Deep Sleep Cleans the Brain

Not All Sleep is Equal When It Comes to Cleaning the Brain

University of Rochester – February 27, 2019 -- New research shows how the depth of sleep can impact our brain’s ability to efficiently wash away waste and toxic proteins.  Because sleep often becomes increasingly lighter and more disrupted as we become older, the study reinforces and potentially explains the links between aging, sleep deprivation, and heightened risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

“Sleep is critical to the function of the brain’s waste removal system and this study shows that the deeper the sleep the better,” said Maiken Nedergaard, M.D., D.M.Sc., co-director of the Center for Translational Neuromedicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) and lead author of the study. “These findings also add to the increasingly clear evidence that quality of sleep or sleep deprivation can predict the onset of Alzheimer’s and dementia.”

The study, which appears in the journal Science Advances, indicates that the slow and steady brain and cardiopulmonary activity associated with deep non-REM sleep are optimal for the function of the glymphatic system, the brain’s unique process of removing waste. The findings may also explain why some forms of anesthesia can lead to cognitive impairment in older adults. 

The previously unknown glymphatic system was first described by Nedergaard and her colleagues in 2012. Prior to that point, scientists did not fully understand how the brain, which maintains its own closed ecosystem, removed waste. The study revealed a system of plumbing which piggybacks on blood vessels and pumps cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) through brain tissue to wash away waste. A subsequent study showed that this system primarily works while we sleep.

Because the accumulation of toxic proteins such as beta amyloid and tau in the brain are associated with Alzheimer’s disease, researchers have speculated that impairment of the glymphatic system due to disrupted sleep could be a driver of the disease. This squares with clinical observations which show an association between sleep deprivation and heightened risk for Alzheimer’s. 

In the current study, researchers conducted experiments with mice that were anesthetized with six different anesthetic regimens. While the animals were under anesthesia, the researchers tracked brain electrical activity, cardiovascular activity, and the cleansing flow of CSF through the brain. The team observed that a combination of the drugs ketamine and xylazine (K/X) most closely replicated the slow and steady electrical activity in the brain and slow heart rate associated with deep non-REM sleep. Furthermore, the electrical activity in the brains of mice administered K/X appeared to be optimal for function of the glymphatic system. 

“The synchronized waves of neural activity during deep slow-wave sleep, specifically firing patterns that move from front of the brain to the back, coincide with what we know about the flow of CSF in the glymphatic system,” said Lauren Hablitz, Ph.D., a postdoctoral associate in Nedergaard’s lab and first author of the study.  “It appears that the chemicals involved in the firing of neurons, namely ions, drive a process of osmosis which helps pull the fluid through brain tissue.”

The study raises several important clinical questions. It further bolsters the link between sleep, aging, and Alzheimer’s disease. It is known that as we age it becomes more difficult to consistently achieve deep non-REM sleep, and the study reinforces the importance of deep sleep to the proper function of the glymphatic system. The study also demonstrates that the glymphatic system can be manipulated by enhancing sleep, a finding that may point to potential clinical approaches, such as sleep therapy or other methods to boost the quality of sleep, for at-risk populations. 

Furthermore, because several of the compounds used in the study were analogous to anesthetics used in clinical settings, the study also sheds light on the cognitive difficulties that older patients often experience after surgery and suggests classes of drugs that could be used to avoid this phenomenon.  Mice in the study that were exposed to anesthetics that did not induce slow brain activity saw diminished glymphatic activity.

“Cognitive impairment after anesthesia and surgery is a major problem,” said Tuomas Lilius, M.D., Ph.D., with the Center for Translational Neuromedicine at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and co-author of the study.  “A significant percentage of elderly patients that undergo surgery experience a postoperative period of delirium or have a new or worsened cognitive impairment at discharge.”

Additional co-authors of the study include Hanna Vinitsky and Qian Sun with URMC, and Frederik Filip Staeger, Bjorn Sigurdsson, and Kristian Mortensen with the University of Copenhagen.

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/5508/not-all-sleep-is-equal-when-it-comes-to-cleaning-the-brain.aspx

Carbon Dioxide to Carbon Dust

Climate rewind: Scientists turn carbon dioxide back into coal

February 27, 2019 -- Researchers have used liquid metals to turn carbon dioxide back into solid coal, in a world-first breakthrough that could transform our approach to carbon capture and storage.

The research team led by RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, have developed a new technique that can efficiently convert CO₂ from a gas into solid particles of carbon.

Published in the journal Nature Communications, the research offers an alternative pathway for safely and permanently removing the greenhouse gas from our atmosphere.

Current technologies for carbon capture and storage focus on compressing CO₂ into a liquid form, transporting it to a suitable site and injecting it underground.

But implementation has been hampered by engineering challenges, issues around economic viability and environmental concerns about possible leaks from the storage sites.

RMIT researcher Dr Torben Daeneke said converting CO₂ into a solid could be a more sustainable approach.

“While we can’t literally turn back time, turning carbon dioxide back into coal and burying it back in the ground is a bit like rewinding the emissions clock,” Daeneke, an Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow, said.

“To date, CO₂ has only been converted into a solid at extremely high temperatures, making it industrially unviable.

“By using liquid metals as a catalyst, we’ve shown it’s possible to turn the gas back into carbon at room temperature, in a process that’s efficient and scalable.

“While more research needs to be done, it’s a crucial first step to delivering solid storage of carbon.”

How the carbon conversion works

Lead author, Dr Dorna Esrafilzadeh, a Vice-Chancellor’s Research Fellow in RMIT’s School of Engineering, developed the electrochemical technique to capture and convert atmospheric CO₂ to storable solid carbon.

To convert CO₂, the researchers designed a liquid metal catalyst with specific surface properties that made it extremely efficient at conducting electricity while chemically activating the surface.

The carbon dioxide is dissolved in a beaker filled with an electrolyte liquid and a small amount of the liquid metal, which is then charged with an electrical current.

The CO₂ slowly converts into solid flakes of carbon, which are naturally detached from the liquid metal surface, allowing the continuous production of carbonaceous solid.

Esrafilzadeh said the carbon produced could also be used as an electrode.

“A side benefit of the process is that the carbon can hold electrical charge, becoming a supercapacitor, so it could potentially be used as a component in future vehicles.”

“The process also produces synthetic fuel as a by-product, which could also have industrial applications.”

The research was conducted at RMIT’s MicroNano Research Facility and the RMIT Microscopy and Microanalysis Facility, with lead investigator, Honorary RMIT and ARC Laureate Fellow, Professor Kourosh Kalantar-Zadeh (now UNSW).

The research is supported by the Australian Research Council Centre for Future Low-Energy Electronics Technologies (FLEET) and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science (ACES).

The collaboration involved researchers from Germany (University of Munster), China (Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics), the US (North Carolina State University) and Australia (UNSW, University of Wollongong, Monash University, QUT).

The paper is published in Nature Communications (“Room temperature CO₂ reduction to solid carbon species on liquid metals featuring atomically thin ceria interfaces”, DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-08824-8).

https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-news/2019/feb/carbon-dioxide-coal

Coming: "Adversarial" Climate Panel

'Adversarial' Reviewers Recruit Climate Skeptics
Scott Waldman, E&E News reporter
[unedited, from] Climatewire: Monday, February 25, 2019

The White House is recruiting researchers who reject the scientific consensus on climate change for its "adversarial" review of the issue.

The proposal to form a "Presidential Committee on Climate Security" at the National Security Council has shifted, into an ad-hoc group that will review climate science out of the public eye. Those involved in the preliminary discussions said it is focused on recruiting academics to conduct a review of the science that shows climate change presents a national security risk.

William Happer, a senior director at the NSC and an emeritus Princeton University physics professor not trained in climate science, is leading the effort.

Among those who have been contacted are the relatively small number of researchers with legitimate academic credentials who question the notion that humans are warming the planet at a rapid pace through the burning of fossil fuels. A number of the names the White House is targeting are those frequently invited by Republicans to testify at congressional hearings on climate change where uncertainty is emphasized.

The stated goal of the committee, according to a leaked White House memo, is to conduct "adversarial scientific peer review" of climate science.

Those involved in the preliminary discussions caution that the list of researchers, which could include scientists as well as statisticians, is still under discussion and that the shape of the committee has yet to be determined. Most of the members are expected to come from outside the federal government.

Happer did lead a meeting Friday to discuss the goals of the committee, according to a White House official. It could take about a month for an executive order creating the committee to receive President Trump's signature, the official said.

The official would not confirm those who attended Friday's meeting, but a memo that leaked ahead of the gathering showed representatives from NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy were among those invited to participate.

On Friday, White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway would not comment on why the administration was challenging the science of its own agencies.

"Do you have an articulate, competent question?" she said — and then refused to answer any questions about the meeting.

The list of researchers who have been approached or discussed includes: Judith Curry, a former professor at the Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences; Richard Lindzen, a retired Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor who has called those worried about global warming a "cult"; and John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and a newly installed member of EPA's Science Advisory Board. A leader of the effort is Steven Koonin, a New York University professor and former undersecretary for science in the Department of Energy in the Obama administration.

It's possible the review will also include scientists who agree with the vast majority in the field of climate science that humans are warming the planet at a pace unprecedented in the history of civilization.

Koonin has been actively recruiting participants for the effort. He and Happer worked with former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to conduct a "red team, blue team" climate debate at EPA, which would also have taken an adversarial approach to scientific peer review, but that effort was ultimately scuttled by former White House chief of staff John Kelly.

The new group plans to take a close look at the recent congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment, which found that "the impacts and costs of climate change are already being felt in the United States, and changes in the likelihood or severity of some recent extreme weather events can now be attributed with increasingly higher confidence to human-caused warming."

While the Trump administration signed off on the report, the president said he did not believe it. His administration attempted to bury the report by releasing it on the day after Thanksgiving.

In the National Climate Assessment, scientists rate their areas of confidence by certainty. For example, an area of low confidence is the frequency of extreme storms, which present a significant national security risk. Scientists are still uncertain as to the exact effect of climate change on how often extreme storms, such as hurricanes, occur, but they're increasingly confident that climate change can make such storms more intense.

The group, in particular, will look at areas of that report where the confidence is low or medium. They plan to question the conclusions of those who say the report shows climate change poses a national security risk, according to a person involved in preliminary discussions.

Happer, who once compared the "demonization" of carbon dioxide to the genocide of Jews during the Holocaust, has pushed for some members of the CO2 Coalition — a group he founded — to take an active role in the White House effort, according to sources.

The CO2 Coalition receives funding from the Mercer family, a key Trump donor that supports groups that attack climate science, as well as the Koch political network, which has also given millions of dollars to such groups. The coalition's board of directors and members include researchers who have received funding from the fossil fuel industry and whose work is used to tear down climate regulations.

The coalition's stated purpose is "educating thought leaders, policy makers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy." A number of its members have called for burning more fossil fuels to benefit humanity and the planet.

That directly contradicts the world's top science agencies, including NASA and NOAA. They have found the consumption of fossil fuels has pushed the planet to a dangerous tipping point that could fundamentally alter civilization if it continues unabated.

One group that will be excluded from the White House effort is the Heartland Institute, according to those who have participated in preliminary discussions.

Happer and other researchers involved have been featured speakers at the group's events. But some participants have said they will not join the review if researchers from Heartland — which has received millions of dollars from the Mercer family — are included because a Heartland-led effort would not be considered a serious science review.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060122279

Is "Climate Change" Falsifiable?

Scientific Proof and Falsifiability
By Dr Timothy Ball

They claim the climate science is over – the evidence is in and the theory that humans are causing global warming and climate change is proven. The statement, promoted by those with a clear political objective like Al Gore must originate from a scientific source. Certainly the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report (the Fourth Assessment Report abbreviated as FAR or AR4) provides a basis. Their claim of certainty is based on computer model outputs, which they claim provide a 90% certainty that human CO2 is causing climate change. A more important question is did science ever begin?

A major problem with the IPCC claim is the level of science used to create the model. The standard test for a model is validation, which requires demonstration of the ability of the model to re-create known conditions. In the case of climate this means accurately reproducing the climate conditions of a particularly distinctive and well-documented climate such as the most recent buildup of continental ice during the Pleistocene. More recently there are the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from approximately 900 to 1300 A.D., and the cool period known as the Little Ice Age (LIA) from approximately 1450 to 1850 A.D. In fact, none of the computer climate models have been validated.

Traditionally, this was referred to as hindsight forecasting. It argues that if a model cannot create past climates it cannot predict future climates.

There are two important concepts identified here; the role of validation of a theory, and a basic definition of science as the ability to predict. Both are part of a larger debate about science and scientific method that have surprisingly few changes through history. Francis Bacon (1561 –1626) formalized the scientific method that goes back to Aristotle. This involved what is generally defined as Deductive Reasoning. You start with a hypothesis, which is a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.. Observations are then made to test the hypothesis, which is either confirmed or rejected. More correctly it is not rejected, but the null hypothesis is established.

Deductive Approach:

Hypothesis – Theory – Observation – Confirmation.

The second general form of approach is called Inductive Reasoning. Here you move from general observation to determining a pattern from which an hypothesis is drawn and a theory evolves.

Inductive Approach:

Observation – Pattern – Hypothesis – Theory.

In 1919 Karl Popper began to question the validity of Inductive Reasoning by asking two questions as he explained in an article titled “Science as Falsification” published in 1963. “When should a theory be ranked as scientific?” and “Is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of a theory?” http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

Recently I wrote an article in which I identified a major flaw with the theory of human-induced global warming or as it is commonly abbreviated, anthropogenic global warming (AGW). One critic accused me of using the entirely incorrect  Popperian falsification approach. Popper advanced the idea that no matter how many supporting examples there were for a theory it only required one to falsify it. This meant that any theory should be disproved rather than proved. In the 1963 article Popper updated and summarized his 1919 conclusions. Item 5 says, “Every genuine test a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it.” However, he promptly modifies the statement, “Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.” This statement appears applicable to the current anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW).

A major reason why it is less testable than others is because it does not follow either the deductive or the inductive reasoning approach. The most likely cause of the problem is the absolute dependence call for theory on computer models.

They are deductive because they move from the more general, which is the model itself, they are inductive because the model provides the observations from which the theory is developed. They are inductive because the model is derived from observations. However, the observations are inadequate for the construction or to determine the pattern from which the theory must evolve.

It is much easier to test the model if we assume it best fits the deductive reasoning approach. This begins with a hypothesis that humans have become a major cause of climate change and leads to the IPCC climate change theory. These include that;

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes the surface to be heated by the atmosphere in addition to the direct heating from the Sun.

2. If the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases global temperature will rise.

3. CO2 in the atmosphere will increase because of the growing contribution from human activities.

If we apply Popper’s falsifiability to these assumptions then AGW fails at the third stage of the deductive approach. Observations in all records of any duration for any time period show that temperature increases before CO2 increases, contradicting assumption 2. Despite this evidence all models continue to use the assumption. It is not surprising therefore that the hypothesis in the form of the models also fails the fundamental definition of science because their predictions are consistently wrong. It is also not surprising considering the lack of validation.

If either the deductive or inductive method was being used the prediction failure should lead to correction of the models. They try to make the model fit the observations, but it only so they appear to simulate reality. It does not include reassessing the assumptions. Remove assumption 2 and the entire theory collapses. The question is why won’t they do what is scientifically correct?

Popper provides an explanation in item 7 on his list. This reads, “Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers – for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.” This leads back to a comment Popper makes at the beginning of his 1963 essay. “The problem which troubled me at the time was neither, “When is a theory true?” nor “When is a theory acceptable?” My problem was different. I wish to distinguish between science and pseudoscience; knowing very well that science often errors and that pseudoscience may happen to stumble on the truth.”

The short answer to the question, did science ever begin with the climate theory that humans are causing warming or change, is no. The approach was neither deductive nor inductive. The theory was transposed to a model built on inadequate data or understanding of the mechanisms of climate. Because the models were not validated they are inadequate as models let alone as the basis for a theory. They also failed to make accurate predictions, a very basic definition of science. Finally, they fail as science and fit Popper’s definition of pseudoscience because instead of adjusting to failures they continue to blindly and dogmatically pursue a failed hypothesis.

10/2008

https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS_ScienticProof&falsi.pdf

Falsifiability Explained

A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability (or is falsifiable) if it is contradicted by a basic statement, which, in an eventual successful or failed falsification, must respectively correspond to a true or hypothetical observation. For example, the claim "all swans are white and have always been white" is falsifiable since it is contradicted by this basic statement: "In 1697, during the Dutch explorer Willem de Vlamingh expedition, there were black swans on the shore of the Swan River in Australia", which in this case is a true observation. The concept is also known by the terms refutable and refutability.

 

                                                                    black swans
 
The concept was introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper. He saw falsifiability as the logical part and the cornerstone of his scientific epistemology, which sets the limits of scientific inquiry. He proposed that statements and theories that are not falsifiable are unscientific. Declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientific would then be pseudoscience.

Overview of Falsifiability

The classical view of the philosophy of science is that it is the goal of science to prove hypotheses like "All swans are white" or to induce them from observational data. The Inductivist methodology supposes that one can somehow move from a series of statements such as 'here is a white swan', 'over there is a white swan', and so on, to a universal statement such as 'all swans are white'. As observed by David Hume, Immanuel Kant and later by Popper and others, this method is clearly deductively invalid, since it is always possible that there may be a non-white swan that has eluded observation (and, in fact, the discovery of the Australian black swan demonstrated the deductive invalidity of this particular statement). This is known as the problem of induction.

One solution to the problem of induction, proposed by Immanuel Kant in Critique of Pure Reason, is to consider as valid absolutely a priori the conclusions that we would otherwise have drawn from these dubious inferential inductions. Following Kant, Popper accepted that we have to work with unproven hypotheses, but he refused that we have to justify them in any way and he wrote (Popper 1959, p. 6): "I do not think that his ingenious attempt to provide an a priori justification for synthetic statements was successful." However, if one finds one single swan that is not white, deductive logic admits the conclusion that the statement that all swans are white is false. Falsificationism thus strives for questioning, for falsification, of hypotheses instead of proving them or trying to view them as valid in any way.

For a statement to be questioned using observation, it needs to be at least theoretically possible that it can come into conflict with observation. A key observation of falsificationism is thus that a criterion of demarcation is needed to distinguish those statements that can come into conflict with observation and those that cannot, but the criterion itself concerns only the logical form of the theory:

I shall require that [the] logical form [of the theory] shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of empirical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.

— Karl Popper, Popper 1959. p 19

Popper always insisted on a clear distinction between the logic (of falsifiability) and its applied less precise methodology. The required logical form, the criterion, is that there must exist basic statements that contradict the theory (and also some that corroborate it because the theory must be consistent). This logical form informally implies the possibility of refutations by experience because, in its informal methodological context, a basic statement must be intersubjective and interpretable in terms of observations.

Objections can be raised against falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation similar to those which can be raised against verifiability. For example, as pointed out by many and reformulated by Colin McGinn,

[w]e have to be able to infer that if a falsifying result has been found in a given experiment it will be found in future experiments; ... this is clearly an inductive inference.

— Colin McGinn, McGinn 2002, sec. 3

Very early, in anticipation of this specific objection Popper wrote,

This attack would not disturb me. My proposal is based upon an asymmetry between verifiability and falsifiability; an asymmetry which results from the logical form of universal statements. For these are never derivable from singular statements, but can be contradicted by singular statements.

— Karl Popper, Popper 1959. p 19

In its simple form, the point here is that although a singular existential statement such as 'there is a white swan in Europe' cannot be used to affirm a universal statement, it can be used to show that one is false: the statement 'there is a non white swan in Australia' implies that the universal statement 'all swans are white' is false. Moreover, this singular existential statement is empirical: it is impractical to observe all the swans in the world to verify that they are all white, but one can observe one swan that is not white. This shows the fundamental difference between verifiability and falsifiability. Also, in the logical form of the theory, there is no notion of future experiments, but only a (formal) class of basic statements that contradict it.

Such a simple contradiction with a basic statement is not what Popper calls a falsification. A falsification usually entails a derivation from a system of statements, which include the universal statement and initial conditions, to a singular statement, which is contradicted by a falsifying hypothesis, but the argument can be generalized. Popper explains

"... it is possible by means of purely deductive inferences (with the help of the modus tollens of classical logic) to argue from the truth of singular statements to the falsity of universal statements. Such an argument to the falsity of universal statements is the only strictly deductive kind of inference that proceeds, as it were, in the ‘inductive direction’; that is, from singular to universal statements."

— Karl Popper, Popper 1959, p. 19

Contemporary philosopher David Miller mentions that other similar objections have been anticipated and answered by Popper.

The falsifiability criterion does not imply that unfalsifiable systems such as logic, mathematics and metaphysics are not parts of science. Contrary to intuition, unfalsifiable statements can be embedded in—and deductively entailed by—falsifiable theories. For example, while "all men are mortal" is unfalsifiable, it is a logical consequence of the falsifiable theory that "all men die 150 years after their birth at the latest". Similarly, the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. Popper invented the notion of metaphysical research programs to name such unfalsifiable ideas that guide the search for a new theory.

Thus falsificationism has two levels. At the logical level, scientists use deductive logic to attempt to falsify theories. At the non-logical level, they decide on some criteria, which use falsification and other factors, to pick which theories they will study, improve, replace, apply or (further) test. These other criteria may take into account a metaphysical research program. They are not considered in the formal falsifiability criterion, but they can give a meaning to this criterion. Needless to say, for Popper, these other criteria, the so called rules of the game, are necessary. Some philosophers consider them as parts of Popper's demarcation criterion, but Popper viewed them only as a necessary context.

In contrast to Positivism, which held that statements are meaningless if they cannot be verified or falsified, Popper claimed that falsifiability is merely a special case of the more general notion of critical rationalism, even though he admitted that empirical refutation is one of the most effective methods by which theories can be criticized. Criticizability, in contrast to falsifiability, and thus rationality, may be comprehensive (i.e., have no logical limits), though this claim is controversial, even among proponents of Popper's philosophy and critical rationalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Lama and Dalai Lama

Lama (Tibetan: བླ་མ་, Wylie: bla-ma; "chief" or "high priest") is a title for a teacher of the Dharma in Tibetan Buddhism. The name is similar to the Sanskrit term guru and in use it is similar, but not identical to the western monastic rank of abbot. Historically, the term was used for venerated spiritual masters or heads of monasteries. Today the title can be used as an honorific title conferred on a monk, nun or (in the Nyingma, Kagyu and Sakya schools) advanced tantric practitioner to designate a level of spiritual attainment and authority to teach, or may be part of a title such as Dalai Lama or Panchen Lama applied to a lineage of reincarnate lamas (Tulkus).

Perhaps due to misunderstandings by early western scholars attempting to understand Tibetan Buddhism, the term lama has historically been erroneously applied to Tibetan monks in general. Similarly, Tibetan Buddhism was referred to as "Lamaism" by early western scholars and travelers who perhaps did not understand that what they were witnessing was a form of Buddhism; they may also have been unaware of the distinction between Tibetan Buddhism and Bön. The term Lamaism is now considered by some to be derogatory.

In the Vajrayana path of Tibetan Buddhism, the lama is often the tantric spiritual guide, the guru to the aspiring Buddhist yogi or yogini. As such, the lama will then appear as one of the Three Roots (a variant of the Three Jewels), alongside the yidam and protector (who may be a dakini, dharmapala or other Buddhist deity figure).

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dalai Lama

Dalai Lama (UK: /ˈdælaɪ ˈlɑːmə/, US: /ˈdɑːlaɪ ˈlɑːmə/) is a title given by the Tibetan people for the foremost spiritual leader of the Gelug or "Yellow Hat" school of Tibetan Buddhism, the newest of the classical schools of Tibetan Buddhism. The 14th and current Dalai Lama is Tenzin Gyatso.

The Dalai Lama is also considered to be the successor in a line of tulkus who are believed to be incarnations of Avalokiteśvara, a Bodhisattva of Compassion. The name is a combination of the Mongolic word dalai meaning "ocean" or "big" (coming from Mongolian title Dalaiyin qan or Dalaiin khan, translated as 'Gyatso' in Tibetan) and the Tibetan word བླ་མ་ (bla-ma) meaning "master, guru".

The Dalai Lama figure is important for many reasons. Since the time of the fifth Dalai Lama, his personage has always been a symbol of unification of the state of Tibet, where he has represented Buddhist values and traditions. The Dalai Lama was an important figure of the Geluk tradition, which was politically and numerically dominant in Central Tibet, but his religious authority went beyond sectarian boundaries. While he had no formal or institutional role in any of the religious traditions, which were headed by their own high lamas, he was a unifying symbol of the Tibetan state, representing Buddhist values and traditions above any specific school. The traditional function of the Dalai Lama as an ecumenical figure, holding together disparate religious and regional groups, has been taken up by the present fourteenth Dalai Lama. He has worked to overcome sectarian and other divisions in the exiled community and has become a symbol of Tibetan nationhood for Tibetans both in Tibet and in exile.

From 1642 until 1705, and from 1750 to the 1950s, the Dalai Lamas or their regents headed the Tibetan government (or Ganden Phodrang) in Lhasa which governed all or most of the Tibetan plateau with varying degrees of autonomy under the Qing Dynasty of China, up to complete sovereignty. This Tibetan government also enjoyed the patronage and protection of firstly Mongol kings of the Khoshut and Dzungar Khanates (1642–1720) and then of the emperors of the Manchu-led Qing dynasty (1720–1912). Tibet's sovereignty was later rejected, however, by both the Republic of China and the current People's Republic of China.
 

                                                                 Tenzin Gyatso

                                             https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_Lama

"Exploratory Committee" Explained

In the election politics of the United States, an exploratory committee is an organization established to help determine whether a potential candidate should run for an elected office. They are most often cited in reference to United States Presidential hopefuls prior to campaign announcements and the primaries.

Exploratory committees may be governed by law. For example, the District of Columbia legally defines Exploratory Committees as (in DC Official Code § 1-1101.01(6)(B)(vi)):

Exploratory, draft or "testing the waters" committees are formed solely for the purpose of determining the feasibility of an individual’s candidacy for office. The activities of exploratory committees may include polling, travel, and telephone calls to determine whether the individual should become a candidate.

Ron Elving described the use of exploratory committees in his article, Declaring for President is a Dance of Seven Veils, which aired on National Public Radio on December 5, 2006. [See https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6581302 ]He wrote:

The exploratory committee has been around for decades, and technically it creates a legal shell for a candidate who expects to spend more than $5,000 while contemplating an actual run. Under the rules, exploratory money may be raised without the full disclosure of sources required of true candidates. Only when the candidate drops the exploratory label does the full responsibility of transparency apply.

Candidates use an exploratory committee as not only a transitional phase for their bookkeeping but as an extra claim on media attention. Some of the most skillful handlers like to leak word that their candidate is testing the waters, then leak word that he or she is thinking about forming an exploratory committee. Additional "news" can be made when the same candidate actually forms such a committee and registers with the Federal Election Commission. Yet a fourth round of attention may be generated when the word exploratory gets dropped from the committee filing

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploratory_committee

Actor John Barrymore

John Sidney Barrymore (né Blyth; February 15, 1882 – May 29, 1942) was an American actor on stage, screen and radio. A member of the Drew and Barrymore theatrical families, he initially tried to avoid the stage, and briefly attempted a career as an artist, but appeared on stage together with his father Maurice in 1900, and then his sister Ethel the following year. He began his career in 1903 and first gained attention as a stage actor in light comedy, then high drama, culminating in productions of Justice (1916), Richard III (1920) and Hamlet (1922); his portrayal of Hamlet led to him being called the "greatest living American tragedian".

After a success as Hamlet in London in 1925, Barrymore left the stage for 14 years and instead focused entirely on films. In the silent film era, he was well received in such pictures as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920), Sherlock Holmes (1922) and The Sea Beast (1926). During this period, he gained his nickname, the Great Profile. His stage-trained voice proved an asset when sound films were introduced, and three of his works, Grand Hotel (1932), Twentieth Century (1934) and Midnight (1939) have been inducted into the National Film Registry.

Barrymore's personal life has been the subject of much attention before and since his death. He struggled with alcohol abuse from the age of 14, was married and divorced four times, and declared bankruptcy later in life. Much of his later work involved self-parody and the portrayal of drunken has-beens. His obituary in The Washington Post observed that "with the passing of the years – and as his private life became more public – he became, despite his genius in the theater, a tabloid character." Although film historians have opined that Barrymore's "contribution to the art of cinematic acting began to fade" after the mid-1930s, Barrymore's biographer, Martin Norden, considers him to be "perhaps the most influential and idolized actor of his day.”

Early Motion Pictures and Theatrical Triumphs 1913-1924

In late 1913, Barrymore made his first confirmed feature film, the romantic comedy An American Citizen, with Adolph Zukor's Famous Players Film Company. When the film was released in January 1914, Barrymore "delighted movie audiences with an inimitable light touch that made a conventional romance 'joyous'," writes Peters. A reviewer for The Oregon Daily Journal thought that Barrymore gave a "portrayal of unusual quality". The success of the picture led to further film work, including The Man from Mexico (1914), Are You a Mason?, The Dictator and The Incorrigible Dukane (all 1915). Except for The Incorrigible Dukane, all of these early films are presumed lost.

Despite the film work and the higher fees he earned from it, Barrymore continued to seek stage work, and in January 1914 he played the lead in The Yellow Ticket at New York's Eltinge Theatre. The role marked a departure from the light comedy of his previous performances, a result of Sheldon urging him to turn towards more dramatic parts. The Yellow Ticket was not the breakthrough that Barrymore wanted. A few months before the outbreak of World War One, he took a vacation to Italy with Sheldon to enjoy a temporary break from his worsening marriage. He returned from Italy and accepted another serious stage role, that of an ex-convict in Kick In, at New York's Longacre Theatre. The play was a success, and Barrymore received praise from the critics; The New York Times reviewer thought that in a play that had "uncommonly able and sincere playing", Barrymore acted his role with "intelligence and vigor and impart[ed] to it a deal of charm".

Barrymore spent the second half of 1915 making three films, including The Red Widow, which he called "the worst film I ever made" in his 1926 autobiography. In April 1916, he starred in John Galsworthy's prison drama Justice, again at the instigation of Sheldon. The play was a critical success, and The New York Times thought the audience saw "Barrymore play as he had never played before, and so, by his work as the wretched prisoner in Justice, step forward into a new position on the American stage." The critic went on to say that Barrymore gave "an extraordinary performance in every detail of appearance and manner, in every note of deep feeling ... a superb performance.”

From early 1916, Barrymore had been living apart from Katherine, and she sued for divorce in November 1916. By the time the divorce was finalized in December 1917, he had taken the lead role in the film Raffles, the Amateur Cracksman. He had also tried to enlist in the U.S. Army following the country's entry into World War I, but Army doctors revealed that he had varicose veins, and he was not accepted for military service. For over a year beginning in April 1917, he appeared together with Lionel in a stage version of George du Maurier's 1891 novel Peter Ibbetson. The play and the two Barrymores were warmly regarded by the critics. Around this time, Barrymore began a relationship with a married mother of two, Blanche Oelrichs, a suffragist from an elite Rhode Island family with what Peters calls "anarchistic self-confidence". Oelrichs also published poetry under the name Michael Strange. While their relationship began in secret, it became more open after Oelrichs' husband was commissioned into the army and then posted to France.

Both Oelrichs and Sheldon urged Barrymore to take on his next role, Fedya Vasilyevich Protasov, in Leo Tolstoy's play Redemption at the Plymouth Theatre. The critic for The New York Times felt that, although Barrymore's performance was "marred by vocal monotony", overall the performance was "a distinct step forward in Mr. Barrymore's artistic development ... There is probably not another actor on our stage who has a temperament so fine and spiritual, an art so flexible and sure." In 1918, Barrymore starred in the romantic comedy film On the Quiet; the Iowa City Press-Citizen considered the film superior to the original Broadway performance.

In 1919, Barrymore portrayed a struggling lawyer in the film adaptation of the Broadway show Here Comes the Bride, which he followed with The Test of Honor. The latter film marked his first straight dramatic role on screen after years of performing in comedy dramas. Later that year, when Barrymore again appeared on stage with Lionel in Sem Benelli's historical drama The Jest, audience members "agree[d] that the American stage had never witnessed finer acting", according to Peters. Alexander Woollcott, writing in The New York Times, thought that "John and Lionel Barrymore hold spellbound each breathless audience", and he commented that Barrymore "contributes to that appeal by every step, every hand, every posture of a body grown unexpectedly eloquent in recent years". In November, Barrymore began filming Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, playing the dual leading role, and the film was released in theaters the following year. Wid's Daily thought that "it is the star's picture from the very outset, and it is the star that makes it", going on to say that Barrymore's portrayal was "a thing of fine shadows and violent emotions". The Washington Post was in agreement, and considered the performance to be "a masterpiece", and "a remarkable piece of work". The film was so successful that the US Navy used stills of Barrymore in its recruiting posters.

After planning for over a year – largely in secret – Barrymore played his first Shakespeare part, the title role in Richard III. Conscious of the criticism of his vocal range, he underwent training with Margaret Carrington, the voice and diction trainer, to ensure he sounded right for the part, and the pair worked together daily for up to six hours a day for six weeks. After the debut in March 1920, the critics were effusive in their praise. The Washington Herald observed that the audience were "held by the sheer power of Barrymore's performance", which was "remarkable for ... [the actor's] unexpected vocal richness", while Woollcott, in The New York Times, thought the performance "marked a measurable advance in the gradual process of bringing [Barrymore's] technical fluency abreast with his winged imagination and his real genius for the theatre,”

Although a commercial and critical success, the play closed after 31 performances when Barrymore collapsed, suffering a nervous breakdown. Since appearing in Redemption he had worked ceaselessly, appearing on stage in the evenings, while planning or rehearsing the next production during the day, and by the time he appeared as Richard, he was spending his daytimes filming Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He spent six weeks recuperating under the ministrations of his father's friend, wrestler William Muldoon, who ran a sanitarium. During the summer of 1920, Oelrichs became pregnant with Barrymore's child, and a quick divorce was arranged with her husband, which left her and Barrymore free to marry in August that year; a daughter, Diana Barrymore, followed in March 1921. Soon after the birth, he began rehearsals for Clair de Lune, which his wife had adapted from Victor Hugo's 1869 novel The Man Who Laughs. Barrymore persuaded Ethel to play the role of the Queen – it was the first time the two had appeared on stage together in over a decade. The play was a critical flop, although the presence of the siblings ensured that it ran for over 60 performances.

In 1921, Barrymore portrayed a wealthy Frenchman in New York in the film The Lotus Eater, with Colleen Moore. In September, Barrymore and Oelrichs went to Europe on holiday; cracks were appearing in their relationship, and she fell in love with a poet during their extended stay in Venice. In October, Oelrichs returned to New York and Barrymore traveled to London to film the exterior scenes for his latest movie, Sherlock Holmes, in which he played the title role. He then returned to New York to work on the film's interior scenes in January 1922. Barrymore became involved in the pre-production work for the film and provided designs for Moriarty's lair. The film was released later that year and was generally thought "a little dull and ponderous, with too many intertitles", although James W. Dean of The Evening News of Harrisburg opined that "the personality of Barrymore is the film's transcendent quality.”

Barrymore decided next to star in Hamlet on stage, with Arthur Hopkins directing. They spent six months preparing, cutting over 1,250 lines from the text as they did so, and Barrymore opted to play Hamlet as "a man's man", according to Norden. Barrymore later described his Hamlet as a "normal, healthy, lusty young fellow who simply got into a mess that was too thick for him ... he was a great fencer, an athlete, a man who led an active, healthy life. How can you make a sickly half-wit out of a man like that?" Barrymore again used Carrington as a vocal coach; rehearsals started in October, and the play opened on November 16. The production was a box-office success, and the critics were lavish in their praise. Woollcott, writing for the New York Herald, opined that it was "an evening that will be memorable in the history of the American theater". while John Corbin, the drama critic for The New York Times, agreed, writing that "in all likelihood we have a new and a lasting Hamlet". The reviewer for Brooklyn Life stated that Barrymore had "doubtless won the right to be called the greatest living American tragedian". In 1963, Orson Welles said that Barrymore was the best Hamlet he had seen, describing the character as "not so much princely – he was a man of genius who happened to be a prince, and he was tender, and virile, and witty, and dangerous."

Barrymore and Hopkins decided to end the run at 101 performances, just breaking the record of one hundred by Edwin Booth, before the play closed in February 1923. In November and December that year, a three-week run of the play was staged at the Manhattan Opera House, followed by a brief tour that closed at the end of January 1924.

Films with the Major Studios 1924-1932

News of Barrymore's success in Hamlet piqued the interest of Warner Bros., which signed him as the lead in the 1924 film Beau Brummel. Unhappy in his marriage, Barrymore – aged 40 at the time – sought solace elsewhere and had an affair with his 17-year-old co-star Mary Astor during filming. Although the film was not an unqualified success, the cast, including Barrymore, was generally praised. Around this time, Barrymore acquired the nickname "the Great Profile", as posters and photographs of him tended to favor the left-hand side. He later said: "The right side of my face looks like a fried egg. The left side has features that are to be found in almost any normal anthropological specimen, and those are the apples I try to keep on top of the barrel.”

In February 1925, Barrymore staged Hamlet in London at the Haymarket Theatre, which the Manchester Guardian later said had "the most memorable first night for years". The reviews were positive, and "although none of the London critics found Barrymore superior to [Henry] Irving and [Johnston] Forbes-Robertson, many were favorable in their comparisons". Among the audience members was the 20-year-old actor John Gielgud, who wrote in his program "Barrymore is romantic in appearance and naturally gifted with grace, looks and a capacity to wear period clothes, which makes his brilliantly intellectual performance classical without being unduly severe, and he has tenderness, remoteness, and neurosis all placed with great delicacy and used with immense effectiveness and admirable judgment". Looking back in the 1970s, he said: "The handsome middle-aged stars of the Edwardian theatre romanticised the part. Even John Barrymore, whose Hamlet I admired very much, cut the play outrageously so that he could, for instance, play the closet scene all out for sentiment with the emphasis on the 'Oedipus complex' – sobbing on Gertrude's bosom. Yet Barrymore ... had a wonderful edge and a demonic sense of humour."

At the end of this run of Hamlet, Barrymore traveled to Paris, where Oelrichs had stayed during his residence in London, but the reunion was not a happy one and the couple argued frequently. When he returned to America, she remained in Paris, and the couple drew up a separation agreement that provided Oelrichs with $18,000 a year and stated that neither could sue for divorce on the grounds of adultery. While he had been in London, Warner Bros and Barrymore entered into a contact for three further films at a salary of $76,250 per picture. He later claimed that his motivation for moving from stage to films was the "lack of repetition—the continual playing of a part, which is so ruinous to an actor, is entirely eliminated.”

Barrymore's first film under the contract was The Sea Beast (1926), loosely based on the 1851 novel Moby-Dick, in which he played Captain Ahab Ceeley. This was one of the biggest money-makers of the year for Warner Bros. Although Barrymore wanted Astor to play the female lead, she was unavailable, and Dolores Costello was cast in her place. He later said that "I fell in love with her instantly. This time I knew I was right", and the couple began an affair. Costello's father was angered by the relationship, but his complaints were ignored by both Costello and her mother: Costello's parents separated and were divorced as a result. The film was well received by critics, and Mordaunt Hall, the film critic of The New York Times, praised the "energy, earnestness and virility" Barrymore displayed in the role of Ceeley.

As filming finished on The Sea Beast, work began on Don Juan, the first feature-length film with synchronized Vitaphone sound effects and a musical soundtrack. Although Barrymore wanted to play opposite Costello again, Jack L. Warner, the film's producer, signed Astor. After completing his Warner Bros. contract with When a Man Loves, with Costello, Barrymore joined United Artists (UA) under a three-film deal. For the next three years, according to Morrison, he "enjoyed unprecedented prosperity and spent lavishly". Nevertheless, he received some harsh reviews. Critic and essayist Stark Young wrote in The New Republic that Barrymore's films were "rotten, vulgar, empty, in bad taste, dishonest, noisome with a silly and unwholesome exhibitionism, and odious with a kind of stale and degenerate studio adolescence. Their appeal is cheap, cynical and specious".

In 1927, Barrymore planned to revive Hamlet at the Hollywood Bowl, but in August he canceled the production, without explanation, and began filming the third of the UA pictures, Eternal Love, for which he was paid $150,000. In February 1928, Barrymore obtained a quiet divorce from Oelrichs; she eagerly agreed to the separation, as she was in a relationship with a lawyer, Harrison Tweed, whom she later married. Barrymore and Costello married in November that year; their daughter, Dolores, was born in April 1930 and a son, John Drew Barrymore, followed in June 1932. Barrymore purchased and converted an estate in the Hollywood Hills into 16 different buildings with 55 rooms, gardens, skeet ranges, swimming pools, fountains and a totem pole.

By the late 1920s, sound films had become common, following the 1927 sensation, The Jazz Singer. Actors with trained voices were in demand by the studios, and Barrymore was offered a five-film deal with Warner Bros. at $150,000 per picture, and a share of the profits. Before he began this contract, he played his first speaking role on film: a one-off section in The Show of Shows (1929), playing Richard, Duke of Gloucester in Henry VI, Part 3. His first two films under contract were General Crack and The Man from Blankley's, each of which were modestly successful. As he had been frustrated at the inability of making The Sea Beast as a sound film, Barrymore returned to Moby Dick as the source for a 1930 film of the same name. Peters thinks little of the film, describing it as "a seesaw between the cosmic and the comic, a travesty of Melville as well as a silly film all on its own".

The following year, Barrymore played the title role of a manipulative voice coach in Svengali, opposite Marian Marsh. Martin Dickstein, the critic for the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, wrote that Barrymore "registers a personal triumph in the role", calling his performance "brilliant ... one of the best of his movie career". Later in 1931, he played a crippled puppeteer, who tries to fulfill his frustrated ambitions by manipulating the life of a young male ballet dancer and the dancer's lover (also Marsh) in The Mad Genius; the film was a commercial failure. With disappointing box office returns from their five-film deal, Warner Bros. decided not to offer Barrymore a contract renewal. Instead, Barrymore signed a non-exclusive contract with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) and took a $25,000 salary cut per film.

Grand Hotel, 1932

Barrymore's first film for MGM was the 1932 mystery Arsène Lupin, in which he co-starred with his brother Lionel. In The New York Times, Hall called Barrymore's performance "admirable" and wrote that "it is a pleasure to see [him] again in something in a lighter vein." The same year, Barrymore starred as jewel thief Baron Felix von Geigern together with Greta Garbo in the 1932 film Grand Hotel, in which Lionel also appeared. Critical opinion of Barrymore's acting was divided; John Gilbert's biographer Eve Golden refers to Barrymore as seeming "more like ... [Garbo's] affectionate father than her lover", while George Blaisdell of International Photographer praised the dialogue and wrote that a viewer would be "deeply impressed with the rarity in screen drama on which he is looking." Grand Hotel won the Academy Award for Best Picture and was one of the highest-grossing films of the year. It was later added to the National Film Registry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barrymore

Most Snub Flawless AI Advice

Date:          January 30, 2019
Source:      U.S. Army Research Laboratory
Summary: A team of researchers recently discovered that most people overlook artificial intelligence despite flawless advice. AI-like systems will be an integral part of the Army's strategy over the next five years, so system designers will need to start getting a bit more creative in order to appeal to users.

If you were convinced you knew the way home, would you still turn on your GPS?

Army scientists recently attempted to answer a similar question due to an ongoing concern that artificial intelligence, which can be opaque and frustrating to many people, may not be helpful in battlefield decision making.

"The U.S. Army continues to push the modernization of its forces, with notable efforts including the development of smartphone-based software for real-time information delivery such as the Android Tactical Assault Kit, or ATAK, and the allocation of significant funding towards researching new AI and machine learning methods to assist command and control personnel," said Dr. James Schaffer, scientist for RDECOM's Army Research Laboratory, the Army's corporate research laboratory (ARL), at ARL West in Playa Vista, California.

According to Schaffer, despite these advances, a significant gap in basic knowledge about the use of AI still exists, and it is unknown which factors of AI will or will not help military decision-making processes.

University and corporate research has made significant headway into solving this problem for applications like movie and restaurant recommendations, but the findings do not exactly translate to the military world.

"For instance, many research studies and A/B testing, such as those performed by Amazon, have experimented with different forms of persuasion, argumentation and user interface styles to determine the winning combination that moves the most product or inspires the most trust," Schaffer said. "Unfortunately, there are big gaps between the assumptions in these low-risk domains and military practice."

The Army's research, which was a collaboration between Army scientists and university researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara, hypothesizes that many people trust their own abilities far more than that of a computer, which will affect their judgment when pressured to perform.

According to Schaffer, this implies that even if flawless AI could be created, some people would not listen to the AI's advice.

The researchers constructed an abstract similar to the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma a game where players must choose to cooperate with or defect against their co-players in every round -- in order to control all relevant factors.

The Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma has been used in regards to several real-world problems, such as military arms races, public sharing of resources and international politics.

An online version of the game was developed by the research team, where players obtained points by making good decisions in each round.

An AI was used to generate advice in each round, which was shown alongside the game interface, and made a suggestion about which decision should be made by the player.

Researchers had an opportunity to design an AI that always recommended the optimal course of action.

However, just like in real life, players were required to access the AI's advice manually, just as you must manually switch on GPS, and were free to accept or ignore its suggestion.

The researchers also presented different versions of this AI -- some were deliberately inaccurate, some required game information to be entered manually, and some justified their suggestions with rational arguments.

All variations of these AI treatments were tested so that interaction effects between AI configurations could be studied.

People were invited to play the game online and researchers collected a profile of each player and monitored their behavior.

For each player, researchers asked about their familiarity with the game while also measuring their true competency.

Additionally, a test was given halfway through playing that measured awareness of gameplay elements.

"What was discovered might trouble some advocates of AI two-thirds of human decisions disagreed with the AI, regardless of the number of errors in the suggestions," Schaffer said.

The higher the player estimated their familiarity with the game beforehand, the less the AI was used, an effect that was still observed when controlling for the AI's accuracy. This implies that improving a system's accuracy will not be able to increase system adoption in this population.

"This might be a harmless outcome if these players were really doing better but they were in fact performing significantly worse than their humbler peers, who reported knowing less about the game beforehand," Schaffer said. "When the AI attempted to justify its suggestions to players who reported high familiarity with the game, reduced awareness of gameplay elements was observed a symptom of over-trusting and complacency."

Despite these findings, a corresponding increase in agreement with AI suggestions was not observed.

This presents a catch-22 for system designers: incompetent users need the AI most of all, but are the least likely to be swayed by rational justifications, Schaffer said.

Incompetent users were also the most likely to say that they trusted the AI, which was studied through a post-game questionnaire.

"This contrasts sharply with their observed neglect of the AI's suggestions, demonstrating that people are not always honest, or may not always be aware of their own behavior," Schaffer said.

For Schaffer and the team, this research highlights ongoing issues in the usability of complex, opaque systems such as AI, despite continued advances in accuracy, robustness and speed.

"Rational arguments have been demonstrated to be ineffective on some people, so designers may need to be more creative in designing interfaces for these systems," Schaffer said.

Schaffer said this could be accomplished through appealing to emotions or competitiveness, or even by removing presence from the AI, such that users do not register its presence and thus do not anchor on their own abilities.

"Despite challenges in human-computer interaction, AI-like systems will be an integral part of the Army's strategy over the next five years," Schaffer said. "One of the principle challenges facing military operations today is rapid response from guerilla adversaries, who often have shorter command chains and thus can act and react more rapidly than the U.S. Armed Forces. Complex systems that can rapidly react to a changing environment and expedite information flow can improve response times and help maintain op-tempo but only if given sufficient trust by its users."

The research group continues to experiment with different interfaces for AI systems so that all types of people can benefit from increasingly effective automated knowledge.

This research will appear in the proceedings of the ACM's 2019 conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (https://iui.acm.org/2019/)

Story Source:

Materials provided by U.S. Army Research Laboratory. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190130161649.htm

The Argument Against Paywalls

Introduction by the Blog Author

Wolf Richter is a researcher with his own blog on financial matters, “Wolf Street.”  He has been mulling whether or not to convert to a site with a paywall.  He discusses his thinking about converting to a paywall which is copied below.  His analysis of this situation says a great deal about internet commerce, middlemen, financial pressure on internet media, and the struggle for individual integrity on the net.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Why WOLF STREET is Still Free and Not Behind a Paywall

Though You Have to Put Up with Ads and I Make (Maybe) Less Money
By Wolf Richter, Feb 18, 2019

A no-brainer gets rejected. This is likely my last gig, and I want to do what I love doing. But the advertising-based model is teetering.

Many readers have suggested to me that they would be willing to pay a reasonable annual subscription fee, and that I should put the content or some of the content behind a paywall. The reasons most often given for it fall broadly into two categories, with the first being far more common:

1. “I’m tired of the ads, they’re distracting, and I would rather pay a little every year to get rid of the ads.”
2. “Your stuff is too good to just give away. You should charge for it even if it limits readers to those who are seriously interested.”

I have been thinking about it for years. Ultimately, the way I see it, it comes down to a choice:

1. An equation expressed in dollars where I come out ahead dollar-wise.
2. My larger goals in life.

The equation expressed in dollars goes like this:

Once I put WOLF STREET behind a paywall, no matter how intensely I try to persuade my readers to come along with me and pay for WOLF STREET, I will lose the vast majority of my readers. Only a small percentage would make the hop.

So here is the sample math: If WOLF STREET costs $50 a year, and 10,000 readers (a small percentage of my current reader numbers) make the transition, it would amount to $500,000 a year in revenues. That is quite a bit more than I make off my silly, intrusive, and hated ads. So from that perspective, this would be a no-brainer.

But there are several problems with this equation, if it even works. For one, my readership would be gutted. And these readers are who this site lives for.

Then there is “churn.” I would lose paying subscribers all the time, and just to stay even, I’d have to market and advertise the site to get new readers to replace the once who left. And if I start marketing the dickens out of the site, pay for ads on other sites, hire a marketing team, and so on, I might get this to 20,000 readers. And $1 million in annual revenues. Or maybe not.

But here is the thing: I would have to totally change my business model and what I do for a living.

My larger goals in life.

Right now, my business model is this: Spend much of my time researching, mulling over, and diving deep into data and analyzing what I find, and then writing it all down to where it makes sense even to me, and building charts that even I can understand at one glance. And I spend a lot of time communicating with readers in the comment sections – all of which I really enjoy.

And importantly, WOLF STREET is widely read, and I’m having an impact on the debate.

In short, my business model boils down to this: I spend no time on marketing the site. I focus on creating the best articles I know how to create and hope that word gets around. Hope is not a strategy, but so far it has worked, thanks to my readers. And advertising revenue came with it.

Under a subscription model, I would constantly be trying to market a newsletter because subscribers unsubscribe or don’t renew, and I’d have to labor to fill those spots, and then I’d have to labor to get more subscribers in order to grow, and I’d have to bombard inboxes with promo emails that are trying to get people to subscribe to my can’t-live-without newsletter hidden behind a paywall.

And this time spent on marketing and selling a newsletter would have to be subtracted from the time I spend researching, analyzing, stewing over, and writing about financial, economic, and business topics, and communicating with my readers.

Look, I’m not the youngest guy anymore.

This is likely my last gig. I want to keep doing it until my brain freezes over. I feel young, and I’m fit and healthy — knock on wood — so I hope I will have many more years doing what I love doing. And what you see in front of you is what I love doing.

However, at this stage in my life, I really don’t want to spend my time doing what I don’t like doing. I have done enough of that in my younger years. I’ve paid my dues, as they say. I want to enjoy the rest of my life: And hawking subscriptions just doesn’t fit into it.

When I started the predecessor site in the summer of 2011, with this ghastly name…

…I had zero readers. When the first reader somehow found the site, I was immensely excited. I hollered at my baffled wife: “I have a reader!” Then after a while, I had 100 readers a day, then 1,000, wow! I started putting ads on my site. And they started making a few bucks a day – on a good day, enough to buy a nerve-soothing craft brew at a watering hole. And my still baffled wife could never quite figure out why I was working so hard for so little.

It’s called sweat equity. In the summer of 2014, I shed the ghastly name and switched to WOLF STREET, and things have been rocking and rolling since. Now the site is making pretty good money — “beer money,” I’ve come to call it, because I love a good IPA.

So I could probably increase my beer money by a big jump – maybe by multiples – if I switched to a subscription model. I’d have to hire a marketing team. I’d have to pay for advertising on other sites to lure people to a landing page that scares them into subscribing to WOLF STREET so they can find out how they can survive the coming whatever….

No thanks.

Also, some readers’ finances are stretched, and they don’t spend money on subscriptions. With a paywall, I would systematically exclude them. Many other readers just don’t want to spend money on subscriptions. And hiding a site behind a paywall can kill search traffic. These are people who may not know the site but are looking for something to which a WOLF STREET article provides an answer. There is a democratic beauty to advertising-supported publishing: Everyone gets to read it.

But there is a democratic beauty to advertising-supported publishing only if it can function, which is less and less clear.

The advertising supported model is under heavy attack. There just isn’t enough money in it for online publishers. Advertisers (such as Ford or Macy’s) spend a fortune, and publishers get peanuts.

The middlemen siphon most of it out — thick layers of middlemen: The ad agency hired by the advertiser, the “ad tech” companies that have managed to insert themselves layer by layer, Google that runs a big part of the show, other ad exchanges, etc., and then my own ad agencies. And the portion that the middle is siphoning out is getting bigger and bigger.

For many publishers, this just isn’t working out. Though their sites are big and have lots of readers, they aren’t generating enough revenues to fund operations. Layoffs have been ricocheting through the publishers for years, now even pure online publishers. Just so far this year, the layoff reports include:

• Vice to shed 10% to 15% of its people.
• Buzzfeed to slash 220 additional people after laying off its entire podcast team last year.
• McClatchy Company (Miami Herald, Kansas City Star, etc.) offered buyouts to 450 employees.
• Yahoo, AOL, and The Huffington Post got hit by layoffs, as owner Verizon announced that it is planning to axe 7% of its people at its media companies. This series of layoffs is on top of the buyout program announced last December with which Verizon is trying to shed 10,400 employees by mid-year.
• Gannett, the giant that owns over 100 news sites, plans to lay off as many as 400 journalists across its properties, after a round of voluntary buyouts late last year.
• Condé Nast has trimmed staff at various sites this year, including Wired, Glamour, and GQ magazine.
• The Dallas Morning News cut 43 jobs, half of them in the newsroom.

And it’s just February 18!

So I don’t know for how long the advertising-supported model will continue to provide me with beer money. There may be a day when this model no longer functions for a small publisher like me — when the giants such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook don’t accidentally leave enough crumbs behind for me to feed on.

But that day is not yet in sight. For now, my site is growing, my readership is growing, my beer money is still growing, I’m having a blast doing this, and I intend to keep doing it until my brain freezes over.

https://wolfstreet.com/2019/02/18/why-wolf-street-is-still-free-and-not-behind-a-paywall-though-you-have-to-put-up-with-ads-and-i-make-less-money-maybe/