Jessica Grose in The New York Times:

Three times a day my phone pings with a notification telling me that I have a new happiness survey to take. The survey, from TrackYourHappiness.org, asks me a series of questions about what I was doing the moment right before I take it, whether I wanted to be doing it, how focused I was on my task, how productive I was being and how happy I felt about it all. I measure my emotional levels with a little toggle that slides from “bad” to “good.” Though the trackers’ authors offer a disclaimer that “correlation does not prove causation,” results from thousands of its users published in 2010 suggest that people are happier when they are focused.

After I took 100 surveys over about a month, that’s not what my results told me. I reported the most happiness when I was eating and the least when I was working. I was happier at home than I was outside or anywhere else.

My biggest takeaway, though, is that much of my life consists of things that I don’t particularly want to do, like folding laundry and struggling with the wording of a paragraph. Being reminded that most of my life is obligatory does not exactly spark joy. As the weeks of survey-taking went by, I had another, more paralyzing thought: that this focus on my feelings was instilling a new kind of anxiety. Rather than just walking one of my kids home from school and contentedly listening to her chatter about sedimentary rocks, I was thinking about the survey’s infernal happiness toggle and where this experience ranked relative to the other moments I had tracked.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Céline Henne in Aeon:

How could gaining knowledge amount to anything other than discovering what was already there? How could the truth of a statement or a theory be anything but its correspondence to facts that were fixed before we started investigating them?

Some philosophers have argued that, despite widespread intuitions to the contrary, knowledge is not merely a matter of representation but also of construction, and that truth cannot be completely detached from human needs and interests. John Dewey, for example, argued that the object of knowledge is the product of enquiry and not something that exists independently of that enquiry. But this can’t be right. After all, scientists discovered DNA, distant planets and gravity, they did not create them. Facts are facts. Any other view seems disastrous, from the vague assertion that we all create our own truth to the Nietzschean claim that it’s interpretations all the way down. Without a shared target that we all aim at getting right, rational discussion is no longer possible. So what were these philosophers getting at, exactly?

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Yascha Mounk at his own Substack:

Free speech is under attack.

In the United States, government officials are increasingly telling social media companies which forms of damaging “misinformation” they should censor, and now have the Supreme Court’s implicit blessing to do so. In Europe, overly broad restrictions on hate speech have been used to threaten people making unpopular statements with jail time. According to a government-sponsored draft bill in Canada, political opinions that could be construed as supporting genocide would be punished with life imprisonment.

Plenty of arguments against free speech lack any credible pretense of sophistication. They simply jump from the undoubted fact that many people say dumb or disgusting things on the internet to the understandable, if wrong-headed, wish that anybody who says such things should be made to shut up. But those who argue for restrictions on free speech with an ounce of sophistication have increasingly begun to invoke an idea by a philosopher whose work they otherwise studiously ignore: Karl Popper and his “paradox of tolerance.”

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

My Quaker-Atheist Friend, Who Has Come to This Meeting-House since 1913, Smokes & Looks Out over the Rawthey to Home Fell

what do you do
anything for?

you do it
for what the Mediaevals would call
the Glory of God

doing it for money
that doesn’t do it;

doing it for vanity,
that doesn’t do it;

doing it to justify a disorderly life,
that doesn’t do it

Look at Briggflatts here  . . .

It represents the best
that the people were able to do

they didn’t do it for gain;
in fact, they must have
taken a loss

whether it is stone next to stone
or a word next to a word
it is the glory—
the simple craft of it

and money and sex aren’t worth
bugger-all, not
bugger all

solid, common, vulgar words

the ones you can touch
the ones that yield

and a respect for the music . . .

what else can you tell ’em

by Jonathan Williams
from The Language They Speak Is Things They Eat
University of North Caroline Press, 1994

Patrick Warner in Literary Review of Canada:

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Aparna Nathan in The Scientist:

When a rogue cell starts proliferating out of control, the first responders on the scene should be the body’s own immune cells—for example, natural killer (NK) cells, which use toxic molecules to dissolve foreign cells. Ideally, proteins that are specific to cancer cells would trigger the immune cells to destroy the cancer cells, and a growing category of new NK cell therapies harness these cellular assassins to fight cancer.

However, cancers have evolved creative strategies to evade these cellular sentinels. One way they do this is by turning cells that are typically cancer assassins into docile bystanders. For example, a 2017 study showed that tumors can avoid being killed by triggering the release of transforming growth factor beta (TGFb), a molecule that can turn NK cells into intermediate type 1 innate lymphoid cells (intILC1).¹ This immune cell type is much less effective against tumors, which can undermine immunotherapy efforts.

“Tumors have developed these fantastic environments to survive,” said Sebastian Scheer, an immunologist at the Luxembourg Institute of Health and coauthor of the study. But that environment is not the only way for NK cells to transform into intILC1. In a new study in Cell Reports, a team at Monash University led by Scheer found that the molecule disruptor of telomeric silencing 1-like histone lysine methyltransferase (DOT1L) plays an important role in maintaining NK cell functions.² When DOT1L levels decline, the NK cells turn into benign intILC1 even in the absence of cancer-induced TGFb.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Matt Dinan in The Hedgehog Review:

I do not think that being mean is a virtue, but it is related to the virtue by means of which we tell the truth. There are other ways of telling the truth. We can be circumspect or ironic—there is very often a nicer way to put something. Yet there are good reasons for sometimes being just a little bit mean. (No, I am not thinking about that gratuitously nasty and rebarbative character now dominating our public realm.) I think of being mean the way that the King of Brobdingnag in Gulliver’s Travels talks about dangerous views: “For a man may be allowed to keep poisons in his closet, but not to vend them about for cordials.” That is to say, I think being nice is required for good politics, but being mean has definite social utility in private life—and it should stay there.

An example might be useful.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Weizi Li in The Conversation:

Robotic vehicles can optimize the flow of traffic in cities even when mixed in with vehicles driven by humans, thereby improving traffic efficiency, safety and energy consumption, my colleagues and I found.

Robot vehicles are no longer a sci-fi concept: Cities around the world have been testing autonomous robotaxis since 2016. With the increasing presence of robot vehicles in traffic and the foreseeable long period of transitioning from mixed traffic to fully autonomous traffic, my team and I wondered whether robot vehicles and their interactions with human-driven vehicles can alleviate today’s notorious traffic problems.

I am a computer scientist who studies artificial intelligence for transportation and smart cities. My colleagues and I hypothesized that as the number of robot vehicles in traffic increases, we can harness AI to develop algorithms to control the complex mixed traffic system. These algorithms would not only enable all vehicles to travel smoothly from point A to point B but, more importantly, optimize overall traffic by allowing robot vehicles to affect vehicles driven by people.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Charles T. Rubin in The New Atlantis:

One of the core assumptions of modern liberalism is that if you can solve the problem of material scarcity, you can go a long way to solving the problem of free and peaceful coexistence among equals. Modern technology has been essential to that dynamic from the start, a key driver of “development” and the success of democratic regimes. The West, and large parts of the rest of the world, are what they are today in great measure due to this project.

However, on this basis it is hard to understand why in the West, the first home of modern liberalism, we are also seeing, seemingly increasingly, the rise of illiberal ideologies, political parties, and politicians. Where Marxism and socialism promised to achieve liberal goals better than liberalism could, illiberal politics are based on the premise that the liberal understanding of human beings was mistaken from the start. Liberalism, it is said, puts too much emphasis on our material existence, for example, or is mistaken to give such central roles to human autonomy and equality. Despite technology’s crucial role in the success of liberalism, it now seems to be contributing more to illiberalism.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Pam Belluck in The New York Times:

A newly developed blood test for Alzheimer’s has diagnosed the disease as accurately as methods that are far more expensive or invasive, scientists reported on Tuesday, a significant step toward a longtime goal for patients, doctors and dementia researchers. The test has the potential to make diagnosis simpler, more affordable and widely available.

The test determined whether people with dementia had Alzheimer’s instead of another condition. And it identified signs of the degenerative, deadly disease 20 years before memory and thinking problems were expected in people with a genetic mutation that causes Alzheimer’s, according to research published in JAMA and presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference. Such a test could be available for clinical use in as little as two to three years, the researchers and other experts estimated, providing a readily accessible way to diagnose whether people with cognitive issues were experiencing Alzheimer’s, rather than another type of dementia that might require different treatment or have a different prognosis. A blood test like this might also eventually be used to predict whether someone with no symptoms would develop Alzheimer’s.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Shelly Fan in Singularity Hub:

If you hear the word Ozempic, weight loss immediately comes to mind. The drug—part of a family of treatments called GLP-1 agonists—took the medical world (and internet) by storm for helping people manage diabetes, lower the risk of heart disease, and rapidly lose weight. The drugs may also protect the brain against dementia. In a clinical trial including over 200 people with mild Alzheimer’s disease, a daily injection of a GLP-1 drug for one year slowed cognitive decline. When challenged with a battery of tests assessing memory, language skills, and decision-making, participants who took the drug remained sharper for longer than those who took a placebo—an injection that looked the same but wasn’t functional. The results are the latest from the Evaluating Liraglutide in Alzheimer’s Disease (ELAD) study led by Dr. Paul Edison at Imperial College London. Launched in 2014, the study was based on years of research in mice showing liraglutide—a GLP-1 drug already approved for weight loss and diabetes management in the United States—also protects the brain.

In Alzheimer’s disease, neurons die off and the brain gradually loses volume. In the trial, Liraglutide slowed the process down, resulting in roughly 50 percent less volume lost in several areas of the brain related to memory compared to a placebo. “We are in an era of unprecedented promise, with new treatments in various stages of development that slow or may possibly prevent cognitive decline due to Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Maria C. Carrillo, Alzheimer’s Association chief science officer and medical affairs lead, in a press release. “This research provides hope that more options for changing the course of the disease are on the horizon.”

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

White Man Says to Me, Save

White man says to me,
save.
I save, String, Bricks, Trees.
Horses, Leather. Nobody wants
what I save. So I go into the
desert, rolling my ball of string
which is four feet in diameter.
Two white men come. They look at
the bricks. Trees. Horses.
Leather. String, Where’d you
steal them things they ask.
they don’t listen. they take
the string from me and they
twist it into a rope. Now they
put the rope around my neck.
They hang me from one of the
trees I saved.

by Fred Red Cloud

From American Indian Prose and Poetry
—After the White Man Came
Capricorn Books, 1974

Dan Falk at Undark:

There’s no question that we love to talk — but how did it happen? Yes, humpback whales sing, vervet monkeys use alarm calls, and bees convey information about food sources through dance, but only humans have full-blown language. Steven Mithen, a professor of early prehistory at the University of Reading, would seem to be well positioned to find the answer. His new book, “The Language Puzzle: Piecing Together the Six-Million-Year Story of How Words Evolved,” is hardly the first to explore the issue — but it is perhaps the most thorough to date. Drawing on the latest findings from an array of fields, including linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, psychology, and genetics, Mithen guides the reader through some 1.6 million years of hominin evolution, from language’s earliest stirrings to the rich communication system it became for Homo sapiens.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Richard Van Noorden in Nature:

How many clinical-trial studies in medical journals are fake or fatally flawed? In October 2020, John Carlisle reported a startling estimate¹.

Carlisle, an anaesthetist who works for England’s National Health Service, is renowned for his ability to spot dodgy data in medical trials. He is also an editor at the journal Anaesthesia, and in 2017, he decided to scour all the manuscripts he handled that reported a randomized controlled trial (RCT) — the gold standard of medical research. Over three years, he scrutinized more than 500 studies¹.

For more than 150 trials, Carlisle got access to anonymized individual participant data (IPD). By studying the IPD spreadsheets, he judged that 44% of these trials contained at least some flawed data: impossible statistics, incorrect calculations or duplicated numbers or figures, for instance. And 26% of the papers had problems that were so widespread that the trial was impossible to trust, he judged — either because the authors were incompetent, or because they had faked the data.

Carlisle called these ‘zombie’ trials because they had the semblance of real research, but closer scrutiny showed they were actually hollow shells, masquerading as reliable information. Even he was surprised by their prevalence. “I anticipated maybe one in ten,” he says.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Cat Orman and Jason Lu at Noahpinion:

Last month, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would ground over 70% of America’s industrial drone fleet. The Countering CCP Drones Act seeks to ban DJI, a Chinese unicorn and the world’s largest commercial drone manufacturer, from supplying its drones in the United States. So why has the bill sent drone pilots into a panic? Here is the unfortunate truth: there is no real alternative to DJI.

Like much of our electronics, the majority of drones deployed in the United States are made in China. It’s a bigger hole in our industrial base than you might think. Drones operate behind the scenes of every American industry — they inspect our civil infrastructure and electric grid, shoot movies, conduct land surveys, detect diseases in crops, prospect for minerals, locate gas leaks, and create 3D models. If you get mugged in one of over 1,500 American police precincts (including Santa Monica, where I live), the first responder on the scene might be a drone. But — as the war in Ukraine has demonstrated — even commercial-grade drones will play an increasingly important role in national security. To protect our critical industries and field an effective fighting force, the United States must develop a competitive drone industry, then get DJI out of our airspace.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Elizabeth Yuko in Reader’s Digest: 

Fact: The Windy City nickname has nothing to do with Chicago’s weather

If you live in Chicago, you might already know this random fact, but we’re betting most other people don’t. Chicago’s nickname was coined by 19th-century journalists who were referring to the fact that its residents were “windbags” and “full of hot air.”

Fact: The longest English word is 189,819 letters long

We won’t spell it out here, but the full name for the protein nicknamed titin would take three and a half hours to say out loud. While this is, by far, the longest word in English, the longest word in the Oxford English Dictionary has 45 letters, and the longest made-up word has just 28. Just a few more interesting facts for your next cocktail party!

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.