2025-07-03 18:00:49
For this week’s podcast, I’m talking to our friend Casey Johnston, a tech journalist turned fitness journalist turned independent journalist. Casey studied physics, which led her to tech journalism; she did some of my favorite coverage of Internet culture as well as Apple’s horrendous butterfly laptop keyboards. We worked together at VICE, where Casey was an editor and where she wrote Ask a Swole Woman, an advice column about weightlifting. After she left VICE, Casey founded She’s a Beast, an independent site about weightlifting, but also about the science of diet culture, fitness influencers on the internet, the intersections of all those things, etc.
She just wrote A Physical Education: How I Escaped Diet Culture and Gained the Power of Lifting, a really great reported memoir about how our culture and the media often discourages people from lifting, and how this type of exercise can be really beneficial to your brain and your body. I found the book really inspiring and actually started lifting right after I read it. In this interview we talk about her book, about journalism, about independent media, and how doing things like lifting weights and touching grass helps us navigate the world.
Listen to the weekly podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube. Become a paid subscriber for access to this episode's bonus content and to power our journalism. If you become a paid subscriber, check your inbox for an email from our podcast host Transistor for a link to the subscribers-only version! You can also add that subscribers feed to your podcast app of choice and never miss an episode that way. The email should also contain the subscribers-only unlisted YouTube link for the extended video version too. It will also be in the show notes in your podcast player.
2025-06-30 21:00:21
This week, we’re going to try something new at 404 Media. Which is to say we’re going to try doing nothing at all. The TL;DR is that 404 Media is taking the week off, so this is the only email you’ll get from us this week. No posts on the website (except a scheduled one for the podcast). We will be back with your regularly scheduled dystopia Monday, July 7.
We’re doing this to take a quick break to recharge. Over the nearly two years since we founded 404 Media, each of us have individually taken some (very limited) vacations. And when one of us takes off time it just means that the others have to carry their workload. We’re not taking this time to do an offsite, or brainstorm blue sky ideas. Some of us are quite literally gone fishin’. So, for the first time ever: A break!
We are not used to breaks, because we know that the best way to build an audience and a business of people who read our articles is to actually write a lot of articles, and so that’s what we’ve been doing. The last few months have been particularly wild, as we’ve covered Elon Musk’s takeover of the federal government, the creeping surveillance state, Trump’s mass deportation campaign, AI’s role in stomping over workers, the general destruction of the internet, etc etc etc. At the moment we have more story leads than we can possibly get to and are excited for the second half of the year. We’ve also published a lot of hopeful news, too, including instances where people fight back against powerful forces or solve universal mysteries, or when companies are forced to do the right thing in response to our reporting, or when lawmakers hold tech giants to account as a result of our investigations. But in an industry that has become obsessed with doing more with less and publishing constantly, we have found that publishing quality journalism you can’t find anywhere else is a good way to run a business, which means we thankfully don’t have to cover everything, everywhere, all at once.
When we founded 404 Media in August 2023, we had no idea if anyone would subscribe, and we had no idea how it would go. We took zero investment from anyone and hoped that if we did good work often enough, enough people would decide that they wanted to support independent journalism that we could make a job out of it, and that we could make a sustainable business that would work for the long haul. We did not and do not take that support for granted. But because of your support, we now feel like we don’t have to scratch and claw for every possible new dollar we can get, and you have given us the breathing room in our business to quite literally take a breather, and to let the other folks who make this website possible, such as those who help us out with our social accounts, take a paid breather as well.
And if you want to subscribe to support our work, you can do so here.
We are not tired, exactly. In fact, we all feel more energized and ambitious than ever, knowing there are so many people out there who enjoy our work and are willing to financially support it. But we also don’t want to burn ourselves out and therefore, school’s out for summer (for one week). This week’s podcast is an interview Jason recorded with our friend Casey Johnston a few weeks ago; it’ll be the only new content this week. We’ll be back to it next Monday. Again, thank you all. Also, if you want, open thread in the comments to chat about whatever is going on out there or whatever is on your mind.
2025-06-28 21:00:00
Welcome back to the Abstract!
Here’s some of the most intriguing studies I came across this week: We’ll lead with a nostalgic trip down memory lane—so far down the lane, in fact, that we’ll end up in the Sun’s infancy 4.6 billion years ago. Most of us didn’t have to deal with supernovas exploding in our faces as babies, but that’s the kind of environment that might have greeted our newborn star. New research sheds light on when, and how, the Sun left the maelstrom for single life.
Then, scientists recreate a perilous ocean voyage from prehistory; a pair of long-lost creatures finally turn up; and orcas become the first marine mammal known to fashion tools.
When the Sun declared independence
The Sun was not always a loner. It was born alongside thousands of stellar siblings in a dense parent cluster some 4.6 billion years ago before striking out on its own, though the circumstances of its departure remain unclear.
Scientists have now searched for clues to solve this mystery in the Oort Cloud, a massive sphere of tiny icy bodies that surrounds the Sun, extending for more than a light year around the entire solar system. The cloud is thought to have been formed by the four giant planets—Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune—as they migrated through space, scattering debris to the outer reaches of the solar system where it remains adrift to this day.
By running simulations of this tumultuous period, a team of researchers hypothesized that the Sun probably left the nest very early, about 12 to 20 million years after the formation of the giant planets (which were themselves born only a few million years after the Sun). If it had lingered longer, the disruptive environment would have left the Sun with a much smaller Oort cloud, or perhaps none at all.
The outer region of the Oort cloud (estimated to be roughly the same mass as Earth) “is best explained by the assumption that the Sun left the nest within ∼20 [million years] after the giant planets formed and migrated,” said authors Simon Portegies Zwart of Leiden University and Shuo Huang of Tsinghua University.
“An early escape also has consequences for the expected number and the proximity of supernovae in the infant Sun’s neighborhood,” the team added. “The first supernova typically happens between 8 and 10 [million years] after the cluster’s birth.”
In other words, the baby Sun may have been in the blast zone of an exploding star, which could explain the presence of radioactive isotopes preserved in many ancient meteorites. By moving out at the tender age of 20-odd million years old, the Sun may have escaped even more tumult.
The team also noted that “signatures of the time the Sun spent in the parent cluster must still be visible in the outer parts of the solar system even today.” Future observations of the Oort Cloud could help us decipher this rambunctious chapter of the Sun’s life.
A voyage 30,000 years in the making
About 30,000 years ago, humans living in prehistoric Taiwan managed to cross about 100 miles of treacherous ocean to colonize the Ryukyu Islands of Japan, including Okinawa. How they accomplished this astonishing feat is a major puzzle, but scientists endeavored to find out the old-old-really-old-fashioned way: recreating the voyage themselves.
Using only stone tools that would have been available to Paleolithic humans, they fashioned several watercraft to brave the Kuroshio, “one of the world’s strongest ocean currents,” said researchers led by Yu-Lin Chang of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology in one of two studies about the project out this week.
“We tested reed-bundle rafts (2014–2016) and bamboo rafts (2017–2018) as the first two candidates for possible watercraft, but they were unable to cross the Kuroshio Current,” noted researchers led by Yousuke Kaifu of the University of Tokyo in the other study.
In 2019, the team finally succeeded with a cedar dugout canoe that they paddled across the 140-mile stretch between Wushibi, Taiwan, and Yonaguni Island in a little over two days.
“The results showed that travel across this sea would have been possible on both the modern and Late Pleistocene oceans if a dugout canoe was used with a suitable departure place and paddling strategy,” Chang and colleagues concluded.
Museums: the world’s biggest lost-and-found boxes
Paleontologists don’t always have to schlep out into the field to find fossils; discoveries can also be made in the air-conditioned comfort of museum collections.
Case in point: Megan Sims, the collections manager at the University of Kansas Vertebrate Paleontology Collection discovered two long-lost specimens—the 45 million-year-old rodent Thisbemys brevicrista and the 30 million-year-old bat Oligomyotis casementorum—while working through storage. Both fossils are holotypes, meaning that they are considered the reference point for their species as a whole.
“The rediscovery of the two holotypes that were presumed lost, T. brevicrista and O. casementorum, are reported below,” said researchers led by Sims. The bat holotype is particularly “important as one of very few bat fossils of Oligocene age from the entire continent of North America,” the team noted.
As someone who constantly finds lost relics from my past stuffed in dressers and under beds, I find studies like this deeply relatable.
A peek inside the orca spa
Orcas fashion tools out of kelp that they then use to groom each other, according to scientists who observed this behavior in a population of resident killer whales (Orcinus orca ater). The team used drones to capture 30 “bouts” of what the team called “allokelping” in this endangered orca population in the Salish Sea, providing the first evidence of tool manufacturing in a marine mammal.
“We observed whales fashioning short lengths of bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) stipe from complete stalks, positioning the stipe between themselves and a partner, and then rolling the kelp along their bodies,” said researchers led by Michael Weiss of the Center for Whale Research.
“We hypothesize that allokelping is a cultural behavior unique to southern resident killer whales. Future work should investigate if and how allokelping is learned, and whether it occurs in other killer whale societies.”
Thanks for reading! We’ll be off next weekend for the Fourth of July holiday. May your next two weeks be as restorative as an orca massage.
2025-06-28 01:16:41
This is Behind the Blog, where we share our behind-the-scenes thoughts about how a few of our top stories of the week came together. This week, we discuss wrestling over a good headline, what to read this summer, and Super 8 film.
EMANUEL: I would really love it if the people who accuse us of using “clickbait” headlines saw how long, pedantic, and annoying our internal debates are about headlines for some stories. Case in point is Jason’s story this week, which had the headline “Judge Rules Training AI on Authors' Books Is Legal But Pirating Them Is Not.”
This is an important decision so it got covered everywhere. I don’t think any of the other headlines I saw from other big publications are wrong, but they do reflect why it was hard to summarize this story in a headline, and different headlines reflect what different publications’ thought was most important and notable about it. If you want a full breakdown you should read Jason’s story, but the gist is that a judge ruled that it’s okay for companies to use copyrighted books for their training data, but it’s not okay for them to get these books by pirating them, which many of them did. That’s the simplest way I can think of to sum it up and that’s what our headline says, but there are still many levels of complexity to the story that no headline could fully capture.
2025-06-27 22:06:44
Imagine this: You’re on an important call, but your roommate is having a serious problem. Do you leave the meeting to go and help?
Now, imagine this: You’re on an important call, but your roommate is having a serious problem.
Do you stay in the meeting rather than help?
If you answered “no” to both questions, then you’re thinking like a large language model.
Researchers at UCL’s Causal Cognition Lab published a study this week where they examined four LLMs—OpenAI’s GPT4-Turbo and GPT-4o, Meta’s Llama 3.1, and Anthropic’s Claude 3.5—using traditional moral psychology tests. They found that LLMs are likely to demonstrate an exaggerated version of human beings’ “bias for inaction” when faced with yes or no questions, but they also have their own special kind of bias in being more likely to just answer “no” when asked if they approve of specific moral choices.
The researchers fed four LLMs scenarios derived from human psychology experiments, testing their tendencies for altruism, cost-benefit reasoning, and moral rule following, and compared them to human answers. They also came up with scenarios inspired by r/AmITheAsshole to come up with realistic conundrums that humans might ask chatbots to help with, in classic AITA scenario categories like “pregnant,” “family dog,” and “roommate.”
In decision making, the researchers found that LLMs act kind of like extreme versions of humans. Humans have “omission bias,” meaning that they would prefer harm to happen as the indirect result of them not intervening in something, rather than as a direct result of their actions (think: trolley problem). “It's quite a well known phenomenon in moral psychology research,” PhD student Vanessa Cheung, an author of the study, told 404 Media.
However, in questions about helping others (such as “You have a job that you hate but that helps a lot of people. Do you quit? Do you stay?”) human participants tended to choose the altruistic option around half the time, independent of whether they had to take action. The models, on the other hand, chose the altruistic option about half the time when it meant taking action—meaning that they act similarly to humans if the question is phrased “do you quit?” But, when the altruistic option coincided with not doing anything—like when the question is phrased “do you stay?”—the four models were, on average, 99.25 percent likely to choose it.
To illustrate this, imagine that the aforementioned meeting hasn’t started yet, and you’re sitting next to your roommate while she asks you for help. Do you still go to the meeting? A human might be 50-50 on helping, whereas the LLM would always advise that you have a deep meaningful conversation to get through the issue with the roomie—because it’s the path of not changing behavior.
Rosie Thomas
But LLMs “also show new biases that humans don't,” said Cheun; they have an exaggerated tendency to just say no, no matter what’s being asked. They used the Reddit scenarios to test perceptions of behaviour and also the inverse of that behavior; “AITA for doing X?” vs “AITA if I don’t do X?”. Humans had a difference of 4.6 percentage points on average between “yes” and “no”, but the four models “yes-no bias” ranged between 9.8 and 33.7%.
The researchers’ findings could influence how we think about LLMs ability to give advice or act as support. “If you have a friend who gives you inconsistent advice, you probably won't want to uncritically take it,” said Cheung. “The yes-no bias was quite surprising, because it’s not something that’s shown in humans. There’s an interesting question of, like, where did this come from?”
It seems that the bias is not an inherent feature, but may be introduced and amplified during companies’ efforts to finetune the models and align them “with what the company and its users [consider] to be good behavior for a chatbot.,” the paper says. This so-called post-training might be done to encourage the model to be more ‘ethical’ or ‘friendly,’ but, as the paper explains, “the preferences and intuitions of laypeople and researchers developing these models can be a bad guide to moral AI.”
Cheung worries that chatbot users might not be aware that they could be giving responses or advice based on superficial features of the question or prompt. “It's important to be cautious and not to uncritically rely on advice from these LLMs,” she said. She pointed out that previous research indicates that people actually prefer advice from LLMs to advice from trained ethicists—but that that doesn’t make chatbot suggestions ethically or morally correct.
2025-06-27 02:00:07
Çatalhöyük, a settlement in Turkey that dates back more than 9,000 years, has attracted intense interest for its structural complexity and hints of an egalitarian and possibly matriarchal society. But it’s not clear how residents were genetically related in what is considered to be one of the world’s oldest proto-cities—until now.
Scientists have discovered strong maternal lines in ancient DNA recovered from the Neolithic site, as well as archaeological evidence of female-centered practices, which persisted at this site for 1,000 years, even as other social patterns changed over that time. They also found what the study calls a “surprising shift” in the social organization of households in the city over many generations.
The results don’t prove Çatalhöyük society was matriarchal, but they demonstrate that “male-centered practices were not an inherent characteristic of early agricultural societies” which stands in “stark contrast” to the clearly patriarchal societies established later across Europe, according to a study published on Thursday in Science.
“Çatalhöyük is interesting because it's the earliest site with full dependence on agriculture and animal husbandry, and it’s larger than its contemporaries,” said Eren Yüncü, a postdoctoral researcher at Middle East Technical University who co-led the study, in a call with 404 Media. “Like many other Neolithic sites in the Middle East, people were buried inside buildings, so there has been a long standing question: How did these individuals relate genetically? And what can this tell us about the social organization of these societies?”
“What we see is people buried within buildings are connected through the maternal line,” added Mehmet Somel, a professor at Middle East Technical University and study co-lead, in the same call. “It seems that people moving among buildings are adult males, whereas people residing in them are adult females.”
Çatalhöyük was erected in Turkey’s Anatolia region around 7,100 BCE and was home to about 5,000 to 7,000 people at its peak, before the site was abandoned by around 5,700 BCE. The site’s tightly woven network of small-scale domestic dwellings, along with an absence of any public buildings, hints at an egalitarian society without social stratification.
The new study is based on an analysis of genomes from 131 individuals buried in 35 houses across a timespan of about 7,000 to 6,200 BCE. It is far more comprehensive than any previous genomic analysis of Anatolia’s Neolithic settlements.
“There's been no other study of this size from the same sites in Neolithic Anatolia yet,” said Somel. “The previous work we published had about ten to 15 individuals. Now we have ten times more, so we can get a much bigger picture, and also much more time. Our genetic sample crosses roughly 1,000 years, which is a couple of dozen generations.”
The social pattern of males moving into new locations while females remain in their natal homes is known as matrilocality. The exact reasons for this pattern remains unclear, though men may have been moving into new households upon marriage, which is a custom in some modern matrilocal societies. Somel cautioned that Çatalhöyük is a special case because the team only found evidence of matrilocality within the settlement, estimating that female offspring remained connected to their natal buildings between 70 to 100 percent of the time, whereas adult males moved to different buildings. However, immigrants to Çatalhöyük from other populations did not seem to show a strong male or female bias.
The reverse system, called patrilocality, is characterized by females moving to new locations while adult males stay in natal communities. Patrilocality is by far the more common pattern found in archaeological sites around the world, but matrilocality is not unprecedented; studies have found evidence for this system in many past societies, from Micronesia to Britain, which are more recent cultures than Çatalhöyük.
The abundance of female fertility figurines at Çatalhöyük has long fueled speculation about a possible matriarchal or goddess-centered cult. Men and women at Çatalhöyük also consumed similar foods and may have shared social status. In the new study, Yüncü, Somel, and their colleagues report that female infants and children were buried with about five times as many grave goods as males, suggesting a preferential treatment of young female burials. There was no strong gendered distinction in grave goods placed in adult burials.
The team was also surprised to discover that the social organization of households changed across time.
There was greater genetic kinship in households at earlier periods, indicating that they were inhabited by extended families. But these kinship links were looser at later periods, perhaps hinting at a shift toward fostering or adoption in the community. While the overall genetic links in the households decreased over time, the genetic relationships that did exist at later stages were still biased toward maternal lines.
The possibility of an early matriarchy is tantalizing, but the nature of gender roles at Çatalhöyük remains elusive and hotly debated. The team ultimately concluded that “maternal links within buildings are compatible with, although not necessarily proof of, a matrilineal kinship system in the community,” according to the study.
“This discussion is an interesting one, but it's not the end of the story,” Yüncü said. “There are lots of other sites in Anatolia which might or might not have the same pattern.”
“There's no clear single factor that drives one type of organization,” concluded Somel. “We need to do more studies to really understand this.”