 |
|
|
|||||
Spending just 36 minutes listening to your own brain waves, over four sessions, can reduce stress and anxiety, according to a new study by neuroscientists at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine. Published in the journal Global Advances in Integrative Medicine and Health, the study looked at how to reduce stress-related symptoms in 144 healthcare workers with moderate-to-high levels of perceived stress. The healthcare workers were placed in two groups: one that received four sessions of a sound-based relaxation intervention over two weeks, and another that was put on a control group waitlist. The workers spent a little over half an hour relaxing in a zero-gravity chair with their eyes closed as closed-loop, acoustic neuromodulation technology translated their brainwaves into personalized tones in real time, the idea being that the echoed tones interact with the brain to balance and quiet itself and release stress patterns. When researchers measured the results after six-to-eight weeks, they found the participants reported meaningful reductions in stress, anxiety, and insomnia, as well as significant reductions in fatigue and depression, and improved subjective cognition. These results suggest that closed-loop acoustic neuromodulation is a safe, scalable, and effective option to complement organizational strategies for supporting healthcare worker brain health and well-being, said Charles H. Tegeler, M.D., professor of neurology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine and principal investigator of the study. We are eager to identify ways to broadly offer the intervention to teammates across our health system and beyond. What makes this different from previous studies on neuromodulation is that it streamlined the treatment process with fewer, shorter sessions, making the treatment more practical and accessible for real-world application. It also included study participants regardless of their medication or substance use.
Category:
E-Commerce
Prince Harry and his wife Meghan have joined prominent computer scientists, economists, artists, evangelical Christian leaders, and American conservative commentators Steve Bannon and Glenn Beck to call for a ban on AI superintelligence that threatens humanity. The letter, released Wednesday by a politically and geographically diverse group of public figures, is squarely aimed at tech giants like Google, OpenAI, and Meta Platforms that are racing each other to build a form of artificial intelligence designed to surpass humans at many tasks. The letter calls for a ban unless some conditions are met The 30-word statement says: We call for a prohibition on the development of superintelligence, not lifted before there is broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably, and strong public buy-in. In a preamble, the letter notes that AI tools may bring health and prosperity, but alongside those tools, “many leading AI companies have the stated goal of building superintelligence in the coming decade that can significantly outperform all humans on essentially all cognitive tasks. This has raised concerns, ranging from human economic obsolescence and disempowerment, losses of freedom, civil liberties, dignity, and control, to national security risks and even potential human extinction. Who signed and what they’re saying about it Prince Harry added in a personal note that “the future of AI should serve humanity, not replace it. I believe the true test of progress will be not how fast we move, but how wisely we steer. There is no second chance. Signing alongside the Duke of Sussex was his wife Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex. This is not a ban or even a moratorium in the usual sense,” wrote another signatory, Stuart Russell, an AI pioneer and computer science professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “Its simply a proposal to require adequate safety measures for a technology that, according to its developers, has a significant chance to cause human extinction. Is that too much to ask? Also signing were AI pioneers Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton, co-winners of the Turing Award, computer science’s top prize. Hinton also won a Nobel Prize in physics last year. Both have been vocal in bringing attention to the dangers of a technology they helped create. But the list also has some surprises, including Bannon and Beck, in an attempt by the letter’s organizers at the nonprofit Future of Life Institute to appeal to President Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again movement even as Trump’s White House staff has sought to loosen restrictions on AI development in the U.S. Also on the list are Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak; British billionaire Richard Branson; the former Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, who served under Republican and Democratic administrations; and Democratic foreign policy expert Susan Rice, who was national security adviser to President Barack Obama. Former Irish President Mary Robinson and several British and European parliamentarians and former members of the U.S. Congress signed, as did actors Stephen Fry and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and musician will.i.am, who has otherwise embraced AI in music creation. Yeah, we want specific AI tools that can help cure diseases, strengthen national security, etc.,” wrote Gordon-Levitt, whose wife Tasha McCauley served on OpenAI’s board of directors before the upheaval that led to CEO Sam Altman’s temporary ouster in 2023. But does AI also need to imitate humans, groom our kids, turn us all into slop junkies, and make zillions of dollars serving ads? Most people dont want that. Are worries about AI superintelligence also feeding AI hype? The letter is likely to provoke ongoing debates within the AI research community about the likelihood of superhuman AI, the technical paths to reach it, and how dangerous it could be. In the past, its mostly been the nerds versus the nerds, said Max Tegmark, president of the Future of Life Institute and a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I feel what were really seeing here is how the criticism has gone very mainstream. Complicating the broader debates is that the same companies that are striving toward what some call superintelligence and others call artificial general intelligence, or AGI, are also sometimes inflating the capabilities of their products, which can make them more marketable and have contributed to concerns about an AI bubble. OpenAI was recently met with ridicule from mathematicians and AI scientists when its researcher claimed ChatGPT had figured out unsolved math problems when what it really did was find and summarize what was already online. Theres a ton of stuff thats overhyped and you need to be careful as an investor, but that doesnt change the fact that zooming out AI has gone much faster in the last four years than most people predicted, Tegmark said. Tegmark’s group was also behind a March 2023 letter still in the dawn of a commercial AI boom that called on tech giants to pause the development of more powerful AI models temporarily. None of the major AI companies heeded that call. And the 2023 letter’s most prominent signatory, Elon Musk, was at the same time quietly founding his own AI startup to compete with those he wanted to take a 6-month pause. Asked if he reached out to Musk again this time, Tegmark said he wrote to the CEOs of all major AI developers in the U.S. but didn’t expect them to sign. I really empathize for them, frankly, because theyre so stuck in this race to the bottom that they just feel an irresistible pressure to keep going and not get overtaken by the other guy, Tegmark said. I think thats why its so important to stigmatize the race tosuperintelligence, to the point where the U.S. government just steps in. Google, Meta, OpenAI, and Musk’s xAI didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday. Matt O’Brien, AP technology writer
Category:
E-Commerce
Data shows that workers and bosses are already at war over where to work, with management demanding more days in the office and employees trying to buck these mandates. But according to a recent report, a new front has opened in the battle over workplace flexibility. It centers not on where employees work but when. When videoconferencing company Owl Labs surveyed 2,000 U.S. workers for its 2025 State of Hybrid Work report, almost half reported they did not have enough flexibility in regard to when they worked. What kind of flexibility were they hoping to get? Something that Owl Labs calls microshifting. You may know it simply as breaking up your day as you see fit, taking an hour or so to run an errand or recharge when you need and returning to your work whenever suits you best. Whether you use the latest business jargon for microshifting or not, its clear that its popular with employees. Sixty-five percent said theyd like to work this way, and 37 percent said they would turn down a job that did not provide flexible scheduling. But experts suggest workers should be careful what they wish for. A new term for an old phenomenon Microshifting might be the new buzzword, but the idea of working whenever suits you best isnt new. Its been on the rise since the pandemic exploded old expectations about how our workdays are organized. Back in 2022, Microsoft researchers looking at data on the use of the companys products documented the rise of what they called the “triple-peak day. Workers, the numbers showed, were most active on their computers before lunch and after lunch. Thats as youd expect from a traditional office workday. But there was a new third spike in the usage data, too. Many of us were logging in during the quiet hours right before bed. The Microsoft researchers called this mass return to our laptops around 9 or 10 at night the triple-peak day. Owl Labs analysts would probably look at the same numbers and see it as evidence of microshifting in action. The problem with an undefined workday Just as previous research suggests that microshifting isnt a new phenomenon, it also offers several reasons why workers might want to think carefully before they demand it as a formal policy from their organizations. The appeal of microshifting is obvious. Weve all had a dentist appointment or kids soccer game we need to be at during traditional work hours. The ability to step out for these obligations and make them up another time makes the juggle massively easier. But making the workday amorphous and open-ended also comes with costs. A variety of pandemic-era data shows that when workers are offered more flexibility in where and when they work, their workdays tend to balloon. Yes, they have more control over their time. But they also tend to end up working more hours. Different studies came up with slightly different figures, but flexibility seems to have stretched the workday by an hour or two. In real life, asking your boss for the flexibility to run out for some errands often translates to giving them permission to urgently email you at 8:30 at night and expect a prompt reply. Does microshifting actually reduce stress? Not only can asking for microshifting embolden management to expect more after-hours responsiveness, but other research suggests it might not be as good for workers peace of mind as they expect. When Google asked workers to report whether they prefer to keep their work and home lives rigidly separate (they labeled these folks segmentors) or blend the two (integrators), the search giant discovered one approach was associated with higher life satisfaction. We found that, regardless of preference, Segmentors were significantly happier with their well-being than Integrators. Additionally, Segmentors were more than twice as likely to be able to detach from work (when they wanted to), Google reported. Interweaving work and life sounds appealing. But it can also lead to a blurring of boundaries that can lead not only to longer hours but also higher stress and less relaxation. Be careful what you ask for All of this isnt to say that workers have no idea whats good for them and they should welcome being basically chained to their desks from 9 to 5. Adults have complicated, busy lives and have every right to demand the flexibility to handle personal issues during work hours when they arise. Thats a matter of smple practicality and respect. But by turning an everyday level of understanding into a formal policy with a buzzy label, microshifting runs the risk of going a step further. It doesnt just stretch the boundaries of the workday to accommodate real life. It threatens to dissolve them. That might sound good at first. But evidence suggests that saying the workday is whenever seems convenient can have unforeseen consequences for workers. If you can declare its easier for you to get something done at 11 p.m., why cant your boss? Or, for that matter, your constantly-on-the-clock brain? Its one thing to ask to step away for an hour here and there. Its another to allow work to leak into every moment of your life. Before you advocate for microshifting, make sure thats not what youll end up with. The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com. Jessica Stillman This article originally appeared on Fast Companys sister publication, Inc. Inc. is the voice of the American entrepreneur. We inspire, inform, and document the most fascinating people in business: the risk-takers, the innovators, and the ultra-driven go-getters that represent the most dynamic force in the American economy.
Category:
E-Commerce
Japan’s exports grew 4.2% in September, according to government data Wednesday, on robust shipments to Asia that offset a decline in exports to the U.S., which were impacted by President Donald Trump’s tariffs.Japan’s exports to Asia jumped 9.2% last month compared to the same period a year earlier, according to Japanese Ministry of Finance data.Exports to the U.S. dropped 13.3%, marking the sixth straight month of on-year declines, while those to China surged 5.8% compared to last year.Auto shipments to the U.S. dropped 24.2% in September. Automakers like Toyota Motor Corp. are pillars of Japan’s economy.Japan’s imports edged up 3.3% in September overall, growing 6% in Asia, including a 9.8% rise in imports from China.The findings come a day after Sanae Takaichi was chosen in a parliamentary vote as the nation’s prime minister, becoming the first woman to lead Japan.She is known for nationalist-leaning conservative views but is also seen as a proponent of bigger public spending, which has sent share prices generally rising in Tokyo in recent sessions.Takaichi has also promised higher wages, as well as looser monetary policy, which would favor a weak Japanese yen. That would be a boon for the nation’s giant exporters by raising the value of overseas earnings when converted into yen.Takaichi faces an uphill battle in realizing her policies because the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, even with coalition partners, does not have a majority in either house of parliament. Her own party remains divided.Trump, who is expected to visit Japan later this month to meet with Takaichi, announced a trade framework with Japan in July that placed a 15% tax on Japanese goods.At that time, Japan promised to invest $550 billion into the U.S. and open its economy more to American automobiles and rice. The 15% tax on imported Japanese goods was a significant drop from the 25% rate that Trump had said earlier. Yuri Kageyama is on Threads: https://www.threads.com/@yurikageyama Yuri Kageyama, AP Business Writer
Category:
E-Commerce
President Donald Trump’s plan to cut record beef prices by importing more meat from Argentina is running into heated opposition from U.S. ranchers who are enjoying some rare profitable years and skepticism from experts who say the president’s move probably wouldn’t lead to cheaper prices at grocery stores.The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association along with the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America and other farming groups who are normally some of the president’s biggest supporters all criticized Trump’s idea because of what it could do to American ranchers and feedlot operators. And agricultural economists say Argentine beef accounts for such a small slice of beef imports only about 2% that even doubling that wouldn’t change prices much.South Dakota rancher Brett Kenzy said he wants American consumers to determine whether beef is too expensive, not the government. And so far there is little sign that consumers are substituting chicken or other proteins for beef on their shopping lists even though the average price of a pound of ground beef hit its highest point ever at $6.32 in the latest report before the government shutdown began.“I love ‘Make America Great Again’ rhetoric. I love ‘America First’ rhetoric,” he said. “But to me this feels a lot like the failed policies of the past the free trade sourcing cheap global goods.”Several factors have sent beef prices soaring, starting with continued strong demand combined with the smallest U.S. herd size since 1961. In part, that small herd is due to years of drought and low cattle prices.Beef imports also are down overall because of the 50% tariffs that Trump imposed on Brazil, a big beef exporter, and limits on Mexico, where the country is fighting a flesh-eating pest.Kansas State University agricultural economist Glynn Tonsor said Argentina can’t produce enough beef to offset those other losses of imports.Through July, the United States has imported 72.5 million pounds of Argentine beef while producing more than 15 billion pounds of beef. Much of what is imported is lean beef trimmings that meatpackers mix with fattier beef produced in the United States to produce the varieties of ground beef that domestic consumers want, so any change in imports would affect primarily hamburger. Steak prices that were averaging $12.22 per pound probably wouldn’t change much. Idea creates uncertainty among US ranchers Even if increased imports from Argentina won’t reduce prices, the idea creates uncertainty for ranchers, making them less likely to invest in raising more cattle.“We’re always going to have uncertainty in the world. But the more uncertain something is, the less likely most are to put money on the line,” Tonsor said.Argentine livestock producers like Augusto Wallace are excited about the prospect of selling more beef to America because he said “whenever an additional buyer comes, it’s beneficial for everyone, right? For all the producers.”But economists caution that exporting too much beef could backfire for Argentina because that would drive up prices for consumers there.American ranchers say the idea of boosting imports from Argentina runs counter to the stated purpose of Trump’s tariffs to encourage more domestic production and help American ranchers compete.“It’s a contradiction of what we believed his new course of action was. We thought he was on the right track,” said the president of R-CALF, Bill Bullard, who hoped Trump’s policies would discourage imports and encourage ranchers to expand their herds.Texas A&M livestock economist David Anderson said “ranchers are finally getting prices that are going to make up for some really bad years in the past with the drought, low prices and high costs. We finally get some good prices. And we start talking about government policy to bring down prices.”Bryant Kagay, part owner of Kagay Farms in Amity, Missouri, said he thinks the plan would hurt ranchers. Cattle prices that had been averaging around $3,000 for a 1,250-pound animal slipped more than $100 immediately after Trump mentioned the idea of intervening in beef prices last week, though they have recovered a bit since then. Ranchers hope Trump changes his mind Although Kagay voted for Trump in the last election, he worries the trade war is hurting farmers and ranchers by driving up costs and costing them major markets like China.“I continue to see things that I don’t really think are in the best interest of our country and the average citizen,” Kagay said. “I guess I hope he starts to see that and quits worrying about punishing opponents and winning whatever battle he’s involved in, and then tries to do what’s best for everybody.”Ranchers are hopeful Trump will reconsider this plan. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said Tuesday on CNBC that the administration remains committed to helping ranchers prosper while trying to reduce consumer prices. She promised more details soon about the Argentina plan and a larger effort to reinvigorate U.S. beef production by opening up more land and opening new processing plants while securing trade deals for new markets. The administration wants ranchers to raise more cattle and produce more beef.“The bigger supply even aligned with a bigger demand is going to allow those prices to come down, but also to have a vital industry for these ranchers to be able to survive, which is what we’ve got to do,” Rollins said.Sen. John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican, said Tuesday that after talking to Trump and others in the administration, he expected to see more details about the policy.“It’s very important that we support our cattle ranchers,” Hoeven said.Rancher Cory Eich, who lives near Epiphany, South Dakota, said he doesn’t consider the Argentina idea a serious threat in the long term and doubts ranchers will make changes to their operation in light of the news.“Nobody’s happy about it, let’s put it that way,” Eich said. “Personal opinion, I thought it was kind of a ruse when he mentioned it. I mean, it’s coming from Trump, so take everything there with a grain of salt.” Funk reported from Omaha, Nebraska. Associated Press videographer Cristian Kovadloff contributed from Coronel Brandsen, Argentina. Josh Funk and Sarah Raza, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] next »