My guess is it is more likely to be an artefact of increased attention rather than an actual increased tendency to be pro-social.
Ie, people on average are x% likely to give up a seat for a pregnant woman if they are actively aware, but in many cases people on public transport are "zoned out" so the actual rate of people giving up a seat is lower.
The "Batman" may just be something somewhat unusual that increases people's awareness of their immediate surroundings rather than making them more pro-social.
An interesting follow up would be to try things that are "unusual" and attention level raising, but are somehow neutral and free of the sorts of symbolism that are attached to Batman.

The only "point" your post makes is that you don't know what p hacking is.

If you have some other criticism of the study, then putting "p-value hacking" as the subject is your error not mine.

I bought a nice pair of gloves this year with ChatGPT, but when they arrived I found that they each had six fingers.

Sometimes, Slashdot posters who are under pressure to publish, anything, no matter what, to increase their publication count, will make stupid comments, mentioning terms they have vaguely heard about, without any real thought as to whether they apply.

P-hacking involves researcher degrees of freedom and the ability to find some signal for "something" in a bunch of data by varying how the the analysis is performed after the events themselves.

That does not seem a relevant at all in the context of this particular study, which uses a very simple method and measure for what it is testing and whose methodology was pre-registered before it was done.

The chlorophyll in plants is finely tuned to absorb specific wavelengths of light. It already has a hard time with green light compared to blue light, and it's simply not going to work at all with radiation that has wavelengths that are orders of magnitude shorter. Chlorophyll acts like a little antenna that gets excited by certain light frequencies, but ionizing radiation would just blow the chlorophyll molecules apart and destroy them.

Taking advantage ionizing radiation is going to require a completely different mechanism than plant photosynthesis, just like you can't use glass lenses or parabolic mirrors to focus X rays or gamma rays. Plants probably have no more chance of having such a mechanism than fungi do.

On the flip side, I have enjoyed the few Canadian shows that made it to the U.S. (especially during the writer's strike).

Hard to say, but rember that it was because of similar laws in Canada that we got The Great White North with Bob and Doug McKinzie.

On the other hand, If I have an ultralight and realize I need to move over 200 people at once, I know I'd better talk to a domain expert rather than trying to tie 250 ultralights together with kite string.

Unless the part of the penalty that doesn't compensate Indian consumers and businesses is the punitive damages to assure no repeats of the behavior.

Well, right in the summary it says ChatGPT gave the kid a "pep talk" encouraging him to actually carry out the suicide.

I think this view gives the crypto bros too much credit. They might now be thinking about taking advantage of the opportunity to wrestle the system away from the Wall Street bros, but there was no such plan.

To intercept them you still have to identify them, which you can't do until after they perform the sabotage. Given that, what's the benefit in sinking them rather than seizing them? Sinking them gains you nothing, seizing them gains you the sabotage vessel. It probably won't be worth much, but more than nothing. I guess sinking them saves the cost of imprisoning the crew, but I'd rather imprison them for a few years than murder them.

IOW: "We've only got $3.5T in capital to work with, so this is just too hard for us to figure out. You'll have to switch to an OS made by unpaid volunteers."

Very much unlike an intern (the doing-over part).

You ignored his core point, which is that "rocks don't think" is useless for extrapolating unless you can define some procedure or model for evaluating whether X can think, a procedure that you can apply both to a rock and to a human and get the expected answers, and then apply also to ChatGPT.