Podcast appearances and mentions of ross andersen

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: MIRI's September 2024 newsletter, published by Harlan on September 17, 2024 on LessWrong. MIRI updates Aaron Scher and Joe Collman have joined the Technical Governance Team at MIRI as researchers. Aaron previously did independent research related to sycophancy in language models and mechanistic interpretability, while Joe previously did independent research related to AI safety via debate and contributed to field-building work at MATS and BlueDot Impact. In an interview with PBS News Hour's Paul Solman, Eliezer Yudkowsky briefly explains why he expects smarter-than-human AI to cause human extinction. In an interview with The Atlantic's Ross Andersen, Eliezer discusses the reckless behavior of the leading AI companies, and the urgent need to change course. News and links Google DeepMind announced a hybrid AI system capable of solving International Mathematical Olympiad problems at the silver medalist level. In the wake of this development, a Manifold prediction market significantly increased its odds that AI will achieve gold level by 2025, a milestone that Paul Christiano gave less than 8% odds and Eliezer gave at least 16% odds to in 2021. The computer scientist Yoshua Bengio discusses and responds to some common arguments people have for not worrying about the AI alignment problem. SB 1047, a California bill establishing whistleblower protections and mandating risk assessments for some AI developers, has passed the State Assembly and moved on to the desk of Governor Gavin Newsom, to either be vetoed or passed into law. The bill has received opposition from several leading AI companies, but has also received support from a number of employees of those companies, as well as many academic researchers. At the time of this writing, prediction markets think it's about 50% likely that the bill will become law. In a new report, researchers at Epoch AI estimate how big AI training runs could get by 2030, based on current trends and potential bottlenecks. They predict that by the end of the decade it will be feasible for AI companies to train a model with 2e29 FLOP, which is about 10,000 times the amount of compute used to train GPT-4. Abram Demski, who previously worked at MIRI as part of our recently discontinued Agent Foundations research program, shares an update about his independent research plans, some thoughts on public vs private research, and his current funding situation. You can subscribe to the MIRI Newsletter here. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

as authored by Ross Andersen.

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss the Supreme Court decisions on presidential immunity in Trump v. United States and the administrative state in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo as well as the future of Joe Biden's nomination to be re-elected president.   Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Supreme Court of the United States: Opinions of the Court – 2023, including Trump v. United States, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, and SEC v. Jarkesy Matt Gluck, Hyemin Han, and Katherine Pompilio for Lawfare: The Supreme Court's Presidential Immunity Decision Perry Stein for The Washington Post: Justice Sotomayor dissent: ‘The President is now a king above the law' Gary J. Schmitt and Joseph M. Bessette for the American Enterprise Institute: The Hamilton-Madison Split over Executive Power Dan Pfeiffer for The Message Box: Why the Dem Panic over the Debate is Getting Worse ‘Will Rogers Today': Will Rogers on Politics Tim Miller for The Bulwark: Dear Dems: The Gaslighting Isn't Helping Matters Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies and Mark Walsh: Consider the wild gray squirrel, Kagan rebukes her colleagues as court overrules Chevron Mark Sherman for AP: The Supreme Court rules for a North Dakota truck stop in a new blow to federal regulators How to Save a Country from The New Republic: The Administrative State Is Under Attack Congressional Research Service: The Major Questions Doctrine Eric Berger for Dorf on Law: Is Loper Bright a Big Deal? and Michael C. Dorf: Could Congress Reinstate Chevron? Tierney Sneed, Jeanne Sahadi, Tami Luhby, Brian Fung, Ella Nilsen, Jen Christensen, and Katie Lobosco for CNN: How the Supreme Court's blockbuster ‘Chevron' ruling puts countless regulations in jeopardy Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Paul Sabin of Yale University and City of New Haven: East Rock park  John: Dave McMenamin for ESPN: Lakers pick Bronny James in NBA draft; LeBron ‘emotional' David: City Cast DC and Ross Andersen for The Atlantic: The Search for America's Atlantis Listener chatter from Jen in Denver, Colorado: Brandy Zadrozny and Jon Schuppe for NBC News: Who tried to steal Graceland?   For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, David, John, and Emily talk about the joys of summer. See Merry Maids: 15 Fun Things to Make the Most of Summer 2024; NBC: Olympics Paris 2024; and epicurious: Summer. See also Produce bluebook: Nectarine Market Summary and Lemonada Media: Julia Gets Wise with Patti Smith.   In the latest Gabfest Reads, David talks with Sierra Greer about her new book, Annie Bot: A Novel. And Gabfest Reads now has its own site!   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Cheyna Roth Research by Julie Huygen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss the Supreme Court decisions on presidential immunity in Trump v. United States and the administrative state in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo as well as the future of Joe Biden's nomination to be re-elected president.   Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Supreme Court of the United States: Opinions of the Court – 2023, including Trump v. United States, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, and SEC v. Jarkesy Matt Gluck, Hyemin Han, and Katherine Pompilio for Lawfare: The Supreme Court's Presidential Immunity Decision Perry Stein for The Washington Post: Justice Sotomayor dissent: ‘The President is now a king above the law' Gary J. Schmitt and Joseph M. Bessette for the American Enterprise Institute: The Hamilton-Madison Split over Executive Power Dan Pfeiffer for The Message Box: Why the Dem Panic over the Debate is Getting Worse ‘Will Rogers Today': Will Rogers on Politics Tim Miller for The Bulwark: Dear Dems: The Gaslighting Isn't Helping Matters Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies and Mark Walsh: Consider the wild gray squirrel, Kagan rebukes her colleagues as court overrules Chevron Mark Sherman for AP: The Supreme Court rules for a North Dakota truck stop in a new blow to federal regulators How to Save a Country from The New Republic: The Administrative State Is Under Attack Congressional Research Service: The Major Questions Doctrine Eric Berger for Dorf on Law: Is Loper Bright a Big Deal? and Michael C. Dorf: Could Congress Reinstate Chevron? Tierney Sneed, Jeanne Sahadi, Tami Luhby, Brian Fung, Ella Nilsen, Jen Christensen, and Katie Lobosco for CNN: How the Supreme Court's blockbuster ‘Chevron' ruling puts countless regulations in jeopardy Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Paul Sabin of Yale University and City of New Haven: East Rock park  John: Dave McMenamin for ESPN: Lakers pick Bronny James in NBA draft; LeBron ‘emotional' David: City Cast DC and Ross Andersen for The Atlantic: The Search for America's Atlantis Listener chatter from Jen in Denver, Colorado: Brandy Zadrozny and Jon Schuppe for NBC News: Who tried to steal Graceland?   For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, David, John, and Emily talk about the joys of summer. See Merry Maids: 15 Fun Things to Make the Most of Summer 2024; NBC: Olympics Paris 2024; and epicurious: Summer. See also Produce bluebook: Nectarine Market Summary and Lemonada Media: Julia Gets Wise with Patti Smith.   In the latest Gabfest Reads, David talks with Sierra Greer about her new book, Annie Bot: A Novel. And Gabfest Reads now has its own site!   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Cheyna Roth Research by Julie Huygen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss the Supreme Court decisions on presidential immunity in Trump v. United States and the administrative state in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo as well as the future of Joe Biden's nomination to be re-elected president.   Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Supreme Court of the United States: Opinions of the Court – 2023, including Trump v. United States, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, and SEC v. Jarkesy Matt Gluck, Hyemin Han, and Katherine Pompilio for Lawfare: The Supreme Court's Presidential Immunity Decision Perry Stein for The Washington Post: Justice Sotomayor dissent: ‘The President is now a king above the law' Gary J. Schmitt and Joseph M. Bessette for the American Enterprise Institute: The Hamilton-Madison Split over Executive Power Dan Pfeiffer for The Message Box: Why the Dem Panic over the Debate is Getting Worse ‘Will Rogers Today': Will Rogers on Politics Tim Miller for The Bulwark: Dear Dems: The Gaslighting Isn't Helping Matters Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies and Mark Walsh: Consider the wild gray squirrel, Kagan rebukes her colleagues as court overrules Chevron Mark Sherman for AP: The Supreme Court rules for a North Dakota truck stop in a new blow to federal regulators How to Save a Country from The New Republic: The Administrative State Is Under Attack Congressional Research Service: The Major Questions Doctrine Eric Berger for Dorf on Law: Is Loper Bright a Big Deal? and Michael C. Dorf: Could Congress Reinstate Chevron? Tierney Sneed, Jeanne Sahadi, Tami Luhby, Brian Fung, Ella Nilsen, Jen Christensen, and Katie Lobosco for CNN: How the Supreme Court's blockbuster ‘Chevron' ruling puts countless regulations in jeopardy Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Paul Sabin of Yale University and City of New Haven: East Rock park  John: Dave McMenamin for ESPN: Lakers pick Bronny James in NBA draft; LeBron ‘emotional' David: City Cast DC and Ross Andersen for The Atlantic: The Search for America's Atlantis Listener chatter from Jen in Denver, Colorado: Brandy Zadrozny and Jon Schuppe for NBC News: Who tried to steal Graceland?   For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, David, John, and Emily talk about the joys of summer. See Merry Maids: 15 Fun Things to Make the Most of Summer 2024; NBC: Olympics Paris 2024; and epicurious: Summer. See also Produce bluebook: Nectarine Market Summary and Lemonada Media: Julia Gets Wise with Patti Smith.   In the latest Gabfest Reads, David talks with Sierra Greer about her new book, Annie Bot: A Novel. And Gabfest Reads now has its own site!   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Cheyna Roth Research by Julie Huygen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There's a chance that one day, we humans could have a conversation with whales. Seriously. Scientists are working on a way to make it happen.If technology does eventually allow us to talk to these majestic mammals, what should we say? And what message will they send back?Ross Andersen, a staff writer at The Atlantic, is exploring those questions by reaching out to experts who specialize in paleontology, philosophy, animal-rights law, and beyond for their take.Now, he's sharing his intriguing findings.GUEST: Ross Andersen, staff writer at The Atlantic We love feedback at The Big Story, as well as suggestions for future episodes. You can find us:Through email at hello@thebigstorypodcast.ca Or by calling 416-935-5935 and leaving us a voicemailOr @thebigstoryfpn on Twitter

Join us this week as we delve into the pivotal role played by big tech and its CEOs in shaping AI development and policies. Ross Andersen, staff writer at The Atlantic, offers exclusive insights into the recent changes at OpenAI and discusses AI's historical significance, China's geopolitical influence, and the phenomenon of “foomscrolling.”

As computers get smarter, who do we want regulating them? Who do we want programming them and, ultimately, who do we want leading our country and military response when AI is in the mix? If we get this wrong, how we feel about things like taxes, religion and racism will be the least of our problems. To have this essential conversation, I'm joined today by Ross Andersen. Ross is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he covers science, technology, and culture. I'm having him on to discuss his article called “Never Give Artificial Intelligence the Nuclear Codes". This is big deal stuff and something we have to consider not only as citizens of our world, but also as citizens of a powerful nuclear superpower going into an election year. This is kind of a scary episode, but it's also an incredibly important, and one I think is really worth your time.  As always, if you enjoy what we do, please consider SUBSCRIBING to PoliticsGirl Premium. You'll get this podcast ad free, along with a bunch of other perks, including the knowledge that you're allowing us to keep bringing you the best content possible. If that interests you, please go to https://www.politicsgirl.com/premium and subscribe today!! Thanks so much! xoPG Guest social: PLEASE consider making a small donation to his campaign. This guy is the real deal and we need to help politicians like him succeed.  https://www.theatlantic.com/author/ross-andersen/ Twitter: @andersen Insta: rossandersen Threads: rossandersen MERCH STORE NOW OPEN: Check it out at: https://www.politicsgirl.com/store As always, please RATE and SUBSCRIBE so we can grow the show, open the dialogue, and inspire change moving forward!   All show links here!: https://linktr.ee/politicsgirl This episode is sponsored by… https://trymiracle.com/politicsgirl Code: PoliticsGirl http://getsuperbeets.com Code: PoliticsGirl

Today's episode is about whatever the hell just happened—is still happening—at OpenAI, where CEO Sam Altman has been fired, almost rehired, and then shipped off to Microsoft, while the most famous startup in artificial intelligence self-immolates for reasons that the company refuses to explain. Our panel has some theories. Charlie Warzel is a staff writer at The Atlantic who has been texting and talking with OpenAI employees for the last few days. Karen Hao is a contributing writer at The Atlantic who is writing a book about OpenAI and knows many of the main characters from this past weekend. Ross Andersen is a staff writer at The Atlantic who wrote a big magazine feature on Sam Altman, OpenAI, and the messy quest to build artificial general intelligence. If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com.  Host: Derek Thompson Guests: Ross Andersen, Karen Hao & Charlie Warzel  Producer: Devon Manze Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

EPISODE 1594: In this KEEN ON show, Andrew talks to the senior editor of the ATLANTIC magazine, Ross Andersen, about the ethics of AI technology and whether we should trust our new overlords of Silicon Valley with this radically disruptive technology Ross Andersen is a senior editor at The Atlantic, where he oversees the science, technology, and health sections. Prior to joining The Atlantic in 2015, he was the deputy editor of Aeon magazine, and before that, he was the science editor of the Los Angeles Review of Books. In addition to his work as an editor, Andersen is known for his award-winning feature essays, which straddle philosophy, technology, science, history, and the arts. He is currently working on a book about the search for extra terrestrial life in the universe. Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's episode is about how artificial intelligence will change the future of war. First, we have Brian Schimpf, the CEO of Anduril, a military technology company that builds AI programs for the Department of Defense. Next we have the Atlantic author Ross Andersen on how to prevent AI from blowing up the world. If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com. You can find us on TikTok at www.tiktok.com/@plainenglish_ Host: Derek Thompson Guests: Brian Schimpf and Ross Andersen Producer: Devon Manze Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The 1980s Los Angeles Lakers were one of the most dominant teams in sports. At a time when professional basketball was on its heels, the Lakers dynasty brought new excitement: Magic Johnson vs. Larry Bird, Jerry Buss and the glitzy Forum Club, and an uptempo flow offense. That's the story of HBO's big-budget series Winning Time, whose season 1 finale aired on Sunday, May 8th. David Sims, Vann Newkirk, and Ross Andersen—three of The Atlantic's biggest basketball fans—get together to discuss the series. Does it manage to weave together the era's many storylines? Does producer Adam McKay's style energize or distract? And why is the story of the Showtime-era Lakers called “Winning Time”? Ross Andersen: It Had to Be the Lakers (Oct 2020) Ross Andersen: Fight Night With LeBron (Oct 2018) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our guest this week is Deputy Editor of The Atlantic, Ross Andersen. Over the course of his career, Ross has written about a wide array of topics from the minds of birds, artificial intelligence, and takes about the Lakers. Ross is a really smart guy and to his credit, passed up an easy chance to be a jerk (We explain). We go into the challenges of topic selection, having an editor go run out of red ink with your book draft, and Ross weighs in on the Substack phenomenon. Danny goes into the history of The Atlantic and its unique place in American culture for over 150 years. This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Chartable - https://chartable.com/privacy Support this podcast

 * PART II -- Real Science Radio on the Big Bang with Lawrence Krauss: (Hear also Krauss part I but for our written evidence against the big bang, keep reading here.) Creationist co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams present Bob's wide-ranging discussion with theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss. These RSR programs air on America's most powerful Christian radio station, Denver's 50,000-watt AM 670 KLTT. Over time this web page will grow as we add the work of countless secular scientists who document widely accepted observational data, which facts taken individually and together challenge the atheistic big bang origins claim made by Krauss. * Krauss: "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang": Mentioning some of the obvious studies and massive quantities of data (see list below) that at least apparently seems to strongly contradict fundamental big bang predictions, Bob offered Krauss a chance to dial back his written claim that "all evidence now overwhelmingly supports" the big bang (p. 6 in his book, and 3:45 into today's program, beginning with Krauss' question, "You're not a young earther, are you?"). Instead, Krauss dug in deeper. There is nothing objective about Lawrence Krauss. He comes across more like the high priest of a cult than a scientist willing to acknowledge and follow the data. Each of the major observations below require secondary assumptions and rescue devices, some of which have not even been invented yet, to keep these enormous quantities of scientific data from apparently falsifying the big bang and its standard claims for the age of the universe and for star and planetary formation (this list will grow including with additional references over the next months): RSR's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang: For the latest version of this list which includes links to dozens of peer-reviewed journal papers where even proponents themselves admit their major discoveries go against the predictions of their own big bang theory, see rsr.org/evidence-against-the-big-bang. Here's a summary: * Mature galaxies exist far, far away where the big bang predicts that only infant galaxies should exist. * Hundreds of galaxies are clustered out at tremendous distances where the big bang predicts that such clusters should not exist. * Spiral galaxies look “too perfect” because they are missing millions of years of their predicted collisions. * The surface brightness of the furthest galaxies is identical to that of the nearest galaxies, contradicting a central prediction of the big bang. * Nine billion years of synthesized heavy elements are missing from a trillion stars. That’s a lot. This study failed to confirm the fundamental expectation of the big bang’s theory of nuclear synthesis. * Not even one of the millions of stars ever analyzed is a supposed “first generation” star (aka Population III), contrary to big bang expectations. * The discovery of exoplanets, including hot Jupiters and one with a retrograde orbit, has completely falsified the big bang’s nebular hypothesis of solar system formation, as openly admitted by Mike Brown, the exoplanet database manager for NASA. * It is not a scientific statement but merely a philosophical one to claim that the universe has no center, and thus, the big bang’s central Copernican principle is not based on science but on philosophical bias, as widely acknowledged including by Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman.* The most advanced three-dimensional map of more than a million galaxies seems to imply that the universe has a center. * Our sun is missing nearly 100% of the angular momentum (i.e., spin) that the big bang theories of stellar evolution and solar system formation predict that it should have. * There is an entire universe worth of missing antimatter if the big bang theory were true. * The big bang’s theory of chemical evolution is in crisis as inherently admitted with the National Academy of Sciences report titled, 11 Science Questions for the New Century which asks “How were the heavy elements from iron to uranium made?” with the journal Nature recently publishing a paper also admitting that even supernovae cannot produce our earth’s heavy elements. Today's Resource: For today's program we recommend RSR's Evidence Against the Big Bang video. * If our solar system’s heavy elements were produced in supernovae, then the sun and the earth are expected to have the same isotopes (versions) of elements like nitrogen and oxygen. But the sun has “40 percent less nitrogen-15 (compared to nitrogen-14)” than does the earth, and we have 7 percent less oxygen-16 relative to other isotopes, than does the sun. * The spiral galaxy’s beautiful arms are missing millions of years of expected deformation which lead proponents to assert the existence of the first of the hypothetical entities, dark matter, to prop up the big bang theory. * Superclusters of millions of galaxies exist yet the big bang predicts that gravity could not form them even in the supposed great age of the cosmos. * The astounding uniform temperature of the universe challenges the claim that the early universe would have been clumpy enough for galaxies to form. * While materialists have spent a century objecting to “catastrophism” here on earth where continent-wide evidence for such catastrophe exists, out in space, there are so many planetary “anomalies”, like Venus rotating backwards, Uranus rolling, and the highly elongated and even retrograde orbits of exoplanets, that despite the enormous distances between astronomical bodies, cosmologists today have become catastrophists. * The Sun rotates seven degrees off the ecliptic, and is missing 99% of its expected spin, with both observations providing powerful evidence against the big bang’s nebular hypothesis sub-model. * The infrared light that was supposed to be left over from star formation appears to not exist. * Hundreds of advanced-degreed scientists have publicly rejected the big bang. * The so-called “Axis of Evil”, confirmed most recently by the Planck satellite, appears to falsify the big bang’s Copernican principle of isotropy by displaying a preferred direction in the CMB. * Quasars typically have high redshifts (implying great distance) but they statistically cluster with low redshift galaxies (implying near distance), undermining confidence in the big bang’s foundational claim that redshift reliably indicates distance. * Contrary to any expectation of naturalism, the cosmos has astounding fine-tuning, which has led many big bang proponents to effectively admit the big bang’s inability to explain our existence. An increasing number of mainstream cosmologists therefore are resorting to a belief in the existence of countless trillions of universes, in hopes that, by mere chance, such a multiverse might explain the many wildly unlikely fortuitous circumstances that combine to enable our existence. * All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang? The world’s most popular scientists, like Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, at best stay silent and at worst abet their own side’s misrepresentation of the literature. The multinational multi-billion dollar science industry tolerates individual discoveries here and there which may require tweaking fundamental dogma. But what is not tolerated is the summarizing of widespread and diverse evidence that may question the very validity of such dogma. * Michael Crichton on Consensus: When the physician and writer Dr. Crichton asked, “When did ‘skeptic’ become a dirty word in science?” he answered his own question. When evidence is weak, the status quo appeals to “the consensus” with the aid of “the decline of the media [think Ira Flatow as in NPR's Science Friday] as an independent assessor of fact.” Taking advantage of all that, Krauss appeals to that consensus, as he alleged to us, “All scientists are Darwinists” (apparently, except for the thousands documented at rsr.org/doubters), and as he dismissed the hundreds of scientists who reject the big bang by implying that their expertise was in unrelated disciplines. Please consider, though, that when those who believe in the big bang claim consensus, consensus, there just might be evidence that disproves that consensus. * Krauss' Anthropic Circular Reasoning: Regarding the many fine-tuned parameters of the universe, like Krauss said to Enyart and atheists are content to trust, the Anthropic Principle explains all this, for otherwise, we wouldn't be here to notice. In response, Bob said to Lawrence, quoting Walter ReMine (1993, p. 61), that this is as satisfying as a doctor saying, "The reason that your father is deaf is because he can't hear." * Scientists Questioning or Rejecting the Big Bang: See rsr.org/scientists-doubting-darwin-and-the-big-bang. * Krauss on Credentials: Within ten seconds Lawrence Krauss contradicted himself, claiming at six minutes into today's program that, "Scientists don't argue on credentials", but only ten seconds earlier he had asked, "What department?" as a way of discrediting the hundreds of scientists who argue that much evidence contradicts the Big Bang. (And countering Krauss' claim that, "All scientists are Darwinists," for the hundreds of thousands of Ph.D.s and Masters in the sciences, including in the applied and biological sciences, see also rsr.org/scholars-doubting-darwin.) * Krauss Admits Misleading Title to Sell Books: An atheist Professor at City University of New York, Massimo Pigliucci (whom we've quoted recently when pointing out that PZ Myers is filthy), is glad that folks are "pressing Krauss on several of his non sequiturs." He quotes Columbia's David Albert, who holds a PhD in theoretical physics and who in the New York Times made the same argument, brilliantly though, that I gave to Krauss today, that the “physical stuff of the world" and "quantum field theories" "have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from... or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period.” And Pigliucci shows the "intellectual dishonesty" from Krauss' own words in The Atlantic, when challenged that his book has a misleading title, because his topic actually is "a quantum vacuum" which "has properties," which properties objectively are not nothing, as in Krauss' title, A Universe from Nothing. Lawrence replied, “I don’t think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing... if the ‘nothing’ of reality is full of stuff, then I’ll go with that." But when the Atlantic interviewer, Ross Andersen presses, "when I read the title of your book, I read it as 'questions about origins are over.'" To which Krauss responds: “Well, if that hook gets you into the book that’s great. But in all seriousness, I never make that claim. ... If I’d just titled the book ‘A Marvelous Universe,’ not as many people would have been attracted to [i.e., bought] it." Pigliucci too points out the dishonesty and chastises Krauss: "Claim what you wish to claim, not what you think is going to sell more copies of your book, essentially playing a bait and switch with your readers." Not learning from Krauss' earlier mistitled book, Richard Dawkins was also taken in by his friend's ruse, for he wrote the Afterword, clearly without having read the manuscript itself, because Dawkins stated that the book title "means exactly what it says." Not. * Missing Uniform Distribution of Radioactivity: The materialist theory on the origin of the elements in the periodic table claims that all of our radioactive elements were created in the explosion of stars (no longer supernovas, but now neutron stars and even black holes), but that would predict a relatively uniform distribution on Earth, at least throughout the crust, and possibly the mantle too. So in today's otherwise contentious interview, Krauss agreed with Enyart's statement that 90% of Earth's radioactivity (uranium, thorium, etc.) is located in the continental crust, and Krauss added, a mystery for him, that it tends to concentrate around granite! That is, that 90% is not in the mantle nor in the enormous amount of the crust which lies under the oceans, but our planet's radioactivity is concentrated in 1/3rd of 1% of the Earth's mass, in the continental crust. (Further, the release of it's heat has not yet reached a steady state.) Krauss offered a partial explanation: that uranium was originally evenly distributed throughout (an alleged) molten earth but being a large atom, it floated toward the surface. This the bias of this physicist led him to forget, apparently, that it is density, and not size, that causes things to float. Even denser than gold, uranium is one of the most dense elements (excluding atheists and other manmade phenomena). Further, for argument's sake, that would only explain the relative absence of radioactivity deep in the Earth, but would not explain uranium's distancing itself from the mantle and from the oceanic crust, nor its affinity for the continents and even, of all things, for granite. Further, under Krauss' belief in the widespread falsehood that the planet was once molten, if so, then the gold in the crust should have sunk to the core! The creationists, on the other hand, have a theory based on observational science as to why radioactivity is concentrated around granite. * Absurd Consistency of Uranium Isotopes IF Formed in Space: Google: origin of Earth's radioactivity. The top-ranked result is Walt Brown's hydroplate theory. See this also at rsr.org/radioactivity. Brown earned his Ph.D. from MIT. He writes: The isotopes of each chemical element have almost constant ratios with each other. ... Why is the ratio of 235U to 238U in uranium ore deposits so constant almost everywhere on Earth? One very precise study showed that the ratio is 0.0072842, with a standard deviation of only 0.000017. Obviously, the more time that elapses between the formation of the various isotopes (such as 235U and 238U) and the farther they are transported to their current resting places, the more varied those ratios should be. The belief that these isotopes formed in a supernova explosion millions of light-years away and billions of years before the Earth formed and somehow collected in small ore bodies in a fixed ratio is absurd. Powerful explosions would have separated the lighter isotopes from the heavier isotopes. Some radioisotopes simultaneously produce two or more daughters. When that happens, the daughters have very precise ratios to each other, called branching ratios or branching fractions. Uranium isotopes are an example, because they are daughter products of some even heavier element. Recall that the Proton-21 Laboratory has produced superheavy elements that instantly decayed. Also, the global flux of neutrons during the flood provided nuclei with enough neutrons to reach their maximum stability. Therefore, isotope ratios for a given element are fixed. Had the flux of neutrons originated in outer space, we would not see these constant ratios worldwide. Because these neutrons originated at many specific points in the globe-encircling crust, these fixed ratios are global. "Walt Brown is the Isaac Newton of our day." -Bob Enyart 

 * PART II -- Real Science Radio on the Big Bang with Lawrence Krauss: (Hear also Krauss part I but for our written evidence against the big bang, keep reading here.) Creationist co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams present Bob's wide-ranging discussion with theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss. These RSR programs air on America's most powerful Christian radio station, Denver's 50,000-watt AM 670 KLTT. Over time this web page will grow as we add the work of countless secular scientists who document widely accepted observational data, which facts taken individually and together challenge the atheistic big bang origins claim made by Krauss. * Krauss: "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang": Mentioning some of the obvious studies and massive quantities of data (see list below) that at least apparently seems to strongly contradict fundamental big bang predictions, Bob offered Krauss a chance to dial back his written claim that "all evidence now overwhelmingly supports" the big bang (p. 6 in his book, and 3:45 into today's program, beginning with Krauss' question, "You're not a young earther, are you?"). Instead, Krauss dug in deeper. There is nothing objective about Lawrence Krauss. He comes across more like the high priest of a cult than a scientist willing to acknowledge and follow the data. Each of the major observations below require secondary assumptions and rescue devices, some of which have not even been invented yet, to keep these enormous quantities of scientific data from apparently falsifying the big bang and its standard claims for the age of the universe and for star and planetary formation (this list will grow including with additional references over the next months): RSR's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang: For the latest version of this list which includes links to dozens of peer-reviewed journal papers where even proponents themselves admit their major discoveries go against the predictions of their own big bang theory, see rsr.org/evidence-against-the-big-bang. Here's a summary: * Mature galaxies exist far, far away where the big bang predicts that only infant galaxies should exist. * Hundreds of galaxies are clustered out at tremendous distances where the big bang predicts that such clusters should not exist. * Spiral galaxies look “too perfect” because they are missing millions of years of their predicted collisions. * The surface brightness of the furthest galaxies is identical to that of the nearest galaxies, contradicting a central prediction of the big bang. * Nine billion years of synthesized heavy elements are missing from a trillion stars. That’s a lot. This study failed to confirm the fundamental expectation of the big bang’s theory of nuclear synthesis. * Not even one of the millions of stars ever analyzed is a supposed “first generation” star (aka Population III), contrary to big bang expectations. * The discovery of exoplanets, including hot Jupiters and one with a retrograde orbit, has completely falsified the big bang’s nebular hypothesis of solar system formation, as openly admitted by Mike Brown, the exoplanet database manager for NASA. * It is not a scientific statement but merely a philosophical one to claim that the universe has no center, and thus, the big bang’s central Copernican principle is not based on science but on philosophical bias, as widely acknowledged including by Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman.* The most advanced three-dimensional map of more than a million galaxies seems to imply that the universe has a center. * Our sun is missing nearly 100% of the angular momentum (i.e., spin) that the big bang theories of stellar evolution and solar system formation predict that it should have. * There is an entire universe worth of missing antimatter if the big bang theory were true. * The big bang’s theory of chemical evolution is in crisis as inherently admitted with the National Academy of Sciences report titled, 11 Science Questions for the New Century which asks “How were the heavy elements from iron to uranium made?” with the journal Nature recently publishing a paper also admitting that even supernovae cannot produce our earth’s heavy elements. Today's Resource: For today's program we recommend RSR's Evidence Against the Big Bang video. * If our solar system’s heavy elements were produced in supernovae, then the sun and the earth are expected to have the same isotopes (versions) of elements like nitrogen and oxygen. But the sun has “40 percent less nitrogen-15 (compared to nitrogen-14)” than does the earth, and we have 7 percent less oxygen-16 relative to other isotopes, than does the sun. * The spiral galaxy’s beautiful arms are missing millions of years of expected deformation which lead proponents to assert the existence of the first of the hypothetical entities, dark matter, to prop up the big bang theory. * Superclusters of millions of galaxies exist yet the big bang predicts that gravity could not form them even in the supposed great age of the cosmos. * The astounding uniform temperature of the universe challenges the claim that the early universe would have been clumpy enough for galaxies to form. * While materialists have spent a century objecting to “catastrophism” here on earth where continent-wide evidence for such catastrophe exists, out in space, there are so many planetary “anomalies”, like Venus rotating backwards, Uranus rolling, and the highly elongated and even retrograde orbits of exoplanets, that despite the enormous distances between astronomical bodies, cosmologists today have become catastrophists. * The Sun rotates seven degrees off the ecliptic, and is missing 99% of its expected spin, with both observations providing powerful evidence against the big bang’s nebular hypothesis sub-model. * The infrared light that was supposed to be left over from star formation appears to not exist. * Hundreds of advanced-degreed scientists have publicly rejected the big bang. * The so-called “Axis of Evil”, confirmed most recently by the Planck satellite, appears to falsify the big bang’s Copernican principle of isotropy by displaying a preferred direction in the CMB. * Quasars typically have high redshifts (implying great distance) but they statistically cluster with low redshift galaxies (implying near distance), undermining confidence in the big bang’s foundational claim that redshift reliably indicates distance. * Contrary to any expectation of naturalism, the cosmos has astounding fine-tuning, which has led many big bang proponents to effectively admit the big bang’s inability to explain our existence. An increasing number of mainstream cosmologists therefore are resorting to a belief in the existence of countless trillions of universes, in hopes that, by mere chance, such a multiverse might explain the many wildly unlikely fortuitous circumstances that combine to enable our existence. * All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang? The world’s most popular scientists, like Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, at best stay silent and at worst abet their own side’s misrepresentation of the literature. The multinational multi-billion dollar science industry tolerates individual discoveries here and there which may require tweaking fundamental dogma. But what is not tolerated is the summarizing of widespread and diverse evidence that may question the very validity of such dogma. * Michael Crichton on Consensus: When the physician and writer Dr. Crichton asked, “When did ‘skeptic’ become a dirty word in science?” he answered his own question. When evidence is weak, the status quo appeals to “the consensus” with the aid of “the decline of the media [think Ira Flatow as in NPR's Science Friday] as an independent assessor of fact.” Taking advantage of all that, Krauss appeals to that consensus, as he alleged to us, “All scientists are Darwinists” (apparently, except for the thousands documented at rsr.org/doubters), and as he dismissed the hundreds of scientists who reject the big bang by implying that their expertise was in unrelated disciplines. Please consider, though, that when those who believe in the big bang claim consensus, consensus, there just might be evidence that disproves that consensus. * Krauss' Anthropic Circular Reasoning: Regarding the many fine-tuned parameters of the universe, like Krauss said to Enyart and atheists are content to trust, the Anthropic Principle explains all this, for otherwise, we wouldn't be here to notice. In response, Bob said to Lawrence, quoting Walter ReMine (1993, p. 61), that this is as satisfying as a doctor saying, "The reason that your father is deaf is because he can't hear." * Scientists Questioning or Rejecting the Big Bang: See rsr.org/scientists-doubting-darwin-and-the-big-bang. * Krauss on Credentials: Within ten seconds Lawrence Krauss contradicted himself, claiming at six minutes into today's program that, "Scientists don't argue on credentials", but only ten seconds earlier he had asked, "What department?" as a way of discrediting the hundreds of scientists who argue that much evidence contradicts the Big Bang. (And countering Krauss' claim that, "All scientists are Darwinists," for the hundreds of thousands of Ph.D.s and Masters in the sciences, including in the applied and biological sciences, see also rsr.org/scholars-doubting-darwin.) * Krauss Admits Misleading Title to Sell Books: An atheist Professor at City University of New York, Massimo Pigliucci (whom we've quoted recently when pointing out that PZ Myers is filthy), is glad that folks are "pressing Krauss on several of his non sequiturs." He quotes Columbia's David Albert, who holds a PhD in theoretical physics and who in the New York Times made the same argument, brilliantly though, that I gave to Krauss today, that the “physical stuff of the world" and "quantum field theories" "have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from... or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period.” And Pigliucci shows the "intellectual dishonesty" from Krauss' own words in The Atlantic, when challenged that his book has a misleading title, because his topic actually is "a quantum vacuum" which "has properties," which properties objectively are not nothing, as in Krauss' title, A Universe from Nothing. Lawrence replied, “I don’t think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing... if the ‘nothing’ of reality is full of stuff, then I’ll go with that." But when the Atlantic interviewer, Ross Andersen presses, "when I read the title of your book, I read it as 'questions about origins are over.'" To which Krauss responds: “Well, if that hook gets you into the book that’s great. But in all seriousness, I never make that claim. ... If I’d just titled the book ‘A Marvelous Universe,’ not as many people would have been attracted to [i.e., bought] it." Pigliucci too points out the dishonesty and chastises Krauss: "Claim what you wish to claim, not what you think is going to sell more copies of your book, essentially playing a bait and switch with your readers." Not learning from Krauss' earlier mistitled book, Richard Dawkins was also taken in by his friend's ruse, for he wrote the Afterword, clearly without having read the manuscript itself, because Dawkins stated that the book title "means exactly what it says." Not. * Missing Uniform Distribution of Radioactivity: The materialist theory on the origin of the elements in the periodic table claims that all of our radioactive elements were created in the explosion of stars (no longer supernovas, but now neutron stars and even black holes), but that would predict a relatively uniform distribution on Earth, at least throughout the crust, and possibly the mantle too. So in today's otherwise contentious interview, Krauss agreed with Enyart's statement that 90% of Earth's radioactivity (uranium, thorium, etc.) is located in the continental crust, and Krauss added, a mystery for him, that it tends to concentrate around granite! That is, that 90% is not in the mantle nor in the enormous amount of the crust which lies under the oceans, but our planet's radioactivity is concentrated in 1/3rd of 1% of the Earth's mass, in the continental crust. (Further, the release of it's heat has not yet reached a steady state.) Krauss offered a partial explanation: that uranium was originally evenly distributed throughout (an alleged) molten earth but being a large atom, it floated toward the surface. This the bias of this physicist led him to forget, apparently, that it is density, and not size, that causes things to float. Even denser than gold, uranium is one of the most dense elements (excluding atheists and other manmade phenomena). Further, for argument's sake, that would only explain the relative absence of radioactivity deep in the Earth, but would not explain uranium's distancing itself from the mantle and from the oceanic crust, nor its affinity for the continents and even, of all things, for granite. Further, under Krauss' belief in the widespread falsehood that the planet was once molten, if so, then the gold in the crust should have sunk to the core! The creationists, on the other hand, have a theory based on observational science as to why radioactivity is concentrated around granite. * Absurd Consistency of Uranium Isotopes IF Formed in Space: Google: origin of Earth's radioactivity. The top-ranked result is Walt Brown's hydroplate theory. See this also at rsr.org/radioactivity. Brown earned his Ph.D. from MIT. He writes: The isotopes of each chemical element have almost constant ratios with each other. ... Why is the ratio of 235U to 238U in uranium ore deposits so constant almost everywhere on Earth? One very precise study showed that the ratio is 0.0072842, with a standard deviation of only 0.000017. Obviously, the more time that elapses between the formation of the various isotopes (such as 235U and 238U) and the farther they are transported to their current resting places, the more varied those ratios should be. The belief that these isotopes formed in a supernova explosion millions of light-years away and billions of years before the Earth formed and somehow collected in small ore bodies in a fixed ratio is absurd. Powerful explosions would have separated the lighter isotopes from the heavier isotopes. Some radioisotopes simultaneously produce two or more daughters. When that happens, the daughters have very precise ratios to each other, called branching ratios or branching fractions. Uranium isotopes are an example, because they are daughter products of some even heavier element. Recall that the Proton-21 Laboratory has produced superheavy elements that instantly decayed. Also, the global flux of neutrons during the flood provided nuclei with enough neutrons to reach their maximum stability. Therefore, isotope ratios for a given element are fixed. Had the flux of neutrons originated in outer space, we would not see these constant ratios worldwide. Because these neutrons originated at many specific points in the globe-encircling crust, these fixed ratios are global. "Walt Brown is the Isaac Newton of our day." -Bob Enyart 

This next book has probably my favorite so far of my pandemic reads. Kenneth Brower’s The Starship and the Canoe. It’s a strange paired biography of physicist Freeman Dyson and his son,… https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2020/09/16/notes-the-starship-and-the-canoe/ The Starship and the CanoeFreeman Dysona obitweet by Ross Andersenthe original threadThe Starship and the Canoe@andersenTuring’s CathedralHyperionAstoundingdelta-veewrote a book abouthere’s another book#TeamAleut#booFancyDugoutsO’Neill cylinderLink to some picturesBookDukhobor@andersen

Director of Artificial Intelligence for the Air Force and Director of Operations for the MIT AI Accelerator and author of the newly released book "T-Minus AI: Humanity’s Countdown to Artificial Intelligence and the New Pursuit of Global Power" (https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/t-minus-ai-michael-kanaan/1133108024?ean=9781948836944) Michael Kanaan joins the podcast to discuss what is at stake as artificial intelligence becomes increasingly advanced. Michael and Jared discuss Michael's excellent book and the themes it covers, such as the ways that AI already are influencing our lives, how AI might transform our society in the future, the geopolitical risks posed by AI and how it is being used to advance dystopian realities in places like China and Russia, the ethical quandaries posed by AI, and much more.  Background reading: T-Minus AI: Humanity’s Countdown to Artificial Intelligence and the New Pursuit of Global Powe (https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/t-minus-ai-michael-kanaan/1133108024?ean=9781948836944)r by Michael Kanaan Can we build Artificial Intelligence without losing control over it (https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_can_we_build_ai_without_losing_control_over_it?language=en)? (TED talk, Sam Harris) Raising Devandra (https://www.npr.org/2019/12/17/788681618/raising-devendra) (NPR / Invisibilia) China's Artificial Intelligence Surveillance State Goes Global (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/09/china-ai-surveillance/614197/) (Ross Andersen, The Atlantic) Support this podcast

George Church, Harvard Medical School and Bill Hurlbut, Stanford University Medical Center discuss the risks and opportunities of gene editing at a special event hosted by The Veritas Forum and moderated by Ross Andersen, a senior editor at The Atlantic. The Veritas Forum: Gene Editing and the Future of Personhood Please like, share, subscribe to, and review this podcast!

Season 2 Episode 31, Dr. Bubbs interviews Professor Ross Andersen PhD, kinesiologist and researcher at McGill University in Montreal to discuss his recent work on seasonal changes in body composition in collegiate football and hockey players. Dr. Ross discusses differences in pre-season to end of season changes in lean mass and fat mass, as well as different trends observed in football versus ice hockey. He also shares his experiences from working in the NFL with the Philadelphia Eagles and Baltimore Ravens and provides some insights into how to communicate science into practice.

What’s the best way to stay scientifically literate in a world of “alternative facts”? Bill Nye, co-host Chuck Nice, and The Atlantic’s senior editor, Ross Andersen are here to help your science skills stay sharp and offer ways to seek out the truth. NOTE: StarTalk All-Access subscribers can watch or listen to this entire episode commercial-free. Find out more at https://www.startalkradio.net/startalk-all-access/

Here's what we know: There's a pair (father and son) of Russian scientists trying to resurrect (or rather, "rewild") an Ice Age (aka Pleistocene era) biome (grassland) complete with (gene edited, lab-grown) woolly mammoths (derived from elephants). In Arctic Siberia (though, not at the one station there that Amazon Prime delivers to!). Here's what we don't know: How many genes will it take? (with science doing the "sculpting" and nature doing the "polishing")? How many doctors will it take to make? (that is, grow these 200-pound babies in an artificial womb)? What happens if these animals break? (given how social elephants are)? And so on... In this episode of the a16z Podcast -- recorded as part of our podcast on the road in Washington, D.C. -- we (Sonal Chokshi and Hanne Tidnam) discuss all this and more with Ross Andersen, senior editor at The Atlantic who wrote "Welcome to Pleistocene Park", a story that seems so improbably wild yet is so improbably true. And while we focus on the particulars of what it takes to make this seemingly Jurassic Park-like story true, this episode is more generally about what motivates seemingly crazy ideas -- moving them from the lab to the field (quite literally in this case!) -- often with the help of a little marketing, a big vision, and some narrative. And: time. Sometimes, a really, really, really long time... image: National Park Service

One of the most fascinating climate change stories of the year comes from Ross Anderson at The Atlantic. In "Welcome to Pleistocene Park", Ross writes about Pleistocene Park, a reserve in Siberia that aims to stave off climate change by attempting to recreate the conditions of the Pleistocene, turning the reserve into a grassland steppe ecosystem by importing large herbivores. The article also explores the possibilities of bringing back the woolly mammoth, specifically for a place like Pleistocene park. Read the full article at The Atlantic - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/pleistocene-park/517779/ Ross Anderson joins hosts Jacquelyn Gill and Andy Revkin for a discussion on this compelling project and related issues like long timescales, our understanding of the anthropocene, the ethics of rewilding, and the culture of elephants. Check out the recommended reading list below: Pop-up forests: https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/warming-arctic-tundra-producing-pop-up-forests/ Elephant memories: https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/on-elephants-memories-human-forgetfulness-and-disaster/ Links to IIASA’s 2300 projections are here (with context on long time scales): https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/three-long-views-of-life-with-rising-seas/ We've staved off next ice age (Jim Hansen in 03 and many others since): http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/when-will-the-next-ice-age-begin.html Jacquelyn's blog on mammoth cloning: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/cloning-woolly-mammoths-its-the-ecology-stupid/ Stephen Jay Gould's Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle: https://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Cycle-Geological-Jerusalem-Harvard/dp/0674891996 -- Thumbnail image courtesy of Gregory "Slobirdr" Smith https://www.flickr.com/photos/slobirdr/ Do you want to support this podcast – while also earning money and helping the U.S. solar industry? Check out our sponsor, WunderCapital, which has developed an online platform to help individuals invest directly in solar projects and earn up to 8.5%. Set up an account: WunderCapital.com/warm.

What's best way to stay scientifically literate in a world of “alternative facts”? Bill Nye, comic co-host Chuck Nice, and The Atlantic's senior editor, Ross Andersen are here to help your science skills stay sharp and offer ways to seek out the truth.Don't miss an episode of StarTalk All-Stars. Subscribe on:SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/startalk_all-starsiTunes: https://itun.es/us/P9kphb.cStitcher: http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/startalk-allstarsTuneIn: http://tunein.com/radio/StarTalk-All-Stars-p949405/Google Play Music: https://play.google.com/music/listen#/ps/I2nz5bguurd5se7zu4fhnd25lk4NOTE: StarTalk All-Access subscribers can watch or listen to this entire episode commercial-free. Find out more at https://www.startalkradio.net/startalk-all-access/

What’s best way to stay scientifically literate in a world of “alternative facts”? Bill Nye, comic co-host Chuck Nice, and The Atlantic’s senior editor, Ross Andersen are here to help your science skills stay sharp and offer ways to seek out the truth. Don’t miss an episode of StarTalk All-Stars. Subscribe on: SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/startalk_all-stars iTunes: https://itun.es/us/P9kphb.c Stitcher: http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/startalk-allstars TuneIn: http://tunein.com/radio/StarTalk-All-Stars-p949405/ Google Play Music: https://play.google.com/music/listen#/ps/I2nz5bguurd5se7zu4fhnd25lk4 NOTE: StarTalk All-Access subscribers can watch or listen to this entire episode commercial-free. Find out more at https://www.startalkradio.net/startalk-all-access/

Alexis C. Madrigal is an editor-at-large for Fusion, where he’s producing the upcoming podcast, Containers. “Sometimes you think like, 'Man the media business is the worst. This is so hard.' When you spend time with all these other business people, you probably are going to say, ‘Capitalism is the worst. This is hard.’ Competition that’s linked to global things is so hard because global companies are locked in this incredible efficiency battle that just drives all of the slack out of the system. Like media, there’s no slack left, and I don’t know where things go after that.” Thanks to MailChimp, Stamps.com, and Casper for sponsoring this week's episode. @alexismadrigal alexismadrigal.com Madrigal on Longform [00:00] Longform Podcast Survey [03:00] Madrigal’s Archive at The Atlantic [03:45] Consumer Conspicuous [05:00] Ross Andersen on the Longform Podcast [05:30] "First-Gen T. Rex Was No Bigger Than You" (Wired • Sep 2009) [06:45] Powering the Dream: The History and Promise of Green Technology (Da Capo Press • 2011) [12:45] Nuzzel [15:30] "BuzzFeed editor-in-chief in year-end memo: ‘Fake news will become more sophisticated’ than ever in 2017" (Oliver Darcy • Business Insider • Dec 2016) [19:00] "The alpha dog that wouldn’t hunt: How Trump’s ludicrous ‘alpha male’ act is destroying him" (Matthew Rozsa • Salon • Oct 2016) [24:00] "How Google Builds Its Maps—and What It Means for the Future of Everything" (Atlantic • Sep 2012) [27:45] "A Fleet of One" (John McPhee • New Yorker • Feb 2003) [28:15] Uncommon Carriers (John McPhee • Farrar, Straus and Giroux • 2006) [29:15] Madrigal’s Archive at Fusion [29:15] Real Future [37:45] Slacker [46:00] "American Aqueduct: The Great California Water Saga" (Atlantic • Feb 2014) [48:45] Madrigal’s Archive at NPR

Carl Zimmer, a columnist for the New York Times and a national correspondent at STAT, writes about science. “[Criticism] doesn’t change the truth. You know? Global warming is still happening. Vaccines still work. Evolution is still true. No matter what someone on Twitter or someone in an administration is going to say, it’s still true. So, we science writers have to still be letting people know about what science has discovered, what we with our minds have discovered about the world—to the best of our abilities. That’s our duty as science writers, and we can’t let these things scare us off.” Thanks to MailChimp, Audible, and Squarespace for sponsoring this week's episode. @carlzimmer carlzimmer.com Zimmer on Longform [01:00] Ross Andersen on the Longform Podcast [02:45] Zimmer’s column at the New York Times [02:45] Zimmer’s books [04:00] "The Rise of the Tick" (Outside • Apr 2013) [6:40] "Sleepless in South Sudan" (Radiolab • Oct 2011)   [08:15] Parasite Rex: Inside the Bizarre World of Nature’s Most Dangerous Creatures (Simon & Schuster • 2000) [08:30] "A Sleeping Storm" (Discover • Aug 1998) [25:00] "How Scientists Stalked a Lethal Superbug—With the Killer’s Own DNA" (Wired • Jan 2013) [25:30] "Game of Genomes Episode 1: Man Inside the Hard Drive" (STAT • Jul 2016) [30:00] "How Fighter Pilots Stay Sharp" (Evan Ratliff • Men’s Journal • Dec 2013) [31:15] Zimmer’s Mosaic Archive [33:00] "King of the Cosmos" (Playboy • Jan 2012) [35:00] Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey [36:15] Star Talk [38:30] "Global Warming Alters Arctic Food Chain, Scientists Say, With Unforeseeable Results" (New York Times • Nov 2016) [40:00] "Special Report: Endless Summer—Living With the Greenhouse Effect" (Andrew C. Revkin • Discover • Oct 1988) [46:45] At the Water’s Edge: Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs, and How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to Sea (Touchstone • 1999) [52:30] "The Girl Who Turned to Bone" (Atlantic • Jun 2013)

Astronomers are perplexed by a mysterious star in the constellation Cygnus. Comet swarm? Dyson sphere? We just don't know. This is the story behind Tabby's Star. This episode was produced independently by me, Asher Isbrucker. Tabby's Star is also commonly referred to as the WTF Star (WTF comes from "Where's the Flux?", the name of Tabby's paper and a common expression of disbelief), and also its Kepler catalog number KIC 8462852. I’d like to thank all of the people who gave their time and lent their voices for this episode: Tabetha Boyajian (@tsboyajian), Jason Wright (@Astro_Wright), Andrew Siemion, Brad Schaefer, Ross Andersen (@andersen), and Daryll LaCourse. Big thanks to all of you. Thanks as well to Professor Jaymie Matthews. Music by Lee Rosevere, Corsica S, Chris Zabriskie, Sergey Cheremisinov, Little Glass Men, Lee Maddeford, and Ketsa. You also heard excerpts from “CTA 102” by The Byrds, the X Files Theme, the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, & Michio Kaku’s appearance on CBSN. With files from NASA’s archives. Planet Hunters credited with first flagging Tabby’s Star, setting this whole thing off: Andrew Szewczyk, Sam Goodman, and Abe Hoekstra. Check out Planet Hunters & other citizen science projects — www.zooniverse.org More information & updates on Tabby’s Star — www.wherestheflux.com Tabby’s paper about the star: https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.03622 Ross’ Atlantic article about the star: http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-most-interesting-star-in-our-galaxy/410023/ And a follow up article: http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/10/maybe-its-a-dyson-sphere/410974/ Tabby’s TED Talk about the star: https://www.ted.com/talks/tabetha_boyajian_the_most_mysterious_star_in_the_universe?language=en NASA’s interview with Jocelyn Bell Burnell: http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/whos_who_level2/bell.html Fact-checking Twitter account for Tabby’s Star: @BoyajiansStar

Ross Andersen is the deputy editor of Aeon Magazine. “One of the things that’s been really refreshing in dealing with scientists—as opposed to say politicians or most business people—is that scientists are wonderfully candid, they’ll talk shit on their colleagues. They’re just firing on all cylinders all the time because they traffic in ideas, and that’s what’s important to them.” Thanks to TinyLetter and AlarmGrid for sponsoring this week's episode. Show Notes: @andersen Andersen on Longform [2:00] Aeon on Longorm [5:00] "Zapped" (Mary H.K. Choi • Aeon • Sept 2013) [5:00] "Awaiting Renewal" (Heather Havrilesky • Aeon• July 2013) [5:00] "Brigid Hains on the Launch of Aeon" (Interview by Catherine Balavage • Frost Magazine • Oct 2012) [11:00] "Are We Alone?" (Caleb Scharf • Aeon • June 2013) [14:00] "In The Beginning" (Aeon • May 2015) [15:00] Andersen’s Atlantic archive [20:00] "Gravitational-Wave Detectors Get Ready to Hunt for the Big Bang" (Ross Andersen • Scientific American • Oct 2013) [21:00] "Golden Eye" (Los Angeles Review of Books • Feb 2012) [23:00] The Elegant Universe (W. W. Norton & Company • 1999) [24:00] "Are We Disappointed with Space Exploration?” (The Atlantic • April 2011) [27:00] "The Vanishing Groves” (Aeon • Oct 2012) [29:00] "Talk Like an Egyptian” (Grayson Clary • Aeon • Dec 2014) [30:00] "Exodus" (Aeon • Sept 2014) [33:00] "Elon Musk: Triumph of His Will" (Tom Junod • Esquire • Nov 2012) [35:00] Hamish McKenzie [38:00] "Is Cosmology Having a Creative Crisis?" (Aeon • May 2015) [44:00] Orion Magazine [45:00] "Why Hawaiians are Protesting Construction of the World’s Second Largest Telescope" (Joseph Stromberg • Vox • May 2015)