Findings in title quoted from the linked summary^1 and its hyperlinked journal paper.^2

From the linked summary^1 released 13 Feb. 2023:

>A new paper in Public Understanding of Science and an associated report by Stephen Cave, Kanta Dihal, Eleanor Drage, and Kerry McInerney shows the results of an analysis of the 142 most influential AI films in history, establishing that gender inequalities in film are more extreme than in real life.

>Just 8% of all depictions of AI professionals from a century of popular film are women – and more than half of these are shown as subordinate to men.

>This gender imbalance is even bigger than in the real-world AI industry, in which 20% of AI professionals are women.

From the hyperlinked journal paper:^2

>The aim of this study is to examine the gendering of portrayals of AI researchers in influential fiction film over the past century, 1920–2020.

>[We] explain our choice of media and period; our criteria for ‘AI researcher’; how we have coded gender; our criteria for ‘influential’ in film; and the corresponding sources of our corpus.

>We have examined films over the course of a century, from 1920 to 2020. The total number of films featuring AI is sufficiently small that this large temporal range results in a corpus that is manageable but meaningful.

>1920 is an appropriate start date both because of the rapid development of the cinema in the United States and Europe after the First World War, and because this decade saw the earliest high-impact portrayals of intelligent machines and their creators, in Karel Čapek’s play R.U.R. (1921) and Fritz Lang’s film Metropolis (1927).

>Of the 1413 films in our corpus, we identified 142 as featuring AI. Of these, 86 films clearly showed or referred to an AI engineer or scientist.

>The total number of AI engineers or scientists shown was 116, as 63 films showed only one such figure, 16 films showed 2 and 7 films showed 3 figures that met our criteria.

>Of these 116 AI engineers or scientists, 88 were men, 10 were male robots, aliens, animals or AIs, and 9 were corporations led by men, giving a total of 107 male figures, or 92% of the total. Seven were human women and two were female non-humans, giving a total of nine female figures, or 8% of the total.

^1 Who makes AI? Inequality in AI films, Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence, 13 Feb. 2023, http://lcfi.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/feb/13/who-makes-ai-inequality-ai-films/

^2 S. Cave, K. Dihal, E. Drage, and K. McInerney (2023) Who makes AI? Gender and portrayals of AI scientists in popular film, 1920–2020. Public Understanding of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231153985

Findings in title quoted from the linked summary^1 for a journal paper^2 identifying a penguin named in honour of paleontologist Ewan Fordyce.^3

From the linked summary:^1

>New Zealand has been a haven for earthbound birds for eons. The absence of terrestrial predators allowed flightless parrots, kiwis and moas to thrive. Now researchers are adding two prehistoric penguins to this grounded aviary.

>One species is a beefy behemoth that waddled along the New Zealand coastline nearly 60 million years ago. At almost 350 pounds, it weighed as much as an adult gorilla and is the heaviest penguin known to science.

>[The researchers] named the larger penguin Kumimanu (a mashup of the Maori words for “monster” and “bird”) fordycei and named the smaller penguin Petradyptes (“rock diver”) stonehousei.

>By creating 3D models of Kumimanu’s humongous humerus and comparing its size and shape with the flipper bones of prehistoric and modern penguins, the researchers estimate that the “monster bird” weighed a whopping [148.0 kg to 159.7 kg].

From the journal paper:^2

>Recent fossil discoveries from New Zealand have revealed a remarkably diverse assemblage of Paleocene stem group penguins.

>Here, we add to this growing record by describing nine new penguin specimens from the late Paleocene (upper Teurian local stage; 55.5–59.5 Ma) Moeraki Formation of the South Island, New Zealand.

>The largest specimen is assigned to a new species, Kumimanu fordycei n. sp., which may have been the largest penguin ever to have lived.

>Allometric regressions based on humerus length and humerus proximal width of extant penguins yield mean estimates of a live body mass in the range of 148.0 kg (95% CI: 132.5 kg–165.3 kg) and 159.7 kg (95% CI: 142.6 kg–178.8 kg), respectively, for Kumimanu fordycei.

From the University of Otago:^3

>The world’s largest penguin has been named in honour of Emeritus Professor Ewan Fordyce, recognising his enormous contributions to marine vertebrate paleontology.

>[Lead author] Dr Ksepka says he the researchers are “thrilled” to name one species after Emeritus Professor Fordyce in honour of his vast contributions to paleontology in general and to fossil penguins in particular.

^1 The biggest penguin that ever existed was a ‘monster bird’, Jack Tamisiea for the New York Times, 8 Feb. 2023, https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/the-biggest-penguin-that-ever-existed-was-a-monster-bird/

^2 Ksepka D., Field D., Heath T., Pett W., Thomas D., Giovanardi S., & Tennyson A. (2023). Largest-known fossil penguin provides insight into the early evolution of sphenisciform body size and flipper anatomy. Journal of Paleontology, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/jpa.2022.88

^3 Paleontology powerhouse honoured by former students, University of Otago, 9 Feb. 2023, https://www.otago.ac.nz/social-impact-studio/news/otago0241045.html

>crimeo

>It's a reddit thread, it is a forum for quick discussion about what's presented already, not weeks long correspondence that nobody will ever see the results of since the thread will be gone for weeks by then itself.

For veracity, you may wish to send a facsimile of your comments to the authors, as “quick discussion” by subreddit users other than authors could invite inaccuracies.

>crimeoPhD

>I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question

>>Am I just blind, or is there no actual data here?

>Where is the data? WHAT was reviewed by their peers? They haven't actually gone out and done or measured anything to be reviewed, unless I'm missing it in the article.

Findings in title are quoted from the linked summary^1 and its hyperlinked journal paper T. Brown, et al.^2 as cited in my excerpt comment.^3

Perhaps correspondence with the authors — environmental physicist Laura Revell, planetary scientist Michele Bannister, and first author Tyler Brown — may be productive.

^1 Rocket industry could undo decades of work to save the ozone layer, 3 Feb. 2023, https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/news/2023/rocket-industry-could-undo-decades-of-work-to-save-the-ozone-layer.html

^2 T. Brown, M. Bannister, and L. Revell. Envisioning a sustainable future for space launches: a review of current research and policy. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2022.2152467

^3 https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/10ufb9b/new_review_finds_that_rocket_emissions_in_the/j7bisdk/

crimeoPhD

>Uh am I just blind, or is there no actual data here, just some dudes waving their hands and hypothesizing stuff they think is plausible?

>And that hypothesis, even, is especially un-compelling IMO when they include hypergolic propellants in the list: that is the source of most of the super toxic shit BUT is also definitely not the propellant being used in the vast majority of those extra 100 launches.

>Hypergolics are used for military rockets mostly where stable storage for years is the main concern. Commercial launches use almost entirely vastly cleaner RP-1 refined kerosene, hydrogen, or methane fuels

The authors are “just some dudes” whose review of research and policy is peer-reviewed.

The lexicon for describing peer-reviewed hypothesis — could or plausible included — may be unfamiliar to audiences accustomed to assertions of opinion.

Findings in title quoted from the linked summary^1 and its hyperlinked journal paper T. Brown, et al.^2

From the 3 Feb. 2023 summary^1 by the authors of T. Brown, et al.:

>Rockets have exciting potential to enable industrial-level access to near-Earth space and exploration throughout the solar system.

>This makes them “charismatic technology” – and the promise of what the technology can enable drives deep emotional investment.

>The allure of possibility can get in the way of even discussing how to make rockets achieve these aspirational goals without damage. We have to be able to have clear discussions.

>The ozone layer is on track to heal within four decades, according to a recent UN report, but this progress could be undone by an upsurge in rocket launches expected during the same period.

>As we show in our new review, the gases and particulates rockets emit as they punch through the atmosphere could lead to delays in the ozone layer’s recovery.

>Fortunately, the number of launches to date is so small that the impacts on the ozone layer are currently insignificant.

>However, over coming decades the launch industry is set to expand considerably.

> 

>As we outline, rocket emissions in the upper atmosphere can affect the ozone layer but are not regulated. We argue this policy gap must be filled to ensure sustainable growth of the rocket launch industry and protection of the ozone layer.

>The launch industry today relies on four major fuel types for rocket propulsion: liquid kerosene, cryogenic, hypergolic and solid.

>The combustion of these fuels means contemporary rockets create a suite of gaseous and particulate exhaust products, including carbon dioxide, water vapour, black carbon, alumina, reactive chloride and nitrogen oxides. These products are known to destroy ozone.

>A new fuel is methane, which is used in multiple rocket engines under development by major launch companies. The emissions products of methane are as yet poorly understood.

>In the stratosphere, an upper level of the atmosphere where the protective ozone layer resides, emissions linger for much longer than lower down.

>Small amounts of an exhaust byproduct can have greater destructive effects in the upper atmosphere than when close to Earth’s surface.

^1 Rocket industry could undo decades of work to save the ozone layer, 3 Feb. 2023, https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/news/2023/rocket-industry-could-undo-decades-of-work-to-save-the-ozone-layer.html

^2 T. Brown, M. Bannister, and L. Revell. Envisioning a sustainable future for space launches: a review of current research and policy. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2022.2152467

Excerpt from the linked Reuters content^1 by Felix Onuah:

>ABUJA, Feb 3 (Reuters) - Nigeria has asked Google and Meta to control the spread of fake news on their platforms ahead of a presidential election this month, Information Minister Lai Mohammed said on Friday.

>Nigerians go to the polls on Feb. 25 to elect a new president, with three frontrunners promising to deal with the rising cost of living, insecurity and a slow-growing economy.

>Mohammed said he met with Meta and Google representatives in Abuja on Friday and requested that they make posts from official channels visible on their platforms, and flag as unverified election results originating from unofficial sources.

>He also asked the two companies to work with the security services to take down posts capable of inciting violence.

>Mohammed's request comes after he asked Google last year to block the use of YouTube channels and livestreams by secessionist and Islamist militant groups in the country.

^1 Nigeria asks social media giants to curb fake news ahead of election, F. Onuah, 3 Feb. 2023, https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/nigeria-asks-social-media-giants-curb-fake-news-ahead-election-2023-02-03/

>hanlonsaxe

>It would be nice if we used different words for habitable for humans, and habitable for some kind of life in general.

>But then no one would click. I guess that could be the title for the chapter in the 22nd century history book about this era.

Who is ‘we’?

Do you mean that the majority of users in r/science may not read linked content, or excerpts in comments?

Do you also mean that such users need in-title explanations for scientific words?

>Putin_Delenda_Est

>Probably a good way to get attention for your paper but tidally locked, red dwarf and a 16 day day orbit are probably not ideal.

Top-level comment may indicate user(s) who do not read comments preceding theirs.

From the linked summary^1 for D. Kossakowski, et al.,^2 in my excerpt comment:^3

>Although the rotation of this planet, named Wolf 1069 b, is probably tidally locked to its path around the parent star, the team is optimistic it may provide durable habitable conditions across a wide area of its dayside.

>The absence of any apparent stellar activity or intense UV radiation increases the chances that Wolf 1069 b could have retained much of its atmosphere.

^1 A nearby potentially habitable Earth-mass exoplanet, Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, 3 Feb. 2023.

^2 D. Kossakowski, et al. The CARMENES search for exoplanets around M dwarfs. Wolf 1069 b: Earth-mass planet in the habitable zone of a nearby, very low-mass star. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202245322

^3 https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/10te3ex/newlydiscovered_earthmass_exoplanet_named_wolf/j767v94/

Findings in title quoted from the linked summary^1 for a hyperlinked journal paper.^2

From the linked summary^1 released by the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy:

>A team of astronomers led by MPIA scientist Diana Kossakowski have discovered an Earth-mass exoplanet orbiting in the habitable zone of the red dwarf star Wolf 1069.

>Although the rotation of this planet, named Wolf 1069 b, is probably tidally locked to its path around the parent star, the team is optimistic it may provide durable habitable conditions across a wide area of its dayside.

>The absence of any apparent stellar activity or intense UV radiation increases the chances that Wolf 1069 b could have retained much of its atmosphere.

>With a distance of 31 light-years, Wolf 1069 b is the sixth closest Earth-mass planet in the habitable zone of its host star.

>Because of its favourable prospects regarding habitability, it is among a small illustrious group of targets, such as Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e, to search for biosignatures.

^1 A nearby potentially habitable Earth-mass exoplanet, Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, 3 Feb. 2023.

^2 D. Kossakowski, et al. The CARMENES search for exoplanets around M dwarfs. Wolf 1069 b: Earth-mass planet in the habitable zone of a nearby, very low-mass star. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202245322