AbouBenAdhem
Piranesi by Susanna Clarke would be a good one.
Any modifier key by itself, in case it’s just the screen that’s asleep and I’m inadvertently typing into a text field.
Statistically, parents already have more votes: inasmuch as children contribute to the apportionment of congressional districts and presidential electors, voters in districts with a disproportionately high ratio of children to adults have correspondingly greater representation in the House and the Electoral College. (Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with that, but it should be taken into consideration.)
If historical precedent is any guide, they’ll count each child as an extra 3/5 of a vote.
You could as easily make the opposite claim—that those with children will be motivated to neglect the common good in order to promote the future welfare of their own offspring over those of others.
AFib patients using wearable devices are more likely to engage in high rates of symptom monitoring and experience anxiety than non-users
Well no shit—how can non-users engage in high rates of symptom monitoring if they don’t have symptom monitors?
As Mary Anne Franks, a George Washington University law professor and a leading advocate for strict anti-deepfake rules, told WIRED in an email, “The obvious flaw in the ‘We already have laws to deal with this’ argument is that if this were true, we wouldn't be witnessing an explosion of this abuse with no corresponding increase in the filing of criminal charges.”
We’re certainly witnessing an explosion of media coverage of abusive deepfakes, as with coverage of everything else AI-related. But if there’s no increase in criminal cases, what’s the evidence that the “explosion” is more than that?
So is Nature itself taking any steps to address the issue?
It’s only fair—if Biden gets coverage for announcing he’s dropping out of the race, Trump should get equal coverage when he announces he’s dropping out.
The first time I encounter an unfamiliar subject, I start by trying to identify the different current leading theories and their main points of contention. Then my impulse to evaluate the competing claims for myself motivates my further research, and keeps me critically engaged with the evidence. It’s like I’m building different conceptual models in parallel, and seeing how each new piece fits differently in each one.
I find that can often be better than lectures where the professor is advocating for their own specific theory, or introductory courses where textbooks stick to consensus opinions and avoid open questions. In those cases you’re just passively assembling the model you’re provided—but I find it’s ultimately more enlightening if you try to break things while you’re building them.
You know every Wikipedia user has a user page(s) they can put whatever they like on? It’s not in the article namespace, but if you just want to put info about yourself somewhere on Wikipedia that’s the easiest way.