Prediction markets are back in the news! www.npr.org/2026/03/06/n... I dabbled with these once, I didn't bet on a war though.
In 2012 I bet ~$600 that Obama would win re-election. He did and I doubled my money, but the platform (InTrade) collapsed, and I eventually got 50% back - so I broke even.
RETRACTED FOR THE SECOND TIME: phony study on "biofield energy" treatment neurocritic.blogspot.com/2026/03/retr...
An update on the saga of a supernatural intervention published in peer-reviewed scientific journals cc: @retractionwatch.com
A medical journal says the case reports it has published for 25 years are, in fact, fiction retractionwatch.com/2026/03/03/c... To be fair, fictional cases are commonly used in medicine for teaching purposes - but you need to clear that they're not real...!
Meet three scientists who said no to Epstein www.science.org/content/arti... (Unfortunately paywalled)
Hmm, does the dots version work for you?
Here's another twist on the purple dots illusion: the vanishing purple poem! (For this one to work well, you need to zoom in). arxiv.org/pdf/2509.11582 From Hinnerk Schulz-Hildebrandt
I find that if you blur your eyes slightly, you can get to the point where only the dot you're looking at appears at all, and the other 8 disappear.
Here's a striking visual illusion - the 9 purple dots.
Focus your eyes on the top left dot. That one is more purple than the others, right? Now try another dot... that one becomes the purple one! pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41744429/
🤢
What's the best way to change research fields? These three scientists have ideas www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Scientists face fallout for past associations with Epstein www.nature.com/articles/d41... They've been infected by a suspicion which may bar them from being trusted in future... An Epstein-Bar Virus, if you will.
He was technically correct - the best kind of correct!
In 1986, a computer was a rare thing, so we talked about them. Now, we have computers in our phones, on our watches, fridges... there are 4 computers in the room with me right now (I counted: phone, laptop, desktop & digital camera) and I only noticed because I was writing this post making a point!
The term "AI" is everywhere today. But at a certain point, we'll stop hearing it.
Back in the 80s there was a lot of talk about computers. In 2026, when did you last use the word "computer"? We don't use the word very much, not because computers are less common, but because they're so ubiquitous.
"Her daughters sequentially emerged as additional breeders, resulting in a period of peaceful plural breeding before one daughter ultimately assumed the primary reproductive status" www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6... Taken out of context, biology can sound weird.
Study claims to have found a class of "universal vaccines" against multiple respiratory pathogens and allergens pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41712698/ Interesting but there has to be a catch, right? If there was a simple solution to viruses and bacterial threats, why hasn't evolution already found it?
"Across individuals n=414, representations converged in higher-order cortex despite substantial topographic diversity... similar information was encoded by individual-specific activity patterns." pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41727092/ Brains encode the same information, but in different places (preprint)
The Epstein files have hit neuroscience: "UCSD center director V.S. Ramachandran receives lab funding from Epstein" ucsdguardian.org/2026/02/17/u... Hmmmm...
"When human data align with animal model data, they are welcomed as validation. When they do not, they face higher evidentiary thresholds and greater skepticism" - on species fragmentation in neuroscience www.thetransmitter.org/animal-model...
Which of the following is closest to your view?
1. The human brain is an LLM/transformer.
2. The human brain contains an LLM/transformer.
3. There is nothing resembling an LLM in the human brain. They are completely different.
"Those accusing others of conspiracy belief are at least equally susceptible to the alleged predisposing factor of motivated reasoning." pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41693654/ Hmm. I think the importance of conspiracy theories in things like vaccine acceptance is exaggerated; but they're still important
The rare case of a paper retracted twice! onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/... This paper on "Spiritual Energy Therapy" was published in one journal, retracted, then a revised version was published by another journal (same publisher!) but has now been retracted again. 🤔
An Efficient Computing Theory of Prefrontal Structured Working Memory Representations www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...
An fMRI study of brain activity in a "boring context" pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41688802/ I love this. "Monotonous tasks are common in academic and professional settings"
So we stole someone's identity to be Corresponding Author, and plagiarised the figures and images, but "the conclusions of the article are otherwise unaffected."
doi.org/10.1002/prp2...
Publisher: We see you're reading this Retraction Note. Allow us to recommend the paper that it retracted.
Yeah... but I can empathize to some degree. They were only responsible for one part of the paper, according to the authors. It's bending the definition of authorship but to be honest, that happens all the time
Why motor learning involves multiple systems: an algorithmic perspective www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6... (Preprint)
Personally, it's clear that both the editor and the author/reviewer messed up. The editor shouldn't have invited an author! But, equally, the author should not have accepted.
Interesting @pubpeer.com thread. A paper was retracted because "one of the authors acted as a reviewer". pubpeer.com/publications... The authors respond that it's the editors' fault for inviting an author as a reviewer. The author honestly didn't recognize their own manuscript (it was double blind)
A symposium on "Conspiracy thinking in American politics" pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41656961/ See also the famous lecture series "Conspiracy Theories in U.S. History" by Prof. Professorson of Greendale.
