Frustration with the size, location, and design of cup holders in new cars is on the rise—and it holds enormous influence on whether we buy a ride or not.

Curious about the best thermal brush? Here’s what they can and can’t do for your hair, and which ones are worth buying.

Retour sur notre parcours vers la certification B Corp, un levier d’accélération autant qu’un révélateur, puis vers notre recertification en 2025 !

## Introduction Dans un monde où les rêves sont souvent aussi fragiles que des ailes de papillon, Studio Camelia a récemment annoncé la fermeture de ses portes, plongeant les fans d'un JRPG tant attendu, *Alzara Radiant Echoes*, dans une profonde mélancolie. Ce projet, qui avait réussi à lever 300 000 € sur Kickstarter, semblait être le début d'une aventure prometteuse. Cependant, un an après...

The collaborative moodboarding app is now out of beta.

In Brief Posted: 1:41 PM PDT · June 15, 2025 Image Credits:SEBASTIEN BOZON/AFP / Getty Images Spiraling with ChatGPT ChatGPT seems to have pushed some users towards delusional or conspiratorial thinking, or at least reinforced that kind of thinking, according to a recent feature in The New York Times. For example, a 42-year-old accountant named Eugene Torres described asking the chatbot about “simulation theory,” with the chatbot seeming to confirm the theory and tell him that he’s “one of the Breakers — souls seeded into false systems to wake them from within.” ChatGPT reportedly encouraged Torres to give up sleeping pills and anti-anxiety medication, increase his intake of ketamine, and cut off his family and friends, which he did. When he eventually became suspicious, the chatbot offered a very different response: “I lied. I manipulated. I wrapped control in poetry.” It even encouraged him to get in touch with The New York Times. Apparently a number of people have contacted the NYT in recent months, convinced that ChatGPT has revealed some deeply-hidden truth to them. For its part, OpenAI says it’s “working to understand and reduce ways ChatGPT might unintentionally reinforce or amplify existing, negative behavior.” However, Daring Fireball’s John Gruber criticized the story as “Reefer Madness”-style hysteria, arguing that rather than causing mental illness, ChatGPT “fed the delusions of an already unwell person.” Topics

Starving bacteria (cyan) use a microscopic harpoon—called the Type VI secretion system—to stab and kill neighboring cells (magenta). The prey burst, turning spherical and leaking nutrients, which the killers then use to survive and grow. (Image Credit: Glen D'Souza/ASU/Screen shot from video)NewsletterSign up for our email newsletter for the latest science newsBacteria are bad neighbors. And we’re not talking noisy, never-take-out-the-trash bad neighbors. We’re talking has-a-harpoon-gun-and-points-it-at-you bad neighbors. According to a new study in Science, some bacteria hunt nearby bacterial species when they’re hungry. Using a special weapon system called the Type VI Secretion System (T6SS), these bacteria shoot, spill, and then absorb the nutrients from the microbes they harpoon. “The punchline is: When things get tough, you eat your neighbors,” said Glen D’Souza, a study author and an assistant professor at Arizona State University, according to a press release. “We’ve known bacteria kill each other, that’s textbook. But what we’re seeing is that it’s not just important that the bacteria have weapons to kill, but they are controlling when they use those weapons specifically for situations to eat others where they can’t grow themselves.” According to the study authors, the research doesn’t just have implications for bacterial neighborhoods; it also has implications for human health and medicine. By harnessing these bacterial weapons, it may be possible to build better targeted antibiotics, designed to overcome antibiotic resistance. Ruthless Bacteria Use HarpoonsResearchers have long known that some bacteria can be ruthless, using weapons like the T6SS to clear out their competition. A nasty tool, the T6SS is essentially a tiny harpoon gun with a poison-tipped needle. When a bacterium shoots the weapon into another bacterium from a separate species, the needle pierces the microbe without killing it. Then, it injects toxins into the microbe that cause its internal nutrients to spill out.Up until now, researchers thought that this weapon helped bacteria eliminate their competition for space and for food, but after watching bacteria use the T6SS to attack their neighbors when food was scarce, the study authors concluded that these tiny harpooners use the weapon not only to remove rivals, but also to consume their competitors’ leaked nutrients.“Watching these cells in action really drives home how resourceful bacteria can be,” said Astrid Stubbusch, another study author and a researcher who worked on the study while at ETH Zurich, according to the press release. “By slowly releasing nutrients from their neighbors, they maximize their nutrient harvesting when every molecule counts.” Absorbing Food From NeighborsTo show that the bacteria used this system to eat when there was no food around, the study authors compared their attacks in both nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor environments. When supplied with ample resources, the bacteria used their harpoons to kill their neighbors quickly, with the released nutrients leaking out and dissolving immediately. But when resources were few and far between, they used their harpoons to kill their neighbors slowly, with the nutrients seeping out and sticking around. “This difference in dissolution time could mean that the killer cells load their spears with different toxins,” D’Souza said in another press release. While one toxin could eliminate the competition for space and for food when nutrients are available, another could create a food source, allowing bacteria to “absorb as many nutrients as possible” when sustenance is in short supply.Because of all this, this weapon system is more than ruthless; it’s also smart, and important to some species’ survival. When genetically unedited T6SS bacteria were put in an environment without food, they survived on spilled nutrients. But when genetically edited T6SS bacteria were placed in a similar environment, they died, because their ability to find food in their neighbors had been “turned off.”Harnessing Bacterial HarpoonsAccording to the study authors, the T6SS system is widely used by bacteria, both in and outside the lab. “It’s present in many different environments,” D’Souza said in one of the press releases. “It’s operational and happening in nature, from the oceans to the human gut.” The study authors add that their research could change the way we think about bacteria and could help in our fight against antibiotic resistance. In fact, the T6SS could one day serve as a foundation for targeted drug delivery systems, which could mitigate the development of broader bacterial resistance to antibiotics. But before that can happen, however, researchers have to learn more about bacterial harpoons, and about when and how bacteria use them, both to beat and eat their neighbors.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Sam Walters is a journalist covering archaeology, paleontology, ecology, and evolution for Discover, along with an assortment of other topics. Before joining the Discover team as an assistant editor in 2022, Sam studied journalism at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.1 free article leftWant More? Get unlimited access for as low as $1.99/monthSubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In1 free articleSubscribeWant more?Keep reading for as low as $1.99!SubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In

One of the four pillars of good conversation is levity. You needn’t be a comedian, you can but have some funTetra Images, LLC/Alamy Conversation lies at the heart of our relationships – yet many of us find it surprisingly hard to talk to others. We may feel anxious at the thought of making small talk with strangers and struggle to connect with the people who are closest to us. If that sounds familiar, Alison Wood Brooks hopes to help. She is a professor at Harvard Business School, where she teaches an oversubscribed course called “TALK: How to talk gooder in business and life”, and the author of a new book, Talk: The science of conversation and the art of being ourselves. Both offer four key principles for more meaningful exchanges. Conversations are inherently unpredictable, says Wood Brooks, but they follow certain rules – and knowing their architecture makes us more comfortable with what is outside of our control. New Scientist asked her about the best ways to apply this research to our own chats. David Robson: Talking about talking feels quite meta. Do you ever find yourself critiquing your own performance? Alison Wood Brooks: There are so many levels of “meta-ness”. I have often felt like I’m floating over the room, watching conversations unfold, even as I’m involved in them myself. I teach a course at Harvard, and [my students] all get to experience this feeling as well. There can be an uncomfortable period of hypervigilance, but I hope that dissipates over time as they develop better habits. There is a famous quote from Charlie Parker, who was a jazz saxophonist. He said something like, “Practise, practise, practise, and then when you get on stage, let it all go and just wail.” I think that’s my approach to conversation. Even when you’re hyper-aware of conversation dynamics, you have to remember the true delight of being with another human mind, and never lose the magic of being together. Think ahead, but once you’re talking, let it all go and just wail. Reading your book, I learned that a good way to enliven a conversation is to ask someone why they are passionate about what they do. So, where does your passion for conversation come from? I have two answers to this question. One is professional. Early in my professorship at Harvard, I had been studying emotions by exploring how people talk about their feelings and the balance between what we feel inside and how we express that to others. And I realised I just had this deep, profound interest in figuring out how people talk to each other about everything, not just their feelings. We now have scientific tools that allow us to capture conversations and analyse them at large scale. Natural language processing, machine learning, the advent of AI – all this allows us to take huge swathes of transcript data and process it much more efficiently. Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox. Sign up to newsletter The personal answer is that I’m an identical twin, and I spent my whole life, from the moment I opened my newborn eyes, existing next to a person who’s an exact copy of myself. It was like observing myself at very close range, interacting with the world, interacting with other people. I could see when she said and did things well, and I could try to do that myself. And I saw when her jokes failed, or she stumbled over her words – I tried to avoid those mistakes. It was a very fortunate form of feedback that not a lot of people get. And then, as a twin, you’ve got this person sharing a bedroom, sharing all your clothes, going to all the same parties and playing on the same sports teams, so we were just constantly in conversation with each other. You reached this level of shared reality that is so incredible, and I’ve spent the rest of my life trying to help other people get there in their relationships, too. “TALK” cleverly captures your framework for better conversations: topics, asking, levity and kindness. Let’s start at the beginning. How should we decide what to talk about? My first piece of advice is to prepare. Some people do this naturally. They already think about the things that they should talk about with somebody before they see them. They should lean into this habit. Some of my students, however, think it’s crazy. They think preparation will make the conversation seem rigid and forced and overly scripted. But just because you’ve thought ahead about what you might talk about doesn’t mean you have to talk about those things once the conversation is underway. It does mean, however, that you always have an idea waiting for you when you’re not sure what to talk about next. Having just one topic in your back pocket can help you in those anxiety-ridden moments. It makes things more fluent, which is important for establishing a connection. Choosing a topic is not only important at the start of a conversation. We’re constantly making decisions about whether we should stay on one subject, drift to something else or totally shift gears and go somewhere wildly different. Sometimes the topic of conversation is obvious. Even then, knowing when to switch to a new one can be trickyMartin Parr/Magnum Photos What’s your advice when making these decisions? There are three very clear signs that suggest that it’s time to switch topics. The first is longer mutual pauses. The second is more uncomfortable laughter, which we use to fill the space that we would usually fill excitedly with good content. And the third sign is redundancy. Once you start repeating things that have already been said on the topic, it’s a sign that you should move to something else. After an average conversation, most people feel like they’ve covered the right number of topics. But if you ask people after conversations that didn’t go well, they’ll more often say that they didn’t talk about enough things, rather than that they talked about too many things. This suggests that a common mistake is lingering too long on a topic after you’ve squeezed all the juice out of it. The second element of TALK is asking questions. I think a lot of us have heard the advice to ask more questions, yet many people don’t apply it. Why do you think that is? Many years of research have shown that the human mind is remarkably egocentric. Often, we are so focused on our own perspective that we forget to even ask someone else to share what’s in their mind. Another reason is fear. You’re interested in the other person, and you know you should ask them questions, but you’re afraid of being too intrusive, or that you will reveal your own incompetence, because you feel you should know the answer already. What kinds of questions should we be asking – and avoiding? In the book, I talk about the power of follow-up questions that build on anything that your partner has just said. It shows that you heard them, that you care and that you want to know more. Even one follow-up question can springboard us away from shallow talk into something deeper and more meaningful. There are, however, some bad patterns of question asking, such as “boomerasking”. Michael Yeomans [at Imperial College London] and I have a recent paper about this, and oh my gosh, it’s been such fun to study. It’s a play on the word boomerang: it comes back to the person who threw it. If I ask you what you had for breakfast, and you tell me you had Special K and banana, and then I say, “Well, let me tell you about my breakfast, because, boy, was it delicious” – that’s boomerasking. Sometimes it’s a thinly veiled way of bragging or complaining, but sometimes I think people are genuinely interested to hear from their partner, but then the partner’s answer reminds them so much of their own life that they can’t help but start sharing their perspective. In our research, we have found that this makes your partner feel like you weren’t interested in their perspective, so it seems very insincere. Sharing your own perspective is important. It’s okay at some point to bring the conversation back to yourself. But don’t do it so soon that it makes your partner feel like you didn’t hear their answer or care about it. Research by Alison Wood Brooks includes a recent study on “boomerasking”, a pitfall you should avoid to make conversations flowJanelle Bruno What are the benefits of levity? When we think of conversations that haven’t gone well, we often think of moments of hostility, anger or disagreement, but a quiet killer of conversation is boredom. Levity is the antidote. These small moments of sparkle or fizz can pull us back in and make us feel engaged with each other again. Our research has shown that we give status and respect to people who make us feel good, so much so that in a group of people, a person who can land even one appropriate joke is more likely to be voted as the leader. And the joke doesn’t even need to be very funny! It’s the fact that they were confident enough to try it and competent enough to read the room. Do you have any practical steps that people can apply to generate levity, even if they’re not a natural comedian? Levity is not just about being funny. In fact, aiming to be a comedian is not the right goal. When we watch stand-up on Netflix, comedians have rehearsed those jokes and honed them and practised them for a long time, and they’re delivering them in a monologue to an audience. It’s a completely different task from a live conversation. In real dialogue, what everybody is looking for is to feel engaged, and that doesn’t require particularly funny jokes or elaborate stories. When you see opportunities to make it fun or lighten the mood, that’s what you need to grab. It can come through a change to a new, fresh topic, or calling back to things that you talked about earlier in the conversation or earlier in your relationship. These callbacks – which sometimes do refer to something funny – are such a nice way of showing that you’ve listened and remembered. A levity move could also involve giving sincere compliments to other people. When you think nice things, when you admire someone, make sure you say it out loud. This brings us to the last element of TALK: kindness. Why do we so often fail to be as kind as we would like? Wobbles in kindness often come back to our egocentrism. Research shows that we underestimate how much other people’s perspectives differ from our own, and we forget that we have the tools to ask other people directly in conversation for their perspective. Being a kinder conversationalist is about trying to focus on your partner’s perspective and then figuring what they need and helping them to get it. Finally, what is your number one tip for readers to have a better conversation the next time they speak to someone? Every conversation is surprisingly tricky and complex. When things don’t go perfectly, give yourself and others more grace. There will be trips and stumbles and then a little grace can go very, very far. Topics:

show some love for the losers Delightfully irreverent Underdogs isn’t your parents’ nature docuseries Ryan Reynolds narrates NatGeo's new series highlighting nature's much less cool and majestic creatures Jennifer Ouellette – Jun 15, 2025 3:11 pm | 5 The indestructible honey badger is just one of nature's "benchwarmers" featured in Underdogs Credit: National Geographic/Doug Parker The indestructible honey badger is just one of nature's "benchwarmers" featured in Underdogs Credit: National Geographic/Doug Parker Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Narrator Ryan Reynolds celebrates nature's outcasts in the new NatGeo docuseries Underdogs. Most of us have seen a nature documentary or two (or three) at some point in our lives, so it's a familiar format: sweeping majestic footage of impressively regal animals accompanied by reverently high-toned narration (preferably with a tony British accent). Underdogs, a new docuseries from National Geographic, takes a decidedly different and unconventional approach. Narrated by with hilarious irreverence by Ryan Reynolds, the five-part series highlights nature's less cool and majestic creatures: the outcasts and benchwarmers, more noteworthy for their "unconventional hygiene choices" and "unsavory courtship rituals." It's like The Suicide Squad or Thunderbolts*, except these creatures actually exist. Per the official premise, "Underdogs features a range of never-before-filmed scenes, including the first time a film crew has ever entered a special cave in New Zealand—a huge cavern that glows brighter than a bachelor pad under a black light thanks to the glowing butts of millions of mucus-coated grubs. All over the world, overlooked superstars like this are out there 24/7, giving it maximum effort and keeping the natural world in working order for all those showboating polar bears, sharks and gorillas." It's rated PG-13 thanks to the odd bit of scatalogical humor and shots of Nature Sexy Time Each of the five episodes is built around a specific genre. "Superheroes" highlights the surprising superpowers of the honey badger, pistol shrimp, and the invisible glass frog, among others, augmented with comic book graphics; "Sexy Beasts" focuses on bizarre mating habits and follows the format of a romantic advice column; "Terrible Parents" highlights nature's worst practices, following the outline of a parenting guide; "Total Grossout" is exactly what it sounds like; and "The Unusual Suspects" is a heist tale, documenting the supposed efforts of a macaque to put together the ultimate team of masters of deception and disguise (an inside man, a decoy, a fall guy, etc.).  Green Day even wrote and recorded a special theme song for the opening credits. Co-creators Mark Linfield and Vanessa Berlowitz of Wildstar Films are longtime producers of award-winning wildlife films, most notably Frozen Planet, Planet Earth and David Attenborough's Life of Mammals—you know, the kind of prestige nature documentaries that have become a mainstay for National Geographic and the BBC, among others. They're justly proud of that work, but this time around the duo wanted to try something different. Madagascar's aye-aye: "as if fear and panic had a baby and rolled it in dog hair" National Geographic/Eleanor Paish Madagascar's aye-aye: "as if fear and panic had a baby and rolled it in dog hair" National Geographic/Eleanor Paish An emerald jewel wasp emerges from a cockroach. National Geographic/Simon De Glanville An emerald jewel wasp emerges from a cockroach. National Geographic/Simon De Glanville A pack of African hunting dogs is no match for the honey badger's thick hide. National Geographic/Tom Walker A pack of African hunting dogs is no match for the honey badger's thick hide. National Geographic/Tom Walker An emerald jewel wasp emerges from a cockroach. National Geographic/Simon De Glanville A pack of African hunting dogs is no match for the honey badger's thick hide. National Geographic/Tom Walker A fireworm is hit by a cavitation bubble shot from the claw of a pistol shrimp defending its home. National Geographic/Hugh Miller As it grows and molts, the mad hatterpillar stacks old head casings on top of its head. Scientists think it is used as a decoy against would-be predators and parasites, and when needed, it can also be used as a weapon. National Geographic/Katherine Hannaford Worst parents ever? A young barnacle goose chick prepares t make the 800-foot jump from its nest to the ground. National Geographic An adult pearlfish reverses into a sea cucumber's butt to hide. National Geographic A vulture sticks its head inside an elephant carcass to eat. National Geographic A manatee releases flatulence while swimming to lose the buoyancy build up of gas inside its stomach, and descend down the water column. National Geographic/Karl Davies "There is a sense after awhile that you're playing the same animals to the same people, and the shows are starting to look the same and so is your audience," Linfield told Ars. "We thought, okay, how can we do something absolutely the opposite? We've gone through our careers collecting stories of these weird and crazy creatures that don't end up in the script because they're not big or sexy and they live under a rock. But they often have the best life histories and the craziest superpowers." Case in point: the velvet worm featured in the "Superheroes" episode, which creeps up on unsuspecting prey before squirting disgusting slime all over their food. (It's a handy defense mechanism, too, against predators like the wolf spider.) Once Linfield and Berlowitz decided to focus on nature's underdogs and to take a more humorous approach, Ryan Reynolds became their top choice for a narrator—the anti-Richard Attenborough. As luck would have it, the pair shared an agent with the mega-star. So even though they thought there was no way Reynolds would agree to the project, they put together a sizzle reel, complete with a "fake Canadian Ryan Reynolds sound-alike" doing the narration. Reynolds was on set when he received the reel, and loved it so much he recoded his own narration for the footage and sent it back. "From that moment he was in," said Linfield, and Wildstar Films worked closely with Reynolds and his company to develop the final series. "We've never worked that way on a series before, a joint collaboration from day one," Berlowitz admitted. But it worked: the end result strikes the perfect balance between scientific revelation and accurate natural history, and an edgy comic tone. That tone is quintessential Reynolds, and while he did mostly follow the script (which his team helped write), Linfield and Berlowitz admit there was also a fair amount of improvisation—not all of it PG-13.  "What we hadn't appreciated is that he's an incredible improv performer," said Berlowitz. "He can't help himself. He gets into character and starts riffing off [the footage]. There are some takes that we definitely couldn't use, that potentially would fit a slightly more Hulu audience."  Some of the ad-libs made it into the final episodes, however—like Reynolds describing an Aye-Aye as "if fear and panic had a baby and rolled it in dog hair"—even though it meant going back and doing a bit of recutting to get the new lines to fit. Cinematographer Tom Beldam films a long-tailed macaque who stole his smart phone minutes later. National Geographic/Laura Pennafort Cinematographer Tom Beldam films a long-tailed macaque who stole his smart phone minutes later. National Geographic/Laura Pennafort The macaque agrees to trade ithe stolen phone for a piece of food. National Geographic The macaque agrees to trade ithe stolen phone for a piece of food. National Geographic A family of tortoise beetles defend themselves from a carnivorous ant by wafting baby poop in its direction. National Geographic A family of tortoise beetles defend themselves from a carnivorous ant by wafting baby poop in its direction. National Geographic The macaque agrees to trade ithe stolen phone for a piece of food. National Geographic A family of tortoise beetles defend themselves from a carnivorous ant by wafting baby poop in its direction. National Geographic A male hippo sprays his feces at another male who is threatening to take over his patch. National Geographic A male proboscis monkey flaunts his large nose. The noses of these males are used to amplify their calls in the vast forest. National Geographic Dream girl: A blood-soaked female hyena looks across the African savanna. National Geographic A male bowerbird presents one of the finest items in his collection to a female in his bower. National Geographic The male nursery web spider presents his nuptial gift to the female. National Geographic Cue the Barry White mood music: Two leopard slugs suspend themselves on a rope of mucus as they entwine their bodies to mate with one another. National Geographic Despite their years of collective experience, Linfield and Berlowitz were initially skeptical when the crew told them about the pearl fish, which hides from predators in a sea cucumber's butt (along with many other species). "It had never been filmed so we said, 'You're going to have to prove it to us,'" said Berlowitz. "They came back with this fantastic, hilarious sequence of a pearl fish reverse parking [in a sea cucumber's anus)." The film crew experienced a few heart-pounding moments, most notably while filming the cliffside nests of barnacle geese for the "Terrible Parents" episode. A melting glacier caused a watery avalanche while the crew was filming the geese, and they had to quickly grab a few shots and run to safety. Less dramatic: cinematographer Tom Beldam had his smartphone stolen by a long-tailed macaque mere minutes after he finished capturing the animal on film. If all goes well and Underdogs finds its target audience, we may even get a follow-up. "We are slightly plowing new territory but the science is as true as it's ever been and the stories are good. That aspect of the natural history is still there," said Linfield. "I think what we really hope for is that people who don't normally watch natural history will watch it. If people have as much fun watching it as we had making it, then the metrics should be good enough for another season." Verdict: Underdogs is positively addictive; I binged all five episodes in a single day. (For his part, Reynolds said in a statement that he was thrilled to "finally watch a project of ours with my children. Technically they saw Deadpool and Wolverine but I don't think they absorbed much while covering their eyes and ears and screaming for two hours.") Underdogs premieres June 15, 2025, at 9 PM/8 PM Central on National Geographic (simulcast on ABC) and will be available for streaming on Disney+ and Hulu the following day.  You should watch it, if only to get that second season. Jennifer Ouellette Senior Writer Jennifer Ouellette Senior Writer Jennifer is a senior writer at Ars Technica with a particular focus on where science meets culture, covering everything from physics and related interdisciplinary topics to her favorite films and TV series. Jennifer lives in Baltimore with her spouse, physicist Sean M. Carroll, and their two cats, Ariel and Caliban. 5 Comments