Basically the students continued to believe news stories which aligned with their pre-exsisting beliefs even when they were clearly marked as being fake. This is worrying given they "should" be better at evaluation sources than the general public at large.
Some interesting bits:
"As they worked through the exercise, the participants spent more time and showed significantly more activity in their frontal cortices — the brain area associated with arousal, memory access and consciousness — when headlines supported their beliefs but were flagged as false. These reactions of discomfort indicated cognitive dissonance when headlines supporting their beliefs were marked as untrue.
But this dissonance was not enough to make participants change their minds. They overwhelmingly said that headlines conforming with their preexisting beliefs were true, regardless of whether they were flagged as potentially fake. The flag did not change their initial response to the headline, even if it did make them pause a moment longer and study it a bit more carefully.
Political affiliation made no difference in their ability to determine what was true or false"
A good summary:
“The fact that social media perpetuates and feeds this bias complicates people’s ability to make evidence-based decisions,” she said. “But if the facts that you do have are polluted by fake news that you truly believe, then the decisions you make are going to be much worse.”
Basically it's a call for a 20% reduction in the speed of shipping.
"The report found that cutting ship speed by 20% would cut sulphur and nitrogen oxides by around 24%. There are also significant reductions in black carbon, which are tiny black particles contained in the smoke from ship exhausts."
"This speed limit would cut underwater noise by 66% and reduce the chances of whale collisions by 78%."
"What gives campaigners hope is that shipping has already tried out the concept of going slow - back in 2008, during the global financial crisis, cargo ships slowed down to cut costs. With average speeds dropping by 12% this helped cut daily fuel consumption by 27%, which equated to a significant drop in emissions."
Given the ease at which this could be implemented and the fact that waiting 20% longer to ship slow goods isn't really a huge deal it's an interesting proposal.
Would be interested to see what mariners think - perhaps Newcy will be around later.
The issue here as with many AI results is that we have no idea how it's come to these conclusions even though they seem to be correct. This is the next big step - getting the AI to be able to explain to humans how it's reached the conclusion. Until that's possible they are black-boxes in which information goes in and comes out but we have no idea how the conclusion is reached. That could lead to issues in the longer term.
"There are more tigers in American gardens than there are left in the wild."
"According to the US Fish & Wildlife Service, there are between 3,200 and 3,500 tigers remaining in the wild globally. By some estimates there are 5,000 in captivity in the US, though there might be more."
Bloomberg is seriously considering entering the race next week as a democratic candidate.
Liberal views with vast wealth (53bn at the last count) to compete against Trump. Also very much for gun control and funds many gun control campaigns. Certainly a fair number of critics as well though for various gentrification projects.
Possibly can't win but changes the dynamic quite a lot given Trumps insistence on boasting about wealth and being successful. Bloomberg is genuinely successful.
I was listening to an interview on Today this morning on the banning of political adverts on Twitter. The person on there was hugely invested literally spewing confirmation bias with regards to political adverts on Facebook (which he wanted to keep) but something interesting did come up in debate:
A public owned social media platform.
I can see the obvious faults with the idea but upon reflection (and assuming it's not too late as FB have cornered the market) perhaps it could work. It would need to be fully independent of the government but would be tasked with ensuring content could be "blue ticked" as being accurate and from the person or organisation claimed.
Now obviously if the separation of government and organisation wasn't airtight then there is vast scope for abuse but given Facebook is already abused is that a reason to discount it?
I am fully aware that such an entity would cost an awful lot to setup and run but as a thought experiment what are the flaws and what are the benefits of such a theoretical platform?
Would people even care or are they happy in their algo-generated echo chambers of FB?
So I know that nuclear power elicits a variety of responses but I think the developments with 4th generation reactors are quite interesting. They are still being designed but they would reduce the fuel requirements required to produce the same energy by a factor of 100 to 300 due to being a closed fuel-cycle whereby all the actinides fed into them are used.
They would also have the ability to burn our current waste stockpiles extracting far more energy from them and vastly reducing the transuranics in the waste which in turn greatly reduces the long-term radioactivity of the waste (a few centuries rather than millennia).
So assuming these reactors are funded and built it would seem the best way forward to provide baseline power alongside the intermittent power from renewables. We actually have so much waste they could be run on waste without the need for more mining and refining for decades.
Many of the designs also include "automatic passive reactor shutdowns" which mean that the reactors can regulate and shutdown the reaction if certain conditions are met without human interaction.
Would people be happy with this direction or is the nuclear boogieman still top dog? I fully understand that we are decades away from building a significant number of such plants so it's certainly no silver bullet.
Not only do these people and theories cause harm to the people involved in the actual incident but they propagate myths which are often seized on and repeated by others. Furthermore they undermine belief in the truth and in verifiable facts.
Hopefully it's bankrupted them. Still doesn't make up for what they are doing but it's a start.