How did Earths inner core freeze solid?Rost9/ShutterstockA high concentration of carbon within Earths inner core could explain a long-standing mystery about how the deepest part of our planet froze solid a process that kick-started the magnetic field protecting life on the surface.Earths inner core presents a paradox for geophysicists: it first formed as a massive liquid ball of mostly iron, then began to solidify within the last billion years. In order for that freezing process to start in a pure iron object, it would have had to cool by at least 700 kelvin in

Syncing up time crystals can help harness energyNobi_Prizue/Getty ImagesTo store energy with a time crystal, make it a double. A mathematical analysis shows that putting two time crystals into a coordinated state could create a quantum battery-like device.Time crystals differ from other quantum states of matter by having a structure that repeats in time they cycle through the same set of configurations over and over without any energy input. Though physicists once worried that this would violate fundamental laws of physics and render them impossible, over the course of the past decade researchers have created

Nature, Published online: 18 November 2024; doi:10.1038/d41586-024-03778-4Scientists release first analyses of samples from Chinas Change-6 mission, which landed on the lunar far side.

Nature, Published online: 18 November 2024; doi:10.1038/d41586-024-03614-9Long-lasting changes to the cells epigenome are linked to a decline in their function.

Donald Trump is yet to announce his pick for Treasury Secretary.Names in the frame include Scott Bessent, Howard Lutnick, Marc Rowan, and Kevin Warsh.Here is some of the sharpest analysis of who he should nominate.After announcing a swathe of names for his Cabinet, president-elect Donald Trump appears to be conducting auditions for his Treasury Secretary.Figures in the frame include Scott Bessent, the founder of Key Square Capital Management; Howard Lutnick, the CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald; Marc Rowan, the Apollo Global Management cofounder; and Kevin Warsh, a former governor of the Federal Reserve Board.Here's some of the best commentary we've seen about the race to be the next Treasury Secretary.Associated Press Trump's treasury pick could give an indication of what he plans to do about tariffsPresident-elect Donald Trump's decision on a treasury secretary is about far more than whose name will be printed on America's money.The choice of how to fill his highest-profile outstanding Cabinet selection will be the clearest indication yet of how he intends to wield import tariffs in his new administration.The leading candidates for the role have expressed differing perspectives on how Trump should use the protectionist trade policies that he put front and center in his campaign for the White House, while Trump himself has offered seemingly contradictory views.CNBC The battle over Trump's Treasury secretary is adding to the market's problemsThe sudden confusion has caused some queasiness among investors, who also have been nervous about rhetoric lately from Federal Reserve officials that has injected uncertainty into expectations for interest rate cuts."We think concern over the Treasury pick was at least as important a driver of market weakness Thursday/Friday as the signal from Powell that the Fed is going to be more non-committal on its rate plans which is itself a product of uncertainty over Trump policy," Evercore ISI analysts said in a note Monday.Stocks found some footing on Monday after the Trump trade rally was cut short last week.The New York Times DealBook newsletterTrump has told associates that he is impressed by Rowan,Rowan would be likely to reassure many on Wall Street, particularly given how unorthodox some of the other cabinet choices have been. But it's unclear whether he would want to take such a public role, especially given his current work at Apollo. (How hard it would be to extricate Rowan from any "key man" provisions in the firm's funds is another question.)Trump has a history with Warsh, having considered him as a potential Fed chair in 2017, only to choose Jay Powell instead, a choice he later publicly regretted. The TV-minded Trump considers Warsh smart and handsome, The Times reports. Warsh is also being mentioned as a potential successor to Powell, whose term expires in 2026.Whoever gets the nod will have to deal with Trump's insistence on new tariffs, a key campaign pledge. Among Lutnick's private criticisms of Bessent, according to reports, is that his rival hasn't expressed enough enthusiasm for them.Kyle Bass, chief investment officer of Hayman Capital Management, on XU.S. markets initially rallied on Trump's win. Markets began discounting Scott Bessent as U.S. Treasury Secretary. The moment Howard Lutnick decided he wanted the job, the markets sold off. The markets are telling Trump that Bessent is certainly the best choice for the position.The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board 'Disruption Won't Work at Treasury'Unlike other policy positions, the Treasury Secretary needs an understanding of financial markets, which nowadays are global. A blowup in the foreign-exchange markets somewhere can affect the U.S. economy, and new financial investments like crypto need careful watching. Mr. Trump has promised to ease political control over these markets, but no one should think they are risk free. Blowups somewhere are inevitable, and a Treasury secretary needs the experience to deal with the fallout in a way that reassures markets.Mike Allen, Axios cofounder, on CNBCThere's going to be a serious look at Kevin Warsh and Marc Rowan. You've got what The New York Times is calling a 'knife fight' between Howard Lutnick and Scott Bessent. There could now be a contest for Treasury Secretary where the no1 job is reassuring the markets.Trump likes pedigree and Trump is obsessed with the markets, and that's what I can see Kevin Warsh as a very strong candidate. He was the youngest Fed governor and he's someone that the markets love. The back-up job that may be offered to some of these candidates is director of the White House National Economic Council.Ian Bremmer, Eurasia Group founder, told BI:Trump's transition leaders remain enthusiastic and indeed strongly excited about the group they're putting together. And there's extraordinary confidence given the strength of Trump's win and the sweep of executive, house, and senate. But despite being a second term, there's no more experience being assembled on the cabinet than in the first administration (when, at least, there was awareness that the group didn't yet know what it was doing) and overall less competence, with experienced Washington politicians like Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz in the group but few operators who understand the mechanics of bureaucracy, all of which is unique compared to other second administrations that the United States has experienced historically.The unifying factor is a desire to undo what's seen as wrong with the status quo whether any policy attached to the Biden administration, the "politicization" of the power ministries, or the "deep state" in the regulatory bureaucracies, which reflects the overall intention of taking a wrecking ball to Washington, a message president-elect Trump is happy to champion, but with little experience, understanding, or interest in what they want to build or reform the institutions into.The Economist 'Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump's resilient transition chief'Decades later the fight for Mr Lutnick, now aged 63, is over the fate of America itself. The man in the ring is another big-city billionaire, Donald Trump. In this bout, Mr Lutnick is so far more of a towel boy, a cheerleader or a coach. Once a donor to Mr Trump, he is managing the president-elect's transition, filling roughly 4,000 government posts before the inaugurationthe perfect role for someone who has described himself as "addicted to people". In return he might be rewarded with the job of treasury secretary. Mr Lutnick has said he will judge prospective hires in the Trump administration by their capacity, as well as their "fidelity and loyaltyto the man". Mr Lutnick's most impressive talent is his ability to imbue staff with a sense of mission. But that is only as worthwhile as the quality of the staff and of the mission itself.Bloomberg Editorial Board 'Trump's Nominees Suggest Familiar Chaos'Other eccentric nominations surely lie ahead. More of the assorted kooks and grifters who amble into Trump's orbit may well be proposed for positions of national consequence. Republican senators, in particular newly elected Majority Leader John Thune, should be on the lookout for unqualified picks and prepared to reject them. Doing so would be both the honorable thing for the country and manifestly in their self-interest: Incompetence in high places will only impede their agenda.Jeff Stein, The Washington Post economics reporter, on XWe're in a protracted standoff right now over who Trump will pick for treasury secretary. I think it sounds boring to a lot of people but it's an absolutely crucial moment 1) From all my reporting, my sense is that Trump is dead serious about enormous tariff hikes to rebalance global trade. So he wants someone who will actually implement those tariffs. 2) But all the evidence also suggests he really wants the support of Wall Street and STONKS to go up. So he wants someone the markets will respect But it's really hard to see how he gets BOTH of those, which I think is part of why picking the treasury secretary is proving so hardThis helps explain why Scott Bessent, the Treasury contender who got characterized - maybe somewhat unfairly? - as door #2, has been jumping up and down the last week & insisting that he's really actually super serious about doing tariffs in a big way.

A federal judge ruled in August that Google violated antitrust law to keep a monopoly on search.The Department of Justice is weighing several remedies to resolve the case.DOJ officials reportedly plan to ask a judge to force Google to sell Chrome.Officials from the DOJ are reportedly planning to ask a judge to force Google to sell its Chrome browser.The remedy would follow a ruling in August in which a federal judge found the tech giant violated the law and held a monopoly on online search.The DOJ's antitrust division is also expected to ask Judge Amit Mehta to impose data licensing requirements along with other remedies tied to AI and its Android smartphone operating system, Bloomberg reported Monday, citing people familiar with the plans.Prosecutors have proposed and the Department of Justice is considering several potential remedies to resolve the violation, including a potential breakup of some of Google's basic businesses like its search engine, Business Insider previously reported."The DOJ continues to push a radical agenda that goes far beyond the legal issues in this case," Lee-Anne Mulholland, vice president of Google's regulatory affairs, told Business Insider in a statement. "The government putting its thumb on the scale in these ways would harm consumers, developers and American technological leadership at precisely the moment it is most needed."Breaking off Chrome would be a substantial blow to the tech titan's Google Services branch, which makes most of its money through advertising. Business Insider previously reported Google's total search revenue was $279.8 billion in 2022.Google is also dealing with the fallout from a second antitrust case related to its Play Store after a judge last month ruled that Google must open up Android to rival third-party app stores as part of a landmark antitrust case against the tech giant.The rulings are part of what management and law experts previously told Business Insider signals a shift in antitrust law against large tech companies."In recent years, the government has been trying to countervail the high pricing power of dominant tech companies," Peter Cohan, an associate professor of management practice at Babson College, previously told Business Insider. "This fits into that shift."Representatives for the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

President-elect Donald Trump and some of his allies have suggested, to varying degrees, that Trump should be allowed to meddle with the Federal Reserves decisions about US monetary policy. I think I have the right to say, I think you should go up or down a little bit, Trump said, referring to interest rates, which the Federal Reserve sets, at an October event at the Chicago Economic Club. I dont think I should be allowed to order it, but I think I have the right to put in comments as to whether or not the interest rates should go up or down.Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) went further on X, claiming, The Executive Branch should be under the direction of the president. Thats how the Constitution was designed. The Federal Reserve is one of many examples of how weve deviated from the Constitution in that regard. Yet another reason why we should #EndTheFed. Elon Musk, the billionaire who has become an advisor to Trump, replied to Lees tweet with a 100 emoji. Bringing the Federal Reserve under the presidents control would be a major change. The Fed is an independent institution meant to make decisions that shape the domestic economy without political interference. Theres no indication that Trump wants to exert the kind of control that Musk and Lee tweeted about, but even the type of influence he appears to want likely wont be possible at least in the short term.How much can Trump influence the Fed?Trump cant influence the Federal Reserve much for right now.When it comes to interest rates, which are basically how much it costs to borrow money, Trump can complain they are too high (or too low) like any other American, but the Feds leaders are the only government officials with the power to adjust those rates. The Fed has lowered interest rates this year as inflation has declined but it kept rates fairly high for the last few years, in part to fight pandemic-era inflation. Even with the lower rates, however, many Americans are still finding it too expensive to borrow money so they can make big purchases like a home.Forcing or pressuring the Fed to lower interest rates wont necessarily fix high borrowing costs for Americans; the interest rates set by the Fed are actually short-term costs that banks pay to each other to borrow money. The Feds decisions influence the cost of borrowing, but there are a lot of other factors that go into consumer credit.Related:Can Trump ban trans athletes from school sports?Furthermore, many of Trumps other policy proposals like broad tariffs or mass deportation could increase inflation, which higher interest rates are supposed to combat. If implemented, these proposals could actually lead to higher inflation.If you have big tax cuts, and he wants to spend more on the military, and is rounding up however many millions of undocumented workers he plans to [deport], thats all going to be very inflationary as will Trumps proposed tariffs on imports, Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, told Vox. And then if you tell the Fed, Well, you cant do anything to try and contain it, because that would make me unpopular, Thats going to be a really bad story. One other way Trump might try to meddle in the Feds affairs is by trying to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. Trump appointed Powell, but was highly critical of Powells decision-making during his first term, and reportedly looked into whether he could fire the Fed chair.Powell has stated that he will serve through the rest of his term, which doesnt end until 2026, but has declined to say whether or not he would stay on for a third term. Legally, Trump cannot force Powell to resign or fire him. Members of the Feds Board of Governors, which Powell is part of as the Fed chair, can only be fired for wrongdoing or job performance reasons, not differences in policy. Trump could try to fire Powell claiming hes performing his job poorly, but that decision would probably embroil the president-elect in a drawn-out legal battle, like the one that ensnared Franklin Delano Roosevelt when he tried to fire a Fed commissioner. (And that Roosevelt lost.)Because the Federal Reserve was created by an act of Congress, it would take Congressional action to make any changes to how it works. Congress has made some changes over the decades, but theres no signal right now that most lawmakers are willing to challenge the independence of the institution. Any attempts to interfere with the Feds independence could have ripple effects in the stock market, Jeremy Siegel, a finance professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, told Business Insider. In general, theres no question that the market does not like any attempt to interfere, by the executive or congressional branches, in the independence of the Fed, Siegel said. But come May of 2026, Trump will be able to have some congressionally authorized say in Fed policy. Thats when hell be required to appoint a Fed chair for a new four-year term, wholl then have to undergo Senate confirmation. That may be Powell, or it could be someone more compliant with Trumps idea of what the Fed should be.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

It will soon be Giving Tuesday, and its time for me to do what I do on Vox every Giving Tuesday: encourage people to give more money to effective charities.Over years of doing this, Ive gotten a long and familiar list of objections. I decided this year to try my best to answer them.What are you asking me to do?I am asking you to give 10 percent of your pretax income to a charity that saves lives. I give my 10 percent to GiveWells top charities fund, which redistributes it to highly effective global health charities like the Malaria Consortium and Helen Keller International. GiveWell estimates that for every $5,000 gift, these charities will save one human life.I think of GiveWell as like the charity version of an index fund: Its a rigorous, impartial recommender that you can donate to without having to pick and choose individual causes. It has also been, disclosure, an advertiser on Vox Media podcasts, though Ive been using it since long before that was true.10 percent seems like a lot.Its significant. For the average American household, which has an income of roughly $75,000, its a $7,500 commitment. Thats a real bite, but its also more than enough to save a life.I dont know if I can afford 10 percent Thats fair! Can you do 5 percent?Maybe I would go as low as 1 percent!But then thats only $750 a year, and that cant save a life.Well, every five years you would. And if you want to do more good, we can always go back to 10 percent!The Vox guide to givingThe holiday season is giving season. This year, Vox is exploring every element of charitable giving from making the case for donating 10 percent of your income, to recommending specific charities for specific causes, to explaining what you can do to make a difference beyond donations. You can find all of our giving guide stories here.Okay, okay, 10 percent. Isnt that kind of religious?For sure: The practice of tithing in many world religions is a key inspiration here. The twist is Im suggesting tithing not to religious institutions but to highly effective charities (which could be religious or not its not their beliefs that matter, but their effectiveness).So why these particular charities?Because theres a huge, huge difference between what the most and least effective charities can accomplish with donations. You might think that charities are like brands of dish soap Ive never once thought that.Its an analogy, give me a second. The absolute best dish soap is probably, at most, a tiny bit better than the average brand, right? I mean its just soap. Even Wirecutter says you probably cant go wrong with most name-brand dish detergents.Fair enough, soap is soap.But really, charities are more like chefs knives. The difference between the best and worst knife is enormous and affects the entire process of cooking, or so it has been explained to me by superior cooks. Its the difference between an enjoyable time in the kitchen versus pure drudgery (and a heightened chance you inadvertently chop off your fingertip).So what does this have to do with charity?What it has to do with charity is that the vast majority of nonprofits have no evidence of positive impact at all, and even charities brave enough to agree to rigorous tests of their impact see widely variable effectiveness. In global development, something like 60 to 70 percent of interventions tested show no results at all, which effectively means the money donated could have just been thrown down a hole.And among those that do show results, the size of the impact varies drastically. The researcher Benjamin Todd has looked into these questions a lot, examining nine different databases of program impact, and found that in every context, from US social policy to global health to the UKs National Health Service to estimates of climate policies, the results are fat-tailed. Thats statistics talk for the conclusion that the best interventions are much, much better than the average interventions. How much better are these super-interventions?It depends, but here are a couple of examples: The most cost-effective treatments examined by Britains National Health Service were 120 times more effective than the median treatment. A World Bank study found the most effective interventions in global health were 38 times more effective than the median ones.Because it lets you do a lot more good. Suppose youre giving $7,500 a year. If you gave that to an average global health program, youd be providing 30 more total years of healthy life to a few people, per the World Bank data.30 years of life! Thats pretty good, right?Its great. But if you put that money toward one of the 2.5 percent most cost-effective interventions, youd save about 1,275 years of life.Quite possibly! These are necessarily rough numbers and you shouldnt take them too literally. You might merely save hundreds of years of life. But the magnitudes here strongly suggest that you should be careful about choosing where to donate, because the difference between the best and the merely okay is huge.Theres a reason the philosopher Toby Ord, who originated the 10 percent of income to effective charities pledge idea, has argued that cost-effectiveness is a moral imperative, on par with the moral imperative to give money at all.So I looked at the GiveWell list of top charities why arent there any working in the US?Good question. The short answer is the US is a rich country, which means everything tends to cost more than it does abroad including the cost of helping people in need. The US still has extreme poverty, in the global, living-on-$2-a-day standard, but its comparatively rare and hard to target effectively. The poorest Americans also have access to health care and education systems that, while obviously inferior compared to those enjoyed by rich Americans, are still superior to those of very poor countries.To be blunt: People in the US simply are not dying for want of a $1.50 anti-malaria pill. (For one thing, the US managed to essentially eradicate malaria transmission from within its borders.) That means it is much, much more cost-effective to help people abroad.How much more cost-effective?Heres one example. Years ago, GiveWell looked into a number of US charities, like the Nurse-Family Partnership program for infants, the KIPP chain of charter schools, and the HOPE job-training program. It found that all were highly effective but were also far more cost-intensive than the best foreign charities. KIPP and the Nurse-Family Partnership cost more than $9,000 per child served, while a program like the Malaria Consortiums prevention efforts costs around $4,500 per life saved.Theres been less work on evaluating US charities in recent years than would be ideal, and Id love to hear about charities that can save lives here very cost-effectively. But right now, the evidence suggests to me that its much more expensive to save lives in the US than abroad. But I still want to help people closer to me.Thats a commendable impulse! I get it, really, and if the most I can convince you to do here is give 10 percent of your income to fight poverty in the US, then you should do that and Ill take the win.But I would also ask you to consider the idea that people in other, much poorer countries have equal moral weight to those who live in your country. Their lives matter just as much. And if you can help, say, 100 of them for the cost of helping one American, and you choose to do the latter, youre making an implicit choice to value Americans much more than non-Americans. I think there might be valid reasons to make that choice but its not one I want to make, so thats not how I donate.Indeed they do. I think the best critique of GiveWells list well, less a critique than an argument not to use it exclusively is that you can do even more good, even more efficiently if you try to help animals, especially farm animals bred and raised in extreme suffering just so they can be slaughtered. There are billions of them, and very little is spent trying to help them. If you want to help them, Animal Charity Evaluators has some good suggestions of where to give. Im partial to the Humane League, which pressures corporations to improve their treatment of farmed animals.This all sounds like effective altruism.It does because it is. Todd and Ord were among the founders of effective altruism, and generally the community and people in it have developed a lot of the ideas you see above, from the focus on cost-effectiveness to the give 10 percent idea to taking animals seriously.Didnt effective altruists do a bunch of crimes a few years ago?A bunch of EAs definitely did a bunch of crimes a few years ago. Sam Bankman-Fried and several of his colleagues at FTX and Alameda Research identified as EAs and stated that they were only becoming billionaires to donate the proceeds to effective charities. Of course, they turned out to be stealing lots of money in the process and Bankman-Fried has since been convicted in federal court and sentenced to 25 years in prison. (Disclosure: In 2022, Bankman-Frieds philanthropic family foundation, Building a Stronger Future, awarded Voxs Future Perfect a grant for a 2023 reporting project. That project is now on pause.)So he did crimes because of these ideas?I dont think we know for sure why he did what he did, but there are some theories. One theory is that Bankman-Fried took the idea that you should make as much money as possible and donate it as efficiently as possible, and ran way too far with it to the point where committing outright fraud to make money to donate made sense to him, on the apparent grounds that the potential good that could be done with it was worth the risk to himself and many others. Other theories hold that he was just lying the whole time, never cared about doing the right thing, and used EA as a cover for his own greed. Either way, it reflects very badly on EA.So why are you asking me to take these effective altruist ideas seriously?Because theyre good ideas and theyre in danger of being totally discredited because of some effective altruists who didnt even take the donate a lot of your income to normal charities that save lives part of the philosophy seriously.Look at SBF: He distributed a bunch of money to causes he valued, but they were explicitly not causes involving giving people lifesaving medication right now. They were more speculative longtermist causes things like AI safety and preventing global catastrophic risks. Whatever you think of that behavior, its precisely not what Im asking you to do right now.If they didnt take these ideas seriously, why should I?Because you have the opportunity to save lives, right now, and you should take it.This whole thing where you think Im, like, obligated to give this much is weird.I dont think youre obligated. I just think its a good thing to do and that you should consider it. If everyone did it, we could end global poverty and then some. And I dont even think its purely an altruistic good thing. I think itll be good for you as a person, too.Oh, really? I should selfishly give away 10 percent of my income?Thats honestly a big part of why I do it.Really? For yourself?Sure. Look, I think its important to do good for other people, in and of itself. Thats a major motivator, definitely.But you ever wonder if your life has meaning? If it makes any kind of difference to the world? Personally, I want to live a life that means something, that leaves things ever so slightly better than I found them. I want to be pursuing goals that arent just material. I dont want to mark the progression of my life solely through raises and promotions, or fall victim to the subtle pressures that push me to spend more and more of my money on gadgets and furniture that make me progressively less happy.Im talking about a problem that, for me, giving 10 percent of my income away helps solve. One, it helps establish a baseline meaning or impact from my work if nothing else, I know that the money I make through my job contributes to saving peoples lives. That has to count for something. Thats a source of real meaning and pride.Two, it provides a powerful counterforce to the treadmill that comes as you age and make more money, a treadmill that pushes you to spend lots of it to keep up with your peers or feel like youre living better. There are definitely times when I feel like Im not taking as nice a vacation as my friends are, or where I feel kinda cheap for having mostly Wayfair furniture while my friends have a nice, solid wood dining table. Sometimes I blame the donations for these feelings.But mostly I am thankful for them. The idea that, after you reach a certain level of baseline comfort, additional consumer spending is going to make you dramatically happier is a seductive lie. And one of the few weapons I have against it is the knowledge that I face a very real choice between, say, getting one of those amazing lie-flat business-class airplane seats for my next vacation and saving a human beings life. That lets me resist the former, and live a life that feels just a tiny bit more meaningful.Okay, fine, Im in. Where do I sign up?The group Giving What We Can runs a pledge, which I and thousands of others have signed, for people who commit to donating 10 percent of their income to highly effective charities. You can sign if you want. But the main thing to do is just give.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

From Nintendo to Sony, Sega to Microsoft, there have been some great console launches - and some that each would rather forget. Here are the worst console launches of all time.

PS5 Pro owners are asking developers to enable them to turn off the console's enhancements after disappointments with multiple patches - despite the console costing 699