Going forward
Feedback is always grateful to readers who take the time to write in, but this week we give our particularly heartfelt thanks to Robert Pleming. Much to our delight, he discovered a competition run in this very column back in 1993, wherein we challenged readers to imagine what the world would look like in 2020 – 27 years thence.
As with all imaginings of the future, the clipping he has sent in is deeply redolent of its time. It imagines a 2020 where the National Enquirer is still obsessed with the allegedly late Elvis Presley, Euro-Disney is a hot new attraction and the scientific status of global warming remains uncertain.
In other ways, though, it is scarily on the money. Take this entry, for example, meant to capture the goings-on of April 2020: “The virtual office arrives. Office staff no longer have to leave the home to work. Donning a virtual reality suit, they can attend their office, interact with their colleagues and retain social contact.”
Advertisement
We don’t know about you, but that reflects Feedback’s April to a tee. Apart from the virtual reality suit, of course. We’ve spent most of the year so far in our pyjamas.
All of the predictions can be found on the èƵ website in the issues of 18 and /25 September 1993, and they make for terrific reading. If any readers with similarly long memories dig up other predictions that Feedback once made for the future, do please bring them to our attention.
Motion sickness
Every year, as regular Feedback readers will be aware, the Annals of Improbable Research magazine awards the IgNobel prizes as a wry counterpoint to the annual Nobel bonanza in Stockholm.
In 2005, the IgNobel prize for fluid dynamics was awarded to Victor Benno Meyer-Rochow and Jozsef Gal for – and we quote the contemporary èƵ article on the topic – “a theoretical analysis of penguin poop propulsion”. The work in question, however, didn’t delve sufficiently deeply into the subject for the tastes of two other researchers. Earlier this month, Hiroyuki Tajima and Fumiya Fujisawa uploaded a to the arXiv preprint server in which they point out that Meyer-Rochow and Gal neglected to consider the arcing trajectory of a penguin’s motions, satisfying themselves exclusively with the horizontal component of said motions’, well, motion.
Redoing the calculations, while also taking into account Bernoulli’s theorem and viscosity corrections via the Hagen-Poiseuille equation, they come up with a penguin rectal pressure of 28.2 kilopascals. This is 40 per cent greater than previously measured. Translating this into human terms, the researchers calculate that a person with the same rectal pressure could projectile poop a distance of 3.13 metres. “He/she should not use usual rest rooms,” they point out. We would say not.
Love in a cold climate
Staying with penguins – bit nippy in here, isn’t it? – Twitter teaches us this week that the on display to represent the former and existing relationships between its current penguin occupants.
The image’s scale and complexity remind us why we never stuck with graph theory. It resembles nothing more than the allegedly helpful family trees to be found in the opening pages of great Russian novels, laying out which of the two Vladimir Trofimoviches is the wealthy cousin of the Duchess Alexandra and which is the violent deserter hell-bent on revenge for the devaluation of the rouble.
Nick names
A few weeks ago, Feedback raised a sceptical eyebrow as to the alleged existence of a police station on the aptly named “Letsby Avenue”. Rab Scott writes in to silence our doubts with a screenshot of Sheffield’s South Yorkshire Police Operations Complex (postcode S9 1XX, for them that’s counting), located between Europa Link and – of course – Letsby Avenue. It’s a fair cop, Rab, thank you for the clarification.
A debt of gratitude is also owed to Stuart Arnold, who informs us that the Cambridgeshire town in which he grew up once had a police station on Pig Lane. “The situation didn’t last for long however,” says Stuart, “as the spoilsports renamed the part of Pig Lane where the police station was ‘Broad Leas'”.
Going backward
Having opened the floodgates to your frustrations about misused language, it is only fair that we bail the floodwater out again in your general direction. The phrase getting on multiple people’s goats this week is “going forward”. Chris Rundle succinctly describes it as “a ridiculously overemployed alternative to ‘in the future'”. Meanwhile, “it has not escaped my notice that ‘forward’ is the only direction one can go in a temporal sense”, says Alan Laird. “Going sideways or up or down just hurts my head!”
We feel your collective pain, goat-havers of the Feedback community. We promise that going forward – or, rather, over the inevitably contiguous increments of monodirectional time currently bearing down on us – this phrase shall not appear in any of our content verticals. Thanks to all of you for reaching out.
Got a story for Feedback?
You can send stories to Feedback by email at feedback@newscientist.com. Please include your home address. This week’s and past Feedbacks can be seen on our website.
