Apple Criticized for Not Investigating App Developer Who Faked Her Cancer

A screenshot of Belle Gibson’s now defunct app, The Whole Pantry (left) and Gibson trying a prototype of the Apple Watch before it was released (right)

When the Apple Watch launched in 2015, Belle Gibson was touted by Apple as a star. Not only had Gibson supposedly cured her own cancer through healthy eating, she now had an app for both the iPhone and Apple Watch that could help others do the same. But now that her own cancer and “cure” have been exposed as fake, people are asking what responsibility Apple had to the public.

Gibson, a 25-year-old from Australia, developed a line of health products like a cookbook and app after claiming that she cured her own brain cancer through healthy eating in 2013. She was eventually exposed as a fraud in April 2015 and was found guilty earlier this year of not distributing some of her profits to charities as she had promised. An Australian court fined her $320,000 US, almost all the money she made from her brand The Whole Pantry.

But now that the court documents have been made available to Australian media, the role that Apple played in this mess is being scrutinized. Apple made a big deal of Gibson before she was exposed and even reportedly flew her to the US to consult on the Apple Watch before it was released. Photos from that time show Gibson using the Apple Watch before the public even knew it existed and when it was finally released, her app The Whole Pantry was featured on the Apple homepage.

A screenshot of an Apple Watch promotion from 2015 touting Gibson’s app, The Whole Pantry, before it was ultimately pulled from the App Store

So what did Apple know about Gibson’s fraud? Apple hasn’t responded to Gizmodo’s request for comment, but Australian media reported over the weekend about some of the communications between Apple employees and Gibson.

When the press started asking hard questions and raising doubts about her astonishing claims in April of 2015, Apple’s internal emails about their star app developer show that the company was ready to stand by Gibson.

“[The] unfortunate article focused on highlighting startup entrepreneurial issues of competing and conflicting goals, dismissive of great work already done or to be done. Worst of all, it compromises the latter,” one internal message said, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.

“Spoke with Belle earlier and she is pragmatic about this unpleasantness and determined to take forward steps continuing in the work instead of drawing interest to this kind of blind-sightedness,” another internal Apple message revealed in court reads.

Even after the revelations first came to light, the messages show that Apple was ready to stand by Gibson. It wasn’t until late April 2015 that Gibson finally came clean in a magazine article for Australian Women’s Weekly and the newspaper The Australian. And even then, the internal messages were reportedly less concerned about setting the record straight than they were about covering their own asses.

“Belle is waiting for this to blow over and is taking legal advice, but this morning that may have changed. When we hear from her we’ll let you know. The story is now a full national news story, and our removal of featuring will be commented on,” one of the messages from Apple reads.

Two authors, Beau Donelly and Nick Toscano, just released a book about Gibson called The Woman Who Fooled the World which details some of the horrendous things that Gibson did to keep up her cancer charade.

“There’s nothing new in cancer scamming,” Toscano recently told The Guardian. “There have always been snake-oil salespeople. There have always been people like [Gibson]. But where this story differs is her explosion to success, and her incredible reach was made possible by a number of intensely modern forces.”

Indeed, the role that new media played, from Gibson’s earliest promotion of her cancer hoax on Instagram, to her development of an app to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars, does give this old timey scam a new twist. And Apple will have to do some soul searching about the way that it handled this fraud.

Australia fined Gibson’s publisher $30,000 for not fact-checking her book, something that would be unheard of in the United States where there’s no requirement or even expectation that publishers fact-check their books. But at the very least, companies like Apple pay for incidents like these with their reputation. And when you’re touting the story of a woman who claimed to cure her brain cancer with healthy eating, you’d hope that a company like Apple would do a little investigating for itself.

[Sydney Morning Herald]

from Gizmodo http://ift.tt/2zW8BgT
via IFTTT

Ridiculously Waterproof Fly Survives Dives Into Toxic Lakes

An alkali fly creates a protective bubble in order to dive in Mono Lake. (Image: Floris van Breugel / Caltech)

If you’ve ever seen an outdoor swimming pool between cleanings, then you’re well aware of the death trap that standing water can be for flying insects. Bees, grasshoppers, and flies all easily tumble into the chlorinated sea, only to find themselves drenched and unable to fly away. But one type of fly is both at home in the air and under water. Alkali flies (Ephydra hians) dive into a lake, feed on the bottom, and shoot back to the surface to fly away, staying drier than a saltine the whole time. Now, scientists have figured out how they pull it off.

If you’re an aquatic organism, California’s Mono Lake isn’t the easiest place to try and make a life. The huge, shallow lake is three times as salty as the Pacific Ocean. It’s also ridiculously alkaline, with a pH similar to that of detergent, making the water feel soapy and slippery. This combination makes its waters deadly to most animals and plants. But, Mono Lake does support some life, like bacteria, large blooms of algae, and trillions of brine shrimp. It also hosts enormous numbers of waterfowl and shorebirds—migratory and resident alike—many of which feed on one of the lake’s more famous phenomena: vast, black clouds of alkali flies.

Mono Lake. (Image: Floris van Breugel)

The alkali fly is found across western North America, but it does particularly well for itself at Mono, where it breeds in massive quantities. As larvae, the insects largely graze on algae. Incredibly, the adults do this too, taking advantage of the plentiful underwater food source that contrasts with the barren lakeshore.

Once the adult flies crawl beneath the surface, their bodies are almost entirely enveloped by an air bubble as they nonchalantly walk around, looking preposterously out of place. They can stay down for up to fifteen minutes at depths of 25 feet or more, using the bubble as an air source and a layer of protection from their caustic dive site. The flies also lay their eggs at depth, quite literally because they can (no fish are around to harass them). When their scuba sesh is complete, they pop up to the surface like a cork, and fly off.

Researchers at the California Institute of Technology investigated just how they accomplish these feats, and their findings—published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences—suggest that the alkali fly’s never-wetting superpowers come from an effective coupling of fly fuzz and god-tier waterproofing.

To get an understanding of the interaction between the chemical and physical properties of the flies and Mono Lake’s water, the research team developed a method for measuring the amount of force it takes for the fly to dip into and emerge from the water. By taking alkali flies, gluing them individually to tungsten rods, and using a motor to raise and lower a container of water, the researchers were able to dip the flies at a controlled rate. This fly-dunking contraption also used specialized instrumentation to measure the amount of force exerted on the fly as it was plunged into the water, and how much force was used to escape the water.

They found that alkali flies have to exert forces up to 18 times their body weight to enter the water, hulking out and gripping the bottom with burly claws on their feet, pulling themselves along against the buoyancy of their bubble. The team also found that Mono Lake’s water was particularly hard to escape from, with the alkali flies being “pushed” out of the water less with higher concentrations of the lake’s water in a mixture.

An alkali fly. (Image: PNAS)

To test how the lake’s water chemistry might be behind this effect, the researchers did more fly dunking experiments with solutions of different salts found in the water, and with varied pH. Their results suggested that dissolved sodium carbonate is the primary culprit, creating a surface film of negatively-charged carbonate ions that pull water around the tiny hairs along a fly’s positively-charged outer surface, more effectively drenching the hapless insect than regular freshwater. So, the researchers did more dunking experiments, this time in sodium carbonate solution and including other species of flies. The only flies not mired on the surface? The unflappable alkali flies, of course.

Looking way closer at all the flies with a powerful microscope showed that the alkali flies differed from their tiny relatives in that they were extra hairy. All flies have protective hairs that—combined with a waxy veneer on the exoskeleton—help create a modestly water-repellant surface. But the alkali flies looked like they had taken a swim in some Rogaine, likely amplifying this protective effect.

The flies also seem to have improved their waxy outer coat. When the team rinsed flies in hexane, dissolving that layer, they lost their ability to stay dry in Mono’s water. The researchers identified the chemical components of the protective layer, and found that, compared to other flies, the alkali flies boosted the use of compounds well-suited to wicking off water full of carbonate ions.

This waxy, exceptional fuzzy wuzziness makes the alkali fly’s outer surface “superhydrophobic,” pushing the lake’s harsh water away as the insect enters the water, generating a nice, protective blanket of air. This amplified version of the normal insect waterproofing system has allowed alkali flies to exploit a predator-free environment for food and reproduction in strange, spectacular fashion.

The unique evolutionary side-step may also be of interest to the world of materials science. Superhydrophobic properties are coveted for a wide range of applications, from protecting electronics from water damage, to reducing fouling on seafaring vessels, to potentially making roads safer in wet and icy conditions. Gleaning inspiration from organisms for engineering purposes—”biomimicry”—is already a major input into applications for superhydrophobia (like improving raincoats by emulating the properties of duck feathers), so it’s very possible the humble alkali fly’s extreme waterproofing may contribute to human innovation.

Jake Buehler is a Seattle area science writer with an adoration for the Tree of Life’s weird, wild, and unsung—follow him on Twitter or at his blog.

from Gizmodo http://ift.tt/2jLhvb6
via IFTTT

This Guy Is Living My Fantasy of Flying Like a Bird

Even with the hours of preamble as I shuffle through the airport to my gate, flying is still an amazing experience for me. But taking off in a commercial airliner isn’t anywhere near as magical as the way Jean-Baptiste Chandelier takes flight in this stylishly-edited new video, which makes paragliding look as close to being a bird as any human can hope to be.

Dangling beneath a parachute powered by nothing but breezes and thermal currents, Chandelier can fly high in the air, but he’s also able to skim the ground at incredibly low altitudes, even momentarily touching down before taking flight once again. This is exactly how I want to fly to my next vacation, I just haven’t figured out what I’ll do with my suitcase.

[YouTube via Neatorama]

from Gizmodo http://ift.tt/2zYpW6Y
via IFTTT

The best Bluetooth audio receiver for your home stereo or speakers

By R. Matthew Ward

This post was done in partnership with Wirecutter, reviews for the real world. When readers choose to buy Wirecutter’s independently chosen editorial picks, it may earn affiliate commissions that support its work. Read the full article here.

After doing 13 hours of research and considering 76 models, we performed dozens of hours of real-world testing and 13 additional hours of focused, in-depth testing on the top 14 Bluetooth-audio receivers for adding wireless connectivity to an existing audio system. We think the StarTech BT2A Bluetooth Audio Receiver is the best receiver for most people thanks to its combination of connectivity, range, audio quality, and usability at a reasonable price.

Who should buy this?

Photo: Michael Hession

Whether it’s because your new smartphone has no headphone jack, or you aren’t ready to give up your old stereo in favor of a great Bluetooth speaker, a Bluetooth audio receiver can add wireless streaming capabilities to your existing home stereo or speakers with little loss in sound quality.

How we picked and tested

Photo: Michael Hession

The ideal Bluetooth receiver should sound as good as a direct, wired connection. It should pair with your devices easily and reliably, and should have a large-enough range to cover a typical living area. We also like when a Bluetooth receiver has a digital audio output, which allows you to use an optional, separate DAC (digital-to-analog converter) for better sound quality.

We considered 76 top Bluetooth receivers, and ultimately tested 14 models. For our tests, we paired each one first to a MacBook and an iPhone to see how easy it was to pair source devices to the receiver. We also tested how reliably the receiver connected and disconnected once paired, how well it reconnected following a disconnection, and how easy it was to switch to a different source. For devices that could pair with multiple devices simultaneously, we used up to six devices to test this feature.

To evaluate audio quality, we first used each device to listen to background music, then compared them head-to-head using our favorite test tracks. We also assessed the range of each receiver by measuring the distance at which music started skipping with both an unobstructed and obstructed line of sight. To read about our testing process in more detail, please see our full guide.

Our pick

The StarTech BT2A (right) and the nearly identical Monoprice Bluetooth Streaming Music Receiver (left) offer good sound, reliable connectivity, and good range at a reasonable price. Photo: Michael Hession

The StarTech BT2A Bluetooth Audio Receiver is our top pick for most people thanks to its combination of good sound quality, range, usability, connectivity, and price. In our tests, it reliably paired to new devices and reconnected to old devices, and it could remember up to eight paired devices. It comes from a reputable vendor, has a two-year warranty, and is reasonably priced.

In terms of audio quality, the BT2A—along with our runner-up, below—provided the best sound quality of the models we tested in this price range. Overall, these two models offered better dynamic range and crisper high-frequency and midrange detail compared with similarly priced models, along with minimal high-frequency distortion and a tight low end. The BT2A also features an optical digital-audio output, allowing you to upgrade audio quality by using an external DAC.

Runner-up

While running our tests, we noticed that Monoprice’s Bluetooth Streaming Music Receiver appears to be functionally identical to the StarTech BT2A. When we opened both models, we found that they use the same circuit board and the same DAC, and they performed essentially identically in our testing. We made the StarTech receiver our top pick because it’s covered by a two-year warranty, versus only one year for the Monoprice receiver, but the Monoprice is also a safe buy.

An upgrade for better sound and better range

The Audioengine B1, our upgrade pick, offers substantially better audio quality than the StarTech receiver, as well as outstanding wireless range. Photo: Michael Hession

If you have nice speakers or a higher-end audio system—such as our picks for best receiver and bookshelf speakers—and you want a Bluetooth connection that can do them justice, the Audioengine B1 Bluetooth Music Receiver is a great upgrade choice.

The B1 is based on the same circuitry as Audioengine’s well-regarded D1 DAC, and the unit’s audio quality reflects this: It offers better sound, by a good margin, than the less expensive Bluetooth receivers we tested. Music is lively and involving, with crisp, clear highs; detailed midrange; and tight, clean bass. The Audioengine B1 also includes optical-digital output if you want to hook it up to an even better DAC in the future.

The B1 is also the only model we tested that includes an external antenna. According to Audioengine, the antenna extends the B1’s range to 100 feet, three times what most other receivers claim. In our tests, the B1 never skipped, even when at maximum range.

A pick for older speaker docks

Among the receivers designed to add Bluetooth to a 30-pin speaker dock, the Samson 30-Pin Bluetooth Receiver BT30 had the best range and audio quality, as well as the most reliable pairing and connection. Photo: R. Matthew Ward

Before Bluetooth speakers became ubiquitous, many people bought speaker docks—compact speaker systems with a docking cradle for a smartphone or MP3 player. The vast majority of these used Apple’s older 30-pin dock connector, which has since been replaced by the Lightning connector. If you have one of these 30-pin docks, you can use Samson’s 30-Pin Bluetooth Receiver BT30 to wirelessly stream music to it.

The BT30’s sound quality isn’t fantastic, but it is better than any of the other dock-connector models we tested. Its range is also superior to that of the other models we tested, and pairing and connecting Bluetooth devices is hassle-free.

This guide may have been updated by Wirecutter. To see the current recommendation, please go here.

Note from Wirecutter: When readers choose to buy our independently chosen editorial picks, we may earn affiliate commissions that support our work.

from Engadget http://ift.tt/2A7f1e3
via IFTTT

NASA can pinpoint glaciers that might flood coastal cities

It’s safe to say that melting glaciers and ice sheets are bad things: they raise ocean levels and risk flooding low-lying coastal areas. But which of these icy bodies do you have to worry about in your area? NASA might help. It recently developed a technique that can determine which glaciers and sheets pose a threat to a given area. It’s complex, but it could make a big difference for coastal cities that may need to react to global warming.

Gradient fingerprint mapping, as it’s called, uses advanced math to check the local variations in the ice thickness of all of the world’s ice drainage systems. When you map all these gradients, you can determine where the water will ultimately go. And it’s more complicated than you think — if a lot of ice melts, it can actually lower the sea level in certain areas because of the reduced gravitational pull.

The resulting predictions can be surprising in multiple ways. For one thing, proximity isn’t necessarily an indicator of which glaciers you have to worry about. New York City primarily has to fret about the glaciers in Greenland’s northeast (those furthest away), for example. As for that gravitational effect? The sea level around Oslo, Norway would actually fall if only the glaciers in the same Greenland area melted. Meanwhile, the breaking ice sheets in the western Antarctic would pose the greatest danger to Sydney.

It’s not exactly the most heartening discovery, but it could be important if there’s no way to dramatically slow or halt the melting process. Planners could use the data to understand whether or not they need sea walls and other measures to prevent flooding. Like it or not, that know-how may become crucial in the next few decades.

Via: Earther

Source: Science Advances

from Engadget http://ift.tt/2hEiQMh
via IFTTT

Kevlar cartilage could help you recover from joint injuries

It can be difficult to fully recover from knee injuries or other damage to your joints, if just because there hasn’t been an artificial replacement for cartilage that can withstand as much punishment as the real thing. That may not be an issue in the long run, though: scientists have developed a Kevlar-based hydrogel that behaves like natural cartilage. It mixes a network of Kevlar nanofibers with polyvinyl alcohol to absorb water at rest (like real cartilage does in idle moments) and become extremely resistant to abuse, but releases it under stress — say, a workout at the gym.

You don’t even need a lot of it to replicate a human body’s sturdiness and overall functionality. A material with 92 percent water is about as tough as real cartilage, while a 70 percent mix is comparable to rubber. Previous attempts at simulating cartilage couldn’t hold enough water to transport nutrients to cells, which made them a poor fit for implants.

There’s a long way to go before the material becomes useful. Researchers are hoping to patent the substance and find companies to make it a practical reality. The implications are already quite clear, mind you. If it works as well in patients as it does in lab experiments, it could lead to cartilage implants that are roughly as good as the real tissue they replace. A serious knee injury might not put an end to your running days.

Source: University of Michigan, Wiley Online Library

from Engadget http://ift.tt/2zR6pHv
via IFTTT