More stories

  • in

    Three Years: Reflections on the Ukraine War

    More from our inbox:Advice for Democrats: ‘Go Home and Listen’Lab Discoveries LostBuy Back Pennies and NickelsRe-evaluating Movies Andrew Kravchenko/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “At Home and Abroad, Mourning Lives Lost Over Three Long Years” (news article, Feb. 25):Feb. 24 marked the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I am inspired by, and my heart breaks for, the brave and noble Ukrainians. I wish my president were more like President Volodymyr Zelensky.Alison FordOssining, N.Y.To the Editor:Re “Dueling U.N. Resolutions on Ukraine Highlight Fissures Between the U.S. and Europe” (news article, Feb. 25):If the United States’ joining Russia to vote against a United Nations resolution to condemn Russia’s war against Ukraine isn’t giving aid and comfort to our enemy, I don’t know what is. Shame on us all.Eileen MitchellLewes, Del.To the Editor:Republicans, historically the party for a strong U.S. foreign policy and an understanding of who our democratic allies are, now remain silent.As President Trump embraces Vladimir Putin, widely suspected of being a killer of political rivals and journalists, and calls President Volodymyr Zelensky a dictator, our Republican senators and representatives should understand that their silence is more than acquiescence.It should be construed as supporting our current path. So when things go wrong, as they inevitably do when you cut deals with bad actors, don’t you dare pretend you were not a part of this abhorrent change in direction in U.S. policy.Steve ReichShort Hills, N.J.To the Editor:Re “Ukraine Nears a Deal to Give U.S. a Share of Its Mineral Wealth” (news article, nytimes.com, Feb. 24):I want to register my objection to the United States’ “mineral rights” demand to Ukraine. Further, any treaty granting our nation such rights must be approved by Congress, which I hope will show a shred of dignity and ensure that it at least gives Ukraine protection and sovereignty in return.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

  • in

    How ‘Based’ Is Grok 3? + Robinhood C.E.O. Vlad Tenev on Markets for Everything + Vibecoding 101

    Listen to and follow ‘Hard Fork’Apple | Spotify | Amazon | YouTube | iHeartRadioThis week, Elon Musk brought a new chatbot into the crowded A.I. universe — Grok 3, the latest model from his company xAI. We break down how it compares with other leading models and what it reveals about Musk’s larger ambitions. Then, Vlad Tenev, the chief executive of the investing platform Robinhood, lays out his vision for the future of investing and fields some difficult questions about his company’s role in fueling a culture of risky financial speculation. Finally, Kevin revisits his high school coding era and tries to make Casey a new software tool, with an A.I. assist.Guest:Vlad Tenev, chief executive of Robinhood and co-founder of Harmonic.Additional Reading:There Are Probably Too Many A.I. Companies NowAn Investing Revolution Is Coming. The U.S. Isn’t Ready for It.Is Math the Path to Chatbots That Don’t Make Stuff Up?Photo Illustration: The New York TimesCredits“Hard Fork” is hosted by More

  • in

    Let’s Argue About Our Phones (and Tech in General)

    More from our inbox:Excuse Me, but Who Are You Calling Stupid?Musk Has Seen ‘State Capture’ BeforeThe Autocrats’ Playbook221A/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “The Only Phone You Need Is a Dumb One,” by August Lamm (Opinion guest essay, Feb. 2):Three cheers for Ms. Lamm, an anti-tech activist.I am a boomer who grew up meeting people face to face, talking with family members at the dinner table, playing outdoors, writing with a ballpoint pen and going to the library to get information. So it’s refreshing to see a young person striving to restore our basic sanity — our basic humanity, in fact — by encouraging us to dump harmful, unnecessary technology.We’re living in a dangerously dizzying time in which high tech threatens to end our very existence.Dennis QuickCharleston, S.C.To the Editor:August Lamm announces that she is “on a mission … to get people off their smartphones.” Why has she made it her mission to change the lives of strangers who have never asked for her intervention? Because “we’ve become so used to selecting partners on a sterile, simulated interface that we’ve lost the ability to make spontaneous, messy connections in real life.”But I often make spontaneous, messy connections in the real life of cyberspace, which lets me make these connections based on mutual interests and values rather than mere propinquity.The only opinion I need about how to live my social life is my own, supplemented by suggestions from friends who actually know something about me.Felicia Nimue AckermanProvidence, R.I.To the Editor:August Lamm is 29 years old, so she may be too young to know: Seventy years ago, everyone in the United States smoked, or at least it seemed that way. Today, far fewer Americans smoke. I suspect that social media is headed in the same direction.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

  • in

    Don’t Cut an Agency So Vital to Our Health

    More from our inbox:Needed: More Maternity WardsRacial Inequities in the Overdose CrisisVet the Presidential CandidatesTech Tycoons in ChargeA building on the N.I.H. campus in Bethesda, Md. The agency comprises 27 institutes and has a budget of $48 billion.Hailey Sadler for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Long Government’s ‘Crown Jewel,’ Health Institute Is Becoming a Target” (news article, Dec. 3):Your article describes the National Institutes of Health as a “crown jewel” of the federal government based on its track record of success in driving medical and health research and innovation. The article also captures the longstanding bipartisan support for the agency and its work.When asked in a national survey we commissioned this year, Americans of all political persuasions expressed their support for federally funded research:Eighty-eight percent of Americans agree that basic scientific research is necessary and should be supported by the federal government.Some 62 percent would be willing to pay $1 per week more in taxes to support additional medical and health research.And 89 percent say it is important that the U.S. is a global leader in research to improve health.Continuing to treat the N.I.H. as a top national priority is a strategy that will spur new treatments and cures for the health threats facing our population. It will also drive U.S. business and job growth across the life science, technology, manufacturing and service sectors that in the end will keep us globally competitive.Mary WoolleyNew YorkThe writer is the president and C.E.O. of Research!America.To the Editor:The suggestion to cut infectious disease funding displays dangerous historical amnesia. Just as the 1918-20 flu pandemic killed millions of people globally, Covid-19’s emergence in 2020 demonstrated how quickly a novel pathogen can upend society. While vaccines helped curb Covid-19’s impact, we face an equally urgent crisis: antibiotic resistance.Currently, drug-resistant bacteria infect over two million Americans annually, causing more than 20,000 deaths. Without sustained funding and research, projections show antimicrobial resistance could cause 10 million annual deaths globally by 2050.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

  • in

    Hard Fork’s 100 Most Iconic Technologies

    Listen to and follow ‘Hard Fork’Apple | Spotify | Amazon | YouTube | iHeartRadioKevin Roose and Rachel Cohn and Dan PowellMarion Lozano and This week, we’re bringing you a Thanksgiving special that’s great for a long car ride, a day of cooking or avoiding conversation with your family. We’re counting down the 100 most iconic technologies of all time, starting with No. 100: Boats. Our definitive list was carefully crafted using an advanced methodology of vibes-only decision-making. By “iconic,” we mean technologies that have either changed the world, ruined it or at the very least made life a little more interesting. And because we love chaos, we’ll explain why we chose each one in roughly 30 seconds or less.Additional Reading:This episode was inspired by the Iconic 400 list compiled by the podcast “Las Culturistas”; check it out.Photo Illustration by The New York Times; Photo: Getty ImagesCredits“Hard Fork” is hosted by More

  • in

    Trump’s Next Online Speech Cop + Doctors vs. ChatGPT + Hard Fork Crimes Division

    Listen to and follow ‘Hard Fork’Apple | Spotify | Amazon | YouTube | iHeartRadioKevin Roose and Rachel Cohn and Dan PowellMarion LozanoDiane Wong and This week, President-elect Donald Trump picked Brendan Carr to be the next chairman of the F.C.C. We talk with The Verge’s editor in chief, Nilay Patel, about what this could mean for the future of the internet, and for free speech at large. Then, a new study found that ChatGPT defeated doctors at diagnosing some diseases. One of the study’s authors, Dr. Adam Rodman, joins us to discuss the future of medicine. And finally, court is back in session. It’s time for the Hard Fork Crimes Division.Guests:Nilay Patel, co-founder of The Verge and host of the podcasts Decoder and The VergecastAdam Rodman, internal medicine physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and one of the co-authors of a recent study testing the effectiveness of ChatGPT to diagnose illnesses.Additional Reading:Trump Picks Brendan Carr to Lead F.C.C.A.I. Chatbots Defeated Doctors at Diagnosing IllnessGary Wang, a Top FTX Executive, Is Given No Prison TimePhoto Illustration by The New York Times; Photo: Pool photo by Brandon BellOne more thing: We want to learn more about you, our listeners. Please fill out our quick survey: nytimes.com/hardforksurvey.Credits“Hard Fork” is hosted by More

  • in

    Americans Have Regained Modest Trust in Scientists, Survey Finds

    A sharp partisan divide remains over how involved researchers should be in policy decisions.For the first time since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, the public’s trust in scientists has improved, according to a survey published Thursday by the Pew Research Center.About 76 percent of Americans say they have confidence that scientists act in the public’s best interest, a modest but significant improvement from last year but about 10 points lower than the figure before the pandemic.This year’s uptick was driven largely by a slight increase in trust among Republicans, a group that also experienced the steepest drop in confidence during the pandemic, said Alec Tyson, a Pew researcher and the report’s lead author.Still, the roughly 9,500 Americans surveyed were divided over whether scientists should play a role in policy decisions — a particularly timely issue now, as President-elect Donald J. Trump prepares to appoint leaders of the country’s science and health agencies.About half of the survey respondents said experts should take “an active role” in policy debates about scientific issues, like childhood vaccines and climate change, while the other half said they should focus instead on “establishing sound scientific facts.”Respondents were largely split along partisan lines: 67 percent of Democrats believed scientists should be involved in policy debates, compared with just 35 percent of Republicans.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

  • in

    What Trump 2.0 Means for Tech + A.I. Made Me Basic + HatGPT!

    Listen to and follow ‘Hard Fork’Apple | Spotify | Amazon | YouTube | iHeartRadioKevin Roose and Rachel Cohn and Dan PowellElisheba IttoopPat McCusker and As of this week, we have a new president-elect. We discuss how the incoming administration’s approach to technology will affect Elon Musk, a TikTok ban, Big Tech’s antitrust challenges and the speed of A.I. progress. Then, Kashmir Hill, a technology reporter for The Times, joins to discuss her weeklong experiment of letting A.I. make every decision in her life. And finally, we play a round of election-free HatGPT!Guest:Kashmir Hill, technology reporter for The New York Times.Additional Reading:What a Trump Victory Means for TechI Took a ‘Decision Holiday’ and Put A.I. in Charge of My LifeAn ‘Interview’ With a Dead Luminary Exposes the Pitfalls of A.I.Meta’s Plan for Nuclear-Powered A.I. Data Center Thwarted by Rare BeesFired Employee Allegedly Hacked Disney World’s Menu System to Alter Peanut Allergy InformationPhoto Illustration by The New York Times; Photos: Doug Mills/The New York Times (Trump); Getty Images (emojis)Credits“Hard Fork” is hosted by More