Feedback is the popular look of new scientists to the latest news and technology news. You can send elements that you think you can entertain readers to comments by sending an email to fownles@newscientist.com
New child or microscope?
Science is one of the most fruitful sources of new terminology. There is nothing like an excess of terms such as “mitochondrial synthesis” and “quantum fluctuations” to make your writing sound authorized
Recently there have been a series of scientific articles that contain the phrase “microscopy/vegetative microscope”. The term suggests a device to scan broccoli, but makes no sense. There are electronic scanning microscopes and electronic tunnel microscopes, but not vegetative electronic microscopes.
Alexander Magazinov, a software engineer, proposed a possible explanation, a software engineer that moonlights like a guard dog for scientific publication. Pointed a 1959 article in Bacteriological reviewsWhose text was formatted in two columns. Towards the bottom of page 4, the “vegetative” and “electronic microscopy” words appear next to the other, in the left and right columns. Ancient documents have often scanned on the legs using the recognition of optical characters, but said software sometimes struggles to deal with complicated formats. “Vegetative electronic microscopy”, according to Magazinov, is “an artifact of text processing”.
However, Retraction Watch journalists saw another possibility, which he had marked in Reddit. In Farsi, The Phrases “Scanning Electron Microscope” and “Vegetative Electron Microscope” Sound Extremely Similar And, Crucially, They Use-Idealical Characters: The Only Difference is a Single Dot, a Diacitic Known As AAA Nuqta. This means that a small fog in translating a role from Farsi into English would be enough to create “vegetative electronic microscopy.”
These explanations are not mutually exclusive, and feedback is satisfied that we can explain the appearance of this phrase. The most important question is why it persists in published studies. Are these documents rigorously reviewed and verified by peers, to guarantee a high degree of precision and, therefore, preserve the integrity of scientific literature? Perhaps such “tortured phrases” should be included in a warning signal verification list that a document can be plagiarized or fraudulent.
Readers who have encountered similar tortured phrases in their technical literature readings are invited to send them to the usual address.
A nun too far
Sometimes, feedback receives a story that feels too good to be true. The configuration is so orderly, and the reward so simultaneously surprising and inevitable, that we doubt Ourelves. Is reality so orderly? And then we remember that the Titanic was the biggest ship in history at the time it was built and on its inaugural trip when the bad happened. Sometimes, reality is melodramatic. So, perhaps we believe that this story happened exactly as described, and we may not.
It comes from Charlie Wartnaby, whose late Father John was curator at the London Science Museum. It is inevitally related to Sconshorre’s problem: the difficulty of prohibiting offensive words in online discussions when the same chains of letters can appear in harmless words “Peacock” and “Sussex”.
John’s story is not strictly spoken, an example of Scunthorpe’s problem, but is definitely adjacent. As Charlie explains: “In the early days of the computer gallery, a machine was established in such a way that the members of the public could write and see their words on a large screen, a great novelty for their day.”
This may seem an invitation to behave badly. Therefore, readers will be completed by knowing that the staff anticipated the inevitable attempt to write dirt torrents on the big screen so that everyone sees it. They presented “a long list of blasphemies”, all of which were blocked.
“Everything was fine,” says Charlie, until the system was tasks by the most dangerous person possible: a computer expert. When trying to use the machine, he noticed that some keys of keys did nothing. “Investigating, he managed to get the entire list of offensive (or offensive) words on the big screen so that everyone sees it, allegedly including a children’s visiting party at the convent school and supervising nuns.”
Feedback is prepared to believe in 90 percent of this story, but in the absence of independent verification, we draw the line in the nuns. However, we are also willing to be wrong about this. If any convent school were in the Science Museum on that thick day, and we suspect they remember, contact.
Yodel-eh-oh
Senior news editor, Sophie Bushwick, calls our attention to a press release entitled “The monkeys are the best yodellers in the world – New Research.” He describes that a study analyzes “special anatomical structures” in the throats of apes and monkeys, called vocal membranes. These membranes allow the monkeys to “the same rapid frequency transitions heard in alpine iodeling”, but on “a much broader frequency range”, sometimes “exceeding three musical octaves.”
After an accumulation like that, the comments were, with their breath converted, to find the accompanying audio recording of a hood with locks. We anticipate an ululator that evoked The sound of music or the Dutch rock iodellers focus. What we got was approximately “Skroark Rark Eek.” And now we understand why Sophie told us that “he can’t stop laughing.”
However, a closer look reveals a lost opportunity. Of course, show us a hood with “Yodeling” tufts, but the study also included howlers.
Do you have a story for comments?
You can send stories to comments by email to fownles@newscientist.com. Include the address of your home. This week’s comments can be on our website.
]