Science
science · the day's top 10 · june 12th
storyflo · science
Jun 12, 2026 · 2 min listen
Listen · storyflo · science
science · the day's top 10 · june 12th
0:00-1:38
Live · Kokoro-82M
Archaeologists have long struggled to piece together Iron Age burial customs in Britain because few skeletons survive, but the damp climate of northwest Scotland preserves bone better than most of the island. A recent study of a burial cairn at Loch Borralie, uncovered after erosion exposed a skull in 2000, offers fresh insight. The site contained the remains of two people—a adult woman and a younger individual whose sex could not be determined—both dated to between 50 BCE and 70 CE through radiocarbon analysis of molar teeth.
Detailed osteological, isotopic and ancient‑DNA testing revealed that the younger person’s cranium had been deliberately altered after death. The researchers identified a clean break at the base of the skull that does not match typical trauma patterns from accidents or violence, suggesting a targeted impact possibly intended to open the head. Similar perimortem fractures were found on both scapulae, hinting at a ritualized handling of the body.
Perhaps the most striking find is evidence that the brain was removed postmortem. The break appears to have been made while soft tissue was still present, allowing the brain to be extracted. This aligns with earlier hints of Iron Age mummification practices in the region, where bodies were sometimes treated to preserve or display them.
The study also noted that several limb bones had been sharpened, likely repurposed as tools or decorative items. Such modification of human bones for functional use is rare but has been recorded elsewhere in prehistoric Europe, suggesting a symbolic or practical role for the dead’s remains within the community.
Together, these observations paint a picture of a complex funerary ritual in Iron Age Scotland that involved deliberate skull opening, brain removal, and the transformation of bones into implements—practices far more elaborate than previously documented for the period.
NASA’s Deep Space Network was stretched to its limits during the Artemis I mission, when the array of giant antennas had to juggle routine traffic from about 40 robotic science missions and the massive data flow from the Orion capsule looping the Moon. The surge forced NASA to prioritize Artemis I, which delayed downlinks for high‑profile projects such as the James Webb Space Telescope and the Mars rovers.
When Artemis II lifted off on April 1, the agency faced a similar communications challenge, this time with a crew of four aboard Orion. The crewed flight demanded even more data bandwidth than the uncrewed test, but the mission’s nine‑day duration was far shorter than Artemis I’s 25‑day cruise, reducing the overall strain on the network. Additionally, Artemis II carried fewer CubeSats—only a handful compared with the ten released during Artemis I—so fewer ancillary tracking and telemetry requests needed to be handled.
Despite the heightened demand, the Deep Space Network managed to keep a reliable link between Mission Control and Orion throughout the flight. Engineers reported that the system “worked well,” with no major outages or data loss, allowing the crew to receive continuous telemetry, voice communications, and scientific data as they traveled more than a quarter‑million miles from Earth.
The Artemis II experience shows NASA has learned to balance its deep‑space communications resources better, but the episode also underscores the network’s finite capacity. As future missions add more crewed flights, lunar landings, and commercial payloads, NASA will need to upgrade or expand the DSN to avoid repeating the bottlenecks that briefly impacted other missions during Artemis I.
Podcast Season 1, Episode 8 Forgiveness is one of the hardest things God asks us to do. When we’ve been betrayed, rejected, hurt, abandoned, lied to, or treated unfairly, forgiveness can feel impossible. We want answers. We want justice. We want the pain to make sense. Yet throughout Scripture, God repeatedly calls His people to forgive. Why? Is it because the wound wasn’t real? No. Is it because what happened was okay? Absolutely not. In today’s Christian Mind Reset, Dr. April Joy explores what the Bible teaches about forgiveness, why forgiveness matters to God, and how releasing bitterness can lead to greater freedom. Drawing from Psalm 32, we’ll discuss the burden of carrying unresolved hurt, the freedom that comes from releasing what we’ve been holding onto, and the forgiveness we ourselves have received through Christ. We’ll also briefly explore what modern psychology and neuroscience have discovered about forgiveness, emotional health, and healing, revealing that God’s wisdom often protects us in ways we may not fully understand. Through Scripture, prayer, and biblical declarations, you’ll be encouraged to release your hurts to the Lord, trust Him with justice, and walk in the freedom Christ purchased for you. • What forgiveness is and what forgiveness is not • Why God commands believers to forgive • The difference between forgiveness and reconciliation • Why forgiveness does not require trust • Healthy biblical boundaries • Psalm 32 and the freedom of forgiveness • The connection between forgiveness and emotional well-being • Biblical declarations rooted in God’s Word • A prayer for healing, wisdom, and freedom Forgiveness is not saying what happened was okay. Forgiveness is not forgetting. Forgiveness is not reconciliation. Forgiveness is not removing healthy boundaries. Forgiveness is not returning to an unsafe situation. Forgiveness is releasing the debt and entrusting justice to God. The goal of forgiveness is not to change the past. The goal is to prevent the past from continuing to control the present. Most importantly, Christian forgiveness flows from the forgiveness we have received through Jesus Christ. Psalm 32:1-12 Ephesians 4:32 Colossians 3:13 Romans 12:19 Psalm 55:22 Lamentations 3:22-23 2 Corinthians 12:9 Philippians 4:13 Matthew 18:21-22 Romans 8:28 Forgiveness does not mean remaining in an abusive relationship. Forgiveness does not require reconciliation. Forgiveness does not require trust. You can forgive someone and still maintain healthy boundaries. If you are experiencing emotional, physical, sexual, financial, or spiritual abuse, seek help immediately from trusted authorities, emergency services, a domestic violence resource, your pastor, or a licensed professional. Seeking safety is not a lack of forgiveness. This podcast is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute medical, psychiatric, psychological, legal, or therapeutic advice. Listening to this podcast does not establish a provider-patient relationship. If you are experiencing a mental health emergency, thoughts of harming yourself or others, or are in a crisis, call 911, contact emergency services, or go to your nearest emergency room immediately. Connect with Dr. April Joy: Substack: The Christian Mind Reset Follow along for daily encouragement, biblical meditation, neuroscience insights, and practical tools for renewing your mind. If you liked today’s episode, please subscribe, leave a review, follow, like, or share. You can find me on Instagram at @thechristianpsychnp and also on Instagram and Substack at The Christian Mind Reset for more Scripture, neuroscience, and practical tips for renewing your mind. My eBook, The Christian Mind Reset: A 28-Day Psalms Guide to Biblical Meditation, Neuroscience, and Renewing Your Mind, is available in my Stan Store at https://stan.store/thechristianpsychnp Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/THECHRISTIANPSYCHNP Disclaimer: This podcast is for educational and informational purposes only. It contains general information and is not medical, mental health, therapy, or healthcare advice. Listening to this podcast does not establish a provider-patient relationship. Always consult your qualified healthcare provider regarding medical or mental health concerns and before making changes to your healthcare routine. If you are experiencing significant emotional distress, please seek support from a qualified healthcare professional, licensed Christian counselor, or pastor. Comments, emails, and messages are not monitored for emergencies and cannot be used to obtain medical or mental health advice. If you are experiencing a medical, psychiatric, or safety emergency, call 911, contact your local emergency services, or go to the nearest emergency department immediately. Farrow, T. F. D., Zheng, Y., Wilkinson, I. D., Spence, S. A., Deakin, J. F. W., Tarrier, N., Griffiths, P. D., & Woodruff, P. W. R. (2001).
The author, a moderator for several professional groups on a major social network, discovered a hidden rule in the platform’s content‑moderation system that specifically limited his posts. Unlike a ban, which is public and can be appealed, this “throttle” quietly reduced the reach of his content, dropping viewership from tens of thousands to just a few hundred. The rule, tagged with his name, was applied to discussions among physicians, parents, and scientists who relied on the platform for sharing documented research and advice.
He explains that the throttling didn’t just affect his personal feed; it rippled through the entire community. Topics ranging from vaccine safety to mental‑health resources suddenly lost momentum, and members reported a noticeable decline in engagement. The algorithmic suppression was not explained, and appeals were met with generic responses, leaving the moderator and his peers feeling silenced without any clear justification.
Frustrated by the opaque moderation, the author migrated his groups to a newer, decentralized network that operates on a federated protocol. Because the platform is not owned by a single corporation, there is no central authority that can impose reach‑limiting rules. The move required members to create new accounts and adjust to a different interface, but it restored the ability to broadcast to large audiences without fear of hidden throttles.
Welcome to our biweekly series in partnership with CIDRAP at the University of Minnesota. Minneapolis was hit with severe thunderstorms a couple nights ago, so I (Izzy) spent a good chunk of the evening with my dog, swaddled in a blanket, trying to convince her the world wasn’t ending while her teeth chattered through every house-shaking rumble. She knew the storm was coming before I did. She just couldn’t see it on the radar. I’m still running on very little sleep, and it stuck with me this morning that she sensed the storm before any of us could see it on the radar. That’s not a bad description of how a lot of us are feeling about vaccine policy right now. And I don’t think the unease is unfounded. Policies and procedures we never could have dreamed could be overturned seem to compound and complicate every time we sit down to write these updates. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) v Kennedy litigation is quiet for now, and most state legislatures have wrapped up—and yet we still don’t feel calm. It is this exact “calm before the storm” window where the administration continues to thrive. Consider this issue our attempt to show you what’s on that radar as well as we can. But, as with any weather report, it’s subject to change without warning. Let’s discuss… Publicly, the AAP v Kennedy litigation has settled into a waiting game, though there’s plenty happening behind the scenes. Briefing schedules are set and the next hearing isn’t until August. But the administration continues to pursue other options. We’ve previously covered the back-to-back Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) charter revisions (two in just over a month!) and the pattern this suggests. The second charter, signed by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on May 19th, removed some of the language from April’s version while keeping other language broad enough to ensure he retains full authority over the committee’s membership and meeting schedules. Ten days later, on May 29th, President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and ACIP to treat the December 2025 HHS scientific assessment as a “guiding resource” and to take steps necessary to realign the childhood vaccine schedule with what it calls “best practices from peer-developed countries.” Jess covered this in depth in her CIDRAP op-ed last week, so we won’t rehash it here, but here’s the short version: the “peer-developed countries” framing is not a valid comparative framework for vaccine policy. The sequencing of these events is hard to ignore: a newly flexible charter lays the groundwork for new committee appointments followed by an EO that essentially provides marching orders for that committee. Technically speaking, neither move violates Judge Brian Murphy’s March 16th stay, but they were dramatic enough that AAP’s legal team will keep a close watch to ensure they are prepared to respond to any actions that track the same path as before. This week, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) published its own vaccine schedule for pregnancy, endorsed by 13 medical societies and health organizations. ACOG, as you may remember, is the same organization that withdrew from the ACIP liaison roster in February. The schedule recommends four vaccines be routinely administered during pregnancy: tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza, and COVID-19. Additional vaccines are recommended for higher-risk individuals or those who previously missed vaccines. The CDC’s recommendations for flu and COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy were withdrawn under Kennedy in December 2025, which means ACOG now directly diverges from the CDC. As Laura Riley of Weill Cornell Medicine noted, vaccination during pregnancy doesn’t just protect the mother, but also newborns who cannot yet be vaccinated. Removing vaccine recommendations from federal guidelines doesn’t erase the biology. Two years ago, we could have never expected that a major professional society would have to correct rampant vaccine misinformation coming from federal guidance. Today, it’s sadly routine. This was the top comment we received from last issue’s survey, so here’s our plain-language explainer. Over the past several decades, most U.S. vaccine policy has operated as though it’s a well-oiled machine. The ACIP reviewed evidence and issued recommendations. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance coverage was tied to those recommendations, which meant any vaccine on the recommended schedule had to be covered. The CDC schedule served as the universal foundation from which states could build, adding their own school-entry requirements. You’ve already seen what it looks like when that machine starts to rust.
Here’s how Lee Raymond’s hometown paper, the Houston Chronicle, remembered him this morning. The Texas paper was more direct, and more accurate, than anyone else covering the story. The Times obit gave top billing to the fact that he led the acquisition of Mobil and “cut costs relentlessly;” the Wall Street Journal waited till paragraph six to note that he was “openly skeptical” of climate science (much like the Wall Street Journal). But the Chron had it right—when people think back in a hundred years or a thousand or ten thousand, the one thing worth remembering about him will be the crucial role he played in holding back action on climate change. I’m going to recount the lowlights of the story here, and add one that gets very little notice in the obituaries, but that ties directly to the ongoing crisis. Raymond was a research engineer who spent his whole career at what was then the world’s largest company. He joined its board in 1984, already a leading candidate for CEO, which means he was near the top during the 1980s, the period when (as we now know thanks to great investigative reporting) the company’s scientists correctly identified the dangers of global warming and linked them directly to Exxon’s products. That research, as Inside Climate News reported in 2015, laid the groundwork for a 1982 corporate primer on carbon dioxide and climate change prepared by its environmental affairs office. Marked “not to be distributed externally,” it contained information that “has been given wide circulation to Exxon management.” In it, the company recognized, despite the many lingering unknowns, that heading off global warming “would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion.” Unless that happened, “there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered,” the primer said, citing independent experts. “Once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible.” This was, of course, the same decade when Jim Hansen was carrying out his groundbreaking research at NASA (and I was writing The End of Nature). Exxon, as it turns out, was on precisely the same wavelength. Here’s, to me, one of the great historical what-ifs: imagine that, on the night that Hansen made his remarks to Congress, an Exxon exec like Raymond had gone on the evening news and told Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, or Peter Jennings that “our research shows pretty much the same thing.” No one would have accused Exxon of climate alarmism; instead, we would have gotten to work as a civilization. Instead, they chose denial. And it was Raymond who played a lead role, as Exxon helped form the Global Climate Coalition, first of the obfuscation fronts. He became the spokesman for anti-science in many ways: in 1997, as the world approached the first global climate talks in Kyoto, he gave what may be a speech second only in importance to Hansen’s original testimony. Speaking in Beijing to the Worl Petroleum Congress, he contended that the world was cooling, that there was no way to know if co2 was to blame, and that in any event “it is highly unlikely that the temperature in the middle of the next century will be significantly whether policies are enacted now or twenty years from now.” These, of course, were exactly the things Exxon’s scientists had told them were not true. Indeed, they’d been explicitly warned that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical. And Exxon had believed its scientists. As a 2015 Los Angeles Times report made clear, they’d begun building drilling rigs higher to counteract rising sea levels, and plotting out what parts of the Arctic might be prime for oil drilling once they’d helped melt the ice. Exxon, more than any single force on earth, made sure that the planet didn’t address climate change while it had time. Given what it knew in the 1980s Exxon could have had a head start on building and owning the solutions like sun and wind. But, as one of Raymond’s successors said two years ago, that didn’t happen because “we don’t see the ability to generate above-average returns for our shareholders” with clean energy. And he was right. You can make money putting up solar panels, but you can’t make Exxon money, because the sun delivers energy for free. It doesn’t offer the same scope for greed. And greed was the word here. For his role in helping wreck the earth’s climate system, Exxon paid him $686 million, or $144,573 a day during his tenure as CEO. His retirement package was $400 million. And even when he finally left Exxon in 2005 he continued on doing damage—this is the often overlooked part of his story. He was the lead independent director at JP Morgan Chase, which had been the Exxon house bank, and which, as I chronicled for Rolling Stone in 2020, became the fossil fuel industry’s biggest lender—the “doomsday bank.” Many of us ginned up a campaign to get him off that board (along with Rev.
A few years back Will Ferrell made a speech at some Hollywood Reporter event. He was describing the grim state of the world and pivoted to a comedic provocation: “Isn’t it just time for women to run the planet? I swear, but I don’t know what else to do because we— men . . . and we’re not doing so good. So, please, can you guys just take over?” The crowd laughed; it was funny because he’d said out loud the bit that none of us was really sure we should. I mean, it also irked me. It was kind of like when your younger brother took your Rubik’s Cube and twisted it to no return and handed it back it you, there, your go. It also reflects a horrible immaturity. When you fuck up, rather than roll up your sleeves and find a way to change your ruinous ways, you cry out for someone to save you from yourself. It’s what the Tech Bros do. They created products they tell us will quite likely kill us. And then front up to Senate committees asking for someone - the government - to stop them (all the while denigrating governments and democracy and making dumb amounts of money from the whole thing). But, sure. Men seem to have - broadly speaking and going by the amount of noise on the subject - lost their way. They’re not doing so good emotionally, physically or socially. This is tragic in itself. But it’s also threatening the viability of life on this planet. As Liz Plank opens her book For the Love of Men: “There is no greater threat to humankind than our current definitions of masculinity.” The team over at wrote last month about the existential danger of the prevalent definition,“petro-masculinity”: “Petro-masculinity” describes a pernicious fusion between fossil fuel use, climate change denial, and defense of authoritarian white patriarchal masculinity. Noting how fossil fuel extraction and consumption are coded “masculine”, while environmentalism and green technology are coded soft, weak and “feminine”; it tracks how insecure men are increasingly leaning in to a petro-masculine identity in order to assert traditional masculine authority in the face of climate change, threats to traditional extractive industries, and changing social norms. It’s well established that men today litter and pollute far more, recycle less, and leave a much bigger carbon footprint. Meanwhile 70 per cent of activists are women. Men make up 90-95 per cent of murderers, and 98 per cent of mass murderers. Roughly 80 per cent of live organ donors are women. Men are gaming, gambling, isolating, AI-ing more. There’s the manosphere. There’s all the male epidemics… But shall we refuse to dwell in this seemingly stuck and spiralling corner of the challenge? And instead move on to what needs to be done? OK, I think we must start by saying the bit we’ve not felt we should or could: the future is going to (have to) be a lot more feminine. We need to say it straight without caveats and apology. There isn’t the time to be constantly tied up in distracting strawmanning. We need to steelman the shit out of this. This does not mean replacing male leaders with women. And it’s not about anyone “taking over”. It’s not about one sex being better than the other. Such binary, hierarchal framings are what got us into this mess. It just means that a job needs to be done. It means more women (and anyone not tethered to the current definitions of masculinity) stepping into the moral vacuum and bringing different qualities to the situation. Not for the sake of being contrary, but to bring things into balance. This is what life is doing constantly - rebalancing, smoothing out extremes. Dropping in more yin where the yang has got ahead of itself. To my mind (and accuse me, if you must, of essentializing, although I’m referring to qualities, not gender nor sex specifically), masculinity and femininity both need to be held, or bound, by the other to best serve life. A lost, wayward, violent, immature, exploitative masculinity needs a firm, knowing, nurturing, confident feminine force to bring it back into line1. Again, not to take over, but to redress. To correct. (Some of you might remember the bit in I Eat the Stars where I refer to the dominant “toddler tantrum energy” of many of the men running the show today and how it’s best met with “fierce mother energy”.) This is not something that we choose to do. The correction must come for life to continue. Women, just step forward into the moral vacuum. Now. And don’t wait for permission. No one is going to give it. This is a scenario where we just have to go forth and do the right thing. The thing that must be done. On behalf of life. On behalf of everyone. Including those who would never give us the permission. It’s not at all dissimilar to what the world’s leaders need to be doing with the Tech Bros and the billionaires. They need to step in, put up the firm moral, pro-human and pro-life boundaries to the existential excesses and imbalances.
The ancient Stoic insight that suffering before it’s necessary adds needless pain still resonates today. By consciously considering the setbacks that could affect our personal lives, relationships, or careers, we avoid being blindsided when misfortune strikes—whether it’s a stolen prized possession or an unexpected layoff from a dream job.
This forward‑looking mindset isn’t about pessimism; it’s a practical preparation that builds confidence. Anticipating challenges lets us develop flexible strategies, so when adversity arrives we can adapt quickly rather than scramble. The mental rehearsal of worst‑case scenarios creates a buffer, reducing the shock and emotional turbulence that often accompany surprise difficulties.
Ultimately, the goal is to achieve a steadier peace of mind. By accepting that unforeseen hardships are part of life and planning for them, we limit the extra suffering that comes from being unprepared. This approach aligns with Seneca’s teaching to his friend Lucillus, encouraging us to face the unknown with calm readiness rather than fear.
Global weather agencies have declared that El Niño has begun, and models show it is more likely than not to be a "super" El Niño. The climate pattern boosts extreme weather around the world, and could lead to record temperatures
Every few months, I round up useless or unused objects in my house, walk to the alley, and plop them into the dumpster without a second thought. I am no collector or hoarder. I only really value a few physical possessions: my three guitars, my books and magazines, and a small collection of posters and art (my favorite being a painting of a stork whose eyes stare right through you, made by my late grandpa). That last category is something I could use much more of: beautiful things to look at. One piece that’ll soon hang on the wall of my office comes from my colleague, Ben Gibson, a design director at Big Think. He recently created a poster called “A Visual History of the Universe,” made with help from Dr. Ethan Siegel, an astrophysicist and author of the Big Think column Starts With A Bang. It’s a poster that strikes a rare balance between being aesthetically stunning while also teaching you something useful — in this case, scientists’ best explanation for how everything around you came to be. Ben’s been striking that balance since he was a kid. “I had always loved looking at things like maps, charts, and cutaway illustrations, and spent a lot of hours (too many!) trying to draw them myself,” he said. In 2010, he cofounded the infographics poster company Pop Chart with Patrick Mulligan after the two met while working at Penguin Books. “Patrick also loved this stuff, and we started finding ways to incorporate these things into the books we were working on at Penguin — but we realized we needed a bigger canvas.” The first poster the two produced was a chart of rapper names, diagrammed according to semantics. They’ve since sold hundreds of thousands of infographic posters and other products, becoming a design shop for advertising, events, publishing, and custom merchandise, with clients like HBO, Nike, Wieden + Kennedy, The New York Times, and the MoMA Design Store. Pop Chart’s posters cover everything from literature’s most famous opening lines (as analyzed through the Reed-Kellogg system) to a visual breakdown of the Beatles’ discography by instruments featured on each song to a taxonomical diagram of every species of bird in North America — a bestseller that Ben said took about four months of “pretty painstaking research, illustration, and design to complete.” The New York Times has dubbed Pop Chart “the poster mavens.” Fast Company described their posters as “catnip for uber-geeks.” Popular Science called them the “master of the infographic poster.” Now, Big Think is calling them a partner. On Pop Chart, we recently launched Big Think’s first-ever store, where you can find our “A Visual History of the Universe” poster, along with Big Think T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, notebooks, and much more. We’ll be designing and releasing many more posters over the coming months. It’s a natural partnership: Like Big Think, Pop Chart is always “uncovering deeper, surprising, and fascinating layers” about the world, Ben said. Big Think does that with articles and videos. Pop Chart turns those ideas into something worth hanging on your wall. Got an idea for a poster? Reach out to us anytime, and we might just make it. This article A visual history of the universe that fits on your wall is featured on Big Think.
Send this story to anyone — or drop the embed into a blog post, Substack, Notion page. Every play sends rev-share back to storyflo · science.
We’ve simplified responses to 👍 / 👎. Past comments are archived but no longer visible.