Israel is going nowhere, and we in the Arab world have to deal with it. That means offering Israelis prosperity, security and friendship; all Israel needs to do is overcome their prejudices and give Palestinians their rights
In the case of this new study, specifically, the failure to confirm old assumptions pointed to an important truth: that circumstances matter more in shaping children’s lives than Mischel and his colleagues seemed to appreciate.
This new paper found that among kids whose mothers had a college degree, those who waited for a second marshmallow did no better in the long run—in terms of standardized test scores and mothers’ reports of their children’s behavior—than those who dug right in. Similarly, among kids whose mothers did not have college degrees, those who waited did no better than those who gave in to temptation, once other factors like household income and the child’s home environment at age 3 (evaluated according to a standard research measure that notes, for instance, the number of books that researchers observed in the home and how responsive mothers were to their children in the researchers’ presence) were taken into account. For those kids, self-control alone couldn’t overcome economic and social disadvantages.
The failed replication of the marshmallow test does more than just debunk the earlier notion; it suggests other possible explanations for why poorer kids would be less motivated to wait for that second marshmallow. For them, daily life holds fewer guarantees: There might be food in the pantry today, but there might not be tomorrow, so there is a risk that comes with waiting. And even if their parents promise to buy more of a certain food, sometimes that promise gets broken out of financial necessity.
Maybe so. But might it also be the case that children raised in more affluent homes will have been taught the value of resisting their impulses? I say this because one of my own children has had a very demanding sweet tooth from earliest childhood. He is also impulsive by nature. It has taken years of effort on the part of his mother and me to train him to say no to his impulses — not only for sugar, but, as he has gotten older and started earning spending money, his enthusiasms for buying things that strike his fancy. Many times I have pondered the difficulty he is going to have managing his money if he doesn’t get this impulsiveness under control. He’s a very good kid, highly moral and responsible, but impulsiveness is his Achilles’ heel.
He’s not being raised in poverty. We are middle class people, but culturally I guess that puts us with more in common with the affluent than not. Our impulsive child has been raised in a stable household — materially and emotionally — so there are no environmental factors that nurture his impulsiveness. From an Orthodox Christian point of view, this is simply one of his passions, something he has to struggle against. I have my own particular passions (anger and gluttony). Orthodoxy teaches that life itself is a struggle to crucify the passions and order ones desires towards the will of God. There is nothing wrong in principle with wanting to eat a marshmallow, but if your reason and your will are overcome by that desire to eat a marshmallow, you are weak, and can fall into sin. The regular fasting that Orthodox Christians do is designed to train the will to desire what God desires for us, not what we desire for ourselves.
Anyway, all of that is prelude to what I want to tell you. Last night, I was at a dinner party with some friends. One of them, N., told a long story about a local carpenter she and her husband had hired to do some renovations on their house. I won’t tell the story in depth, because the story is hers to tell, and she’s a writer. The gist of the story is that N. and her husband have been working with this guy for a long time — it’s a big project — and have gotten to know him well. He’s working class, and economically quite precarious. N. said the man has become a friend, and that she and her husband have been working hard to help him stabilize his life.
N. said — again, I’m summing up, but the details are sort of breathtaking — that the carpenter’s personal life is a study in chaos. He cannot grasp that he has the power to determine future events by the choices he makes today. A sense of moral agency totally escapes him. He sees N.’s ordinary family — they have kids — and thinks that they are simply one of fate’s winners. N. talked about the extraordinary lengths she and her husband have gone to befriend and to help this man, but how ultimately it has been futile. No matter what they say to him, no matter what they do for him, he cannot get it together. And he is leaving all kinds of chaos in his wake (several wives, kids, etc.).
I told N. that my wife and I have been in the very same situation, trying to help someone just like that who had become a friend … and in the end, concluding that it was futile. I wrote about it in the past on this blog: how I had gone to my lawyer, offering to pay him to represent this impoverished friend in a particular case. Lawyer said he would take my money and meet with the friend, but that in his lengthy experience with these cases, he could tell me that I’d be wasting my money and his time, because my friend would not follow through. It’s in the nature of people who get themselves into these kinds of situations, he said, to keep doing what got them into that situation in the first place. I told him I would be willing to take that chance to help her.
Next time I saw this friend, I told her to make an appointment with Lawyer X., that he would be willing to advise her, and that I would pay the bill. She thanked me profusely, but said that wouldn’t be necessary that she had decided to … well, that she had decided to keep doing the same stupid thing that got her into this bind in the first place. The country lawyer’s practical experience in dealing with the poor was wiser than my heart-on-the-sleeve idealism. Not for the first time did I feel like a character in a Flannery O’Connor story. (My future epitaph: “Call me Azzberry”.)
At dinner last night, my friend and I dwelled on the intractability of human nature in cases like this. She said that she had to conclude that a stable family life in childhood provides psychological goods that cannot be given through any other way. There aren’t enough government programs, personal charitable efforts, or anything else to compensate adequately for a chaotic childhood. My friend was certainly not saying that we can wash our hands of the responsibility for our neighbor’s welfare, but she was concluding — accurately — that we have to recognize the limits of our ability to change the lives of others. She was also saying that her experience with the carpenter made her more fully aware of how important it is to do everything she can to give her own children a stable home life.
Notice that I’m not saying — nor did I hear her to say — “affluent” home life. My folks never had a lot of money. We were an ordinary working-class to lower-middle-class family. But the gift my mother and father gave me of an orderly, stable childhood was priceless, I now see. How did they do it? They were both imperfect people who endured their share of difficulties in marriage, caused by their own flaws, as well as a period of economic stress. My father is no longer with us to discuss the matter, but the truth is, neither one of them would have been given over to much self-reflection on the question. They were the kind of people who would have simply said, “We made a vow,” and left it at that. For them, that was reason enough to stay together — that, and they always made it clear that the needs of us kids came before their own. That was just how my folks went through life. Not to get too philosophical about it, but for them, that was the Tao.
That wouldn’t have guaranteed stability in my family’s or my late sister’s, but they gave us such a good model of how family was supposed to work. Again, I don’t want to hold my mom and dad out to have been perfect. I don’t think there are any perfect families, and certainly mine had its particular flaws, some of which had unfortunate long-term consequences. That said, I am so very grateful to my parents for holding things together, and showing my sister and me that it is possible to build that kind of life, even when you don’t have much money.
My father was the chief breadwinner in our household, and, because they were a traditional 1950s-era couple, he was the one who dictated how our financial resources would be handled. I find this interesting with relation to the Atlantic article because having grown up very poor in the Great Depression, he ought to have been shaped by the experience of inconstancy in a particular way. Remember, the Atlantic writer said:
There might be food in the pantry today, but there might not be tomorrow, so there is a risk that comes with waiting. And even if their parents promise to buy more of a certain food, sometimes that promise gets broken out of financial necessity.
That’s how my father grew up, but that same experience made him far more likely to do what he could to hedge against chaos. He talked to Ruthie and me a lot about these things, relating him to his childhood. His own father was away from home for most of my dad’s early childhood, entirely because he had to work and send money back to support his wife, children, and elderly mother, who lived in the household. That sense of vulnerability made a profound impression on my dad, who was determined that his children would not feel it, if he could help it.
Daddy wasn’t unique in that. What I can’t quite understand today is why his response to childhood poverty and insecurity was so very different from what is normal today. That is, Daddy’s response was to live as an adult in such a way that he was less vulnerable to that chaos, and in which his own children were made less vulnerable to the chaos that would have come had outside pressures broken the family apart. I’ve written many times in this space about how he had deep compassion for people who were poor and suffering victims of circumstance, but also something bordering on contempt for people who were poor and suffering, but who always blamed others, or fate, for their suffering. He would say, “You can’t do nothin’ for people like that.” This was the opinion of a man who had once been poor, and who had lived his entire life in the same community as poor people, and working with them. Kind of like that country lawyer I mentioned above.
It seems to me that aside from his personal qualities, my father was the beneficiary of a local culture that, for better or for worse, had a strong bias against people living morally disordered lives. I should add that my dad had much more hostility towards middle class and wealthy people who lived that way. “They know better,” he would say. “They don’t have an excuse.” In his case, it wasn’t so much a matter of religion — my dad wasn’t particularly observant — as it was a matter of shame and honor. The culture that shaped my father’s code said it was dishonorable for men and women to live in ways that violated its core moral code. I heard my dad say on a number of occasions, “There’s no shame in being poor,” but he also spoke with stern judgment against men who abandoned their families, people who wouldn’t work, and so forth.
That code could be harsh, but it was more realistic about life than a lot of what passes for wisdom today. I think that has a lot to do with why Jordan Peterson is so popular. He gives to young men a sense of moral agency. Peterson is not Moses coming down from the summit of Sinai, but he talks common sense to a culture that has forgotten it. There has never been a society, and never will be a society, in which somebody can live like a fool and not pay the consequences — and for that matter, inflict consequences on others. You can’t not show up for work and expect to keep your job forever. You can’t ignore your kids and expect that they will grow up to be responsible people. You can’t get loaded every weekend and wonder why your roof is falling in, and won’t fix itself. You can’t allow television and social media to raise your children, and expect that they will be good. And so forth.
“The world doesn’t owe you a living,” my father would lecture me, usually when I hadn’t done my homework, or failed to do something I was supposed to have done. I suppose this attitude is what made my dad a natural conservative. He couldn’t stand people who were ungrateful and lazy. His basic attitude towards us kids was: I bust my ass to provide for y’all, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to let you waste the opportunities you’ve been given. There was a time in my life when I thought he was so square, but the older I get, the more I see that there really isn’t any other way to live. My dad was keen to help people who were down on their luck, and I see now that he allowed himself to be taken advantage of by some folks with hard-luck stories. Mostly, though, what he was eager to do was to teach people how to help themselves, and to encourage them to do so. For him, this was a matter of natural justice. A society in which people were rewarded even though they did the wrong thing, or failed to do the right thing, was not a just or good society. And doing the right thing always meant subjugating your own desires to the greater good, especially the greater good of your family.
Here’s a funny thing: a few years back, when I was working with the African-American actor Wendell Pierce on his memoir of growing up in south Louisiana, I spent some time speaking with his Uncle L.C. Edwards, the last surviving member of Wendell’s parents’ generation. Uncle L.C. was the same age as my father, and like him, had grown up in rural poverty. I loved the stories of L.C.’s parents (that is, Wendell’s grandparents): poor black farmers who weren’t educated, but who had a very strong religious ethic, and who placed enormous value on education and self-discipline as the only reliable means of self-advancement. Poverty was the enemy of both L.C. and my father, but Lloyd and his siblings also had to deal with Jim Crow. If memory serves, every one of the children of Wendell’s grandparents got educated, and escaped poverty. I’m telling you, the chapter on Papo and Mamo (the grandchildren’s name for L.C.’s parents) is worth the price of the book. Here’s a characteristic excerpt:
One Christmas evening after supper, the Edwardses went to call on their College Point neighbors, to wish them a happy holiday. The kids were startled to go into one house and to see that all that family had eaten for their Christmas meal was potatoes and grits. When they returned home, Papo told the children, “This is what I mean when I tell you it’s important to save for a rainy day. If you put your money aside now, you will have enough to eat well on Christmas.”
Given the man Papo was, if the Edwardses had any food left, he probably took it to that poor family and didn’t tell his own children for the sake of preserving their neighbors’ dignity.
His children remembered Papo as a slow talker but a deep thinker. He never made a quick decision, but acted only after prayer, deliberation, and sleeping on it. Whatever the answer was, he arrived at it through careful reason, not passion. Acting on impulse was the sure way to lose your money, in Papo’s view.
Papo worked for a time in a sugar factory and received his weekly wages in a brown packet. He had a firm rule with himself: Wait twenty-four hours before spending a penny of it. Uncle L.C. said that as a young working man, he thought his father’s rule was silly. You have the money, he figured, so why not enjoy it?
But when he got married and started a family of his own, he understood Papo’s good sense and followed the rule himself. Uncle L.C., who worked at the DuPont chemical plant, has done well through saving and investing over the years. To this day, he credits Papo for teaching him by word and example the importance of being careful with your money and not letting your passions guide your decisions.
Talking with L.C. was like speaking with a black version of my own father. Though he had long been in retirement when I met him, L.C. was always thinking of ways he could make a little money. He told me about how he would take fatherless black boys from a nearby trailer park, and try to teach them something about working to make money and to plan for the future. He told me how sorry he felt for those young men, who had no father in the home to offer them direction, or a sense of responsible manhood.
But his pity had strict limits. Like my own father, L.C. was death on those who wouldn’t work or practice self-discipline. He told me about how his own wife, a retired public schoolteacher, quit her job the very day the last of their adult children no longer needed their help paying for college. She was of a generation for whom education was the most precious thing, their ticket out of poverty and oppression. Today, though, she was worn down by students who wouldn’t work, wouldn’t behave themselves, and parents who blamed the schools and the teachers for their kids’ failures.
American culture is far less friendly to the worldview of those Depression babies like L.C. and my father. Politics and economics are complicated things. You can’t simply apply a moral code to every situation, and expect it to solve the problem. But let’s recognize this: very few Americans in 2018 are as materially poor as my dad and L.C. Edwards were when they came into this world in the 1930s. Is there anybody in America today who is poorer than a black child born to uneducated farmers living in the Deep South under American apartheid? And yet, look what they did with what they had been given! There never will be a society in which family won’t matter, and in which moral self-discipline won’t matter.
The wealthy, and those with social connections, can absorb a lot more disorder than the less well off can, but money won’t last forever.
The world we have today is wealthier, and in some ways is better able to defray the cost of that disorder. We have more of a social safety net today than we did back then. But this world is much poorer in social capital, which is not something you can raise from Chinese bankers.
There’s a lot of brokenness in this country, and no clear way to fix it. The people my dinner companion and I were talking about last night are white. They live in Charles Murray’s fictional Fishtown. They diverge greatly from the core values and practices of stable middle-class and well-off Americans, in ways that were not true a couple of generations ago. Society has grown far more individualistic and tolerant of non-conformity. This is not entirely a bad thing! But the cost to people who don’t have a lot of social and material capital to begin with has been immense. People love to imagine that if only we brought good jobs back to America, or voted in this or that political party, then these problems would solve themselves. I don’t believe that’s true. That’s no reason not to try to improve opportunities for people, but there are no government programs or private charitable initiatives that can meaningfully compensate for the loss of a sense of moral order and purpose.
Finally, I phrase occurred to me while writing this post, a fragment from something I’d read ages ago. I googled it, and the source turned up here. Here is the excerpt I was thinking about. The writer is talking about the 1950s:
It was a more human world in that it was a sexier world, because sex was still a story. Each high school senior class had exactly one girl who got pregnant and one guy who was the father, and it was the town’s annual scandal. Either she went somewhere and had the baby and put it up for adoption, or she brought it home as a new baby sister, or the couple got married and the town topic changed. It was a stricter, tougher society, but its bruising sanctions came from ancient wisdom.
We have all had a moment when all of a sudden we looked around and thought: The world is changing, I am seeing it change. This is for me the moment when the new America began: I was at a graduation ceremony at a public high school in New Jersey. It was 1971 or 1972. One by one a stream of black-robed students walked across the stage and received their diplomas. And a pretty young girl with red hair, big under her graduation gown, walked up to receive hers. The auditorium stood up and applauded. I looked at my sister: “She’s going to have a baby.”
The girl was eight months pregnant and had had the courage to go through with her pregnancy and take her finals and finish school despite society’s disapproval.
But: Society wasn’t disapproving. It was applauding. Applause is a right and generous response for a young girl with grit and heart. And yet, in the sound of that applause I heard a wall falling, a thousand-year wall, a wall of sanctions that said: We as a society do not approve of teenaged unwed motherhood because it is not good for the child, not good for the mother and not good for us.
The old America had a delicate sense of the difference between the general (“We disapprove”) and the particular (Let’s go help her”). We had the moral self-confidence to sustain the paradox, to sustain the distance between “official” disapproval and “unofficial” succor. The old America would not have applauded the girl in the big graduation gown, but some of its individuals would have helped her not only materially but with some measure of emotional support. We don’t so much anymore. For all our tolerance and talk we don’t show much love to what used to be called girls in trouble. As we’ve gotten more open-minded we’ve gotten more closed-hearted.
Message to society: What you applaud, you encourage. And: Watch out what you celebrate.
The author of those words is Peggy Noonan. She published them in, get this, 1992. Some things have gotten better over the last 26 years. For example, when she published this, David Dinkins was mayor of her town, New York City, and the city would record just over 2,000 homicides. Know how many the city recorded last year, 25 years after the column was published? Only 290. Progress is real!
On the other hand, I can’t get out of my head the words spoken to me by a professor at an Evangelical Christian college. Speaking about the student body, which is predominantly white, he told me that he didn’t think most of them would ever be able to form stable families. I was shocked by this.These were not kids from the blighted projects or wretched rural trailer parks. Why not? I asked.
He said, “Because they have never seen it done.”
We live in a society in which the moral code that we applaud and the people we celebrate all say: Take the marshmallow now, and don’t worry about the future. This is going to cost us.
Talk of higher education reform tends to focus, understandably enough, on the cost of college. After all, steady tuition increases, rising student debt, and eye-popping sticker prices at well-known colleges and universities leave too many students and parents wondering if college is out of reach.
For all this healthy attention as to whether students can afford to go to college, however, we’ve too often lost sight of an equally crucial question — whether they’ll actually earn a degree once they’re there. The disheartening reality is that far too many students invest scarce time and money in attending a college from which they never graduate, and frequently wind up worse off than if they’d simply foregone college altogether.
In 2016, more than 40 percent of all students who started at a four-year college six years earlier had not yet earned a degree. Odds are that most of those students never will. In real terms, this means that nearly two million students who begin college each year will drop out before earning a diploma.
Indeed, according to our research, there are more than 600 four-year colleges where less than a third of students will graduate within six years of arriving on campus. When we look at public two-year colleges, most of which are community colleges, the graduation rate for full-time, first-time students is even lower. Only about 26 percent of students at those schools will have completed their degree within three years.
These dismal completion rates create significant private and societal costs. For individual students, the costs come in the form of student debt, lost time, and lower expected earnings (median annual earnings for students who complete a bachelor’s degree are $15,000 higher than for those who attended college but didn’t earn a degree). For society, the costs show up in forgone tax revenue and wasted public subsidies. In aggregate, some estimate that the total private and public costs of non-completion impose a half a trillion dollar drag on the economy.
In seeking to respond to these challenges, education scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and Third Way have joined together to commission a series of studies by five experts laying out the challenges of non-completion and the urgency for families, educators, and policymakers to take action to address it. (You can find those papers here.)
Now, we do well to heed the risks that a narrow focus on college completion can invite — especially when such an emphasis starts to shapes the incentives and strictures of public policy.
As we have seen in K–12, it is all too possible for simple metrics to yield gamesmanship, corner cutting, or manipulation. We are all-too-familiar with colleges that are content to churn out watered-down degrees with little labor market value, or that take care to only admit the most academically prepared students — leaving someone else to serve others for whom the path to completion will be more difficult. Obviously, measures that encourage colleges to “game the system” are a step in the wrong direction.
Thus, reforms intended to incentivize or improve completion rates need to be designed with scrupulous attention to potential consequences and due regard for the full range of outcomes that matter to taxpayers and students.
That said, there are examples of intriguing programs at the state and college-level that merit careful attention. Thirty-two states currently use performance-based funding policies that award a larger share of public subsidies to colleges that deliver impressive performance metrics. While the overall success of these policies is still up for debate, what’s clear is that states like Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee are using these policies to gently prod colleges to focus on their students’ outcomes. In such states, some higher education institutions have modified their advising, counseling, and academic services to prioritize retention and completion.
Approached with care and appropriate attention to possible perverse incentives, performance-based funding is one way to encourage colleges to put more emphasis on supporting the students they enroll.
At the campus level, it’s vital to note that low-cost, quick-fix programs are predictably hard to come by. While there are no silver bullets, we know that higher education providers are already making hundreds of decisions that impact students’ experience and motivation in a way that makes it more or less likely they will succeed.
For example, Georgia State University issues automatic completion grants to college-level juniors and seniors with unmet financial need. On average, these grants are about $900 each, and they help students overcome the stumbling blocks that can be posed by expenses like heating bills and textbook costs. In 2016, nearly 2,000 students received completion grants, with GSU reporting that 61 percent of seniors who received one graduated within two semesters. Programs like these illustrate what colleges can do to help students graduate, without compromising standards or lowering the bar for college completion.
Even in these polarized times, we can agree that college students should complete their degrees and that taxpayers should get repaid for the funds they make available through student loans. We have the opportunity to seek solutions that focus not only on whether students can afford to arrive on campus, but on whether those students willing to do the work will leave with the education and the credential they came for. Left or right, that’s a cause we can all embrace.
In court, an emotional Damien Hall called to his daughter ‘I love you, baby. Be good for mum,’ as he was led to the cells. Worker dead, two critical after gas leak at paper mill One worker is dead and two are fighting for life after being overcome by toxic …
Even grandmas can’t resist the charm that is Justin Timberlake. Back in March, 88-year-old Bette, also known as Nammie, became overcome with emotion when she received surprise tickets to Justin’s Man of the Woods concert. “Is this for real? For real real?
New Delhi, May 12 : Project Nanhi Kali, a non-government girl-child education programme jointly managed by K.C. Mahindra Education Trust and Naandi foundation expects to further deploy 25,000 more ‘Yellow tablets’ in the coming two-three years to improve training standards, overcome the shortage of teachers and reduce drop-out rate in the most backward districts of rural India. According to the programme’s implementation partner the Naandi Foundation, the project which has been in existence for more than 22 years has imparted education to over 350,000 girl students from across 10-15 states.
New research published in Molecular Oncology may help explain why African American men are at a higher risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer and a higher risk of dying from the disease compared with European American men.
When investigators analyzed prostate cancer samples from patients, they found that a signaling molecule called interleukin-6 (IL6) is overexpressed in tumor-adjacent tissues in African-American men compared with European-American men.
Additional experiments revealed that IL6 inhibits expression of the p53 tumor suppressor protein, promotes self-renewal of cancer cells, and is associated with stem cell–like properties in prostate cancer cell lines.
“Our most recent research into the biological underpinnings for why African American men are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer and die of the disease relative to other races or ethnicities has uncovered that IL6 is enriched in the tissue environment surrounding high-grade prostate cancer tumors from African American men,” said senior author Dr. Aliccia Bollig-Fischer, of the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit. “Not only did we uncover evidence that IL6 inactivates the p53 tumor suppressor in this context, our research also revealed that IL6 from the cancer cell environment causes an increase of a protein variant called MBD2_v2. This fuels an expansion of aggressive cancer cells, known as prostate cancer stem cells, which are considered to be the source of therapy resistance and metastatic tumor growth.”
In a follow-up study underway, Dr. Bollig-Fischer’s laboratory team will gain a more complete understanding of this novel cancer cell signaling process activated by IL6 derived from the tumor environment. “Our goal is to identify opportunities to develop transformative, targeted therapies to overcome race disparities and improve outcomes for all men with aggressive prostate cancer,” she said.
[The study appeared in Molecular Oncology, and is available here.]
The post Study May Help Explain Racial Disparities in Prostate Cancer appeared first on American Renaissance.
Before you read on, watch the demonstration and ask yourself: Did Google just pass the Turing test? There’s so much humanity in a well-placed “ummm.”
Booking a dinner reservation isn’t what Turing had in mind but if this is a failing grade it’s at least a high failing grade. With a few years of refinement, a D- is in sight. Within 10-20 years, they’ll ace it. Fifty years from now, the population of Japan will be down to six guys and they’ll all be on the phone 24/7 with their AI girlfriends having the liveliest, most charming conversations.
Consider this your latest reminder that very soon you won’t be able to trust anything you see or hear. People are already having ethics freakouts over the Duplex technology:
Google Assistant making calls pretending to be human not only without disclosing that it's a bot, but adding "ummm" and "aaah" to deceive the human on the other end with the room cheering it… horrifying. Silicon Valley is ethically lost, rudderless and has not learned a thing.
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) May 9, 2018
As digital technologies become better at doing human things, the focus has to be on how to protect humans, how to delineate humans and machines, and how to create reliable signals of each—see 2016. This is straight up, delilberate deception. Not okay. https://t.co/XTUn4tvDik
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) May 9, 2018
There are “woke” takes too, of course. Just as every new life in creation instantly becomes a host for bacteria, so too every new cultural development of note instantly attracts virtue-signaling about how the underprivileged are destined to be cheated or oppressed by it:
It seems pretty clear who will be at the receiving end of those phone calls. It won’t be other “busy” people. It will be the restaurant hosts, the hair stylists, the receptionists, and others whose (often low-paid) job it is to field calls from clients. It is doubtful that Google Duplex will be used to set up meetings with people who are important to you—you’d want to do that yourself, right?
Duplex shields those who reside high up on the hill from those down below. It relieves them of the awkwardness of having to talk to someone of lower socioeconomic standing. The functionality will likely be very popular for that reason, but it is important to understand the extra burden put on those at the receiving end: They will spend their day trying to figure out whether the entity at the other end of the line is human. (One possible benefit: At least Duplex is unlikely to be a jerk to a service worker.)
Said one indignant futurologist, “I would feel offended if someone considers their time so much more valuable than mine that they think it is acceptable to demand minutes of my time to deal with a transaction they’ve delegated to a server farm, and any existing relationship would be greatly damaged.” It makes me laugh to think of people watching the clip above and imagining a future where jobs like “receptionist” still exist, with human beings forced to conduct petty phone transactions with algorithms all day long. As Google improves AI and makes it cheap and ubiquitous, voice transactions will quickly become inefficient and archaic. You’ll just tell Duplex what you want, the AI will communicate silently with the AI of the business you’re transacting with, and the reservation will be booked. Nothing that doesn’t absolutely require human interaction will be done, or need to be done, by voice.
What we’re really watching here, I assume, is the germ of AI companions. Booking a reservation is a test to see if a human being can be led to believe it’s conversing with another human being, even in a simple chat with a specific purpose. From here it’s a matter of building that out. The logical endpoint of Duplex isn’t to talk to customer service, it’s to talk to you. You’ve seen this movie! Google might as well sign Scarlett Johansson for the rights to her voice now and get cracking.
Here’s Google’s post describing the challenges they had to overcome to get something natural-sounding. I do think they’re going to come under pressure to eliminate the gratuitous tricks designed to fool people, like peppering the speech with “um,” and maybe to build a rule into it requiring Duplex to admit that it’s AI if asked. That could defeat the purpose, of course: Some human beings might hang up on a robot rather than proceed. But since, for now, this is an application for businesses, that risk seems small. What restaurateur is going to hang up on someone who’s trying to book dinner just because their Google gizmo is doing it for them? They’d be throwing money away. Besides, things won’t get *really* weird until they figure out how to make the AI super-charming. Imagine chatting with a flirty customer who has you laughing and then it suddenly occurs to you, “Wait — are you a robot?” And the flirty response comes: “Do you want me to be?”
Boeing plans to begin delivering the new high-tech KC-46 Pegasus Tanker to the U.S. Air Force in the very near future.
There have been exhaustive tests, and the data from those tests has been turned over to the FAA and the Pentagon for final certification. Depending on how long it takes the government to review the data and provide the required certifications, the new tanker will be flying and refueling soon. This is great news because the planes that the new tanker will be replacing are on average 55 years old and many date back to the Eisenhower Administration.
It may surprise some to hear that the KC-46 Pegasus Tanker is a good news story on many different levels. Why a surprise? Because some treat every development challenge as a failure — even when those challenges are overcome and the final product is spectacular. Additionally, some contract bureaucrats inside the Pentagon have an interest in fomenting discord and running down the contractor and product as a negotiating tactic. So factual accuracy becomes the first victim.
Once the facts are known, it is clear that the new KC-46 Tanker is an awesome plane, with the most modern and up-to-date technology to help our war fighters defend and protect America. What’s more, it is a huge success from a taxpayer perspective.
Some people have erroneously spoken of cost overruns. But simple math proves that this is false. The Tanker program has cost $7 billion less than originally estimated. Additionally, Boeing has put about $3 billion of its own money into developing the Tanker. The taxpayer hasn’t been asked to foot a dime of those development costs. This sort of commitment should demonstrate Boeing’s dedication to delivering the best tanker in the world to our war fighters at the best possible price for the taxpayers.
Gen. Carlton Everhart, head of the Air Force’s Air Mobility Command, has flown the KC-46 so that he could personally assess the Tanker’s performance. So what did this Four Star General with more than 4,500 flight hours under his belt say about the new Tanker? He had high praise for the tanker’s performance and its high tech capabilities, as well as its versatility.
Everhart said the Tanker was responsive and has “game-changing technology.” He was impressed with the high-tech automation built into the tanker, as it will allow pilots to focus more on the details of their mission.
“It will bring tremendous capability to our joint war fighter,” Everhart said.
This tanker is more than a tanker. It is also a transport plane that can deliver personnel, supplies and cargo, and patients in need of medical attention. All of this is in addition to the tanker’s aerial refueling mission, which extends the range and on-site time capabilities of our fighters, bombers and intelligence efforts.
This tanker includes defensive systems that allow it to serve closer to the conflict and keep its crew safe.
Simply stated, every detail has been worked out and engineered to give our war fighters the highest quality, most high-tech and most versatile tanker imaginable.
When I see press reports generated by contracting bureaucrats who bad-mouth the new plane or the contractor, but also read glowing reports from actual pilots and the General who will have command of the planes, I will go with the experienced and knowledgable war fighter every time.
Let’s hope Congress has enough sense to ignore uninformed naysayers who have no real or practical experience with the plane. As Gen. Everhart said: “Every now and then, you’ve got to get out and smell the jet, look at the jet, and understand what the test points are.”
The bottom line is that war fighters love the new KC-46 Pegasus Tanker and are excited to receive this new state-of-the-art plane that will serve our nation effectively for the next generation or more. Congress should listen to what our war fighters have to say.
George Landrith is the President of Frontiers of Freedom, an educational foundation founded by former United States Sen. Malcolm Wallop that promotes peace through strength and a strong national defense.
The shocking case has sparked outrage in Finland after the country’s Supreme Court rejected an appeal for a harsher sentence for the asylum seeker.
The man – named in Finnish media as Juusuf Muhamed Abbudin – lured the youngster to the yard of a dated apartment block and in the city of Tampere in 2016.
But the 23-year-old was given a sentence of just three years after both the Pirkanmaa District Court and the Appeal Court in the city of Turku convicted him of the lesser charge of aggravated sexual abuse in 2017.
Prosecutors then took the case to the Supreme Court in a bid to have a tougher sentence imposed.
But judges ruled the incident was not classed as rape, saying the young girl was not forced into the sexual act or overcome by fear.
Abbudin, who also sent explicit messages to the child, was ordered to pay her €3,000 (£2,650) in compensation.
Critics of the decision are now calling for much tougher sentences for child abusers.
Tuula Tamminen, a professor of Child Psychiatry at the University of Tampere, said the young girl would have been unable to give consent as she would not have fully understood what was happening.
Last year, National Coalition Party MP Kari Tolvanen, called for harsher sentences, saying: “The amendment would introduce harsher sentences for serious sexual offences against children overall.
“In my view, that is fully justified, for example in light of a child’s vulnerability, even if the act does not meet the threshold for rape.”
The post Migrant Has Sex with Girl Aged 10 — But Court Says It’s Not Rape appeared first on American Renaissance.