Feed aggregator

SpaceXAI and Cursor_ai are partners trying to catch up to Anthropic and Claude Code. XAI data center and hundreds of thousands of chips can power Cursor Composer 2. The combination of Cursor’s leading product and distribution to expert software engineers with SpaceX’s million H100 equivalent Colossus training supercomputer will allow us to build the world’s ...

Read more

My post yesterday on New Glenn, ULA and Space Force transferring payloads to SpaceX got reply from Elon Musk. He agreed Space is hard. Blue Origin New Glenn rocket is grounded during an FAA investigation into the second stage problem they had on the weekend. ULA Vulcan has mishaps with their solid rocket boosters made ...

Read more

Amazon announced an additional $5 billion investment in Anthropic immediately, plus up to $20 billion more in the future (tied to commercial milestones). This brings its total committed capital to as much as $33 billion. The announcement does not specify how much new equity/percentage this adds or the exact structure, but it will increase Amazon’s ...

Read more

New York, United States, 21st April 2026, CyberNewswire

A simple way to apply futarchy to for-profit firms is profit-futarchy: make markets that estimate total firm market value given key firm choices, like who is CEO, what are key acquisitions, or what are key firm policies. Then do what such markets advise. But a big problem with this approach is that top people, like the CEO, often do not see their personal success as maxed by firm success. For example, they tend to be wary of losing control over key firm choices, even if that would make such choices more profitable.

So CEOs block the application of futarchy to firms. You might think that investors could just force CEOs to use futarchy, if that would max investor gains. But investors also can’t seem to prevent the adoption of poison pills, which also cut investor gains. It seems we must accept that top managers have power sufficient to induce firm outcomes that don’t max profits. Investors do not in fact fully control firms.

Okay, then what if we flip this script, and set decision markets to the task of directly achieving the selfish managerial ends that likely drive managerial power politics? Create a metric of the total success of an individual manager over their future career, and then make advisory power-futarchy markets that estimate this personal success given key choices under that manager’s power. And to discourage sabotage, give everyone who that might be able to act to greatly hurt this success a positive stake in that success, a stake they aren’t allowed to trade to below zero.

Would this supercharge power politics, via better informing political strategies? Plausibly this would improve both offensive and defense political choices, and also make political info more symmetric. Managers could less often win via strategies that rely on rivals not noticing their plans until too late. So might power-futarchy actually cut harms from firm politics? Maybe, relative to the alternative of no markets at all, helping managers have successful careers also on average helps firms to max profits.

Of course such markets may advise top managers to not create power-futarchy markets to aid their subordinates several levels below them. Such markets might even say to instead give such subordinates futarchy markets tied to key firm or division outcomes. If so, that might usefully limit the scope of power-futarchy. Yes, this might over time undermine support for power-futarchy, but maybe not before current managers achieved great success from it.

Some kinds of power politics strategies may be hindered by open markets estimating their power effectiveness. But we needn’t have such markets regarding all possible managerial choices. Though, yes, the choice to not create such a market on some key choice might be taken as a bad sign about the politics behind that choice. No doubt there would be many new tricks to be found when playing power-futarchy.

Tesla chip partners will help them resolve shortages of cpu, gpus and memory for the next 2-4 years. Intel is critical for CPUs Nvidia for GPUs. TSMC, Samsung for production of AI5 and AI6 chips. Samsung for memory.

Tribes contain factions. Tribe members mostly interact with and emulate other members of their same tribe, while faction members do these things more often with members of other factions. Tribes tend to have distinct moral norms and status markers, while factions tend to share the norms and status markers of their tribe. Factions often differ on status, income, professions, and on symbolic markers like food, clothes, languages, holidays, and artistic styles. Factions also often disagree on directions to change shared tribe policies and norms. The distinction between tribes and factions is a matter of degree.

Our dominant world culture hates tribes, but loves factions, especially factions who we see as “down”. We hate groups who disagree with world elite consensus on school, medicine, democracy, gender equality, sexual freedom, legal due process, rules of just war, and norms of good parenting. And we hate tribe supporters for their self-favoritism and habitual hostility toward outsiders. About these things we see our dominant world tribe as just right, and the others evil.

But we love factions within this main tribe who embrace distinct symbols, and who fight for tribe norm reforms. We call this love “tolerance”. At least we love factions who we can plausibly see as “down” relative to “up” rivals. (We presume “up” illicitly hurts “down”.) We hate “up” faction members who promote their factions, and accuse them of actually representing hated tribes. We moderns tend to channel our instinctive human tendencies to be tribal into our factional conflicts. Not noticing how we need tribes far more than factions.

The big problem is that in history our moral norms and status markers came mostly from cultural group selection acting on tribes, not factions. By crushing all but one dominant tribe, we now mostly block such evolution from preventing the decay of shared norms, or their adaption to changing context. We now see this most clearly in the decay of norms supporting fertility, but such decay is plausibly also happening across all our key norms. Selection acting instead on factions can’t do this remotely as well. If such decay continues long, our civilization will fall, to be replaced by others.

Unfortunately, we find it hard to see this problem, as our moral norms and status markers seem to us as just obviously true, and thus good bases for any analysis. In contrast, we can see and appreciate fights among factions, as we can frame these in terms of our “obvious” shared norms. But that doesn’t help much to ensure that the winners of faction fights are more adaptive.

Instead of trying to repress competing tribes, as we usually do, we might try to instead promote them. But even that seems quite insufficient, as the main underlying reason that the world has over centuries been merging toward one big tribe is the increasing ease of distant trade, travel, and talk. Such merging has achieved great scale economies of production and innovation, and a great reduction in conflict harms, such as via war, due to increasingly shared norms. Most people really like having a world community with shared norms..

There are a few today, like the Amish and Haredim, who care enough to treat themselves as distinct tribes, and are willing to forgo many gains of world cultural integration to achieve this. Such folks insulate themselves culturally from the large world, and so are the folks today whose descendants are mostly likely to replace our dominant world culture. But few groups today are this devoted to becoming tribes. Most of the folks today interested in cultural variety, like “network state” folks, are not remotely this devoted, and so have little chance of creating new tribes.

I can see only three ways for our main world civ, which I treasure in many ways, to avoid being replaced like this. The first solution is to somehow greatly raise the status of tribes, relative to factions. Convince the world to fragment into far more tribes, not just factions. Tolerate and even encourage groups having quite deviant views on democracy, gender equality, etc. to favor themselves and isolate from outsiders.

The second solution is to leave the world mostly integrated into one big tribe, but to find new ways to control and govern how key moral norms and status markers are changed to become more adaptive. Such as via competent governments held strongly accountable to increase adaption futures estimates, or via using a competent futarchy to pursue sacred adaption-achieving goals like when a million people live in space.

The third solution is to vastly increase the role of for-profit orgs in setting our moral norms and status markers. The evolution of firm cultures has long been quite healthy, as firms form quite distinct groups facing strong capitalists selection pressures. And for-profit orgs competing to give customers key numbers and observable outcomes have quite consistently improved on such outcomes. Each area they came to control, such as buying and running governments, or paying parents to make kids they could in effect sell, would likely become more adaptive.

As you can plainly see, these are all big long-shots. Our situation is quite desperate. And not likely to get better until a lot more people start to think about it.

Based on what the orbit appears to be. 20kg of fuel they can only raise it part of the way. ASTS admits the satellite is too low and cannot be saved, During the New Glenn 3 mission, BlueBird 7 was placed into a lower than planned orbit by the upper stage of the launch vehicle. ...

Read more

Blue Origin’s New Glenn NG-3 mission launched successfully this morning (April 19, 2026) from Cape Canaveral, carrying AST SpaceMobile’s BlueBird 7 (Block 2 FM2) satellite. After the launch and booster recover, the mission continued for 90 minutes or so. UPDATE – ASTS admits the satellite is too low and cannot be saved. Planned second-stage profile ...

Read more

In the latest episode of old museum collections revealing new discoveries, two researchers in Australia have solved a paleontological mystery with an Ice Age fossil first discovered over  100 years ago.

The fossil was found in  the underground Foul Air Cave in Buchan, Victoria, Australia. It’s the partial skull of an Owen’s giant echidna (Megalibgwilia owenii), a now-extinct giant echidna that weighed 33.1 pounds and grew up to 3.3 feet-long. The genus name, Megalibgwilia, consists of “mega” (great or mighty in Ancient Greek) and “libgwil” (the Wemba Wemba word for echidna). 

“The apparent absence of the extinct large-bodied Owen’s Giant Echidna Megalibgwilia owenii from Victoria is unusual in light of its wide distribution across the continent’s southeast including Tasmania,” the researchers write in a paper recently published in the journal Alcheringa: An Australasian Journal of Palaeontology. “It is the first example of Megalibgwilia identified from Victoria, and reconciles the taxon’s otherwise disjunct southern distribution across mainland Australia.”

Though the fossil was retrieved from a cave in Buchan, researchers identified it in Museums Victoria’s Palaeontology Collection. Tim Ziegler—collection manager of vertebrate palaeontology at Museums Victoria Research Institute—initially spotted it in 2021, and found it came from a 1907 expedition by Frank Spry, a naturalist and museum officer. 

The Megalibgwilia owenii fossil. Image: Museums Victoria

“Museum collections preserve the link between science, heritage and people,” Ziegler, lead author of the study, said in a statement. “Over a century ago, Spry along with scientists and locals investigated Buchan’s caves with little more than ropes and kerosene lamps, and they inspired us to carry on their work.”

Ziegler and his co-author Jeremy Lockett, a Deakin University vertebrate palaeontology student, investigated modern and fossil echidnas in other Australian museum collections, presumably comparing them to the one from the Museums Victoria. Its characteristic straight-beaked snout, with which it would have crushed big insects and dug into Ice Age Australian soils, verified it to be an Owen’s giant echidna.

“Previous research by Museums Victoria has shown the Buchan Caves preserve an exceptional record of Australia’s unique megafauna,” Ziegler said. “The next amazing discovery could come from inside the museum, from continued fieldwork, or the keen eyes of a citizen scientist.”

Today, echidnas are egg-laying, spiky-looking, long-nosed mammals that live in places including Australia and Indonesia. They grow 14 to 30 inches long, weigh 5.5 to 22 pounds, and are endangered. And sometimes, these hedgehog-like creatures end up in shark vomit. 

The post New megafauna looked like spiky, 30-pound hamster appeared first on Popular Science.

Who doesn’t love a brownie? It’s the ultimate comfort food—beloved around the world and even beyond it. Astronauts aboard the International Space Station have brownies on their menu too.

But what makes a perfect brownie? That depends on who you ask. Some like a light, cake-like crumb. Others want a dense, fudgy center or a chewy bite. 

To tailor your brownies to your taste, you need to understand the science behind them. “Each ingredient has a specific role, and the ratios between them determine whether the brownie turns out fudgy, cakey, or chewy,” explains Dr. Lesa Tran, a chemistry professor at Rice University. 

What each ingredient really does Flour

Flour is the backbone of your brownie. When mixed with water, its proteins (gliadin and glutenin) link up to form gluten, a network that gives structure, explains Tran.

The more flour you add—and the more you mix it—the stronger that network becomes. The result? A lighter, more cake-like texture. Use less flour and mix minimally, and you’ll keep your brownies dense and fudgy.

Sugar

Sugar does far more than sweeten.

In the oven, it breaks down (or “caramelizes”) and reacts with proteins, a process known as the Maillard reaction. These processes create deep, complex flavors and aromas, says Tran. 

Sugar also locks in moisture by binding to water, keeping brownies soft.

And that shiny, crackly crust? That’s sugar too. In the oven, sugar dissolved in the brownie mixture rises to the surface and re-forms into crystals, which create that signature crust, explains Tran.

If you use less flour in your brownie batter, you’ll end up with fudgier brownies. Image: Getty Images / Mint Images

For chewier brownies, use more brown than white sugar, Tran suggests. This adds more chew because it has more molasses (thick, dark brown syrup obtained from sugar beet and sugar cane plants).

If you want to cut back on sugar without sacrificing taste and texture, try using a finer sugar like caster sugar instead of granulated sugar. Scientists studied the effect of different sugar particle sizes on chocolate brownies and found that brownies made with smaller sugar particles tasted sweeter, and were also softer and moister than those made with larger sugar crystals. So if you want a fudgy brownie with less sugar, go for caster sugar.

Fat

Should you use butter or oil? Science has the answer.

A study comparing butter to nut oils (like almond, pistachio, or walnut oil) found that, compared to butter-based brownies, oil-based versions are softer, more elastic, and moister—and often preferred in taste tests. They’re also higher in heart-healthy unsaturated fats, and lower in unhealthy, saturated fat.

Whether you use butter or oil, more fat means a richer, fudgier brownie, says Tran.

Eggs

Eggs pull double duty, adding structure and richness. Like flour, they contain proteins that set when heated, giving structure to the brownie, explains Tran. 

Egg yolks also contribute fat, making brownies richer and fudgier.

“Adding more egg whites provides more proteins to create a lighter, cakier texture,” says Tran, “while more egg yolks provide more fat to give a richer, denser result.”

Chocolate

What’s best: melted chocolate or cocoa powder? It depends on what texture you’re after. 

Melted chocolate contains cocoa butter, which solidifies as it cools—giving brownies a dense, fudgy bite. Cocoa powder, with less fat, produces a lighter, drier crumb.

If you use cocoa powder, choose wisely: natural cocoa is more acidic and sharp in flavor, while Dutch-processed cocoa, which is chemically treated to reduce its acidity, is smoother and mellower, says Tran.

Some people like to add chocolate chips to their brownies. The chips’ fat-crystal structure helps them hold their shape somewhat so you get little melty pockets inside the brownie, similar to what happens in chocolate chip cookies.

Related 'Ask Us Anything' Stories

The best chocolate chip cookie recipe, according to science

Are induction stoves better? These chefs think so.

Can one big meal really make you gain weight?

Is microwave cooking nuking all the nutrients?

What are ultra-processed foods and are they bad for me?

Does eating spicy food help you lose weight? Science has a clear answer.

Salt

A pinch of salt doesn’t make brownies salty—it actually makes them taste sweeter by helping your taste receptors detect sugar more effectively.

Leavening agent

Baking soda or powder introduces air into the brownie batter, creating lift and a cakier texture, says Tran. Skip them entirely if you want dense, fudgy brownies. 

Science-backed baking tips

The kind of baking pan you use matters. Metal pans heat quickly, resulting in faster bake times and firmer brownie edges, says Tran. Glass and ceramic conduct heat more slowly and retain heat longer, which can lead to uneven baking.

How long you leave the brownies in the oven also affects the end result. Brownies continue to cook when removed from the oven—a phenomenon known as carry-over cooking—because of the heat held within the food itself. 

“For a fudgy center, remove them when a toothpick inserted into the center of the brownie comes out with a few moist crumbs,” says Tran. “For a cakier center, remove them when a toothpick comes out clean.”

The bottom line

To create your perfect brownies, follow one of these formulas: 

• Fudgy: less flour, more fat, more egg yolks, use melted chocolate, no leavening agents. Mix lightly and slightly underbake.
• Cakey: more flour, less fat, more egg whites, use cocoa powder, plus a leavening agent. Bake until fully set.
• Chewy: don’t skimp on sugar (brown not white!) and fat.

In Ask Us Anything, Popular Science answers your most outlandish, mind-burning questions, from the everyday things you’ve always wondered to the bizarre things you never thought to ask. Have something you’ve always wanted to know? Ask us.

The post The best brownie recipe, according to science appeared first on Popular Science.