internal-storyline-no

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      A Shift in the World of Science

      by

      What this year’s Nobels can teach us about science and humanity.Alan Burdick and Technology observers have grown increasingly vocal in recent years about the threat that artificial intelligence poses to the human variety. A.I. models can write and talk like us, draw and paint like us, crush us at chess and Go. They express an unnerving simulacrum of creativity, not least where the truth is concerned.A.I. is coming for science, too, as this week’s Nobel Prizes seemed keen to demonstrate. On Tuesday, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to two scientists who helped computers “learn” closer to the way the human brain does. A day later, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to three researchers for using A.I. to invent new proteins and reveal the structure of existing ones — a problem that stumped biologists for decades, yet could be solved by A.I. in minutes.The Nobel Committee for Chemistry announced the winners last week.Jonathan Nackstrand/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesCue the grousing: This was computer science, not physics or chemistry! Indeed, of the five laureates on Tuesday and Wednesday, arguably only one, the University of Washington biochemist David Baker, works in the field he was awarded in.The scientific Nobels tend to award concrete results over theories, empirical discovery over pure idea. But that schema didn’t quite hold this year, either. One prize went to scientists who leaned into physics as a foundation on which to build computer models used for no groundbreaking result in particular. The laureates on Wednesday, on the other hand, had created computer models that made big advancements in biochemistry.These were outstanding and fundamentally human accomplishments, to be sure. But the Nobel recognition underscored a chilling prospect: Henceforth, perhaps scientists will merely craft the tools that make the breakthroughs, rather than do the revolutionary work themselves or even understand how it came about. Artificial intelligence designs and builds hundreds of molecular Notre Dames and Hagia Sophias, and a researcher gets a pat for inventing the shovel.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Robotic Future of Pro Sports

      by

      We explore a looming change in sports officiating. For most of sports history, there was no recourse when a referee made a bad call. Fans could boo and players could complain, but the game went on. Instant replay changed that a few decades ago, allowing coaches to challenge a call and ask the referees to review it. That made games fairer, but it also made them slower.Now, many professional sports are on the verge of a new technological breakthrough: automated referee systems, which get the call right every time and significantly reduce delays from reviews.Leagues insist that these systems, which they are testing in the minors or in preseason games, are not meant to eliminate officials. Umpires and referees are still necessary to make nuanced calls — checked swings in baseball, charging in basketball, pass interference in football. But the leagues believe automated systems could make games both fairer and faster.In today’s newsletter, I’ll explain what this technology can do as well as the concerns that some league officials have about it.Referees check an instant replay during an N.F.L. game. Adam Hunger/Associated PressState of the toolsTechnology is built into the rules of professional sports. The N.F.L. requires instant-replay reviews of all scoring plays and turnovers to ensure that the calls are right.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Inside the Sally Rooney Fan Base

      by

      We explore some of the most passionate fans in literature.On Wednesday, a crowd of mostly young women, many carrying bookstore tote bags, filled a venue on the bank of the River Thames. They — we — were there to hear the Irish novelist Sally Rooney discuss “Intermezzo,” her latest novel.Rooney is a literary star, and each new release is a highly anticipated and heavily marketed cultural event. Fans attend midnight release parties. The lucky few who get advance copies wield them as status symbols on social media. “I did post the book,” a 26-year-old Rooney fan told me. “Everyone knows I’m obsessed with her.”Rooney’s writing embodies a kind of cool that feels of the moment. Her style is unforced, spare and incisive — the literary equivalent of Gen Z’s habit of omitting capital letters from text messages, or the doe-eyed, bored poses of influencers on Instagram. “If writing is almost too effusive, too emotional, it becomes a bit cliché,” another fan told me. “I think her writing feels really fresh because it’s pared back.”The simplicity of Rooney’s language is part of its power. Her most emotionally resonant sentences have word counts in the single digits, and they arise in mundane situations. “Normal People,” Rooney’s second novel, is about two young people, Connell and Marianne, who are negotiating their relationship, with its various power imbalances, while feeling out their place in the world. I think about this scene a lot:“She smiled, rubbed at her nose. He unzipped his black puffer jacket and put it over her shoulders. They were standing very close. She would have lain on the ground and let him walk over her body if he wanted, he knew that.”Many of the Rooney fans I spoke with at the book talk on Wednesday — all in their late 20s — praised the emotional truth of her writing. “I couldn’t believe that somebody had written something that I related to so much,” a fan said of “Normal People.” Rooney’s books deal in the fraught business of interpersonal relationships — the difficulty of vulnerability, miscommunication, understanding one’s own power over another. At an “Intermezzo” midnight release party in Brooklyn.Ye Fan for The New York TimesHer characters often consider their political and social context, what it means to be young and to be in love right now, at a time when connection can be difficult and things appear to be falling apart. In Rooney’s third novel, “Beautiful World, Where Are You,” the character Alice writes to her best friend, Eileen:“I think of the twentieth century as one long question, and in the end we got the answer wrong. Aren’t we unfortunate babies to be born when the world ended?”At the event, I found myself thinking about Taylor Swift and the Eras Tour, which I attended a couple of weeks ago. There are, of course, considerable differences between Rooney and Swift. Yet their fan bases are demographically similar — there is certainly overlap — and they share a desire to see themselves in their idol’s work. I thought, then, about how few avenues Rooney’s fans, as opposed to Swift’s, had to connect to her. A key part of Swift’s appeal is her willingness to narrate her life as it happens. She courts her fans’ investment not only in her work but in herself. Swift is an active participant in her celebrity. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      An Escape from the Front Line in Ukraine

      by

      An excerpt from one of the most ambitious stories in The Times Magazine’s history.Today, The New York Times Magazine published one of the most ambitious stories in its long history — an account of a Russian military officer’s desertion and escape. Sarah Topol spent over a year and a half investigating the Russian military and reporting in eight countries across four continents.In the story, the officer — identified by a pseudonym, Ivan — feigns a serious back injury to escape the front in Ukraine and eventually defect. He uses a cane to make that story convincing. Now, he must retrieve his passport, which is locked with other officers’ passports in the H.R. office of his base in Russia. Each passport has a paper slip in it, logging various personal details. He buys a fake version of the passport online: good enough to fool the military, but not to fool anyone at the borders he needs to cross.So Ivan devises a plan to get his hands on the real one — and swap it with the fake. Here’s how he does it.Ivan knew the office from years of worthless paperwork and reports. The H.R. manager sat at a desk on the right side of the room. Next to him was a six-foot-high metal safe with three drawers. They were unlocked with a key. The passports were kept in folders inside the drawers.To complicate matters, Ivan could use only one arm — the other would be holding the cane as part of his act. So he had to walk in, with his cane in his left hand, take the passport out of his pocket and somehow swap it for the fake. He would also need to remove the paper slip from the original and place it into the duplicate before returning it. How could he do all that with just one hand?The H.R. manager’s desk faced the room. Ivan would have to find a way to reach into his pocket while holding both the cane and the passport. No, that wouldn’t work. He would need to find a way to sit down, put down his cane so he could have two free hands and then reach into his pocket — but that motion could be seen from the side or the back.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The N.F.L. Now Allows Helmet Caps

      by

      Do they work?Now that the N.F.L. season has begun, you may have noticed football players wearing a strange sort of cover over their helmets. It’s called a Guardian Cap, and it adds a layer of foam to the outside of the helmet, with the aim of reducing brain injuries.N.F.L. players have worn the caps during summer practice for the past few years, but this is the first season the league is allowing them in games. A handful of players wore them during the opening weekend.The company behind the caps, Guardian Sports, says they reduce the force of the impact when a player’s head is hit. But what does that mean? And do they protect against concussions?Erin Hanson, Guardian’s founder and owner, said an N.F.L. study found that when players used Guardian helmet caps in practice, the number of concussions fell by more than 50 percent.Yet, Guardian also has a disclaimer on its website: “No helmet, practice apparatus or helmet pad can prevent or eliminate the risk of concussions or other serious head injuries while playing sports. Researchers have not reached an agreement on how the results of impact absorption tests relate to concussions.”In a telephone interview, Hanson emphasized that it was unrealistic to think that the cap would prevent all concussions.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 38 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Obsessed with Sleep

      by

      The science behind popular methods for improving sleep, and the downsides of caring too much about it.Americans used to say we’d sleep when we were dead. We viewed sleep as a waste of time — something prized by the lazy, and minimized by the industrious.How times have changed. These days, getting in bed early is cool. People, especially those in younger generations, have come to better understand the benefits of a good night’s rest, and many now make sleep a central part of their personal health routines.Experts say this is a good thing: Consistently solid sleep can benefit your heart, brain, immune system and mental health. But our newfound love of sleep is also leading us to strange places. On social media, you can find some people mixing concoctions meant to induce sleep — called “sleepy girl mocktails” — and others trying on sleep aids like mouth tape, nose tape and jaw straps, sometimes all at once. For many, sleep has become something to be optimized, even perfected.Kate Lindsay has a fascinating new story in The Times today that explores this growing fixation — specifically, the large number of people for whom good sleep is not good enough. They are sometimes called “sleepmaxxers.” Kate’s story raises a question I’ve been wondering myself: After so many years of worrying too little about sleep, is it possible some of us have started worrying too much?In today’s newsletter, I’ll walk you through the science behind some popular methods for improving sleep, and the possible downsides of caring too much about it.A “sleepy girl mocktail.”Molly Matalon for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 38 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      The Connections Bot

      by

      We explain a new feature from the creators of WordleBot. WordleBot, introduced in 2022, has become one of the The Times’s most popular features. Every month, it receives millions of visits from readers who want feedback on their attempt to solve each day’s five-letter word.Now the designers of that bot have created a new one — for the Connections game. I know that The Morning’s audience includes many passionate game players, and I want to devote today’s holiday newsletter to a quick description of the new Connections Bot.It also has a larger significance: It includes the first English text generated by A.I. that The Times newsroom will regularly publish.The purple bonusI’ve had access to an internal version of the bot in recent weeks and have had fun playing with it. (If you don’t yet play Connections, a very brief description is: You must separate 16 terms into four categories, with four terms in each category, and there is only one solution that works. The trick is that one category — as you can see below with this “STADIUMS” category — often has five or more potential answers.)The New York TimesAs with Wordle, you first play the game and then visit the bot for feedback. Once you do, you find out how your performance compared with that of other players, and you receive a skill score, up to 99. It’s based mostly on how many mistakes you made, but it also awards extra credit if you started by solving what the Times Games team considers to be the hardest categories — starting with the purple category and followed by blue.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 38 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Abolish the Penny?

      by

      Inside an intractable problem inside America’s change purses. I have good news and I have bad news. Actually, I have crazy news and I have bad news. Actually, all the news I have is bad, but some of it is also crazy. Before you become totally freaked out, all the news I’m describing here is about pennies; it’s nothing life and death. But you do need to buckle up.If you are reading this and live in America, or used to live in America, or maybe just went to America one time many years ago, then you are almost certainly performing unpaid labor for the U.S. government and have been for years. How? By storing some of the billions of pennies the U.S. Mint makes every year that virtually no one uses.Why are we still making tons (many thousands of tons) of pennies if no one uses them? That’s a sensible question with a psychotic answer: We have to keep making all these pennies — over $45 million worth last year — because no one uses them. In fact, it could be very bad if we did.When you insert a quarter into a soda machine, that quarter eventually finds its way back to a bank, from which it can be redistributed to a store’s cash register and handed out as change — maybe even to you, who can put it into a soda machine again and start the whole process over. That’s beautiful. (Please be mindful of your soft drink consumption.)But few of us ever spend pennies. We mostly just store them. The 1-cent coins are wherever you’ve left them: a glass jar, a winter purse, a RAV4 cup holder, a five-gallon water cooler dispenser, the couch. Many of them are simply on the ground. But take it from me, a former cashier: Cashiers don’t have time to scrounge on the sidewalk every time they need to make change. That is where the Mint comes in. Every year it makes a few billion more pennies to replace the ones everyone is thoughtlessly, indefinitely storing and scatters them like kudzu seeds across the nation.You — a scientist of some kind, possibly — might think an obvious solution now presents itself: Why not encourage people to use the pennies they have lying around instead of manufacturing new ones every year? We can’t! Or, anyway, we’d better not. According to a Mint report, if even a modest share of our neglected pennies suddenly returned to circulation, the result would be a “logistically unmanageable” dilemma for Earth’s wealthiest nation. As in, the penny tsunami could overwhelm government vaults.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More