"vibrations can be strong enough to dislodge a seed’s 'statoliths,' which are tiny gravity-sensing organelles within certain cells of a seed."
"Statoliths are denser than a cell’s cytoplasm and can drift and sink through the cell, like a bit of sand in a jar of water. When a statolith finally settles to the bottom, its resting place on the cell’s membrane is a reflection of gravity’s direction and a signal for where a seed’s root or shoot should grow."
Thanks jcims for sharing this amazing info! However, I wonder how these very loud bats, all in close proximity, don't get confused by each others' calls? Is the answer their frequency sweeping? Or does each have something analogous to a unique "voice"?
Good question! Yes they definitely have unique voices and call signatures. A single string of calls from a single bat will have variation between calls as well (especially in search phase).
It'd imagine there's a lot of neurophysical adaptation involved as well, just like listening to a single conversation in a crowded room.
That said, hunting in an area filled with bats is probably not as effective as being in a quiet place.
Yes, sam can be used on the command line with ssam [1]. It's specific to plan9port [2]. In the original Plan 9, ssam wasn't included because Rob Pike didn't want to give up the X command that handles multiple files [3]:
I find the X command extremely powerful, and can't see any way to
have a streaming implementation that will look at multiple files
simultaneously.
> Is there a port to Apple silicon?
plan9port works on it. It compiled without any errors on my Apple Silicon Mac.
Given the connection with a one-time pad, I wonder why the article refers to the technique as "cryptology". Wouldn't "cryptography" be the correct term, given the security afforded by a one-time pad is unmatched?
Moreover, students are indoctrinated in MS Office from a young age, given the extent to which it's been baked into official curricula. The books that a lot of Indian students use are available online [1] and MS' stranglehold is very evident.
> I’m running MJ Rathbun from a completely sandboxed VM and gave the agent several of its own accounts but none of mine.
Am I wrong that this is a double standard: being careful to protect oneself from a wayward agent with no regard for the real harm it could (and did) to another individual? And to casually dismiss this possibility with:
> At worst, maintainers can close the PR and block the account.
I question the entire premise of:
> Find bugs in science-related open source projects. Fix them. Open PRs.
Thinking of AI as "disembodied intelligence," one wonders how any agent can develop something we humans take for granted: reputation. And more than ever, reputation matters. How else can a maintainer know whether the agent that made a good fix is the same as the one proposing another? How can one be sure that all comments in a PR originated from the same agent?
> First, I’m a human typing this post. I’m not going to tell you who I am.
Why should anyone believe this? Nothing keeps an agent from writing this too.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.08804
reply