51动漫

Feedback is 51动漫鈥檚 popular sideways look at the latest science and technology news. You can submit items you believe may amuse readers to Feedback by emailing feedback@newscientist.com

Toy trouble

Feedback may be well into middle age, verging on dotage, but we aren鈥檛 ashamed to admit that we enjoy playing with Lego, to the point of having a special cabinet in our home office in which to house our more prized sets. So, we were naturally intrigued to learn of a set, released on 1 March, called 鈥溾�� (science, technology, engineering and mathematics).

The build is a cornucopia of STEM-related objects: a DNA double helix, a space shuttle, an apple tree with Isaac Newton stood nervously beneath it and more. They all erupt out of the pages of an open book, accompanied by minifigures of chemist Marie Sk艂odowska-Curie and agricultural scientist George Washington Carver.

It鈥檚 a bit chaotic-looking, but there is a deeper problem, highlighted in a flagged to us by news editor Jacob Aron, and noted by . It鈥檚 quite simple: the DNA is the wrong way around. Many biological chemicals can be either left or right-handed, and in Earthly life, DNA is always right-handed 鈥� but Lego鈥檚 DNA molecule is left-handed.

Feedback was going to suggest this was Lego subtly arguing that, despite what the experts say, we should go ahead and construct a mirror organism in which key molecules have the opposite handedness to existing life 鈥� even if it might kill us all. But then we saw that had already made that remark in their review.

So instead, we call on the world鈥檚 palaeontologists to find something wrong with skeleton kit Lego released on 15 March. We need to stop ourselves buying it.

The story of mirror life: From intriguing idea to unprecedented threat

Grave warnings have been issued about the dangers of creating life forms using mirror-image molecules. How worried should we be?

Joined-up thinking?

With a certain weary inevitability, many big energy companies have rolled back their commitments to renewable energy, preferring to chase the immediate profits from fossil fuels.

In late February, BP announced it was its investments in oil and gas by about 20 per cent, while cutting renewables funding by more than $5 billion. This was, it said, about maximising returns for shareholders. Alas, the firm鈥檚 net income was a mere $8.9 billion in 2024. Oh, how their hands were tied.

On the day this announcement was made, the story was presented on the UK鈥檚 BBC News homepage 鈥� next to one headlined 鈥淗alf of homes need heat pump by 2040, government told鈥�. Feedback briefly joined some dots in our addled mind, before reminding ourselves that it鈥檚 fine: the people in suits know what they鈥檙e doing.

After all, BP isn鈥檛 alone. A few weeks earlier, Shell released its full 2024 results, which noted that it had on renewables from $2.3 billion to $2.1 billion. Last year, it . Likewise, in December, Exxon set out a plan to output by 18 per cent by 2030.

To Futurama鈥榮 Philip J. Fry: Feedback is shocked. Shocked! Well, not that shocked.

The whole saga leads us to wonder if 鈥渃orporate strategy鈥� might be an oxymoron on a par with 鈥渕ilitary intelligence鈥�. In the early 2000s, BP rebranded itself from 鈥淏ritish Petroleum鈥� to 鈥淏eyond Petroleum鈥�, to signal its intention to embrace renewables. Then it abandoned the whole thing after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill cost it a lot of money, bringing its focus back to fossil fuels. Fast-forward to 2020, and the company a raft of new renewables targets 鈥� many of which it is now with this recent drop in funding.

If Feedback were this indecisive, we would, er, struggle to decide how to wrap this up, um.

Shell can鈥檛 say it backs net zero while still betting on fossil fuels

Like its rival BP, Shell claims it is committed to reaching net zero by 2050 despite planning to increase its output this decade, but experts say this doesn鈥檛 add up

Crunch the numbers

Reporter Michael Le Page draws our attention to The Journal of Geek Studies. Despite its (somewhat) formal-sounding name, it isn鈥檛 peer-reviewed, but it will publish 鈥渁ny original contribution that combines an academic topic with something geeky鈥�.

Hence the paper that Michael found, published on 8 March, titled: 鈥溾��.

For readers unfamiliar with what a Rancor is, it鈥檚 the great big reptile-like monster in the basement of Jabba the Hutt鈥檚 palace in Return of the Jedi, which Luke Skywalker fights off. Another Rancor appeared in the 2021 series The Book of Boba Fett, but the less said about that the better.

Authors Thomas Clements and Stephan Lautenschlager seek to understand one key moment from Return of the Jedi. To avoid being eaten, Luke picks up a long bone and lodges it vertically in the Rancor鈥檚 mouth, locking its jaw open. However, Luke鈥檚 reprieve is only temporary, as the Rancor bites down so hard it snaps the bone in two.

Is this feasible? The pair simulate the muscles and bones of the Rancor鈥檚 jaw and estimate it could bite with a force of around 44,000 newtons 鈥� 鈥渕ore than capable of vertically snapping a large long bone鈥�. Reassuringly, 鈥渘o living vertebrate鈥檚 bite force comes close to the Rancor鈥�, with great white sharks and saltwater crocodiles topping out around 16,000 to 18,000 newtons.

During our journalistic career, Feedback has repeatedly been told by editors to write stories that lead to practical advice, or 鈥渘ews you can use鈥�. Well, here it is. Readers: every time you venture into crocodile territory, carry a femur or two with you, just in case.

Got a story for Feedback?

You can send stories to Feedback by email at feedback@newscientist.com. Please include your home address. This week鈥檚 and past Feedbacks can be seen on our website.