NASA Astronaut Jonny Kim to Share Insights from Eight-Month Space Station Mission
NASA astronaut Jonny Kim will discuss his eight-month International Space Station mission during a live news conference on Dec. 19. Discover the science, technology, and teamwork behind his groundbreaking journey, streaming live via NASA and covered by STM Daily News.
NASA astronaut Jonny Kim poses inside the International Space Station’s cupola as it orbits 265 miles above the Indian Ocean near Madagascar. Credit: NASA
NASA Astronaut Jonny Kim Recaps Eight-Month International Space Station Mission in Live News Conference
Space exploration continues to push the boundaries of science and human achievement. This month, NASA astronaut Jonny Kim returns from an extraordinary eight-month mission aboard the International Space Station (ISS)—and he’s ready to share his story.
Event Details:
What: Jonny Kim’s ISS Mission Recap News Conference
Returning to Earth on Dec. 9 with Roscosmos cosmonauts Sergey Ryzhikov and Alexey Zubritsky, Kim logged an impressive 245 days in space as a flight engineer for Expeditions 72/73. The crew completed a staggering 3,920 orbits—covering nearly 104 million miles—and managed the arrival and departure of multiple spacecraft.
But it’s the science behind the mission that stands out:
Advancing Medicine and Technology
Bioprinted Tissues in Microgravity: Kim helped study the behavior of bioprinted tissues containing blood vessels, a step forward in space-based tissue production that could one day revolutionize patient care on Earth.
Remote Robotics Operations: Through the Surface Avatar study, Kim tested the remote command of multiple robots in space—work that could lead to more advanced robotic assistants for future missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
Nanomaterials for Medicine: Kim contributed to the development of DNA-mimicking nanomaterials, opening doors for improved drug delivery and regenerative medicine both in space and at home.
How to Watch and Participate
NASA invites the public and media to join the news conference. For those interested in direct participation, media accreditation is required (details available via NASA’s newsroom). For everyone else, the event will be streamed live—no registration needed.
Learn more about International Space Station research and ongoing missions: NASA’s ISS Page
Why This Matters
Jonny Kim’s journey is a testament to the power of international collaboration and the relentless pursuit of knowledge. His work aboard the ISS is already shaping the future of medicine, robotics, and exploration—impacting lives both in space and right here on Earth.
Stay tuned to STM Daily News for more updates on science, innovation, and the stories that connect our community to the world beyond.
Want more space and science coverage? Visit STM Daily News for the latest updates, features, and community stories.
Rod: A creative force, blending words, images, and flavors. Blogger, writer, filmmaker, and photographer. Cooking enthusiast with a sci-fi vision. Passionate about his upcoming series and dedicated to TNC Network. Partnered with Rebecca Washington for a shared journey of love and art.
Population Density: How Los Angeles Compares to New York and Chicago
How dense are America’s biggest cities? A clear breakdown of population density in Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago—city limits vs metro areas—and why it matters.
Population Density: How Los Angeles Compares to New York and Chicago
When people think of crowded American cities, New York City usually comes to mind first. Los Angeles, by contrast, is often labeled as “sprawling,” while Chicago is seen as a middle ground. But population density tells a more nuanced story—especially when comparing city proper numbers versus metro-area density.
City Proper: How Dense Are the Cities Themselves?
Looking only at official city boundaries, the differences are stark:
New York City averages about 27,000–28,000 people per square mile, making it by far the most densely populated major city in the United States.
Chicago comes in at roughly 12,000 people per square mile, dense but far more spread out than New York.
Los Angeles, despite being the nation’s second-largest city by population, averages just 8,400–8,500 people per square mile.
This gap reflects development patterns. New York grew upward with dense apartment buildings and extensive transit. Los Angeles expanded outward with single-family neighborhoods and car-oriented planning.
Metro Areas Tell a Different Story
When the lens widens to include surrounding suburbs and commuter communities, the rankings shift:
Los Angeles Metro Area: ~7,000 people per square mile
New York Metro Area: ~5,300 people per square mile
Chicago Metro Area: ~3,500 people per square mile
This surprises many readers. While New York’s core is extremely dense, its metro region stretches across a vast, lower-density area spanning parts of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Los Angeles, on the other hand, has a metro region that is more consistently built-up, with fewer truly rural gaps.
Why Density Feels Different in Each City
Population density doesn’t always match perception:
New York feels crowded because density is concentrated vertically and transit funnels millions into compact areas.
Los Angeles feels congested not because of extreme density, but because people are spread out and heavily reliant on cars.
Chicago balances both, with dense neighborhoods near the core and more traditional suburban sprawl outward.
For cities like Los Angeles—now reinvesting in rail, buses, and transit-oriented development—understanding density is critical. As coverage on LA Metro and urban revival continues, these numbers explain why transit challenges in Southern California differ so sharply from those in New York or Chicago.
The Big Picture
Most dense city: New York City
Most dense metro area: Los Angeles
Most balanced: Chicago
Density isn’t just about how many people live in a place—it’s about how they live, move, and interact with the city around them.
Further Reading: Population Density & Urban Development
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
2025’s words of the year reflect a year of digital disillusionment
From “AI slop” to “rage bait” and “parasocial,” 2025’s words of the year reflect growing distrust in online life—where manipulation, misinformation, and fake relationships thrive.
2025’s words of the year reflect a year of digital disillusionment
Roger J. Kreuz, University of Memphis Which terms best represent 2025? Every year, editors for publications ranging from the Oxford English Dictionary to the Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English select a “word of the year.” Sometimes these terms are thematically related, particularly in the wake of world-altering events. “Pandemic,” “lockdown” and “coronavirus,” for example, were among the words chosen in 2020. At other times, they are a potpourri of various cultural trends, as with 2022’s “goblin mode,” “permacrisis” and “gaslighting.” This year’s slate largely centers on digital life. But rather than reflecting the unbridled optimism about the internet of the early aughts – when words like “w00t,” “blog,” “tweet” and even “face with tears of joy” emoji (😂) were chosen – this year’s selections reflect a growing unease over how the internet has become a hotbed of artifice, manipulation and fake relationships.
When seeing isn’t believing
A committee representing the Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English settled on “AI slop” for their word of the year. Macquarie defines the term, which was popularized in 2024 by British programmer Simon Willison and tech journalist Casey Newton, as “low-quality content created by generative AI, often containing errors, and not requested by the user.” AI slop – which can range from a saccharine image of a young girl clinging to her little dog to career advice on LinkedIn – often goes viral, as gullible social media users share these computer-generated videos, text and graphics with others. Images have been manipulated or altered since the dawn of photography. The technique was then improved, with an assist from AI, to create “deepfakes,” which allows existing images to be turned into video clips in surreal ways. Yes, you can now watch Hitler teaming up with Stalin to sing a 1970s hit by The Buggles. What makes AI slop different is that images or video can be created out of whole cloth by providing a chatbot with just a prompt – no matter how bizarre the request or ensuing output.
Meet my new friend, ChatGPT
The editors of the Cambridge Dictionary chose “parasocial.” They define this as “involving or relating to a connection that someone feels between themselves and a famous person they do not know, a character in a book, film, TV series … or an artificial intelligence.” These asymmetric relationships, according to the dictionary’s chief editor, are the result of “the public’s fascination with celebrities and their lifestyles,” and this interest “continues to reach new heights.” As an example, Cambridge’s announcement cited the engagement of singer Taylor Swift and football player Travis Kelce, which led to a spike in online searches for the meaning of the term. Many Swifties reacted with unbridled joy, as if their best friend or sibling had just decided to tie the knot. But the term isn’t a new one: It was coined by sociologists in 1956 to describe “the illusion” of having “a face-to-face relationship” with a performer. However, parasocial relationships can take a bizarre or even ominous turn when the object of one’s affections is a chatbot. People are developing true feelings for these AI systems, whether they see them as a trusted friend or even a romantic partner. Young people, in particular, are now turning to generative AI for therapy.
Taking the bait
The Oxford Dictionary’s word of the year is “rage bait,” which the editors define as “online content deliberately designed to elicit anger or outrage by being frustrating, provocative, or offensive, typically posted in order to increase traffic to or engagement with a particular web page or social media content.” This is only the latest word for forms of emotional manipulation that have plagued the online world since the days of dial-up internet. Related terms include trolling, sealioning and trashposting. Unlike a hot take – a hasty opinion on a topic that may be poorly reasoned or articulated – rage baiting is intended to be inflammatory. And it can be seen as both a cause and a result of political polarization. People who post rage bait have been shown to lack empathy and to regard other people’s emotions as something to be exploited or even monetized. Rage baiters, in short, reflect the dark side of the attention economy.Rage baiters have little concern for the people whose emotions they exploit for attention or profit.yamonstro/iStock via Getty Images
Meaningless meaning
Perhaps the most contentious choice in 2025 was “6-7,” chosen by Dictionary.com. In this case, the controversy has to do with the actual meaning of this bit of Gen Alpha slang. The editors of the website describe it as being “meaningless, ubiquitous, and nonsensical.” Although its definition may be slippery, the term itself can be found in the lyrics of the rapper Skrilla, who released the single “Doot Doot (6 7)” in early 2025. It was popularized by 17-year-old basketball standout Taylen Kinney. For his part, Skrilla claimed that he “never put an actual meaning on it, and I still would not want to.” “6-7” is sometimes accompanied by a gesture, as if one were comparing the weight of objects held in both hands. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently performed this hand motion during a school visit. The young students were delighted. Their teacher, however, informed Starmer that her charges weren’t allowed to use it at the school, which prompted a clumsy apology from the chastened prime minister.
Throw your hands in the air?
The common element that these words share may be an attitude best described as digital nihilism. As online misinformation, AI-generated text and images, fake news and conspiracy theories abound, it’s increasingly difficult to know whom or what to believe or trust. Digital nihilism is, in essence, an acknowledgment of a lack of meaning and certainty in our online interactions. This year’s crop of words might best be summed up by a single emoji: the shrug (🤷). Throwing one’s hands up, in resignation or indifference, captures the anarchy that seems to characterize our digital lives.Roger J. Kreuz, Associate Dean and Feinstone Interdisciplinary Research Professor, University of Memphis This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Assorted flavors of Now and Later candies, a chewy taffy made by Farley’s and Sathers and sold in the United States. Image Credit: Evan-Amos
Now and Later candy has been a staple of American childhood for generations, known for its bold fruit flavors and famously long-lasting chew. First introduced in 1962, the candy became a cultural icon of corner stores, schoolyard trades, and after-school treats. Among its many flavors, cherry stood out as a fan favorite—delivering a rich, lingering taste that made Now and Later more than just candy, but a shared memory of growing up.
A Candy Built to Last
Now and Later candy was introduced in 1962 by the Phoenix Candy Company, and its name was more than clever branding. It was a promise. You could enjoy it now—and still be chewing it later. Unlike many candies that dissolved quickly, Now and Later were intentionally firm, almost stubbornly so. They softened as you chewed, rewarding patience with long-lasting flavor.
That firmness became part of the experience. You didn’t rush a Now and Later. You worked through it.
Cherry: The Standout Flavor
While the brand offered plenty of bold fruit options—grape, apple, strawberry, watermelon—cherry stood apart. It wasn’t subtle. It was rich, sweet, slightly tart, and unmistakably artificial in the best possible way. Cherry didn’t fade quickly either. It lingered, coating your taste buds and staying with you through the entire chew.
Ask anyone who grew up with Now and Laters, and many will tell you the same thing: cherry was the one you hoped to pull from the pack.
A Ritual, Not Just a Candy
Now and Laters weren’t just eaten—they were managed. Some kids warmed them in their pockets to soften them. Others bit off tiny pieces to make them last longer. There were unspoken rules: don’t pull too hard, don’t rush it, and never assume you’d be done in five minutes.
In a way, Now and Later taught a small lesson in patience—long before we had endless scrolling, instant gratification, or same-day delivery.
A Cultural Snapshot of Childhood
Candy like Now and Later represents a time when small pleasures mattered. A quarter or a dollar could buy a moment of joy that lasted through recess, the walk home, or an afternoon bike ride. You didn’t need a screen or a subscription—just a square of candy in a bright wrapper.
It’s no coincidence that Now and Later remain deeply nostalgic for people who grew up in the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s. They’re tied to a physical, tangible childhood—one where time moved slower and experiences lasted longer.
Still Around, Still Remembered
Though ownership of the brand has changed over the years, Now and Later still exist today, and the flavors remain recognizable. But for many, the real magic lives in memory: that first bite, that stubborn chew, and that unmistakable cherry taste that refused to quit.
Some candies are forgettable. Now and Later—especially cherry—weren’t.
They didn’t just give us something sweet.
Advertisement
They gave us something to hold onto.Want to get the full story? The links below dive deeper into the history of Now and Later candy, its flavors, and why it’s still remembered decades later. If this sparked a few childhood memories, they’re worth checking out.
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
Roger J. Kreuz, Associate Dean and Feinstone Interdisciplinary Research Professor, University of Memphis This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
