Microbial communities known as stromatolites have been found in previously unstudied lagoons in Patagonia. Fossilized stromatolites represent some of the earliest evidence for life on Earth‚ and while these are not the only survivors today‚ they resemble the fossils in ways no other known examples do.Although the individual organisms that make up stromatolites require microscopes to see‚ they combine into much larger communities. The approach is used by quite different species‚ most often cyanobacteria. However‚ cyanobacteria produce oxygen‚ which was rare in the early Earth’s atmosphere. Consequently‚ the first example may have been more similar to ones rarer in modern times‚ formed from sulfate-reducing bacteria. Both types form layers where photosynthesizing organisms pile on top of each other to gain access to sunlight‚ using sand and their own adhesive liquids to solidify. Living stromatolites are known to grow to more than a meter (3.3 feet) high. Today‚ however‚ they are vulnerable both to species that could feed on them‚ or others that can outcompete them through faster growth. Consequently‚ they survive only in rare environments where other life cannot‚ such as waters salty enough to kill almost any other branch of the tree of life.The most famous surviving stromatolites are in Shark Bay‚ Western Australia‚ which to numerous documentary makers’ delight grow near some of the oldest fossilized examples. Shark Bay may get the glory‚ but in Puna de Atacama‚ almost 4‚000 meters (more than 12‚000 feet) above sea level‚ researchers have discovered even more interesting stromatolites occupying hypersaline (very salty) lagoons.  IFLScience is not responsible for content shared from external sites.“This lagoon could be one of the best modern examples of the earliest signs of life on Earth‚” Professor Brian Hynek of Colorado University‚ Boulder‚ said in a statement. “It’s unlike anything I’ve ever seen or‚ really‚ like anything any scientist has ever seen.”Speaking for all of us‚ Hynek added; “It’s just amazing that you can still find undocumented things like that on our planet.”For anyone skeptical that such a location could have escaped scientists’ notice for so long‚ consider how Hynek found it. Dr Mariá Farías of PUNABIO Environmental Consulting was showing him a region in northwest Argentina where she is searching for rare microbes for soil remediation. The pair had to drive for nine hours on dirt roads and stay in a village of 35 people who are dependent on a single spring for water‚ since rain is too rare to rely on surface water. Brian Hynek stands in front of a lagoon in Argentina's Puna de Atacama‚ possibly the closest surviving ecosystem to conditions in the first billion years of Earth‚ and maybe ancient MarsImage Credit: Brian HynekOn the last night there‚ Hynek was studying satellite images of the area and noticed what he took to be a set of lagoons 16 kilometers (10 miles) away. The pair drove as much of the way as they could without roads‚ and then hiked the rest‚ despite the requirement to carry water to deal with the merciless sun. “In some places‚ we were sinking up to our knees in salt slush‚” Hynek said. The trip was made worth it by the discovery of 12 lagoons spanning 10 hectares (25 acres). The waters are perfectly clear‚ having little life or dirt to muddy them‚ so when Hynek looked down‚ he could see green – and apparently growing – stromatolites larger than any he had ever seen alive. On the other hand‚ we’ve found fossilized stromatolites that are larger still.Some of Hynek’s specimens are 5 meters (15 feet) wide and several feet tall‚ giants compared to other living examples‚ but fossils are known to have reached 6 meters (20 feet) high. Presumably‚ growing big was easier when there was nothing more advanced to threaten you.Stromatolites would not have been the first life on Earth. Isotopic evidence suggests life started some 4.1 billion years ago‚ but the oldest stromatolite fossils are 3.5 billion years old. Perhaps there were earlier examples‚ but they were in places whose geology has not survived. More likely the earliest life just didn’t fossilize well‚ and stromatolites were the first that did.When Hynek tested the chemistry of the find‚ he learned it had more in common with the ancient examples than those from elsewhere in the world. A specimen he broke open is mainly built of gypsum (CaSO42H2O)‚ which is common in fossil stromatolites but had never been seen before in living versions. The living surface turned out to be cyanobacteria‚ but the core was pink from abundant archaea‚ better candidates for the original stromatolite-builders. A rock hammer was used to crack open a stromatolite formation‚ revealing its pink center indicating the presence of archaea. More stromatolites grow under the water nearby.Image Credit: Brian HynekThe location offers little other than extremely saline and acidic waters‚ and sunlight unfiltered by the lower atmosphere. This‚ Hynek suspects‚ is probably a lot like the early Earth.Many astrobiologists have visited the Atacama seeing it as the best easily reachable proxy for ancient Mars‚ and Hynek thinks his discovery vindicates that. “If life ever evolved on Mars to the level of fossils‚ it would have been like this‚” he said. “Understanding these modern communities on Earth could inform us about what we should look for as we search for similar features in the Martian rocks.”The research potential is obvious‚ but Hynek fears the site may have been found too late. One resource the Atacama does have in abundance is lithium‚ which has recently gone from being unwanted to the darling of mining companies thanks to its role in batteries. The area is about to be drilled to search for deposits nearby‚ and Hynek fears even the process of looking could destroy such sensitive systems. He and Farías have recovered RNA samples‚ but there is still far more left to learn.In the race to tell the world what he has found‚ the researchers have yet to publish their findings‚ but presented them this week to the American Geophysical Union Fall Conference. [H/T Mashable]

Someone on Reddit recently asked for help with the age-old question "so‚ if I dropped.. let’s say a pumpkin into the ocean once it reaches a certain depth… would it just implode? If so‚ why?"Let's work backward‚ as the why is actually fairly simple. Implosions are where objects collapse in on themselves‚ the result of a difference in pressure between internal and external pressure. Implosions can occur at the surface too as long as there is lower pressure on the inside of an object vs the outside‚ e.g. by removing the air inside a tank to create a vacuum.  It's all fairly basic. If there's enough pressure discrepancy‚ a pumpkin that reached a certain depth would implode. The question (after you've figured out how to make a pumpkin sink at all) is whether it is airtight enough to achieve this pressure difference in the first place. If it isn't‚ it could fill with water as it descends‚ preventing a big old Halloweeny implosion.Luckily‚ we have an answer for this too‚ after YouTubers rctestflight decided to test it out in October‚ dragging a pumpkin down into the ocean in a net. In the first test‚ the YouTubers noticed bubbles emerging from the pumpkin as it went down‚ indicating that it was filling up with water. When they returned it to the surface‚ they found it intact and filled with liquid. They then attempted to make the next pumpkin airtight‚ by covering it in a plastic bag. Eventually‚ they successfully kept it shut tight‚ and the pumpkin neatly folded in on itself in an implosion.

Are blondes dumber than brunettes? No‚ of course not – but generally‚ people think they are. Similarly‚ you probably don’t want a more experienced doctor in the ER‚ and there’s a pretty good chance any given teenager is less horny than you right now.So why is it that we tend to assume the opposite in all these cases? It’s all due to a cognitive bias known as the “halo effect” – the tendency to take a single factor about a person and use it to draw sometimes wildly unrelated conclusions about their character.What is the halo effect?You know how‚ in medieval art‚ all the angels were drawn as beautiful and resplendent‚ surrounded by a golden halo‚ to convey just how good and blessed they were? The halo effect is basically that‚ but in reverse.“It is the idea that global evaluations about a person (e.g. she is likable) bleed over into judgements about their specific traits (e.g. she is intelligent)‚” wrote Jeremy Dean‚ psychologist and author of the website PsyBlog.“It is sometimes called the ‘what is beautiful is good’ principle‚ or the ‘physical attractiveness stereotype’‚” he explained.The halo effect‚ basically‚ is why you’re convinced your favorite celebrity must be a cool guy to hang out with. It’s why your teachers tell you to write neatly in exams‚ and why designer jeans cost so much more than generic brand. It’s even the reason it’s so shocking that Adolf Hitler loved dogs and children.For the classic example‚ it’s easiest to go back to the paper that first coined the "halo effect" more than 100 years ago. Considering surveys conducted in places like the army‚ or factories‚ asking people to rate their comrades on qualities like skill‚ intelligence‚ reliability‚ and even things like their physique and bearing‚ psychologist Edward Thorndike noticed something suspicious about the answers: they were too neat.“The estimates of the same man in a number of different traits such as intelligence‚ industry‚ technical skill‚ reliability‚ etc.‚ etc.‚ were very highly correlated and very evenly correlated‚” Thorndike reported. “It consequently appeared probable that those giving the ratings were unable to analyze out these different aspects of the person's nature and achievement and rate each in independence of the others.”In other words‚ if the workers thought their colleague was a good guy‚ they rated him higher than he objectively deserved for pretty much everything. If they didn’t like him for some reason‚ the opposite was true.“[I am] convinced that even a very capable foreman‚ employer‚ teacher‚ or department head is unable to treat an individual as a compound of separate qualities… in independence of the others‚” Thorndike concluded. “The magnitude of the constant error of the halo‚ as we have called it… seems surprisingly large.”Taken in by the halo“Sure‚” you may be thinking‚ “I can see how some people might fall for that – but not me. I’m too smart for that.”That’s certainly what a group of students thought when they were recruited as test subjects back in 1977. In the now-classic experiment‚ social psychologists Richard Nisbett and Timothy Wilson told the volunteers that they were investigating whether the amount of exposure students had to a lecturer would influence how highly they rated them in an evaluation.In fact‚ they were measuring something else: whether the lecturer’s likeability would influence their ratings. The students were split into two groups – one watched a video of a lecturer answering questions in a warm‚ friendly‚ and enthusiastic manner; the other watched a video of the exact same lecturer answering the exact same questions‚ but with a much worse attitude.“Consistent with the halo effect‚ students who saw the ‘warm’ incarnation of the lecturer rated him more attractive‚ his mannerisms more likable and even is accent as more appealing‚” explained Dean. And even after it was pointed out to them (twice!) that their judgments may have been affected by his likeability‚ they insisted that they had marked the lecturer objectively.“[The] students had no clue whatsoever why they gave one lecturer higher ratings‚ even after they were given every chance‚” Dean wrote. “They were convinced they had made their judgment about the lecturer’s physical appearance‚ mannerisms and accent without considering how likable he was.”Why do we fall for it?Humans are‚ let’s face it‚ little more than apes with a god complex – and as powerful and smart as we think we are‚ our brains really love taking the easy way out.“The Halo effect… serves to increase the consistency of our evaluations and build easier narratives‚” explained Eva Krockow‚ a researcher in decision-making at the University of Leicester‚ in an article for Psychology Today.“People tend to avoid states of internal inconsistency‚” she wrote. “It’s easier to build a mental image of a person that’s all positive than it is to carefully construct a nuanced picture‚ which involves both good and bad aspects‚ depending on the context.”That can be a problem‚ since those ape brains of ours can also be hella superficial. The halo effect is most pronounced with regards to physical appearance‚ so if you’re short or ugly‚ prepare to be paid less and thought of as less intelligent and capable than your tall‚ attractive peers. Equally‚ beware the dating pool: the halo effect can make an attractive suitor’s racist jokes and possessive behavior seem less red than the massive crimson flags they are.So how do we beat it? The only thing we can do‚ really‚ is to try to consciously maintain objectivity. “Biases are most influential when we allow for automatic‚ intuitive and emotional thinking to influence our judgements‚” Krockow wrote. “To reduce the influence of cognitive biases‚ we therefore have to slow things down and control subjective feelings.”By staying aware of the halo effect‚ stopping to consider whether it’s affecting our judgments‚ and – particularly in situations such as interviews or dates – creating and sticking to a predetermined list of “must-haves” and “must-not-haves”‚ regardless of how you feel about the candidate‚ we can all get a better handle on this omnipresent cognitive bias.And let’s hope we do‚ to be honest. After all‚ who wants to lose a potential job‚ or friend‚ or even a partner‚ based solely on a bad haircut or a stray zit?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. 

Life is pain‚ highness – but not all pain is created equal. Despite being by definition a subjective experience‚ there are some facts about pain we all pretty much accept as true. Getting stuck by a pin is less painful than breaking your collarbone‚ for example‚ and literally anything is easier than treading on a Lego at 2 in the morning. As for the most painful thing in the world‚ though – that’s a hard question to answer. There are people out there who don’t even find childbirth that painful‚ for goodness’s sake.But never let it be said that we at IFLScience would shy away from a challenge. So here they are: the most physically painful diseases‚ stings and bites‚ and bodily experiences that a person can go through. Did yours make the cut?The most painful diseasesAs upsetting as it is‚ pain is anything but pointless. It’s our bodies’ way of telling us something is wrong – it’s just that sometimes‚ the wires have gotten a little crossed.Take complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS)‚ for example. It’s a disease marked by usually continuous burning or throbbing pain‚ but for no particular reason: sometimes it occurs after the body suffers some kind of damage like surgery or a heart attack – but sometimes it turns up after something small‚ and sometimes after nothing at all.Even when it is caused by an injury‚ though‚ CRPS is marked by the fact that the pain it causes is completely out of proportion. It can cause sensitivity to touch‚ swelling‚ and discoloration of the affected area‚ and even changes to hair and nail structure. Those with the condition can experience spasms‚ tremors‚ and muscle atrophy; it becomes painful even to wear socks.“CRPS… is one of the most painful conditions known‚ registering a staggering 42 out of 50 on the McGill pain scale‚” British MP Ruth George pointed out in one 2018 parliamentary debate on the disease. “That is worse than the pain of the amputation of a finger or toe with no anesthetic.”Worse‚ she continued‚ “CRPS is not a short-term pain that will heal in time. The most excruciating part is that the pain is long-term‚ and likely to be for life.”How bad is it? Put it this way: it’s sometimes known as “the suicide disease”. Basically‚ CRPS doesn’t kill you – it's just really‚ really unbearable.It’s hard to imagine something worse than a condition that comes with a one-in-two suicidal ideation risk – but according to the UK’s National Health Service‚ there are a few things that are comparable. They released a list of the 20 most painful illnesses back in 2018; alongside CRPS they included classics such as broken bones and migraines‚ as well as more niche conditions like trigeminal neuralgia‚ a sudden and severe facial pain that can be triggered by something as tiny as a gust of wind.Also making the list is the notoriously painful endometriosis – a disease where tissue similar to the lining of the uterus grows outside the uterus. Like CRPS‚ this condition comes with a quadruple whammy of disappointment: not only is it sometimes debilitatingly painful‚ but it takes an average of 7.5 years to diagnose‚ has no known cause‚ and is basically incurable.Oh‚ and it can also lead to infertility. Make that whammy a quintuple.The most painful insect venomThere are so many things in the world that can bite‚ sting‚ or otherwise afflict us with deadly poisons‚ that the question of which is most painful must surely be unanswerable. After all‚ short of some incredibly unlucky person who just happens to have been stung by like‚ 150 different things in his lifetime‚ how could we ever get a fair rating?Well‚ we’re in luck‚ because that guy totally existed. His name was Justin Schmidt‚ he was an entomologist specializing in the study of killer honeybees‚ and he apparently spent basically his entire adult life getting stung in various exotic ways.“I know people think I’m a bit crazy‚” Schmidt told the New York Times Magazine back in 2016. “But I’m really not. I’m just trying to answer a different set of questions.”Forty years ago‚ that question was pretty cut and dry: is the pain of a sting related to how dangerous it is? The hypothesis‚ as it turned out‚ was a bust‚ but the methodology would become notorious – because it was in the resulting paper that the world first saw what would eventually become known as the Schmidt Sting Pain Index.Covering close to 80 species of ant‚ bee‚ and wasp‚ the Schmidt Index ranks how painful a sting is on a scale from zero (barely noticeable) to four (kill me now). Down at the bottom of the pile‚ with a ranking of just 0.5‚ we find Triepeolus‚ a type of parasitic bee whose sting Schmidt describes as “Did I just imagine that? A little scratch that dances with a tickle”; a little higher up‚ with a ranking of one‚ its cousin the sweat bee imparts a pain that is “light and ephemeral‚ almost fruity. A tiny spark has singed a single hair on your arm.”These descriptions‚ semi-whimsical and semi-profound‚ allow for nuances that a single number could never cover. “Numbers are kind of an unnatural thing‚” he told Atlas Obscura in 2016. “I can’t even remember the numbers. I have to look at my notebook and see how I evaluated it‚ whereas the descriptions are much more graphic.” “I think they’re just a much better way of communicating and conveying the essence of what the numbers are really trying to tell you‚” he said.To be sure‚ his descriptions certainly capture the nuances of the different types of pain available. The honey wasp and the baldfaced hornet both rate a two on the scale‚ for example‚ but they’re clearly very different experiences: the former is reminiscent of “a cotton swab dipped in habanero sauce […] pushed up your nose‚” while the latter is “similar to getting your hand mashed in a revolving door.”One step further up the ladder at three‚ we have critters like the Florida harvester ant – “bold and unrelenting. Somebody is using a power drill to excavate your ingrown toenail” – and the giant paper wasp: “there are gods‚ and they do throw thunderbolts. Poseidon has rammed his trident into your breast.”Finally‚ we come to the acme of the scale: the level four stings. These are the ones that are so bad‚ they can “just shut you down‚” he told Atlas Obscura. “You can’t function in a normal fashion.”There are only three insects cataloged that can deliver level-four pain: the warrior wasp‚ the bullet ant‚ and the tarantula hawk. But of the three‚ it’s the bullet ant that’s the undisputed king of sting‚ Schmidt said. “If I made a five on the scale‚” he told Smithsonian Magazine in 2016‚ “it would be just the bullet ant and nothing else.”The most painful experienceAh ha‚ the bit you’ve been waiting for. Which is worse: childbirth or getting kicked in the balls? Well‚ there’s something out there that hurts worse than either – and it’s completely equal opportunity.“I don't know that I ever see anyone on a regular basis in the ER who has more pain than a person who's there with a kidney stone‚” said Troy Madsen‚ Adjunct Professor in Emergency Medicine and Assistant Professor in Surgery at the University of Utah‚ in the Who Cares About Men’s Health? Podcast last year. “You can tell‚” he said. “You walk in the room‚ they're writhing […] It's just incredible pain.”Kidney stones are pretty much what they sound like: hard‚ stone-like lumps in the kidneys caused by a build-up of waste products in the blood‚ forming crystals. “When stones are sitting in the kidney‚ they don't usually cause pain because they're not obstructing‚” University of Utah urologist John Smith said. “They're not bothering you.” “But when they start blocking the flow of urine and they get into the ureter‚ the small tube‚ your body tries to get rid of that by peristalsing‚ just the way it does when it moves food through your intestines‚” he explained. And that’s when the pain starts: if the stone is big enough‚ it may block the ureter‚ causing the kidney to swell and the ureter to spasm painfully.Worse‚ they can lead to severe kidney infections if left untreated. “People [can] lose kidneys because they think stones have passed but they never do‚ and their kidney ends up nonfunctioning‚" said Brian Benway‚ director of the Comprehensive Kidney Stone Program at Cedars Sinai‚ in 2019.“Blockage and infection together make the stone act like an abscess‚” he explained‚ “and people can become critically ill and can even die in that scenario.”And if you’re wondering whether passing a kidney stone can really be more painful than forcing another human out of your body – well‚ just ask those who know. Not only will many people flat-out tell you that their experience with kidney stones was worse than giving birth – “Years ago I had this nail tech‚ I told her how I was having kidney issues that have me a lot of pain and before I could finish she said: well‚ I hope it's not stones because I have 4 children‚ all four natural births‚ the third one took more than 24 hours to come out‚ and I would rather birth them all again back to back than pass those kidney stones again‚” one Reddit post recalled – but actual‚ peer-reviewed research bears it out as well.Opinions are similarly unanimous when it comes to the pain of kidney stones versus being kicked in the balls. “I've had dozens of [kidney stones]‚” one person wrote. “If I had a choice‚ I'd que[ue] up for a good nut kick with joy in my eyes.”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.  If you or someone you know is struggling‚ help and support are available in the US at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline on1-800-273-8255. In the UK and Ireland‚ the Samaritans can be contacted on 116 123. International helplines can be found at SuicideStop.com.   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.  

Because the ‘Survivopedia Story Contest’ has now launched. The post (Win a Prize!) Enter Our 2023 Survival Story Contest appeared first on Survivopedia.

Eliminating Section 230 for generative AI would be dangerous.

In the liberty-vs.-safety cage match‚ we should be rooting for liberty.

Regulators are not legislators — and should never behave as if they are. 


It seems that just about everyone can find a reason for disappointment in this year’s climate summit.

On a sister of Fidel; a menorah-douser in Poland; Trump’s latest grift; a venerable French pianist; and more.