ rivers‚ or lakes. They are generally one of five types of Pacific salmon: chinook (king)‚ coho‚ sockeye‚ pink‚ or chum.Unlike farmed salmon‚ they are not bred to be eaten and so have not been fed certain foods or additives. They also tend to be a bit more expensive‚ are available seasonally‚ and have a shorter shelf life.Farmed salmon‚ meanwhile‚ are reared in tanks or enclosures and given a high-fat‚ high-protein diet to make them grow larger. They are typically Atlantic salmon‚ are available year-round‚ and account for around 75 percent of all salmon you eat‚ according to WebMD.Which is better?There are several nutritional differences between wild and farmed salmon. In general‚ wild salmon has fewer calories and a lower fat content. And it’s thought it often contains a higher amount of minerals‚ including iron and calcium.On the other hand‚ farmed salmon has more omega-3 fatty acids‚ but also more saturated fat.Nutrients aside‚ it’s also worth considering exposure to pollutants‚ something that both types of salmon are at risk of. Both have been found to contain persistent organic pollutants (POPs)‚ chemicals that have been linked to type 2 diabetes and obesity‚ although farmed salmon may contain several times more of one type of POP‚ polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB).There are also concerns that wild salmon may contain more mercury than farmed salmon‚ although at such low concentrations that it is not believed to be harmful when the fish is eaten in moderation.It is still largely thought that the health benefits of eating both types of salmon outweigh these small risks. If you do want to reduce exposure to contaminants and pollutants‚ you can try removing the skin‚ registered dietitian Julia Zumpano told Cleveland Clinic.Moreover‚ antibiotics are sometimes used when farming salmon‚ which has sparked concerns about furthering antibiotic resistance.So‚ which should you choose? While there are some minor nutritional and environmental differences between the two‚ both are still a nutritious choice‚ so don’t get too bogged down in the wild vs farmed debate. The American Heart Association recommends most adults eat two servings of fatty fish‚ such as salmon‚ per week. Either wild or farmed will do.Now the only question left is: What about 3D-printed vegan salmon? We’ll let you make your own mind up about that.All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text‚ images‚ and links may be edited‚ removed‚ or added to at a later date to keep information current. The content of this article is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice‚ diagnosis‚ or treatment. Always seek the advice of qualified health providers with questions you may have regarding medical conditions. 

It’s time to meet The Hulk of the fish world. Well‚ sort of – one species of medaka fish (Oryzias celebensis)‚ might not have been exposed to lethal levels of gamma radiation‚ but does change color when they get angry. And you won’t like them when they’re angry.Normally‚ this species of medaka fish is small and white colored‚ found swimming about in southwest Sulawesi in Indonesia. They exhibit a high level of sexual dimorphism‚ meaning that the males look quite different from the females. A team of researchers‚ writing in a pre-print paper that has not yet undergone peer review‚ found that the male fish showed distinctive black markings on their fins and sides‚ and that the coloration of these markings could change rapidly within a period of a few seconds. Many animal species can change color‚ either to blend in with their surroundings or to signal that they are looking for a mate. Guppies change their eye color to black when acting aggressively around food. To look more in-depth into what was causing the color change‚ researchers set up three experiments. The first was in an algae-covered tank containing one female fish and two males‚ the second was in an algae tank with three males‚ and the final one was in a non-algae tank with two males and one female.The team found that there was a similar number of attacks by the males on each other regardless of whether the females were present in the tanks. In the transparent tank without any algae‚ neither attacks nor color changes were observed.      The number of attacks by males with black markings was higher than in those without black markings‚ or the females. This suggests that the males with black markings are more aggressive than their single-colored counterparts. Indeed‚ the results also showed that males with black markings were more likely to attack and be attacked by other males with black markings‚ and attacks from males without black markings or the females were rare. Males that had no black markings were attacked by both females‚ non-colored males‚ and males with black markings. The females in the tanks experienced a similar level of attack as the males. Overall‚ the team suggests that‚ given the attacks between all of the fish‚ the likelihood is that they are competing for resources rather than mates. They further suggest that male fish with the black body markings were the most aggressive of the three groups of fish. The reason for the black markings appearing on the male fish could be to signal dominance and fighting ability and prevent the attacks from becoming physical. The paper is uploaded to the biology preprint server bioRxiv . 

Once upon a time‚ half a million people perhaps lived on a vast archipelago that stretched out of Australia’s north coast. Unfortunately‚ the prehistoric homeland was eventually lost to the ocean waves due to intense sea level rise that hit the globe some 14‚000 years ago. Scientists led by Griffith University have recently been studying the ocean floor topography on the Australian northwest continental shelf to understand how this area appeared in an era before the oceans rose. They conclude that this long-lost land could have potentially been home to a substantial population of humans‚ perhaps as many as 500‚000 people at its peak. The new research revealed that the region‚ which is now submerged by seawater‚ was an extensive archipelago between 71‚000 to 59‚000 years ago. It then transformed into a fully exposed shelf between 29‚000 to 14‚000 years ago‚ featuring an inland sea and a huge freshwater lake‚ encircled by high cliffs and deep gorges.This timespan includes a pivotal moment in human history. People first set foot in Australia around 65‚000 years ago after migrating southwards from Wallacea‚ the region of modern-day Indonesia. When they first arrived‚ the landmass would have included the since-submerged landscapes identified in this new study‚ suggesting that early human settlers roamed here.During lower sea levels‚ a vast archipelago formed on the Australian northwest continental shelf.Image credit: K Norman‚ et al./Quaternary Science Reviews (2024)The study notes that “Australia has traditionally lagged behind many parts of the world with respect to exploration of the archaeology of submerged continental shelves‚” adding that marine archaeology has kicked off in other parts of the world‚ most notably around the Mediterranean.However‚ archaeological evidence has shown that northernmost Australia was the host of many dynamic cultures before the last Ice Age. Furthermore‚ the researchers note that the time of global sea level rise is directly linked to a significant uptick in the amount of rock art and human-made stone artifacts found in the Kimberley and Arnhem Land regions. This‚ they say‚ could imply that human populations were retreating inland away from the since-submerged area.Based on the size of the sunken land and the number of archaeological discoveries in Northern Australia‚ the team speculated that the long-lost archipelago could have potentially supported human populations ranging from 50‚000 to 500‚000 people at various times."The temptation to overlook the continental shelf margins of Late Pleistocene Sahul in discussions of early peopling and expansion risks oversimplification and misunderstanding of this pivotal period in history‚" Kasih Norman‚ lead researcher from the Australian Research Centre for Human Evolution at Griffith University‚ said in a statement."Our demographic modeling showed a peak in population size at the height of the last ice age ~20‚000 years ago‚ when the entire extent of the Northwest Shelf was dry land. This finding has now been supported by new genetic research showing very large populations for the Tiwi Islanders – located just to the east of the study region – at the height of the last glacial period‚" added Norman.The discovery has been dubbed the “Aussie Atlantis”‚ but that might be a little misleading. Researchers are yet to find extensive long-lost settlements here‚ nor even the physical remains of tools‚ fire‚ or other hints that humans were once here. Besides anything‚ the discovery of any submerged human settlements is regularly branded as that nation’s own “long-lost Atlantis”. There’s been "Egypt's Atlantis"‚ “England’s Atlantis”‚ and “the Welsh Atlantis”. It’s a great hook to get people interested in a discovery‚ but not always accurate. After all‚ serious archaeologists aren’t even convinced that the original Atlantis spoken about in ancient Greek texts was a real place. The new study is published in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews.

After thousands of years of cohabiting with domesticated dogs‚ it’s surprising to think that we still don’t fully understand why our furry companions wag their tails. Hoping to finally crack this canine conundrum‚ the authors of a new opinion piece speculate that the behavior may have arisen to satisfy humans’ intrinsic sense of rhythm.While it’s commonly believed that dogs wag their tails when they’re happy‚ the scientific literature doesn’t always back this up. For instance‚ after reviewing more than 100 studies‚ the authors uncovered evidence to suggest that aggressive dogs wag their tails more than docile dogs – “a result that is counterintuitive to the widely held human belief linking tail wagging to positive valence in dogs.”Other studies included in the review found that dogs wag their tails when presented with random objects such as fans and plastic bags‚ “with tail wagging in these situations thought to indicate positive emotions and/or high arousal‚ but not fear or stress.” On other occasions‚ pet pooches were observed wagging when they wanted to be fed‚ suggesting that the behavior could also function as a request signal.Faced with such varied and contradictory data on tail wagging‚ the study authors are ultimately unable to draw any definitive conclusions as to why dogs shake their booties so readily. However‚ they do propose two hypotheses‚ neither of which have been tested but both of which carry some logic.The first of these is known as the “domestication syndrome” hypothesis‚ and states tail-wagging may have emerged as an unintended by-product of human selection for other traits. To back this up‚ the researchers point to a study carried out on silver foxes‚ which were bred to become increasingly tame and docile over 40 generations.“Although tail wagging behavior was not directly selected for‚ tamed foxes showed dog-like tail wagging behavior and had more curled tails‚” write the authors. “This could have been due to a genetic link between the selection for tameness and tail anatomy‚” they continue‚ all of which hints at a possible accidental link between friendliness and more waggly tails in domesticated dogs.“Alternatively‚ tail wagging behavior may have been one target of the domestication process‚ with humans (un)consciously selecting for dogs who wagged their tails more often‚ and potentially more rhythmically‚” say the researchers. “We call this the ‘domesticated rhythmic wagging’ hypothesis.”Though highly speculative and unproven‚ this theory is based on cognitive neuroscience research which indicates that human brains have a natural preference for rhythmic stimuli.  “This propensity for isochronous rhythms could have driven human selection for the conspicuous rhythmic wagging of the tail in dogs‚ and could explain why dogs exhibit it so often in human-dog interactions‚” conclude the researchers.Acknowledging the tentative nature of their proposals‚ the authors conclude that neither of these hypotheses is currently supported by robust evidence. They therefore call for more detailed studies to track the movement of dogs’ tails in different situations and monitor the brain activity associated with tail wagging.The opinion piece is published in the journal Biology Letters.