It is estimated that one language dies every 14 days, with it a world of concepts and ideas that could only be expressed in its words. Most of the languages at risk of extinction belong to Indigenous communities.

And a chatbot is not a human. And a linguist named Emily M. Bender is very worried what will happen when we forget this. This article was featured in One Great Story, New York’s reading recommendation newsletter. Sign up here to get it nightly. Nobody likes an I-told-you-so.

Inside the many debates swirling around the rapid rollout of so-called artificial intelligence, there is a relatively obscure skirmish focused on the choice of the word “hallucinate”.

Workers hired via crowdsource services like Amazon Mechanical Turk are using large language models to complete their tasks – which could have negative knock-on effects on AI models in the future. Data is critical to AI.

On a Tuesday in mid-March, Jennifer Lepp was precisely 80.41 percent finished writing Bring Your Beach Owl, the latest installment in her series about a detective witch in central Florida, and she was behind schedule.

On a Tuesday in mid-March, Jennifer Lepp was precisely 80.41 percent finished writing Bring Your Beach Owl, the latest installment in her series about a detective witch in central Florida, and she was behind schedule.

In which I string together a series of videos, links and text that use Mario as a base for Science. First is Mario and the Many World Interpretation of Quantum Physics

…So what’s this about quantum physics? Oh, right. Well, I kind of identify the branching-paths effect in the video with the Everett-Wheeler “Many Worlds Interpretation” of quantum physics. Quantum physics does this weird thing where instead of things being in one knowable place or one knowable state, something that is quantum (like, say, an electron) exists in sort of this cloud of potentials, where there’s this mathematical object called a wavefunction that describes the probabilities of the places the electron might be at a given moment. Quantum physics is really all about the way this wavefunction behaves. There’s this thing that happens though where when a quantum thing interacts with something else, the wavefunction “collapses” to a single state vector and the (say) electron suddenly goes from being this potential

There are two types of anthropologists: One models himself on the scientist, treating the world as his laboratory, people as his raw data. He mounts surveys, crunches numbers, and, crucially, remains detached and dispassionate throughout the process. He applies for big research grants with “expected outcomes” and “anticipated impact” carefully delineated long before he has gone out into the field. The other kind of anthropologist is more like a religious initiate, participating fully in the culture in which he is placed and intimating that he is then the possessor of some secret knowledge. Like an initiate, he cannot anticipate any “outcomes” before they happen but must simply live in the moment and immerse himself in the local customs and values.

It is this latter tradition of which Michael Taussig, an eminent professor at Columbia University, is one of the greatest exponents. The New York Times has called his work “gonzo anthropology.” He has drunk hallucinatory yagé on the sandy banks of the Putumayo River. He’s cured the sick with the aid of spirits. He’s escaped from guerrillas in a dugout canoe at dawn. Above all, he is interested in individual stories and experiences, unique tales that cannot be reduced to rational explanation or bland report. To read Taussig is to have an adventure in which one can move from Walter Benjamin’s experiments with hashish to American kids’ drawings to that dawn-lit canoe without skipping a beat. His narrative is lyrical, mesmeric.

Traditionally, human rights work has been more akin to investigative reporting, but Ball is the most influential of a handful of people around the world who see that world not in terms of words, but of figures. His specialty is applying quantitative analysis to mountains of anecdotes, finding the correlations that coax out a story that cannot easily be dismissed.

Could the movements of refugees have been random? No, Ball said. He had also plotted killings of Kosovars and found that both phenomena occurred at the same times and in the same places -- flight and death, hand in hand. "I remember well the moment of astonishment that I felt when I saw the killing graph for the first time," Ball replied to Milosevic. "I assumed I had made an error, because the correlation was so close."

Something had caused both phenomena, and Ball examined three possibilities. First, the surges in killings and flight did not happen during or shortly after NATO bombings. Nor were they consistent with the pattern of attacks by Albanian guerrilla groups. They were consistent, however, with the third hypothesis, that Serb forces conducted a systematic campaign of killing and expulsions.

Professor Hawking has probably been talking to the wrong philosophers, or picked up some wrong ideas about the kinds of discussion that currently go on in philosophy of science. His lofty dismissal of that whole enterprise as a useless, scientifically irrelevant pseudo-discipline fails to reckon with several important facts about the way that science has typically been practised since its early-modern (seventeenth-century) point of departure and, even more, in the wake of twentieth century developments such as quantum mechanics and relativity.

Science has always included a large philosophical component, whether at the level of basic presuppositions concerning evidence, causality, theory-construction, valid inference, hypothesis-testing, and so forth, or at the speculative stage where scientists ignore the guidance offered by well-informed philosophers only at risk of falling into various beguiling fallacies or fictions.

Via: Testing the flotation dynamics and swimming abilities of giraffes by way of computational analysis : Tetrapod Zoology

The background to this research

Everybody loves giraffes, and god knows they've been covered on Tet Zoo enough times (see the links below). And something that's been mentioned many times is the alleged inability of giraffes to swim, or even to float. There are several specific comments on this in the literature (e.g., Shortridge 1934, Goodwin 1954, MacClintock 1973, Wood 1982); Crandall (1964) mentioned a case where a captive giraffe escaped from a carrying crate, fell off the end of a jetty, and immediately sank in the Hudson River (incidentally, dead giraffes have apparently been in the Hudson more than once: it is alleged that the river has, on occasion, been used as a dump for the corpses of zoo animals).

Why should giraffes be unable to swim? I'm extremely sceptical of such claims, given that other animals sometimes said to be unable to swim - like giant tortoises, pigs, rhinos and camels - actually swim just fine or even very well. Nevertheless, giraffes are such a strange shape that one can just about believe that their swimming and/or floating behaviour differs from that of other quadrupedal mammals.

And while it's possible to find reports and even images of giraffes wading [photos above below © Jeff Arnold] (Jonathan Kingdon notes that giraffes "will wade quite deep rivers" (Kingdon 1989, p. 325)), reports that describe them swimming don't exist, so far as I can tell. A few years ago, the excellent BBC series Big Cat Diary featured a scene where a group of giraffes tried to cross the Mara while it was in flood. The giraffes got about half-way across before turning back [two of them are at the turning-back phase in the adjacent still, © BBC], and at one stage were in water that submerged them right up to the bases of their necks. I thought at the time that these giraffes must have been swimming: I was so confident that I even mentioned this on the Dinosaur Mailing List back in 2000 (I now think it more likely that those Kenyan giraffes still had their feet on the riverbed: you can see this for yourself, as the footage is online here*). Several writers and researchers who have googled 'swimming giraffes' during the course of research have discovered my comment, and I've since seen it paraphrased in a few places (such as here at Telegraph.co.uk and on Focus magazine's Q&A page).

• Thanks to Dartian for finding this video for me.

After seeing the Focus magazine piece (this was in 2008, I think), I came up with an idea. I knew that my august colleague Donald Henderson of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology - well known for his work on what you might call mathematic palaeontology - had produced a digital model of a giraffe for a previous project (Henderson 1999), and had been testing the buoyancy of some of his models in 'digital water' (Henderson 2003a, b, 2006). Could, I wonder, Don take his digital giraffe and drop it into digital water, and thereby test the hypothesis that giraffes cannot float, or cannot swim? This, my friends, is how papers are born...

Modelling a digital giraffe

To start with, it's clear that we wouldn't actually be able to fully test the swimming abilities of giraffes (given that we couldn't accurately replicate or estimate all the details of aquatic movement in a giraffe), but we could test the floating abilities, and hence indirectly test the potential swimming abilities.

Giraffes are complicated objects, and modelling them digitally is fraught with difficulty. A 3D giraffe model was generated via the digital slicing method described by Henderson (1999) (our model isn't definitely meant to depict any of the Giraffa taxa in particular; yes, we're well aware of the suggestion that the several 'subspecies' conventionally included in G. camelopardalis might warrant species status). Several things were done to make the model more like a real giraffe: ears, ossicones and the fleshy part of the tail were created, and a synthesized reticulated pattern was created because it made the model look so much better. Don has actually pioneered a very interesting technique for generating regularly spaced polygons and/or blotches - it has some really interesting implications that I can't discuss here (for more information, see Appendix A in Henderson & Naish (2010)).

Two details of a digital model are particularly important when testing simulated buoyancy: density and lung volume.

Giraffe limb bones are slightly thicker than those of other artiodactyls (van Schalwyk et al. 2004), so their density was set as being somewhat higher than the rest of the body (1050 g/l vs 1000 g/l). The giraffe's most notable feature - its neck - was set at 850 g/l, as is typical for hoofed mammals. As we'll see, the high density of the distal parts of the limbs and low density of the neck and head seem to have implications for the floating and swimming behaviour of giraffes.

The lungs of giraffes are peculiar in size and shape (as you'll know if you watched Inside Nature's Giants), and exactly how large they are has long been a point of controversy: estimates of their volume in an 'average' giraffe (of 1.1 tons) have ranged from a low of 10 litres (Patterson et al. 1957) to a high of 47 litres (Robin et al. 1960). By scaling up from a horse to a big, male, 1.6 ton giraffe, an enormous projected lung volume of 141 litres was obtained (lung volume is about 6 litres in humans). Projections of this size have long been thought to be erroneous, however (Stahl 1967). A probable lung size about eight times that of a human is generally thought about right... in which case about 48 litres is correct for a 1.1 ton giraffe; this scales to 74 litres for a 1.6 ton giraffe. Obviously, there's much uncertainty here and more data is needed.

Don also modelled a horse Equus caballus [shown here] as a control for the experiment.

Can a giraffe float?

Given that the horse model seems to accurately predict the real-life buoyancy of floating and swimming horses (Henderson & Naish 2010), we're fairly confident that the giraffe model mimics the real thing. By rising the simulated water level around the giraffe model [as shown in the figure below], it was found that an adult giraffe would start to float at a water depth of about 2.8 m. It seems that the hindlimbs would leave the substrate before the forelimbs, raising the possibility that giraffes in deep water might be able to pole themselves along with their forelimbs alone.

But if the water becomes deeper still, what happens when the giraffe lifts off the substrate and begins to float? In a simulated floating posture, the hips are higher than the shoulders and the heavy forelimbs and short body mean that the foreparts are angled downwards relative to the horizontal. In turn, this means that the neck is rotated downwards and has to be held near-horizontally and just at, or under, the water surface: so far as we can tell, it doesn't seem possible for giraffes to swim with the neck held erect out of the water. The horizontal neck posture then means that the head has to be held at a very awkward, upward-angled posture (assuming, of course, that the animal wants to keep its eyes and nostrils above the surface).

It's well known that the giraffe head - particularly that of old males - is dense-boned and fairly heavy, but the cavities in the head and the long trachea and oesophagus make the head and neck rather less dense than the rest of the animal (850 g/l vs 1000 g/l or more). The neck and head account for about 10.8% of the animal's total mass, but it seems that their low density actually prevents the animal's anterior part from being even further down in the water (Henderson & Naish 2010). The overall density of the giraffe is higher than that of the horse, making the animal closer to being negatively buoyant and also making it sit lower in the water than the horse model.

In conclusion, it seems that giraffes can float: there's no reason to assume that they might 'sink like stones', nor was there any indication from the model that it was particularly unstable and prone to capsizing. But the model's posture in the water is low and hardly ideal, and looks downright uncomfortable. What might this mean for swimming ability?

Bad at swimming, or really bad at swimming?

The high mean density of the giraffe and the peculiar and difficult horizontal-necked posture the model adopts in water suggest that giraffes would not perform well in water. A large amount of drag and rotational inertia also afflict the model: in fact, it suffered from 13.5% more frictional drag than the horse model (Henderson & Naish 2010). We also suggest that the unusual gait practised by giraffes may well impair their swimming abilities. Giraffes on land use a synchronous movement of the neck and limbs where backwards and forwards movement of the neck is closely linked to the limb movements. But, with its neck constrained to a sub-horizontal posture where little or no backwards and forwards movement is possible, a swimming giraffe cannot adopt a gait like the one it uses on land.

Quadrupedal mammals - like the horse - typically swim with a trot like that used on land, so it seems reasonable to assume that swimming giraffes should try and swim with a 'terrestrial'-style gait too. However, note that this argument isn't completely conclusive, because the swimming gaits of some quadrupedal mammals are very different from their walking or running gaits. Nevertheless, I still think that our assumption is a reasonable one.

Positioned in the water in an uncomfortable pose, afflicted with a relatively high mean density, suffering from substantially high frictional drag, and unable to raise and lower its neck and hence unable to adopt a synchronous gait, we conclude that giraffes would be very poor swimmers, and that it might be assumed that they would avoid this activity if at all possible. Looked at another way, we conclude that giraffes can swim, but not at all well [image below from wikipedia].

Does this have any implications whatsoever for anything?

Making predictions about the floating and swimming abilities of giraffes is fun, but does it have any wider implications? For one thing, it perhaps helps make the point that we're increasingly able to test questions in biology using computational models and simulation, rather than experimentation on real animals. In the case of the question "Can giraffes swim?", we just aren't able to use real giraffes, so our approach is - at the moment - the only one we can use to test it.

If giraffes do perform poorly in water - so much so that they avoid crossing large bodies of water should they need do - has this had any impact on their biogeography? If you look at maps of giraffe distribution - and specifically at the ranges of the different giraffe taxa - you'll see that, in places, rivers and lakes form what appear to be giraffe-proof barriers. The Zambezi and its tributaries might form a southern barrier to Angolan and Thornicroft's giraffes (Spinage 1968), for example, the Niger and Benue might have prevented the southern spread of the Nigerian giraffe (Hassanin et al. 2007), while the Nile and Great Lakes might have prevented gene flow between Kordofan and Nigerian giraffes (Hassanin et al. 2007) [figure below - from Brown et al. (2007) - shows the approximate ranges and pelage patterns of the extant giraffe taxa].

Unfortunately, we don't really know enough to be sure whether these distributional limits actually have anything to do with the ability or inability of giraffes to cross water. As we note (Henderson & Naish 2010), big rivers and lakes are formidable barriers to everything terrestrial, not just to clumsy swimmers. Furthermore, the biogeographical history of giraffes extends over many millions of years (and involves Eurasia, too), meaning that climatic changes, changes in drainage patterns, and the terrestrial movement of giraffe populations make it difficult to definitively link any aquatic barriers to giraffe distribution. Others have made similar comments (Cramer & Mazel 2007) [image below: awesome male Masai Giraffe G. camelopardalis tippelskirchi (or G. tippelskirchi), photographed at Lake Manyara National Park, Tanzania. From wikipedia].

Finally, this project is one of several I've been involved in that's gotten a bit of media attention; this attention means that the paper is going to be the subject of more content-free discussion on websites than is usual for peer-reviewed research. Let me assure all concerned readers that this research did not involve the frittering away of pennies otherwise allotted to cancer research or the detection of Earth-killing asteroids. As I've said before (and, given that this article is appearing on ScienceBlogs, I'm preaching to the choir anyway), it isn't widely realised how much work scientists do FOR FREE and FOR FUN, IN THEIR SPARE TIME. Rant over.

Oh, and having mentioned Inside Nature's Giants, it is my duty to inform you that series 2 starts on June 8th. Episode 1 looks at the anatomy of Carcharodon carcharias, the white shark. This is incredible news; I'll be writing about the series in due time.

The most familiar ideas of geometry were inspired by an ancient vision — a vision of the world as flat. From parallel lines that never meet, to the Pythagorean theorem discussed in last week’s column, these are eternal truths about an imaginary place, the two-dimensional landscape of plane geometry.

Conceived in India, China, Egypt and Babylonia more than 2,500 years ago, and codified and refined by Euclid and the Greeks, this flat-earth geometry is the main one (and often the only one) being taught in high schools today. But things have changed in the past few millennia.

In an era of globalization, Google Earth and transcontinental air travel, all of us should try to learn a little about spherical geometry and its modern generalization, differential geometry. The basic ideas here are only about 200 years old. Pioneered by Carl Friedrich Gauss and Bernhard Riemann, differential geometry underpins such imposing intellectual edifices as Einstein’s general theory of relativity. At its h

This essay aims to increase our understanding of simulations and their impact on our notion of reality. Following on some observations regarding the dominant role of visual representations in our culture, I will argue that we are now living in a society, in which simulations are often more influential, satisfying and meaningful than the things they are presumed to represent. Media technologies play a fundamental role in our cycle of meaning construction. This is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it entirely new. Yet, it has consequences for our concepts of virtual and real, which are less complementary, than they are usually understood to be.

A discursive model of praxis has developed within the critical art context over the last twenty years. It is the offspring of critical theory and improvised, self-organized structures. It is the basis of art that involves the dissemination of information. It plays with social models and presents speculative constructs both within and beyond traditional gallery spaces. It is indebted to conceptual art’s reframing of relationships, and it requires decentered and revised histories in order to evolve.