Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Apple co-founder says we should ditch Facebook — permanently
Steve Wozniak doesn't know if his phone is listening, but he's minimizing risks.
- Steve Wozniak didn't hold back his feelings about the social media giant when stopped at an airport.
- The Apple co-founder admitted that devices spying on his conversations is worrisome.
- Wozniak deleted his Facebook account last year, recommending that "most people" should do the same.
When most people are stopped at an airport, they're unlikely to chat about the news of the day. Perhaps Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak was early for his flight. He recently took a few moments out to talk with a TMZ reporter while walking through D.C.'s Reagan National Airport to tell them to beware of listening cell phones, as well as to delete their Facebook account.
"There are many different kinds of people, and some the benefits of Facebook are worth the loss of privacy. But to many like myself, my recommendation is — to most people — you should figure out a way to get off Facebook."
The initial context of the conversation was privacy. This is an issue that affects us all, being that your information is for sale for as little as $10, and the sellers are unconcerned about the identity of the purchasers. Wozniak mentioned the news that Alexa (along with Google Assistant) is not only recording your conversations, but that employees are listening in. Corporate claims that tuning in to private user dialogues helps improve technical capabilities. We should be very wary of such claims.
Then again, spying via audio almost seems quaint compared to the patent Amazon filed that would allow their fleet of home-delivery drones to record video of your private property and feed it into your personal algorithm. Does that tree appear to be dying? Suddenly, your feed is filled with fertilizer options. What Would Wozniak Do about that?
Steve Wozniak Warns People to Get Off Facebook Over Privacy Concerns
The reporter never got that deep into the rabbit hole, though Wozniak sums up his privacy concerns:
"I worry because you're having conversations that you think are private, you're saying words that shouldn't be listened to because you don't expect it, but there's almost no way to stop it. People think they have a level of privacy they don't."
A 2014 Pew poll paints a different landscape: 91 percent of Americans either "agree" or "strongly agree" that we've lost control over our personal information to social media companies. Eighty percent of users worry how governments and businesses will use those data.
A 2017 Pew poll complemented that poll perfectly: only 9 percent of Americans feel "very confident" that said companies protect their data. That's the same percentage of people that believe they have "a lot of control" over their information. Chalk up 9 percent to the clueless.
Yet we stay logged in. While a 2018 Pew poll on social media discovered that 59 percent of Americans claim it would "not be difficult" to abandon these platforms, many do not. In 2017, the same agency found that even as public trust in social media companies lessens, more people are plugging into this "new normal." We know it's happening; we just refuse to give up our apps. The question remains: Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
Recent news revealed that Amazon employees are listening in to private conversations via Alexa.
Photo by Andrew Matthews/PA Images via Getty Images
Wozniak deleted his Facebook account in 2018; he is still very active on Twitter. As with many tech companies, Facebook advertises its product as "free." Obviously, that's not the case.
Wozniak floats the notion of paying for privacy, though as a 2019 study, published in Nature Human Behavior, states, we might well be beyond that point already. The early promise of the internet of an "interconnected world" has truly arrived, for better and mostly worse. The research team behind the study analyzed over 30 million posts by nearly 14,000 Twitter users.
"With this data, they showed that information within the Twitter messages from 8 or 9 of a person's contacts make it possible to predict that person's later tweets as accurately as if they were looking directly at that person's own Twitter feed."
Blockchain solutions are touting better privacy controls on data, but we have not reached that point — nor are we sure these companies will be as benevolent as claimed once their tech scales, a persistent problem with these platforms. Hopes of a truly decentralized infrastructure are turning out to be more philosophical than realistic, though that doesn't mean advances in privacy protection won't arrive. It will likely just not be a romantic as promised.
Even if we're connected to others online, there are levels of control we can initiate. The simplest would be deleting Facebook (or another other platform you're concerned about). It seems to be working out for the Apple co-founder. Where this conversation leads, however, is anyone's guess.
- Amazon might have a Cambridge Analytica-size problem - Big Think ›
- Facebook finally adds option to delete old posts in batches - Big Think ›
- Examining Facebook and the case for privacy - Big Think ›
So much for rest in peace.
- Australian scientists found that bodies kept moving for 17 months after being pronounced dead.
- Researchers used photography capture technology in 30-minute intervals every day to capture the movement.
- This study could help better identify time of death.
We're learning more new things about death everyday. Much has been said and theorized about the great divide between life and the Great Beyond. While everyone and every culture has their own philosophies and unique ideas on the subject, we're beginning to learn a lot of new scientific facts about the deceased corporeal form.
An Australian scientist has found that human bodies move for more than a year after being pronounced dead. These findings could have implications for fields as diverse as pathology to criminology.
Dead bodies keep moving
Researcher Alyson Wilson studied and photographed the movements of corpses over a 17 month timeframe. She recently told Agence France Presse about the shocking details of her discovery.
Reportedly, she and her team focused a camera for 17 months at the Australian Facility for Taphonomic Experimental Research (AFTER), taking images of a corpse every 30 minutes during the day. For the entire 17 month duration, the corpse continually moved.
"What we found was that the arms were significantly moving, so that arms that started off down beside the body ended up out to the side of the body," Wilson said.
The researchers mostly expected some kind of movement during the very early stages of decomposition, but Wilson further explained that their continual movement completely surprised the team:
"We think the movements relate to the process of decomposition, as the body mummifies and the ligaments dry out."
During one of the studies, arms that had been next to the body eventually ended up akimbo on their side.
The team's subject was one of the bodies stored at the "body farm," which sits on the outskirts of Sydney. (Wilson took a flight every month to check in on the cadaver.)Her findings were recently published in the journal, Forensic Science International: Synergy.
Implications of the study
The researchers believe that understanding these after death movements and decomposition rate could help better estimate the time of death. Police for example could benefit from this as they'd be able to give a timeframe to missing persons and link that up with an unidentified corpse. According to the team:
"Understanding decomposition rates for a human donor in the Australian environment is important for police, forensic anthropologists, and pathologists for the estimation of PMI to assist with the identification of unknown victims, as well as the investigation of criminal activity."
While scientists haven't found any evidence of necromancy. . . the discovery remains a curious new understanding about what happens with the body after we die.
Metal-like materials have been discovered in a very strange place.
- Bristle worms are odd-looking, spiky, segmented worms with super-strong jaws.
- Researchers have discovered that the jaws contain metal.
- It appears that biological processes could one day be used to manufacture metals.
The bristle worm, also known as polychaetes, has been around for an estimated 500 million years. Scientists believe that the super-resilient species has survived five mass extinctions, and there are some 10,000 species of them.
Be glad if you haven't encountered a bristle worm. Getting stung by one is an extremely itchy affair, as people who own saltwater aquariums can tell you after they've accidentally touched a bristle worm that hitchhiked into a tank aboard a live rock.
Bristle worms are typically one to six inches long when found in a tank, but capable of growing up to 24 inches long. All polychaetes have a segmented body, with each segment possessing a pair of legs, or parapodia, with tiny bristles. ("Polychaeate" is Greek for "much hair.") The parapodia and its bristles can shoot outward to snag prey, which is then transferred to a bristle worm's eversible mouth.
The jaws of one bristle worm — Platynereis dumerilii — are super-tough, virtually unbreakable. It turns out, according to a new study from researchers at the Technical University of Vienna, this strength is due to metal atoms.
Metals, not minerals
Fireworm, a type of bristle wormCredit: prilfish / Flickr
This is pretty unusual. The study's senior author Christian Hellmich explains: "The materials that vertebrates are made of are well researched. Bones, for example, are very hierarchically structured: There are organic and mineral parts, tiny structures are combined to form larger structures, which in turn form even larger structures."
The bristle worm jaw, by contrast, replaces the minerals from which other creatures' bones are built with atoms of magnesium and zinc arranged in a super-strong structure. It's this structure that is key. "On its own," he says, "the fact that there are metal atoms in the bristle worm jaw does not explain its excellent material properties."
Just deformable enough
Credit: by-studio / Adobe Stock
What makes conventional metal so strong is not just its atoms but the interactions between the atoms and the ways in which they slide against each other. The sliding allows for a small amount of elastoplastic deformation when pressure is applied, endowing metals with just enough malleability not to break, crack, or shatter.
Co-author Florian Raible of Max Perutz Labs surmises, "The construction principle that has made bristle worm jaws so successful apparently originated about 500 million years ago."
Raible explains, "The metal ions are incorporated directly into the protein chains and then ensure that different protein chains are held together." This leads to the creation of three-dimensional shapes the bristle worm can pack together into a structure that's just malleable enough to withstand a significant amount of force.
"It is precisely this combination," says the study's lead author Luis Zelaya-Lainez, "of high strength and deformability that is normally characteristic of metals.
So the bristle worm jaw is both metal-like and yet not. As Zelaya-Lainez puts it, "Here we are dealing with a completely different material, but interestingly, the metal atoms still provide strength and deformability there, just like in a piece of metal."
Observing the creation of a metal-like material from biological processes is a bit of a surprise and may suggest new approaches to materials development. "Biology could serve as inspiration here," says Hellmich, "for completely new kinds of materials. Perhaps it is even possible to produce high-performance materials in a biological way — much more efficiently and environmentally friendly than we manage today."
Dealing with rudeness can nudge you toward cognitive errors.
- Anchoring is a common bias that makes people fixate on one piece of data.
- A study showed that those who experienced rudeness were more likely to anchor themselves to bad data.
- In some simulations with medical students, this effect led to higher mortality rates.
Cognitive biases are funny little things. Everyone has them, nobody likes to admit it, and they can range from minor to severe depending on the situation. Biases can be influenced by factors as subtle as our mood or various personality traits.
A new study soon to be published in the Journal of Applied Psychology suggests that experiencing rudeness can be added to the list. More disturbingly, the study's findings suggest that it is a strong enough effect to impact how medical professionals diagnose patients.
Life hack: don't be rude to your doctor
The team of researchers behind the project tested to see if participants could be influenced by the common anchoring bias, defined by the researchers as "the tendency to rely too heavily or fixate on one piece of information when making judgments and decisions." Most people have experienced it. One of its more common forms involves being given a particular value, say in negotiations on price, which then becomes the center of reasoning even when reason would suggest that number should be ignored.
It can also pop up in medicine. As co-author Dr. Trevor Foulk explains, "If you go into the doctor and say 'I think I'm having a heart attack,' that can become an anchor and the doctor may get fixated on that diagnosis, even if you're just having indigestion. If doctors don't move off anchors enough, they'll start treating the wrong thing."
Lots of things can make somebody more or less likely to anchor themselves to an idea. The authors of the study, who have several papers on the effects of rudeness, decided to see if that could also cause people to stumble into cognitive errors. Past research suggested that exposure to rudeness can limit people's perspective — perhaps anchoring them.
In the first version of the study, medical students were given a hypothetical patient to treat and access to information on their condition alongside an (incorrect) suggestion on what the condition was. This served as the anchor. In some versions of the tests, the students overheard two doctors arguing rudely before diagnosing the patient. Later variations switched the diagnosis test for business negotiations or workplace tasks while maintaining the exposure to rudeness.
Across all iterations of the test, those exposed to rudeness were more likely to anchor themselves to the initial, incorrect suggestion despite the availability of evidence against it. This was less significant for study participants who scored higher on a test of how wide of a perspective they tended to have. The disposition of these participants, who answered in the affirmative to questions like, "Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in his/her place," was able to effectively negate the narrowing effects of rudeness.
What this means for you and your healthcare
The effects of anchoring when a medical diagnosis is on the line can be substantial. Dr. Foulk explains that, in some simulations, exposure to rudeness can raise the mortality rate as doctors fixate on the wrong problems.
The authors of the study suggest that managers take a keener interest in ensuring civility in workplaces and giving employees the tools they need to avoid judgment errors after dealing with rudeness. These steps could help prevent anchoring.
Also, you might consider being nicer to people.