Weather forecast accuracy is crucial in a heat wave – 1 degree can mean the difference between life and death

Extreme heat can put lives at risk, making accurate forecasts essential for people working outdoors. FG Trade/E+ via Getty Images

Derek Lemoine, University of Arizona; Jeffrey Shrader, Columbia University, and Laura Bakkensen, University of Arizona

Weather forecasts have gotten quite good over the years, but their temperatures aren’t always spot on – and the result when they underplay extremes can be lethal. Even a 1-degree difference in a forecast’s accuracy can be the difference between life and death, our research shows.

As economists, we have studied how people use forecasts to manage weather risks. In a new working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, we looked at how human survival depends on the accuracy of temperature forecasts, particularly during heat waves like large parts of the U.S. have been experiencing in recent days.

We found that when the forecasts underplayed the risk, even small forecast errors led to more deaths.

Our results also show that improving forecasts pays off. They suggest that making forecasts 50% more accurate would save 2,200 lives per year across the country and would have a net value that’s nearly twice the annual budget of the National Weather Service.

Forecasts that are too mild lead to more deaths

In the U.S. alone, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issues 1.5 million forecasts per year and collects around 76 billion weather observations that help it and private companies make better forecasts.

We examined data on every day’s deaths, weather and National Weather Service forecast in every U.S county from 2005 to 2017 to analyze the impact of those forecasts on human survival.

We then compared deaths in each county over the week following a day with accurate forecasts to deaths in the same county over the week following a day with inaccurate forecasts but the same weather. Because weather conditions were the same, any differences in mortality could be attributed to how people’s reactions to forecasts affected their chance of dying in that weather.

Vehicles on the 110 Freeway pass warning signs on Sept. 2, 2022, during a heat wave with temperatures as high as 112 degrees Fahrenheit (44 Celsius) in the Los Angeles suburbs. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

We found similar results when the forecast was wrong on hot days with temperatures above 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 Celsius) and on cold days with temperatures below freezing. Both summer days that were hotter than forecast and winter days that were colder had more deaths. Forecasts that went the other way and overestimated the summer heat or winter cold had little impact.

That doesn’t mean forecasters should exaggerate their forecasts, however. If people find that their forecasts are consistently off by a degree or two, they might change how they use forecasts or come to trust them less, leaving people at even higher risk.

People are paying attention

People do pay attention to forecasts and adjust their activities.

The American Time Use Survey, conducted continuously for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows what Americans across the country are doing on any given day. We found that on days when the forecast called for temperatures to be milder than they turned out to be – either cooler on a hot day or warmer on a cold day – people in the survey spent more time on leisure and less in home or work settings.

Electricity use also varies in sync with forecasts, suggesting that people’s use of air conditioning does not just respond to the weather outside but also depends on how they planned for the weather outside.

A man shields his head from the Sun as he walks across New York’s Brooklyn Bridge on a hot summer day in 2018. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

However, forecasts are not used equally across society. Deaths among racial minorities are less sensitive to forecast errors, we found. That could be due in part to having less flexibility to act on forecasts, or not having access to forecasts. We will dig into this difference in future work, as the answer determines how the National Weather Service can best reach everyone.

The value of better forecasts

It’s clear that people use forecasts to make decisions that can matter for life and death – when to go hiking, for example, or whether to encourage an elderly neighbor to go to a cooling center.

So, what is the value of accurate forecasts?

We combined our theoretical model with federal cost-benefit estimates of how people value improvements in their chances of survival. From those, we estimated people’s willingness to pay for better forecasts. That calculation accounts for the risk of dying from extreme weather and for the costs of using forecasts to reduce their risk of dying, such as the costs of altering work and play schedules or using electricity.

The result shows that 50% more accurate forecasts are worth at least US$2.1 billion per year based on the mortality benefits alone. In comparison, the 2022 budget of the National Weather Service was less than $1.3 billion.

Weather forecasts have gotten steadily better over the past decades. About 68% of the next-day temperature forecasts now have an error of less than 1.8 degrees. Our results suggest investing in improved forecast accuracy would probably be worth the cost.

Past improvements have come from better models, better observations and better computers. Future improvements could come from similar channels or from applying recent innovations in machine learning and artificial intelligence to weather prediction and communication.

Climate change will increase the frequency of extremely hot days, which are especially important for human health and survival to forecast accurately. Climate change will make the weather weirder, but weird weather can do less harm when we can see it coming.

Derek Lemoine, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Arizona; Jeffrey Shrader, Assistant Professor of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, and Laura Bakkensen, Associate Professor of Economics and Policy, University of Arizona

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

Increasing monopoly power poses a threat to Canada’s post-pandemic economic recovery

A recent report from Canada’s competition watchdog found that a lack of competition in the grocery sector has led to higher prices for consumers. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Graeme Roy

Garros Gong, University of Waterloo

Canada is currently grappling with a significant economic issue: market concentration. A select few corporations dominate key sectors, leading to reduced competition, rising prices and limited purchase options for consumers.

Canada’s grocery industry is a prime example of this. A recent report from the Competition Bureau found that a lack of competition in the grocery sector is resulting in higher food prices.

The grocery industry is dominated by five major players — Loblaws, Metro, Empire (the owner of Sobeys), Walmart and Costco. These five companies account for over three-quarters of all food sales in Canada.

The Bureau recommended four policies to encourage competition in the sector. These include establishing a grocery innovation strategy, encouraging new independent and international players, introducing legislation for consistent unit pricing and limiting property controls.

While independent grocery chains could be a viable alternative, they don’t occupy as large a presence of the market as they do in other countries. The Canadian grocery market is heavily concentrated and limits the ability of independent chains to compete by forcing them to purchase their products from larger chains.

History of monopolies

The Hudson’s Bay Company was granted a commercial monopoly over the entire Hudson Bay drainage basin, known as Rupert’s Land, in 1670. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nathan Denette

Canada’s economy has historically been marked by notable monopolies, thanks to its vast geographical expanse and relatively sparse population.

Entities like the Hudson’s Bay Company and Canadian Pacific Railway company played significant roles in the country’s development. This largely happened out of concern that domestic companies would be overwhelmed by American competitors unless they grew significantly.

Recent trends indicate this phenomenon is not only persisting, but intensifying. While Sobeys, Loblaws, Metro, Costco and Walmart dominate over 60 per cent of the grocery sector, Bell, Rogers and Telus command about 89 per cent of the wireless telecommunications market.

The concentration of power extends beyond these sectors. The banking industry in Canada is dominated by six banks — the Royal Bank of Canada, TD Bank, Scotiabank, the Bank of Montreal, CIBC and National Bank, which collectively control about 93 per cent of the industry.

Similarly, the beer market is largely controlled by two multinational giants, Anheuser-Busch InBev and Molson Coors.

And the Canadian telecommunications industry is still reeling from the recent merger between two of the industry’s giants, Rogers Communications and Shaw Communications. The implications of this deal are far-reaching.

The Rogers-Shaw merger

The Rogers-Shaw merger’s final approval came with 21 enforceable conditions Rogers and Videotron must adhere to, aimed at bolstering competition and reducing costs for customers.

The merger’s approval depended on Shaw selling its Freedom Mobile business to Quebecor’s Videotron. If Rogers breaches its conditions, it must pay up to $1 billion in damages. Videotron could be subject to $200 million in penalties if it fails to meet its commitments.

Innovation, Science and Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne holds up a contract between the telecoms and the federal government as he speaks at a news conference about the Rogers-Shaw merger on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on March 31, 2023. THE CANADIAN PRESS/ Patrick Doyle

Despite these conditions, some remain skeptical about the impact of the merger on competition in Canada’s telecommunications sector.

Some critics have argued the merger may lead to higher prices for consumers and less innovation. Carleton University political economy professor Dwayne Winseck warned it could lead to a “tight oligopoly on steroids.”

On the flip side, other experts believe the merger could benefit consumers by accelerating the rollout of 5G networks and improving infrastructure and services, particularly in rural areas.

However, these benefits could be offset by the potential for higher prices and less competition. The merger could lead to a dominant market share in Ontario, reducing competition and potentially leading to higher internet prices.

This is particularly concerning, given Ontario’s average monthly price of home internet services is already higher than the national average. This situation underscores the need for a revamp of Canada’s competition laws.

Loopholes in competition law

The merger has sparked controversy because it exploited weaknesses in Canada’s anti-monopoly law, the Competition Act, to push the deal through.

The Competition Act has been criticized for failing to prevent acquisitions that allow large firms to eliminate competitive threats and solidify their dominance.

As Canada’s competition watchdog, the Competition Bureau can review mergers to determine if they will be harmful to competition. But since its introduction in 1986, the bureau has only challenged 18 mergers and has never won a challenge on final judgment.

The law also has a high bar for intervention in a merger, often favouring negotiated agreements that include concessions or remedies that address some of the competition concerns, but not necessarily all.

The Competition Commissioner, Matthew Boswell, believes the existing competition laws are inadequate. Boswell has been hamstrung by legal loopholes and unable to prevent anti-competitive mergers, like the Rogers-Shaw deal, from happening.

Challenges and opportunities

Along with rising consumer prices, limited purchase options and intensifying competition, the growth of monopolies in Canada has led to a host of other issues.

Monopolies have the potential to stifle innovation — a key driver of economic growth, as a lack of competition tends to dampen innovative efforts. Productivity growth, which is crucial for improving living standards, is also under threat, as monopolies can create an environment less conducive to efficiency and progress.

As Canada embarks on its post-pandemic economic recovery, policymakers must ensure economic resilience and inclusiveness while preventing existing monopoly issues from worsening.

At the same time, there is an opportunity to reshape the economic landscape to encourage competition and foster innovation, benefiting everyone involved in the market.

This journey towards a more prosperous future will require rigorous scrutiny of developments like the proposed Rogers-Shaw merger and the wisdom to navigate the interplay of monopolies, competition and the broader economy.

Garros Gong, Ph.D. Student in Management Science, University of Waterloo

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

Positive parenting can help protect against the effects of stress in childhood and adolescence, new study shows

Warm, supportive caregiving can help counteract the effects of stress during childhood and development. Halfpoint Images/Moment via Getty Images

Jamie Hanson, University of Pittsburgh and Isabella Kahhalé, University of Pittsburgh

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

The big idea

Warm and supportive parenting may buffer against the effects of stress during childhood and adolescence. That is the key takeaway of our recent study, published in the journal PNAS Nexus.

Some children and adolescents who experience stressful events such as physical abuse or neglect have less tissue in a brain region called the hippocampus. The hippocampus plays a critical role in learning and memory and is also highly susceptible to stress.

However, in our study, we did not find a link between increased stress and reduced brain tissue in the hippocampus for young people who reported more warmth from their caregivers.

Positive parenting includes a range of warm and supportive techniques such as providing praise for doing something well, emotional support and affection. Contrast this with harsh parenting techniques, such as shouting and physical punishments.

As a first step, we explored whether positive parenting protected against a connection between childhood stress and behavioral problems in children.

We analyzed brain scans of almost 500 children between 10 and 17 years old using data from a project called the Healthy Brain Network. We measured brain tissue using structural magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, a technique that allows us to look at the size of brain regions. To measure stress, we asked children about the number of negative life events they had experienced across family, community and school contexts and how distressed each of those events made them.

Results showed that positive parenting had protective effects against the connection between stress and behavior; in other words, children who had experienced more distress from negative events, but who also perceived their parents as being warm and supportive, exhibited less challenging behavior such as rule-breaking or aggression. We next examined how parenting buffered against a known biomarker of stress in the brain: less tissue in the hippocampus.

Consistent with prior research, we found that more childhood stress correlated with smaller hippocampal volumes. However, we found that children’s perception of having received positive, supportive parenting served as a buffer against the biological effects of stress. Even when young people reported high levels of distress from negative life events, those who perceived their parents as more supportive did not have reduced brain tissue in the hippocampus.

In contrast, we did not find this same protective effect when we looked at what caregivers thought of their parenting. In other words, if parents said they were supportive and positive in their parenting but the child didn’t see them that way, we did not see this protective effect.

Positive reinforcement can work in many situations and with people of all ages.

Why it matters

Past research has found that the hippocampus is smaller in children and adults exposed to high levels of stress in childhood. These smaller volumes are in turn associated with behavioral problems, learning and memory challenges and increased vulnerability to future stress.

Our study highlights the importance of nurturing parenting in promoting healthy brain development and resilience in children. By fostering an environment of warmth and support, caregivers can help children cope with stress more effectively. Dozens of studies have found that positive parenting practices – such as helping children name emotions and providing a space for them to disclose feelings without judgment – can help kids get through difficult events.

What other research is being done

Our team’s work and that of others underscores that stressful experiences can have a detrimental impact on development. Many researchers are trying to understand which aspects of stress matter and how.

For example, experiences that are threatening, like violence, may influence the brain and behavior differently from experiences of deprivation, like not having enough food.

At the same time, while researchers think that certain types of stress have particular characteristics, the person experiencing the stress may not feel that way. That is, not having enough food might feel very threatening to the person going through it. Our study indicates that it is critical to center the perspectives of those directly affected by the stress in this area of research.

Jamie Hanson, Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh and Isabella Kahhalé, PhD student in Clinical and Developmental Psychology, University of Pittsburgh

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Microsoft and Activision: the big questions that will decide whether the US$68 billion deal goes ahead

Joost Rietveld, UCL

Microsoft’s proposed US$68 billion (£52 billion) acquisition of video game maker Activision Blizzard should be allowed to go ahead, according to a US federal judge. After five days of gruelling testimony, Judge Jacqueline Corley ruled the merger is unlikely to result in a substantial lessening of competition across the markets for video game consoles, multi-game subscription services and cloud streaming.

The ruling paves the way for Microsoft to finally consummate the merger after nearly a year and a half of regulatory scrutiny. Yet US competition authority the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken the rare step of appealing the decision.

With the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) also blocking the deal, it could still fail to conclude before an agreed completion deadline between the companies of July 18. So what are the main issues and how is this likely to play out?

Cloud gaming

Microsoft owns the Xbox gaming console and makes games like Minecraft and Age of Empires. California-based Activision is one of the largest games makers in the world, with franchises like Call of Duty, Diablo and Candy Crush.

Cloud streaming is viewed by many as the future of gaming. Microsoft’s xCloud streaming service competes with Amazon’s Luna, Nvidia’s GeForce Now and Sony’s PlayStation Plus – alongside several smaller services such as Boosteroid, Gamestream and Ubitus.

Microsoft’s xCloud currently holds around 60%-70% market share, which is mostly attributed to the service being bundled with the popular Xbox Game Pass Ultimate subscription service. The next largest competitors, Nvidia and Sony, have around 10% to 20% share each.

Microsoft’s cloud gaming platform currently dominates the market. Irina Anosova

So far, however, cloud gaming has struggled to take hold with consumers. Compared to video streaming, it is computationally more demanding. This makes it prone to latency, which degrades the user experience. Services have also struggled to successfully differentiate themselves by offering exclusive games.

The most notable failure to date is Google’s Stadia, which shuttered in January 2023 after less than four years. Yet as a whole, the segment is expected to keep grinding upwards, capturing 6.2% of gaming in 2027 compared to 3.8% today, with revenues rising from US$4.3 billion to US$18.7 billion.

Regulatory differences

The proposed merger has already been approved in 40 countries, with ten regulators clearing the deal unconditionally, including Brazil, China, Japan, South Africa and South Korea. The European Commission (EC) was among those that cleared the deal with conditions. These related to ensuring Activision games wouldn’t be restricted to Microsoft’s cloud gaming services but could be played on any platform.

Key to the US and UK authorities taking a more restrictive view are the questions of what cloud gaming is, how it will develop over the next ten years and the extent of Microsoft’s dominance – especially after it integrates Activision’s portfolio.

The first key point of contention is whether cloud gaming constitutes a separate market or a mere method of distribution that is embedded in the broader distribution ecosystem. The UK and US competition authorities both view cloud gaming as a “distinct market” that needs to be protected from a large technology incumbent. On the other hand, Judge Corley called it a “potential alternative delivery mechanism” that is embedded within console and PC gaming platforms and does not need to be treated as a separate antitrust market.

Pro-merger: Judge Jacqueline Corley. Wikimedia

I agree with her. Earlier this year I submitted a report to the CMA titled Cloud Gaming Is Not A Distinct Market. My main point was that the cloud platforms both operate in very different ways and are deeply embedded in other distribution methods like console and PC gaming.

For example, a consumer can only stream games on Nvidia’s GeForce Now if they own them on a traditional distribution platform such as Valve’s Steam. Equally, the vast majority of Micrsoft xCloud users access the service from their Xboxes, and 80% of them access streaming to sample and play games while waiting for their downloads to finish in the background.

The second issue concerns whether Microsoft’s acquisition will harm consumers in cloud gaming. Paramount here are the various licensing agreements for all Activision games that Microsoft has offered to rival providers like GeForce Now and Boosteroid, conditional on the merger being approved. These contracts are ultimately what secured EC approval.

The CMA has traditionally taken a dim view of such licensing deals due to potential challenges around enforcing contracts, but Judge Corley also took a more positive stance. She and the EC both thought the deals would end up enhancing competition. In my view, making Activision games available on more cloud platforms could spur adoption by consumers. It might also end up benefiting other games makers.

What next

The next few days will be crucial. The terms of the deal stipulate that Microsoft must consummate the merger by July 18, or pay Activision US$3 billion in termination fees. Yet blocking the way are the FTC appeal and the CMA in the UK.

The CMA signalled it was willing to negotiate with Microsoft after the US ruling, but has since tempered any expectations of a quick resolution. As it stands, Microsoft is taking its case to the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal.

It seems unlikely that all outstanding issues will be resolved by July 18. This begs the question of whether Microsoft and Activision will risk closing the deal anyway, which could see them forced to de-merge later. Alternatively they might feel they have to extend and renegotiate the terms.

In the midst of this drama, a notice has circulated stating that Activision will get delisted from the Nasdaq-100 index as early as July 17. This suggests the firms may indeed be preparing to close the deal. We should soon find out if it is going to set a new high score for video game acquisitions or whether it is game over for Microsoft and Activision.

Joost Rietveld, Associate Professor in Strategic Management, UCL

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

Actors are demanding that Hollywood catch up with technological changes in a sequel to a 1960 strike

As this picket sign says: lights, cameras, no action. Katie McTiernan/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

David Arditi, University of Texas at Arlington

For the first time since 1960, actors and screenwriters are on strike at the same time.

As with many of the other strikes that have rippled across the United States over the past three years, this walkout is over demands for better pay and restrictions on their employers’ use of technology to replace paid work.

The actors’ strike began on July 14, 2023, after their union, SAG-AFTRA, voted to end negotiations with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents the major production studios. The main concerns of the union – which represents 160,000 actors and people in other creative professions – center around compensation on streaming platforms, such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, and artificial intelligence.

Screenwriters, who have been on strike since May 2, have similar concerns.

The two strikes have halted U.S. TV and movie production. Premieres are being canceled, and Emmy-nominated actors aren’t campaigning for those prestigious TV awards.

Rewind to the rise of TV

Ever since Louis Le Prince filmed the first movie, “Roundhay Garden Scene,” in 1888, actors have earned a living through their work being shown on screens small and large.

The first hit shows on TV aired in the mid-1940s, but actors initially earned far less from television than movies. Around 1960, with the advent of hits like “Leave It to Beaver,” “Beverly Hillbillies” and “Bonanza,” TV became very profitable. TV’s growing prestige and economic heft gave television actors newfound power at the contract negotiating table.

Actors demanded that their craft be compensated for TV shows about as highly as for their film appearances. Led by future President Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston – who went on to serve as a National Rifle Association president – the Screen Actors Guild went on strike on March 7, 1960. Among that union’s top demands: health care coverage and residuals for movies aired on television, reruns and syndication.

Residuals are a form of royalty paid to actors when movies and TV shows air on television after their initial run. That can include reruns, syndication and the broadcasting of movies on television.

The actors union’s strike, which coincided then as today with a screenwriters strike, successfully negotiated a contract with executives that resolved the residuals conflict and secured health care coverage for its members.

That contract applied to broadcasting and, years later, cable TV.

But it doesn’t work for streaming, because streamed shows aren’t scheduled. Whereas “Friends,” a sitcom that initially aired on NBC, is available today on Max, formerly HBO Max, through syndication, and its actors receive relevant residuals, “Orange Is the New Black” originated on Netflix. Because it never runs on a different platform via syndication, the actors in its cast earn paltry residuals in comparison – even though viewers are still watching the show’s seven seasons.

Hwang Dong-hyuk, the creator of “Squid Game,” forfeited all residuals when he cut a deal with Netflix. It earned Netflix nearly US$1 billion, but Hwang got none of that bounty.

Actors Charlton Heston, right, and future President Ronald Reagan, second from right, shake hands with leaders of the Association of Motion Picture Producers after the Screen Actors Guild ended its 1960 strike against seven movie studios. Bettmann via GettyImages

Fast-forward to 2023

As I explained in my 2021 book, “Streaming Culture,” streaming has fundamentally changed the production and consumption of both TV and film while blurring the lines between them.

People consume different types of media through subscriptions and streaming technology than they do while watching broadcast TV and cable television. Actors and writers are concerned that their compensation hasn’t kept up with this transformation.

And the actors who are on strike argue that the formulas in place since 1960 to calculate residuals don’t work anymore.

Residuals paid for roles in broadcast TV shows are based on the popularity of those programs, with actors earning far more for hits like “Grey’s Anatomy” and “NCIS” than for duds. Hit shows can have a second life on streaming platforms and result in actors getting paid again for that earlier work.

In contrast, streaming residuals pay a flat rate for foreign and domestic streams. A streaming original film or TV show earns a set amount for residuals in its domestic market and second set amount for foreign markets. This fee doesn’t change based on popularity or the number of times a production is streamed.

But streaming has changed more than residuals for actors and writers. It has also transformed how TV shows are made.

Ejecting regularly scheduled shows

Many TV seasons have grown shorter since streaming became the norm, falling from 20 or more episodes to 10 or fewer per season.

That’s because streamers started making shows with lower budgets, as it costs less to produce fewer episodes. The studios also cut costs by hiring fewer writers.

Since actors are typically paid per episode in which they perform, their salaries have dropped by virtue of having fewer appearances in even the most popular shows.

The gaps between seasons have also grown longer and more unpredictable. Every season of the nine-year run of “Seinfeld” on NBC began in the fall and ended the next spring, then picked up again the next fall.

Streaming shows are far less predictable.

Amazon Prime’s “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” paused for more than two years between seasons 3 and 4.

The same streamer aired the first season of “Lord of the Rings: Power of the Rings,” in September 2022, but Season 2 won’t be released until late 2024.

As gaps between seasons grow, some actors are having a harder and harder time making ends meet.

Another change has to do with the question of whether particular shows will keep going. In conventional broadcast or cable television, networks determine whether they will renew a show during the period known as “sweeps,” at the end of a TV season. Since streaming television has no defined seasons, these decisions can drag on.

This can leave actors and writers in limbo. And their contracts often stop them from working on other shows between seasons.

Will AI erase actors?

Although residuals and the number of episodes have until now been negotiable, perhaps the strike’s biggest issue is the studios’ use of artificial intelligence

Actors fear studios will use AI to replace actors in the future. Without a contract that says otherwise, once a studio films an actor, it can potentially use the actor’s likeness in perpetuity. This means a background actor could be shot for one episode of a TV show and continue to be seen in the background for seasons without pay.

That hasn’t happened yet, but many actors are certain it will.

Actors object to the possibility that studios will seek to “own our likeness in perpetuity, including after we’re dead, use us in their movies without any consent, without any compensation to our performers, especially background performers,” said actor Shaan Sharma, best known for his role on “The Chosen.” “It’s inhumane. It is dystopian.”

Until now, actors and writers say, the studios have refused to negotiate over AI with actors or writers. But both unions see AI as a threat to their members’ livelihoods, a point SAG-AFTRA President Fran Drescher made on MSNBC.

As Drescher continually points out in her media appearances, 99% of actors are struggling on working-class incomes. Meanwhile, studio executives continue to increase their own pay. For example, in 2022, Netflix co-CEOs Reed Hastings and Ted Sarandos earned roughly $50 million each. Warner-Discovery CEO David Zaslav earned $39 million.

No ‘pause’ for widening inequality gap

The gulf between what actors and top executives earn is a major difference between today’s actors and writer strikes and the 1960 strikes. In 1965, executives made 15 times the average salary of their workers. By 2021 those top execs were earning 350 times more than the average worker – including actors.

And while today’s biggest stars, like Pedro Pascal and Natasha Lyonne, earn millions for every performance, most actors struggle to make ends meet.

In Los Angeles, actors earn an average hourly wage of $27.73.

Meanwhile, studios are pulling in huge profits. For example, Netflix and Warner Bros. earned $5.2 billion and $2.7 billion in 2022, respectively.

Watching union action on repeat

As I explain in my new book, “Digital Feudalism: Creators, Credit, Consumption, and Capitalism,” striking actors and screenwriters are part of the wave of labor unrest in recent years. In my view, U.S. workers are rejecting a system that expects workers to buy more on credit while making a living with increasingly precarious jobs.

From Starbucks baristas to Amazon’s union organizers to the workers planning the pending UPS strike, more and more Americans are fighting for higher wages and more control over their schedules.

In fighting threats to their livelihoods, actors and screenwriters are the latest example of a national movement for stronger labor rights.

David Arditi, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Texas at Arlington

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

Drugs and religion have been a potent combination for millennia, from cannabis at ancient funerary sites to psychedelic retreats today

Getting high to get spiritual insight isn’t a new pursuit. bestdesigns/iStock via Getty Images

Gary Laderman, Emory University

Psychedelics are all the rage. Well-known figures like quarterback Aaron Rodgers, singer Miley Cyrus and boxer Mike Tyson testify to their transformative impact. Less visible consumers are “microdosing” or signing up for retreats with shamanic guides in this rapidly expanding subculture. In June 2023, the Multidisciplinary Association of Psychedelic Studies held a conference in Denver promoting research around psychedelics – part of a larger wave of enthusiasm for the benefits of substances like ecstasy, “magic” mushrooms and LSD to treat PTSD, anxiety, depression, addiction and other afflictions.

The current “psychedelic renaissance” is often talked about as revolutionary for the future of the human species. But as a religion scholar who studies the sacred uses of drugs, I think it would be valuable to look backward, not forward, to understand their significance. As usual, the past is present: Humans have incorporated drugs into their spiritual lives for millennia.

Drugged animals?

In fact, the consumption of psychoactive “drugs” is a feature of other species. The 1989 book “Intoxication” by Ronald Siegel, a psychopharmacology researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles, raised public and scientific awareness of the fact that animals will seek out intoxicating substances.

Signs of stoner life in the animal kingdom go way beyond cats and their catnip. Birds and bees, elephants and bighorn sheep, and a range of other species in the wild return again and again – religiously, you might say – to substances that are dangerous but have appealing effects.

Among the more celebrated examples of this phenomenon are Siberian reindeer, which partake in the consumption of the fly agaric mushroom, a hallucogenic. Ethnobotanist Giorgio Samorini has described how during the summer the reindeer seek out the mushroom, consume it and exhibit uncharacteristic behavior like twitching their heads, running aimlessly and making strange sounds.

Siegel argued that there is evidence humans and other organisms have a universal drive for intoxication via psychoactive substances – a fourth basic drive along with those directed toward sex, food and water. In his view, drugs seem to ignite certain kinds of brain activities and interconnections that relate to biologically and evolutionarily advantageous behaviors, like creativity and performance enhancement.

Biology professor Oné R. Pagán makes a similar argument in his 2021 book “Drunk Flies and Stoned Dolphins.”

Drugged ancestors?

But there is much more to human drug use than animal instincts. In fact, the archaeological record seems quite overwhelming in linking psychoactive substances in nature to ancient religious rituals.

An Aztec drawing from the Codex Magliabechiano depicts a man consuming mushrooms and meeting the god of the underworld, reproduced in ‘The Book of the Life of the Ancient Mexicans.’ Zelia Nuttall/Wikimedia Commons

One of the more recent archaeological discoveries about drug use in the Bronze Age, roughly 3,000 years ago, was found during excavations at a funeral site on the island of Minorca, off the coast of Spain. Researchers chemically analyzed human hair samples that had been put in tubes made of wood or antler and placed near the dead. The results provided direct evidence of the consumption of psychoactive compounds produced by a variety of nightshade plants – mandrake, henbane and joint pine, in this case. Some of these compounds are stimulants, like ephedrine, and others can produce powerful hallucinations, delirium and out-of-body experiences.

Switching continents, a funerary space in western China also points to deep-rooted connections among drugs, altered states and ritual life. In this case, researchers found cultivated cannabis plants with fairly high concentrations of the psychoactive compound THC that were burned around 2,500 years ago in wooden containers, likely during ceremonies for the dead. While this is not direct evidence of drug consumption, the authors – who also found a harp at the site – suggest funerary rites may have included music and hallucinogenic smoke “to guide people into an altered state of mind.”

Throughout many eras, the prevalence of drug use for ritual purposes certainly went beyond mortuary rites and has been tied to a variety of rites of passage, healing practices and collective ceremonies.

Sacred drugs?

What led our prehistoric ancestors to these powerful plants and fungi, and why did they use them over and over?

It would be very easy to project contemporary desires onto them: to battle depression or escape everyday life; to heal wounds, both physical and mental; to get high and just feel good; to self-medicate; to increase focus; to enhance performance; to sleep peacefully. The list goes on and on.

Chemical analysis of artifacts in an 8th-century B.C. shrine in southern Israel, published by researchers at Hebrew University and Technion Institute in 2020, found cannabis residue. Laura Lachman/Israeli Antiquities Authority/Israel Museum via AP

On the other hand, the needs and desires of people living today have been shaped by modern societies. Evidence about why humans used drugs in prehistorical cultures around the globe points to some of the most elementary, yet critical, driving forces then and now: religious sensibilities, social bonding and group identity.

In the study of the funeral site in the western Mediterranean, for example, the research team concluded that, given the potential toxicity of the alkaloids, someone with very expert knowledge about these compounds must have been involved in their production and consumption, likely a shaman. In research about prehistoric societies, the term “shaman” is a catch-all designation for individuals whose roles included religious leadership, healing and spirit communication, among others. In more contemporary lingo, they were key “influencers” in their communities’ religious lives.

The lead author of this study, Elisa Guerra Doce – a professor at the University of Valladolid in Spain – has written extensively on drug plants and fermented beverages in ancient cultures. In one paper, an overview of the archaeological evidence of psychoactive substances in prehistoric societies, she underscores the pervasive connections between drugs and religion, reinforcing an increasingly common argument that “the deliberate induction of altered states of consciousness plays a key role in the belief systems of traditional societies all over the world.”

Drugged today

Drugs are ubiquitous in American society, even if we don’t always think of them as “drugs”: from drinking the morning cup of coffee to sipping a glass of wine in the evening; from swallowing prescription pills to ripping on a bong; from inhaling the nicotine in a vape to tripping at a psychedelically assisted therapy session.

Retreat participants reach their hands to the sky during a three-night ayahuasca ceremony in Utah hosted by the Hummingbird Church. AP Photo/Jessie Wardarski

What do the animalistic and ancient roots of humans’ interaction with drugs tell us about this contemporary landscape?

One take-away, I would argue, is that perhaps the desire to consume such substances and alter consciousness is a natural part of what it means to be human. Like us, people thousands of years ago experienced pain and pleasure, euphoria and death. Like us, they sought to understand reality and their place in it. The use of drugs in these experiences was not universal, but it was not uncommon either – especially in religious life.

Here and now, these types of uses for psychedelics have often been rebranded as clinical science, not spirituality. They are targeted to specific illnesses, like addiction or PTSD, and discussed in terms of scientific successes, empirical data and patient satisfaction surveys. Yet even in the modern context, the deeper interconnections between drugs and religious life are hard to dismiss.

Gary Laderman, Goodrich C White Professor of Religion, Emory University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

7 Tips for Back-to-School Shopping on a Budget

Between navigating store aisles and online sales for everything from clothes and shoes to supplies and sports equipment, back-to-school shopping can be a time-consuming – and expensive – endeavor.

To help stay on budget while still getting everything you need, consider these tips from Vitaly Pecharsky, head of deals for Slickdeals, a one-of-a-kind online community of shoppers working together to shop smarter and save more.

Take stock of current inventory – Before you hit the stores, take inventory of items you already have at home or in the office to see what you truly need. Knowing what you already have on hand can help you avoid the temptation of stocking up on items you may not even need just because they were on sale. That 50-cent pack of crayons may be a good deal, but too many of those can add up, especially if you realize later you had the same item sitting unused in a closet or drawer at home.

Check with teachers – Don’t be afraid to email your children’s teachers before classes start to find out what supplies are absolutely necessary. Sometimes a school will put out a list, but the teachers may not require you to have all the items on the list, particularly if students may be sharing and supplies may need to be restocked later in the school year.

Tap into technology – Shopping online is a quick and easy way to compare products, services and prices, but it can be overwhelming trying to determine if you’re really getting the best option. Before making a final decision on everything from laptops to markers, visiting a site like Slickdeals can help you find the best products at the best prices. With 12 million users who vet and vote on deals from top retailers, you can feel comfortable knowing you're getting the best value. You can also set deal alerts to be notified via email when a deal that matches your criteria gets posted.

Buy pre-owned – From uniforms and sporting equipment to clothing and more, not everything needs to be new each school year. Visiting online consignment shops can help you find big savings on like new, often brand name clothing, accessories and more.

Avoid buying equipment for extracurricular activities all at once – If your children are trying new sports, clubs or extracurricular activities for the first time, consider waiting to purchase all the necessary equipment. Oftentimes, you may be able to borrow or buy pre-owned items from other parents whose kids have outgrown the equipment or no longer participate. If your children end up deciding a sport or activity isn’t for them, you’re not stuck with things that may end up collecting dust in the garage or basement.

Shop without your kids – Leaving the kids at home when shopping may help save money, according to a survey commissioned by Slickdeals and conducted by OnePoll. The study of 2,000 parents in the United States found 2 out of 3 respondents believe shopping with their kids tends to be more expensive than shopping by themselves with solo ventures costing an average of $133 compared to $179 when taking children along.

Take advantage of student discounts – If you have children in college, you may be able to use their student ID cards to your advantage to save even more money. Before making purchases on big-ticket items like tablets or laptops, be sure to inquire about discounts available only for students. Some companies even offer student-only memberships for discounted services, such as shipping, video, music and more.

Find deals on supplies and gear for back-to-school season at Slickdeals.com.

SOURCE:
Slickdeals
 

The folly of making art with text-to-image generative AI

Obtaining a desired image can be a long exercise in trial and error. OpenAI

Ahmed Elgammal, Rutgers University

Making art using artificial intelligence isn’t new. It’s as old as AI itself.

What’s new is that a wave of tools now let most people generate images by entering a text prompt. All you need to do is write “a landscape in the style of van Gogh” into a text box, and the AI can create a beautiful image as instructed.

The power of this technology lies in its capacity to use human language to control art generation. But do these systems accurately translate an artist’s vision? Can bringing language into art-making truly lead to artistic breakthroughs?

Engineering outputs

I’ve worked with generative AI as an artist and computer scientist for years, and I would argue that this new type of tool constrains the creative process.

When you write a text prompt to generate an image with AI, there are infinite possibilities. If you’re a casual user, you might be happy with what AI generates for you. And startups and investors have poured billions into this technology, seeing it as an easy way to generate graphics for articles, video game characters and advertisements.

Generative AI is seen as a promising tool for coming up with video game characters. Benlisquare/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

In contrast, an artist might need to write an essaylike prompt to generate a high-quality image that reflects their vision – with the right composition, the right lighting and the correct shading. That long prompt is not necessarily descriptive of the image but typically uses lots of keywords to invoke the system of what’s in the artist’s mind. There’s a relatively new term for this: prompt engineering.

Basically, the role of an artist using these tools is reduced to reverse-engineering the system to find the right keywords to compel the system to generate the desired output. It takes a lot of effort, and much trial and error, to find the right words.

AI isn’t as intelligent as it seems

To learn how to better control the outputs, it’s important to recognize that most of these systems are trained on images and captions from the internet.

Think about what a typical image caption tells about an image. Captions are typically written to complement the visual experience in web browsing.

For example, the caption might describe the name of the photographer and the copyright holder. On some websites, like Flickr, a caption typically describes the type of camera and the lens used. On other sites, the caption describes the graphic engine and hardware used to render an image.

So to write a useful text prompt, users need to insert many nondescriptive keywords for the AI system to create a corresponding image.

Today’s AI systems are not as intelligent as they seem; they are essentially smart retrieval systems that have a huge memory and work by association.

Artists frustrated by a lack of control

Is this really the sort of tool that can help artists create great work?

At Playform AI, a generative AI art platform that I founded, we conducted a survey to better understand artists’ experiences with generative AI. We collected responses from over 500 digital artists, traditional painters, photographers, illustrators and graphic designers who had used platforms such as DALL-E, Stable Diffusion and Midjourney, among others.

Only 46% of the respondents found such tools to be “very useful,” while 32% found them somewhat useful but couldn’t integrate them to their workflow. The rest of the users – 22% – didn’t find them useful at all.

The main limitation artists and designers highlighted was a lack of control. On a scale 0 to 10, with 10 being most control, respondents described their ability to control the outcome to be between 4 and 5. Half the respondents found the outputs interesting, but not of a high enough quality to be used in their practice.

When it came to beliefs about whether generative AI would influence their practice, 90% of the artists surveyed thought that it would; 46% believed that the effect would be a positive one, with 7% predicting that it would have a negative effect. And 37% thought their practice would be affected but weren’t sure in what way.

The best visual art transcends language

Are these limitations fundamental, or will they just go away as the technology improves?

Of course, newer versions of generative AI will give users more control over outputs, along with higher resolutions and better image quality.

But to me, the main limitation, as far as art is concerned, is foundational: it’s the process of using language as the main driver in generating the image.

Visual artists, by definition, are visual thinkers. When they imagine their work, they usually draw from visual references, not words – a memory, a collection of photographs or other art they’ve encountered.

When language is in the driver’s seat of image generation, I see an extra barrier between the artist and the digital canvas. Pixels will be rendered only through the lens of language. Artists lose the freedom of manipulating pixels outside the boundaries of semantics.

The same input can lead to a range of random outputs. OpenAI/Wikimedia Commons

There’s another fundamental limitation in text-to-image technology.

If two artists enter the exact same prompt, it’s very unlikely that the system will generate the same image. That’s not due to anything the artist did; the different outcomes are simply due the AI’s starting from different random initial images.

In other words, the artist’s output is boiled down to chance.

Nearly two-thirds of the artists we surveyed had concerns that their AI generations might be similar to other artists’ works and that the technology does not reflect their identity – or even replaces it altogether.

The issue of artist identity is crucial when it comes to making and recognizing art. In the 19th century, when photography started to become popular, there was a debate about whether photography was a form of art. It came down to a court case in France in 1861 to decide whether photography could be copyrighted as an art form. The decision hinged on whether an artist’s unique identity could be expressed through photographs.

Those same questions emerge when considering AI systems that are taught with the internet’s existing images.

Before the emergence of text-to-image prompting, creating art with AI was a more elaborate process: Artists usually trained their own AI models based on their own images. That allowed them to use their own work as visual references and retain more control over the outputs, which better reflected their unique style.

Text-to-image tools might be useful for certain creators and casual everyday users who want to create graphics for a work presentation or a social media post.

But when it comes to art, I can’t see how text-to-image software can adequately reflect the artist’s true intentions or capture the beauty and emotional resonance or works that grip viewers and makes them see the world anew.

Ahmed Elgammal, Professor of Computer Science and Director of the Art & AI Lab, Rutgers University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.