An anonymous reader quotes a report from RathBiotaClan: Millions of people finish short video after short video every day; a new brain-scan study shows that the very act of finishing a clip they like temporarily quiets the brain regions that normally help them stay focused and weigh longer-term goals. When people watch a short video they enjoy enough to finish, two brain regions involved in cognitive control show significant deactivation. That is the central finding of a new study from Zhejiang University, published in NeuroImagein January 2026. Using functional MRI alongside proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (H-MRS), the research team examined 56 young adults while they freely watched short video clips inside an MRI scanner. Both the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) showed reduced activity specifically when participants watched clips they liked enough to view to completion. Cognitive control helps people balance immediate pleasures against longer-term goals, and impairments in this system are linked to conditions such as depression, anxiety, ADHD, and addiction. Short-video platforms present rapid, algorithmically curated streams that are built for continuous, low-effort consumption. Prior behavioral research has tied both internet addiction and smartphone addiction to weaker self-control, and separate neuroimaging work has documented disruptions to reward and cognitive-control circuits in people with behavioral addictions. Despite this, few studies had directly tested whether the act of watching entertaining short videos itself suppresses the brain's cognitive control regions. The Zhejiang University team set out to answer that question, along with a second one: what neurochemical factors might explain why this suppression varies from person to person?

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Elon Musk’s talk about maintaining a million-strong AI data center satellite megaconstellation may not exactly be practical or economical, but it might be unique. It’s about the closest we’ve come to confronting a scheme that would export a considerable amount of valuable materials into space. Humans aren’t doing a great job of material sustainability, but normally we’re talking about stuff escaping a recycling pipeline rather than escaping Earth’s gravitational pull.

The commercial space sector likes talking about the allure of mining asteroids for precious metals to bring back to Earth. Under what circumstances are we going to be willing to do that in reverse? Starlink alone has doubled the mass of objects in low-Earth orbit, and this orbital data center constellation would dwarf that—and dispose of at least some satellites by pushing them away from Earth.

Given the roughly five-year expected lifetime for data center GPUs, about 200,000 of the 1 million proposed SpaceX AI1 satellites would be decommissioned each year. Based on their May 29 FCC filing, about 40,000 would definitely deorbit and burn up in the atmosphere. (Those materials would largely be dispersed throughout the atmosphere, turning a resource into a diffuse contaminant that slowly settles over the globe. One related issue: the aluminum would cause an unknown amount of ozone depletion over a period of decades.) Some or all of the remaining 160,000 satellites would be moved outward into a distant “disposal” orbit, instead. Either way, they're lost from a "material life cycle" point of view.

Without full, detailed specifications for these satellites, there’s no way to properly tally the amount of material we’re talking about. Focusing on just the GPUs themselves—ignoring solar panels, cooling systems, and the rest of the server and networking devices—can at least provide a starting point.

Musk has described these satellites as using a modified Nvidia Vera Rubin NVL72 rack, which contains 72 GPUs. Though it references a slightly older card, a May study on the material footprint of LLMs provided a full chemical analysis of an A100, covering 32 elements. The massive air-cooled heatsink on that card accounted for 88 percent of its mass, which we’ll simply have to exclude, since the satellite will obviously require another type of cooling that has not been defined.

But using the extremely conservative assumption that each AI1 satellite was simply composed of 72 naked A100 GPUs taped together, we can estimate the material exported to space (or vaporized so thoroughly that it might as well have been) each year.

That includes 1,000 tons of copper, 170 kilograms of gold, almost 2 tons of silver, over 20 tons each of bismuth and titanium, over 2 tons of palladium, and 76 kilograms of thallium.

Some of these elements are, unsurprisingly, rounding errors compared to the amount we mine each year. But that’s around 1 percent of global annual palladium and thallium—a remarkable amount to eject into space.

Earth’s neighborhood inconvenience store

Another way to think about this is to calculate the size of asteroid you would have to mine to recover the amounts of these elements being lost. As a 2023 study notes, there are only a few elements that can be found at a higher concentration in asteroids compared to ores on Earth, like the platinum group metals.

Using average chemistry and densities for a couple different types of asteroids—common CM-group carbonaceous chondrites and rarer iron-rich M-type asteroids—some of the elements lost could be found in modestly sized bodies. The platinum, for example, equates to the contents of an asteroid 16 to 43 meters in diameter. The 180 kilograms of cobalt could be recovered from an asteroid about 3 to 6 meters across.

But it would take a 140–190-meter asteroid to collect that much copper, something in the 225–300-meter range for an equivalent amount of silver and barium, and something like a 530-meter asteroid for an equivalent amount of tin.

Again, this would have to be repeated annually to balance the losses from the satellite constellation.

Most of these elements are too low in value to be proposed targets for asteroid mining, but it has been suggested that spacecraft materials like aluminum and titanium might someday be mined in space for use in space. SpaceX suggested a variant of this in an SEC filing: “We intend to establish lunar‑based manufacturing capabilities, including factories to produce large‑scale AI compute satellites[…] We expect to use raw materials from the Moon to construct most of the mass of the satellites and ship chips and other lower mass elements from Earth.”

It’s technically possible to mine aluminum and titanium on the Moon. It doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s cheaper to manufacture satellites on the Moon just because it would reduce the weight launched from Earth’s surface. (Of course, you’d first have to launch an entire moonbase and mining operation and satellite factory up there…)

There are a number of questions about all this that one would not have to answer if one were building servers on Earth, deploying them in data centers inside humble buildings, and responsibly processing e-waste for recycling in a few years when they die of email-summary-related causes. (Or even better, pushing some equipment to the secondary market if it has useful life left.) In addition to the cost of putting something in orbit, there is a cost to not getting it back.

Will there someday be an environmental review for space projects that includes an evaluation of the mass of materials it proposes to remove from the Earth system? The legal framework for extracting minerals from space has been much discussed—but congested orbits full of junk (or junk reentering the atmosphere) may not be the only space disposal concern on the horizon if projects of this size are ever seriously pursued.

Read full article

Comments

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission last week eliminated the gigabit speed goal established during the Biden administration and declared that current levels of broadband deployment in the US are acceptable. Though fiber networks have routinely offered such speeds for years, the FCC said the gigabit speed goal is not "technologically neutral," suggesting that it isn't fair to other, slower technologies. In 2024, the FCC raised its broadband benchmark to 100Mbps downstream and 20Mbps upstream, setting the new standard by which to judge whether deployment is reasonable and timely. The FCC at the time also set a long-term speed goal of 1Gbps download speeds paired with 500Mbps upload speeds, saying it would use the goal "as a guidepost for evaluating our efforts to encourage deployment." Republican Brendan Carr, who is now the FCC chairman, never liked that long-term goal. He proposed abolishing it last year, and the change was finalized on August 14 in the FCC's latest broadband deployment report. The reports are mandated by Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act. "As part of our return to following the plain language of Section 706, we adopt our proposal from the Notice [of Inquiry] to abolish without replacement the long-term goal of 1,000/500 Mbps established in the 2024 Report," the order said. "A long-term goal is not mentioned in Section 706 and could appear to violate our obligation to conduct our analysis in a technologically neutral manner. At present, it is impossible to predict long-term technological developments and the evolution of consumer preferences." The FCC said that comments submitted by cable industry group NCTA and wireless industry group CTIA "support our reasoning for abolishing the long-term goal." Last year, the Brendan Carr-led FCC said (PDF) that the gigabit goal "may be unreasonably prejudicial to technologies such as satellite and fixed wireless that presently do not support such speeds." However, last week's report contradicts that stance. "We disagree with commenters arguing that our concern about technological neutrality merely serves to accommodate technologies that may currently offer slower speeds," the FCC said. "At present, we do not know the nature of future consumer preferences and, considering that the goal is not required by the statute and does not serve any positive purpose (as discussed herein), we believe it prudent to abolish it."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Pharmaceutical partners Moderna and Merck announced on Wednesday that their novel mRNA-based vaccine—individually tailored to target a patient's unique cancer mutations—was effective in a late-stage clinical trial of patients with melanoma, one of the deadliest forms of skin cancer.

The announcement was scant on details, but if the success holds, it stands to realize the high aspirations for both mRNA vaccines and individualized cancer-targeting medicines in cancer therapy, providing a first success for both treatment types.

The Phase 3 trial included 1,137 patients who had stage IIB–IV melanoma that had been surgically removed prior to their treatment in the trial. Patients were randomized 2-1 to receive either a combination treatment of the tailored mRNA vaccine (intismeran or mRNA-4157) with Merck's established monoclonal antibody cancer treatment Keytruda, or they received treatment with Keytruda alone. Both patient groups were treated for about a year. The trial was placebo-controlled and double-blind, meaning neither the doctors nor the patients knew which treatment patients were randomly assigned to receive.

Based on a planned interim analysis, Moderna and Merck report that the combination therapy with the mRNA vaccine extended "recurrence-free survival" (RFS), which is the amount of time a patient has without the cancer returning. The combination therapy also extended "distant metastasis-free survival" (DMFS), which is the amount of time a patient has without the cancer returning and occurring in a different part of the body than where it began.

The companies say the extensions of RFS and DMFS reported were statistically significant and clinically meaningful, but they did not elaborate. They said the data will be presented at an upcoming international medical conference. They did note, however, that data from a five-year Phase 2 trial, which was presented at a cancer researcher conference in June, showed a 49 percent reduction in the risk of recurrence or death and a 59 percent reduction in the risk of distant metastasis or death.

The mRNA vaccine intismeran works using a synthetic mRNA that holds the unique genetic coding for up to 34 mutations in a patient's own cancer cells. The production process involves comparing the genetic sequences of a patient's cancer cells to those of healthy cells and picking out any cancer-specific mutations that could help the immune system differentiate cancer cells from healthy ones.

Promising design

Using the same platform Moderna used for its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, intismeran delivers to healthy cells the mRNA code for those mutations. Healthy cells translate that mRNA code into protein fragments representing the cancer mutations, and then those fragments are presented to immune cells as antigens, a foreign substance to attack. As such, Moderna and Merck call their mRNA cancer vaccine a type of "neoantigen therapy."

The term avoids both "mRNA" and "vaccine," which draw hostility from Trump's anti-vaccine Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In addition to his concerted efforts to undermine lifesaving vaccines, Kennedy has canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants for the development of mRNA vaccine technology.

In the companies' announcement, Georgina Long, who led the trial, said the results were "a landmark moment" with the "potential to establish a new treatment paradigm." Dean Li, president of Merck Research Laboratories, said the findings "reinforce the promise of a more personalized approach to cancer treatment." Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, meanwhile, highlighted mRNA technology's role, saying this is "a pivotal moment for the field of cancer research."

"For many years, the idea of creating an mRNA treatment designed specifically for an individual patient's cancer was aspirational. We are now helping turn that vision into a reality," Bancel said.

Despite the lack of details, outside experts are similarly hopeful and encouraged by the announcement. "This is the first positive Phase III trial of an individualized neoantigen therapy and an mRNA-based cancer treatment," University of Oxford cancer expert Lennard Lee said in a statement. "That makes this an important moment for a field that scientists have been working towards for many years. Within six years of the pandemic, we have mRNA vaccines to treat cancer," he said, also calling it "very encouraging" and "significant."

Lee, however, highlighted that we don't yet know the magnitude of the benefit, the detailed subgroup analyses, quality-of-life data, or mature overall-survival results. "Those details will allow the scientific and clinical community to understand precisely how large the benefit is, which patients benefit most, and ultimately where this treatment might sit within routine melanoma care," he said.

Read full article

Comments

President Trump is expected to nominate Heidi Overton, a top conservative policy aide, as the next commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, according to multiple media reports.

Overton is currently the deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council and has played a key role in shaping a variety of health policies during Trump's second term. At times, she has notably angered members of the Make America Healthy Again movement, which was created by anti-vaccine Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Overton has a medical degree from the University of New Mexico School of Medicine and earned a doctoral degree in clinical investigation from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. While at Johns Hopkins, she worked with Marty Makary, the previous FDA commissioner who was ousted by Trump amid a cacophony of controversies.

Makary and his political appointees at the FDA sparked anger and criticism due to a string of dubious moves on drugs for rare diseases, frustrating patients and the pharmaceutical industry alike. He also earned the ire of the tobacco industry, public health advocates, anti-abortion groups, and a variety of federal officials. According to sources for The Wall Street Journal, Overton was a staunch defender of Makary during his time in the role.

Prior to Overton's current White House role, she worked on health policy for the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank previously helmed by Brooke Rollins, who now serves as Trump's agriculture secretary.

Policy positions

In terms of her policy positions, The New York Times highlights that Overton has written articles calling abortion "corrosive" to women and calling abortion pills "far more dangerous to women," despite extensive data suggesting that abortion pills are extremely safe. Experts have noted that they are safer than taking Viagra or getting a colonoscopy and significantly safer than giving birth. Still, Overton's position aligns with conservative efforts to get the FDA to restrict access to abortion pills.

On vaccines, Overton appeared with Trump last week as he signed a widely decried executive order calling for American children to get fewer vaccines, despite no evidence in support of the move but plenty indicating harm. Overton made comments that the administration would begin working directly with states to reduce vaccination recommendations. Trump's order has no legal power to change vaccination requirements for schools, which are made at the state level.

While Overton appears in line with Kennedy's ardent anti-vaccine agenda, she seems wary of his unilateral push to ease access to peptide drugs, according to reporting from The Atlantic in July. Many popular peptide drugs have little to no data on their safety and efficacy but pose clear health risks. Peptides have become a fad among the MAHA crowd, with supplement hawkers and online influencers claiming, without evidence, that they provide a variety of benefits. Kennedy himself has described himself as a "big fan," and, as such, the FDA has begun a process to make them more accessible—over the objections of FDA career scientists.

The Atlantic also reported that Overton pushed back on some aspects of Kennedy's overhaul of dietary guidelines—which nutrition and health experts also criticized. She was also reportedly not in favor of the Trump administration's moves to loosen marijuana regulations and promote psychedelics.

Once formally nominated, Overton needs Senate confirmation to assume the role.

Read full article

Comments

A study of more than 64,000 people born around the end of Britain's postwar sugar rationing found that those exposed to less sugar during their first 1,000 days had lower rates of five cancers decades later, including roughly 69% lower liver cancer risk and 36% lower breast cancer risk. They also "showed signs of slower biological aging" and "continued to consume less sugar and had healthier diets overall," according to the authors of a new study published in The Conversation. From the report: After the second world war, sugar remained rationed in Britain for several years. But in September 1953, rationing ended and people started eating a lot more sugar. Consumption nearly doubled. This meant that children born just a few months apart had very different levels of sugar exposure both in the womb and during early childhood. For our study, we used data from over 64,000 people born in Britain between 1951 and 1956. Those born earlier spent a larger share of their first 1,000 days under sugar rationing, while those born later experienced progressively less of it. [...] What is most surprising, however, is not the cancer results or the biological markers of ageing. It's how early-life sugar exposure continued to affect people's diets even 50 years later. We found that people who experienced sugar rationing early in life still consumed less sugar in adulthood, around age 50. They also ate less overall, and their diets were healthier and more diverse. This suggests that the level of sweetness people are exposed to very early in life may shape their taste preferences for a long time.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.