Kategori: Nyheter

OpenAI, the tech company that created the popular ChatGPT chatbot, is at a crossroads.

It began as a nonprofit dedicated to developing artificial intelligence systems smarter than humans. Since its founding, OpenAI has boasted that it was upholding its nonprofit goal – “to build artificial general intelligence (AGI) that is safe and benefits all of humanity.”

Now, its tune has changed. OpenAI’s leadership is reportedly taking steps to transform it into a for-profit company. If that happens, the nonprofit would lose control.

We are law professors who specialize in nonprofits. As we explained in an earlier article, all charities must devote their assets to their legal purposes. If OpenAI hoped to have a quickie divorce from its charitable obligations, it is now learning how costly that could be.

Proposing divorce from charitable vows

OpenAI began in 2015 as a scientific research nonprofit. Four years later, its board decided that achieving its lofty goals required more than gifts and grants.

It reorganized to accommodate and attract private investment. As a result, the company known as OpenAI is neither a single nonprofit nor for-profit company; it is a set of interlocking entities, including the for-profit subsidiary that conducts its operations.

As a whole, OpenAI is ultimately required to advance the nonprofit’s purposes. These purposes represent the promises OpenAI made to the public when it was founded.

OpenAI’s nonprofit certificate of incorporation states the purposes: “to provide funding for research, development and distribution of technology related to artificial intelligence,” thus producing technology that “will benefit the public.”

For almost a decade, OpenAI proclaimed its commitment to safe scientific development, making it a higher priority than earning profits. For example, OpenAI warned investors that “the Company may never make a profit,” and that “it would be wise to view an investment … in the spirit of a donation.”

Nevertheless, if profits were made, investors like Microsoft were entitled to receive them – collecting up to 100 times their investment, before the nonprofit parent could take any share of those gains.

Having second thoughts

CEO Sam Altman and his colleagues have apparently had second thoughts about their vows.

According to widespread media reports citing unnamed sources, they want to restructure and remove the nonprofit parent from its controlling perch, turning the rest of the company into a benefit company – a type of for-profit enterprise with some public-interest goals.

Those media reports relay that the US$6.6 billion in recent investments in OpenAI is conditioned on OpenAI converting to a for-profit company within two years.

If this conversion fails, OpenAI must return that money. Investors also want to remove any caps on their investment returns. Altman himself now reportedly wants to own a piece of the company.

Not moving so fast

Changing a nonprofit to a for-profit company, known as a “conversion,” often requires only a board vote and filing forms with state regulators.

Delaware, where OpenAI was established, would regulate at least this filing process. When a nonprofit has significant operations in another state, then that state also has authority to regulate the conversion. In this case, that would be California, where OpenAI is headquartered and holds most of its assets.

The state attorneys general for Delaware and California are reviewing the proposed restructure. Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings has asked for more information about how the nonprofit’s rights would be protected if OpenAI carries out its reported restructuring plans.

And California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that his office is “committed to protecting charitable assets for their intended purpose.”

With OpenAI valued at $157 billion, the nonprofit’s fair share could make it the wealthiest foundation in the United States. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, currently the largest U.S.-based foundation, holds $75.2 billion in assets. Harvard’s endowment, the largest for a U.S. university, has about $53.2 billion in its coffers.

State regulators, which supervise the transformation of nonprofits into for-profits, oversaw many conversions of health insurers and hospitals in the 1990s. For example, the California attorney general oversaw Blue Cross Blue Shield of California’s payments of $3.2 billion to establish two new health care foundations when it converted. Critics subsequently pointed out that investors in such for-profits made even greater gains a short time later.

We believe that if the nonprofit gets its fair share of OpenAI, those health care transactions would pale in comparison to the scale of an OpenAI conversion.

There are legal ramifications if a group decides to drop its nonprofit status.
Suriya Phosri/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Estimating what’s at stake

To be sure, the nonprofit would not be entitled to receive the full $157 billion in a conversion of OpenAI. So what is the nonprofit entitled to?

First, the nonprofit parent has a right to the value of its share of ownership of the for-profit operations. That value would include the value of the properties owned by the for-profit subsidiary, such as ChatGPT.

The nonprofit should also be compensated for giving up its control over the whole OpenAI enterprise. Typically, investment bankers assess the value of control somewhere between 20% and 40% of the value of the company.

What could be the hardest part of this process would be estimating the value of the right to OpenAI’s future profits. Under the current arrangement, investors first get 100 times their investments in OpenAI before the nonprofit receives any share of the profits.

Microsoft has invested $13 billion in OpenAI so far. But let’s assume total investment of $10 billion: OpenAI would need to make $1 trillion before the nonprofit would get its piece of the pie. Since only 10 companies have made over 100 times the amount invested in them in the past decade, this is a high bar.

Protecting the nonprofit

Although state attorneys general have the leading role in protecting the nonprofit, they do not have to do this work alone.

First and foremost, the existing nonprofit’s board members are legally required to protect the nonprofit and its purposes. This puts them roughly on the same team as the state attorneys general.

The board could decide that OpenAI’s charitable purposes are best protected by spinning off the for-profit company. Even so, it must ensure that the nonprofit is adequately compensated.

Other authorities may play a role. For example, if a state attorney general can’t broker an agreement with OpenAI, they might farm out the work. Either a state attorney general or a court could authorize a third party, such as another charity, to bring a claim to protect the nonprofit assets.

In addition, the IRS could step in.

The tax collection and enforcement agency has the responsibility to ensure that assets held by a nonprofit tax-exempt organization remain within the charitable sector. In this case, that would mean ensuring that OpenAI’s nonprofit gets what it’s owed.

As an added wrinkle, billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk has already weighed in as a former board member. He filed a lawsuit in February 2024 to protect OpenAI’s charitable commitments, withdrew it, and refiled it. Now, he has brought Microsoft into the fray, arguing that Microsoft’s partnership with OpenAI is allowing the two companies to bypass antitrust laws.

We’re certain that if OpenAI does embark on a journey to for-profit status, that road will be long and bumpy. In determining the value of OpenAI’s assets and who owns them, the state regulators and the nonprofit board are empowered to fully protect the nonprofit – not OpenAI’s CEO, its employees, the for-profit company itself, or any investor. Läs mer…

Antimicrobial resistance happens when bacteria and other microbes that can cause infections gain the ability to resist treatment by antibiotics or other antimicrobial medicines.

Pneumonia, urinary tract infections and sepsis are some of the infections that are usually treated with antibiotics.

Newborn babies are particularly at risk from infections by antimicrobial resistant bacteria. This is because of their immature immune systems.

The risk to babies is greatest in low- and middle-income countries, where infections among newborns are
3 to 20 times higher than in developed countries.

In 2020, 2.4 million newborn babies died of sepsis in the first month of their lives.

Most of these deaths happened in sub-Saharan Africa.

Sepsis is an immune system overreaction to an infection somewhere in the body.

Researchers at the Ineos Oxford Institute for Antimicrobial Research carried out a study to investigate antimicrobial resistance-carrying bacteria recovered from surfaces in 10 hospitals from six low- and middle-income countries.

The hospitals were in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda and South Africa.

In total, 6,290 hospital surface swabs were processed from intensive care units for newborns and maternity wards.

The swabs were taken from:

surfaces near the sink drain (including sink basin, faucet, faucet handles, and surrounding countertop)
emergency neonatal care
ward furniture and surfaces
mobile medical equipment
medical equipment.

Many of the surfaces were found to be colonised with bacteria carrying antibiotic resistance genes. The largest growth was detected near sink drains.

These genes can confer resistance to carbapenem antibiotics, which are last-resort therapies for treating newborn sepsis.

These findings are alarming. They indicate that newborn babies could be at risk of infection by bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. This could lead to newborn sepsis.

Bacteria colonisation

In the study, whole genome sequencing was used to identify bacterial species carrying resistance to carbapenems.

Carbapenems are a last resort antibiotic used when other medicines no longer work to treat an infection.

In the study, 18 different bacterial species carrying carbapenem antibiotic resistance genes were recovered from hospital surfaces.

These included bacteria that can cause pneumonia, urinary tract infections and blood infections.

In one of the hospitals, a bacterial clone which was present on hospital surfaces was at the same time found causing sepsis among newborn babies.

This could mean that bacteria from the hospital surfaces could potentially be transmitted to newborn babies. Future research will need to confirm this.

Antibiotic resistance genes are often found on mobile parts of DNA that can be passed from one bacterium to another. This is through a process called horizontal gene transfer.

These mobile elements move between nearby bacteria, helping resistance genes to spread. This means that antibiotic resistance can quickly pass to different bacteria on the same hospital surface or across various surfaces. It makes infections harder to treat and increases risks for patients.

The study findings highlighted the possible antimicrobial resistance spread between different types of bacteria on the same hospital surface or across different surfaces. This was due to the presence of similar mobile genetic elements in different bacterial species.

This puts patients at greater risk of acquiring an infection. And their treatment options could be limited because the bacteria infecting them are resistant to antibiotics.

Looking ahead

Antibiotic resistance is a substantial economic burden to the whole world.

In 2006, in the US alone, deaths associated with pneumonia and sepsis, mostly, cost the US economy US$8 billion.

Our work points to the need for an urgent review of infection prevention and control guidelines, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

A number of steps could reduce the risk of hospital-acquired infections. For example, ensuring:

safe drinking water
vaccinations to reduce infection and the need for antibiotics
hospital infrastructure for waste management and recycling
tailored infection prevention and control programmes in health facilities, including cleaning and disinfecting hospital surfaces.

A major challenge is that hospitals in low-resourced countries may not have funds and resources needed to implement or maintain these measures.

Financial institutions and governments therefore ought to invest in these preventive programmes.

Accessible, effective and sustainable infection prevention and control measures could prevent the deaths of thousands of newborn deaths. Läs mer…

Donald Trump’s second term promises to deliver historic threats to US press freedom – directly from the Oval Office.

The president-elect made it clear during the campaign that he had the press in his sights. He told a rally on the eve of the election that he “wouldn’t mind” if an assassin shot the journalists standing in front of him.

Ahead of the election, he also signalled his desire to jail journalists, hunt down their confidential sources, cancel the broadcast licences of major networks and criminalise work to counter disinformation.

Journalists in the US – a country long at the forefront of global press freedom advocacy – now find themselves facing threats more familiar to their colleagues in the Philippines, Hungary or Venezuela. And it is from journalists in such countries that the US press must now learn how to defend press freedom and fight for facts.

The second Trump administration promises to be resistant to core practices of critical independent journalism and the implications for the industry are chilling.

Journalists could face increased threats of both politically motivated criticism and potential legal harassment. For example, Trump has repeatedly used the legal system against journalists whose coverage doesn’t benefit him.

He has sued many major outlets for defamation since 2016. He recently launched legal action against CBS over its 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris.

Read more:
Loyalty trumps everything – what we know about the 47th president-elect’s cabinet

There’s also likely to be greater impunity for online threats towards US journalists and news organisations. For instance, X has recently announced updates to its block function (allowing accounts to view people who have blocked them) which critics say could increase harassment.

And, as a report from the International Center for Journalists and Unesco shows, online attacks can spill over into offline harm. Women and those of colour are likely to be most at risk.

Meanwhile, the fight within the US to legislate against hate speech and dangerous disinformation on social media platforms appears to have been lost.

Many pro-Trump Republicans have also long argued that work to defend human rights, public health and election integrity on social media platforms through curation and regulation are a violation of “free speech”. They claim such work is biased against conservative perspectives, despite several studies debunking this claim.

During the 2024 campaign, Trump referred to efforts to mitigate political mis- and disinformation as “the censorship cartel”. Meanwhile, he pushed numerous falsehoods from the campaign podium.

During his first term, Donald Trump often used the term ‘fake news’ to attack media he didn’t like.

Even before this election cycle began, Republicans ramped up their efforts to derail fact-checking work in the aftermath of the January 6 insurrection – which itself was fuelled by disinformation, such as the suggestion that the election was “stolen”.

But in a 2022 statement, Trump announced that upon reelection he would ban federal agencies, employees and money from being involved in any efforts that he claims impede lawful speech and investigate those involved in these activities. This includes tackling, labelling or flagging dis- and misinformation, which he misrepresents as censorship.

This promise was reinforced by Elon Musk immediately after the election in a post on X. Musk has proved to be one of the loudest opponents of efforts to tackle disinformation, as demonstrated by his attempts to sue non-profit research centres focused on countering online hate speech.

Cutting critical funding

During his first term, Trump tried to dramatically slash the budget for public service media. These are publicly funded broadcasters, which are expected to provide independent news reporting. Under the Trump administration funding was cut from US$465 million (£365 million) to just US$30 million (£23.6 million), a move that would have threatened local and investigative reporting around the country.

These cuts were ultimately blocked by Congress, but it is unclear if Republican legislators will stand up to Trump in his second term.

During Trump’s first term, there was also intense politicisation and attacks on journalism at the Voice of America (VoA), the US’s oldest and largest international public service broadcaster.

In 2020 he appointed a new CEO, Michael Pack, to run the US Agency for Global Media, its parent company, and overhaul the operation. In his short seven-month term, Pack fired senior officials, froze reporting budgets, and launched investigations into supposedly biased journalists.

The public broadcaster PBS, which produces some of the most important accountability reporting in the US, is also extremely vulnerable due to funding cuts.

Meanwhile, Musk, who is set to play a major role in cutting government spending and activities in the new Trump administration, has a track record of campaigning to defund public service media.

With all these risks, international press freedom organisations have expressed alarm at the prospect of Trump escalating his attacks on the press in a second term.

Yet, a pre-election survey commissioned by the International Center for Journalists suggested that these concerns are not landing with the US public. The nationwide poll of 1,020 adults found that nearly one-quarter (23%) of Americans surveyed did not regard political leaders threatening, harassing, or abusing journalists or news organisations as a threat to press freedom.

Given what we’ve seen from the kind of “strongman” politician that Trump appears to admire, as well his actions during his first term, there’s good reason to believe this threat will be very real over the next four years. Läs mer…

The spectacular comeback of US president-elect Donald Trump has taken the world by surprise. No doubt people can point to various explanations for his election victory, but in my view, the science of information will pave the way towards deeper insights. Unless the Democrats – and their counterparts around the world – can develop a better understanding of how people receive and reject information, they will never fully understand what happened or successfully fight elections in the future.

There is a fundamental law of nature, known in physical science as the second law. This says that, over time, noise will overwhelm information and uncertainties will dominate. Order will be swamped by confusion and chaos. From a single particle to the whole universe, every system known to science obeys this law. That includes political systems, or societies.

Whenever there is progress in communication technology, people circulate more and more inessential or inaccurate information. In a political system, this is what leads to the noise domination described by the second law.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

In science, the quantity that measures the degree of uncertainty is known as entropy. The second law therefore says that entropy can only increase, at least on average.

While entropy does not reduce spontaneously, it is possible to reduce it by spending energy – that is, at a cost. This is exactly what life is about – we create internal order, thus reducing entropy, by consuming energy in the form of food.

For a biological system to survive, it has to reduce uncertainties about the state of its environment. So there are two opposing trends: we don’t like uncertainties and try to reduce them. But we live in a world dominated by growing uncertainties. Understanding the balance of these two forces holds the key to appreciating some of the most perplexing social phenomena – such as why people would vote for a man who has been convicted of multiple crimes and strongly signalled his autocratic tendencies.

The world is filled with uncertainties and information technology is enhancing the level of that uncertainty at an incredible pace. The development of AI is only propelling the increase of uncertainty and will continue to do so at an unimaginable scale.

In the unregulated wild west of the internet, tech giants have created a monster that feeds us with noise and uncertainty. The result is rapidly-growing entropy – there is a sense of disorder at every turn.

Each of us, as a biological system, has the desire to reduce this entropy. That is why, for example, we instinctively avoid information sources that are not aligned with our views. They will create uncertainties. If you are a liberal or leftwing voter and have found yourself avoiding the news after Trump’s re-election, it’s probably linked to your desire to minimise entropy.

The need for certainty

People are often puzzled about why societies are becoming more polarised and information is becoming more segmented. The answer is simple – the internet, social media, AI and smartphones are pumping out entropy at a rate unseen in the history of Earth. No biological system has ever encountered such a challenge – even if it is a self-imposed one. Drastic actions are required to regain certainties, even if they are false certainties.

Trump has grasped the fact that people need certainty. He repeatedly offered words of reassurances – “I will fix it”. Whether he will is a more complex question but thinking about that will only generate uncertainties – so it’s better avoided. The Democrats, in contrast, merely offered the assurance of a status quo of prolonged uncertainties.

Whereas Trump declared he would end the war in Gaza, Kamala Harris remarked that she would do everything in her power to bring an end to the war. But the Biden-Harris administration has been doing exactly that for some time with little progress being made.

Whereas Trump declared he would end the war in Ukraine, Harris remarked that she would stand up against Putin. But the Biden-Harris administration has been merely sending weapons to Ukraine to prolong the war. If that is what “standing up against Putin” means, then most Americans would prefer to see a fall in their grocery prices from an end to the war.

Some advice is best left unsaid.
Flicker/Number 10, CC BY

Harris argued that Trump is a fascist. This may prove to be true, but what that means exactly is unclear to most Americans.

While Harris’s campaign message of hope was a good initiative, the Democrats failed in delivering certainty and assurance. By the same token they failed to control the information space. Above all, they failed the Americans because, while Trump may well bring an end to the war in Ukraine and Gaza in some form, his climate policy will be detrimental to all Americans, with lasting impacts.

Without understanding the science of information, the blame game currently underway will not bring Democrats anywhere. And there are lessons to be learned for other centre-left governments, like the UK Labour government.

It is not entirely inconceivable that the former prime minister Boris Johnson, encouraged by the events in the US, hopes for a dramatic return to the throne at the next general election. If so, prime minister Keir Starmer must find a way to avoid following the footsteps of Biden and Harris. He must provide people with certainty and assurance. Läs mer…

The Albanese government has rewritten the mandate of the Future Fund – the nation’s sovereign wealth fund – to urge it to direct investment into the “national priorities” of housing, the energy transition and infrastructure, where the risk and returns are acceptable.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher said a new “investment mandate” and “statement of expectations” would modernise, refresh and renew the fund so it played “an enduring and prominent role” in the economy.

The ministers said the Australian economy faced big structural shifts coming from the global net zero transformation as well as technological and demographic changes and global fragmentation.

The $230 billion fund, which is independent in its investment decisions, is headed by former Labor minister Greg Combet.

The new investment mandate “will require the fund to consider Australia’s national priorities in its investment decisions, where possible, appropriate and consistent with strong returns”.

These priorities are:

boosting the housing supply
supporting Australia’s energy transition
delivering improved infrastructure including economic resilience and security infrastructure

The government stresses the new mandate does not mean the fund would be making riskier or less profitable investments.

To provide certainty to the fund, the government says it would not start any draw-dwns until at least 2032-33. By then, the fund is expected to reach a worth of $380 billion, from its present $230 billion.

“The government remains committed to the Fund’s independence and commercial focus,” the ministers said.

“Its primary objective will continue to be to maximise returns, the benchmark return rate will remain at between 4% and 5% above CPI per annum over the long term, and there will be no change to the expected risk profile.

”The Fund will provide the same strong returns to the government’s balance sheet while supporting national priorities where it can.”

No legislation is needed for the changes.

The Future Fund said in a statement that the government’s announcement was an endorsement of its work over 18 years to deliver a “demanding investment mandate of CPI+ 4-5% a year over the long term”.

It said delivering this investment target remained the fund’s focus under the new investment mandate. The fund’s Board of Guardians “will continue to make investment decisions independent of the government with the priority of generating commercial returns”.

The fund said the priorities it had now been given aligned with its thinking.

It also noted various investments it presently has in infrastructure and the energy transition. It plans to appoint an executive director, energy transition, to help with efforts in this area.

Social media age ban: companies face fines up to $50 million

The government on Thursday will introduce its legislation to ban minors under 16 from accessing social media, with companies facing fines of up to $50 million for breaches.

Under the legislation, the onus will be on the plaforms, not the parents or children, who will not face penalties.

The penalties of up to $50 million will be for companies that systematically breach the law as well as for violations of enforceable industry codes and standards.

The bill also allows the minister to exclude specific classes of services that support the health and benefit of children.

It contains privacy provisions including that platforms ring-fence and destroy any information collected. Läs mer…

In the amphitheatre of Gladiator II, Ridley Scott trains his lens on fighters and emperors – but no account of ancient gladiators is complete without its devotees.

Eclipsing the modern superfan in adulation for their heroes, fans massed in the amphitheatre to see their favourites fight, taking on a mania with potential for disaster. According to the Roman historian Tacitus, in AD27 a poorly built arena at Fidenae, just outside Rome, collapsed under the spectators. The incident left 50,000 dead or injured.

But gladiator fandom extended well beyond the arena. In the summer of 2019, archaeologists uncovered a tavern in Pompeii that had been decorated to show the bloody outcome of a gladiator fight. This hints at the way “sports talk” pervaded life in the city.

There’s more evidence in Roman author Petronius’s mid-first-century BC satire The Satyricon. His fictional freedmen banter about the merits of various fighters over dinner. The ubiquitous gladiator motifs found on Roman wine cups show that this kind of convivial exchange over dinner and drinks was common.

A glass gladiator cup, circa AD50–80.
The Met Fifth Avenue

Their passion could, however, turn fans from drinkers into fighters. At Pollentia (modern day Majorca), Emperor Tiberius needed soldiers to quell riots borne of frustration at the absence of gladiators from a local bigwig’s funeral.

Much like modern-day football hooliganism, gladiator fandom could be weaponised in intercommunal violence. In a 59BC gladiatorial show, Pompeians murderously assaulted their neighbours from Nuceria (modern day Nocera, near Naples), causing games to be banned at Pompeii and leading to exile for the instigator.

Fan favourites

Fans were drawn to gladiators for more than just their fighting skills. Stage names could emphasise their good looks, lent by physique, coiffure and armour. Pearl and Emerald, for example, sparkled with jewel-like lustre. Callimorphus flaunted his peerless body and Chrysomallos and Xanthos their blonde locks.

It was common for Romans to illustrate the erotic appeal of a gladiator by naming the Roman women who, metaphorically, lost their heads to fighters. The Roman poet Juvenal wrote of the fictional, or perhaps fictionalised, wife of a Roman senator, Eppia, who allegedly preferred the battered arena veteran Sergius to her husband.

A fresco depicting the AD59 riot between Pompeiians and Nucerians in the Pompeii amphitheater.
National Archaeological Museum, Naples., CC BY

Meanwhile Faustina, wife of Marcus Aurelius, is said in a 4th century biography of the emperor, to have confessed a passion for gladiators to her husband.

But these examples more reliably testify to elite male misogyny than to ancient reality. Seating regulations may have confined them to the higher tiers of the amphitheatres, but many women likely also had an interest in combat itself. Some were perhaps authors of the gladiatorial graffiti still legible on Pompeii’s walls.

Tombstones tell a less sensational story of gladiators’ sex lives, where their partnerships are described by the language of respectable matrimony.

Who were the gladiator superfans?

Gladiator fans could be found in all strata of Roman society. But the voices of elite fans are loudest today, as they were preserved in literary texts. Members of powerful families and emperors well knew that they must put on gladiatorial and other games, since presiding at them was central to political theatre.

Wary of Julius Caesar’s reputation for obvious disdain for gladiatorial combat, Emperor Augustus was instead a visibly enthused spectator. The crowd’s acclaim for his generosity and its appreciation of his sharing common pleasures helped to bolster the emperor’s authority. At the Colosseum, senators could see how the political land lay as the emperor was applauded (or not) by their public.

Emperors could gain popularity with their people by visibly enjoying gladiatorial combat, as shown by Fred Hechinger and Joseph Quinn in Gladiator II.
Landmark Media/Alamy Stock Photo

Some emperors appreciated fighting technique close up. Titus was a parmularius (a fan of the “small shield” men), while his brother Domitian preferred the heavier-armed murmillones, named after the fish-like crest on their helmets.

But when they addressed the subject of gladiators directly, most elite men were usually ambivalent. Pagan and Christian authors, including Seneca and St Augustine, had no qualms over the shedding of gladiatorial blood. But they did regret the loss of reason among their peers as spectators, heady with emotion at the slaughter.

The genre in which these authors wrote also dictated what they said. Seneca, like Cicero, turned gladiators into philosophical examples, persevering in combat despite the vagaries of fortune.

But incidental literary references suggest that Roman elite males were closely acquainted with real gladiatorial nitty-gritty. Instructing would-be lawyers, for example, the Roman educator Quintilian reached for a gladiator’s fencing steps as a metaphor for a well-rehearsed argument.

Exceptionally well-preserved graffiti discovered on houses and tombs in Pompeii has brought us closer to understanding the ordinary fans of gladiators. In particular, the drawings of armoured combatants, which are captioned with their names, types and schools.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Thoroughly versed in performer biographies, fans counted fights, wins and reprieves. This affinity went beyond individuals – men of the same status, neighbourhood or town crowded the stepped seating of the amphitheatres together, vociferously unified by ecstasy at a favourite’s success, or anguish at their defeat and death.

Yet while cinema foregrounds gladiators in our modern consciousness, ancient fans likely reserved greater passion for other performers – above all theatre and chariot racing.

When Roman authors, such as Pliny, decried the triviality of popular obsessions, it was chariot racing that came first to mind. And factions linked to chariot teams threatened political order on a scale never equalled by the amphitheatre. No known gladiator aficionado came close, for example, to the devoted fan who threw himself onto the burning pyre of his favourite chariot driver. Läs mer…

“One in three people would rather deep clean their bathroom – deep clean with rubber gloves and everything – rather than check their savings,” according to AJ Coyne, chief marketing officer at online bank Monzo. While this might sound like marketing hyperbole, it reflects a profound truth about our relationship with financial information: many of us actively avoid looking at our bank balances when we fear bad news.

This trait is so common that behavioural economists have given it a name: the “ostrich effect”. Like the myth of ostriches burying their heads in the sand, we often prefer uncertainty to confronting potentially negative financial information.

Research examining millions of banking logins reveals clear patterns in how people interact with their financial information. A 2009 study found that people systematically avoid checking their financial information when they suspect bad news.

This avoidance has real consequences for how people manage their money. In our ongoing research, we found clear evidence that people who don’t regularly check their accounts show much more volatile spending patterns, particularly around payday. When people receive their salary, those who infrequently check their accounts tend to spend significantly more on discretionary purchases compared to regular account checkers.

So why do we not check our accounts more regularly? According to the thinking behind the “ostrich effect”, three psychological mechanisms drive this behaviour.

First, there’s what’s known as the “impact effect”. Having definitive knowledge of a financial problem feels worse than merely suspecting it. When we don’t check our balance, we can maintain some hope that things aren’t as bad as we fear.

Second, seeing a lower-than-expected balance forces us mentally to reset our spending benchmarks and maybe set a budget if we didn’t already have one. This psychological adjustment can be particularly difficult around times of high spending, like after holidays or major events.

Finally, our sensitivity to financial information varies based on our current situation. When we’re feeling financially secure, we’re more emotionally equipped to handle potential bad news.

Digital banking – help or hindrance?

Mobile banking apps have made it easier than ever to check our balances – and research shows this accessibility brings real benefits. In our ongoing study of banking behaviour, we found that regular account monitoring through apps helps people develop much more consistent spending patterns. This is especially true around payday, when spending decisions are most crucial.

We examined the so-called “payday effect” – the tendency for people to overspend on discretionary items just after receiving their salary. The results were striking: people who regularly check their accounts show around 60-70% less variation in their discretionary spending compared to infrequent checkers. This effect is particularly noticeable in categories like dining out and shopping, where impulsive spending is common.

Banking apps have been shown to help regulate impulsive spending.
fizkes/Shutterstock

Regular account monitoring appears to be a powerful tool for avoiding the common trap of overspending after payday. By maintaining awareness of their bank balances, regular checkers show dramatically more controlled spending patterns throughout the entire month.

So how do you break a cycle of avoidance? There are several effective strategies for overcoming this tendency.

First, set specific times for financial check-ins, like Sunday evenings or the day after payday. Routines can help to prevent impulsive spending spikes.

You should use banking app features selectively. While constant notifications can increase anxiety, regular balance checking helps smooth out spending patterns.

Focus on trends rather than absolute numbers. People who monitor spending patterns rather than just their bank balances may make better decisions in the long run.

And finally, consider using financial aggregator apps, which bring together all your accounts to give you a broader view, rather than just individual balances.

The most important thing to remember is that financial avoidance is a normal psychological response – but one we need to actively manage. Just as we shouldn’t ignore physical health symptoms hoping they’ll go away, it’s also important not to ignore our financial health.

The evidence is clear. Regularly checking our accounts, despite the psychological discomfort it might cause, helps us to make better financial decisions. Our research shows that simply developing a habit of monitoring our finances can lead to more controlled spending patterns and better financial outcomes. That’s certainly worth putting the toilet brush down for. Läs mer…

If you live in a city or near a busy road, it might not just be your lungs bearing the brunt of air pollution – your skin could be suffering too. A recent study has found a significant link between high levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and incidence of eczema – a chronic inflammatory skin condition marked by itching, redness and discomfort.

The research, conducted on more than 280,000 people across the US, revealed that people exposed to higher concentrations of PM2.5 were more than twice as likely to have eczema compared to those in less polluted areas.

This study sheds new light on how our external environment may affect our skin health and raises questions about how we can protect ourselves as pollution levels climb.

Particulate matter and skin health

PM2.5 is shorthand for particulate matter that is less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter. These particles are so small that you’d need a microscope to see them – yet they have significant health risks.

Emitted from sources such as cars, industrial sites and even wildfire smoke, these tiny particles contain harmful chemicals – including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These chemicals are carcinogenic and been linked to respiratory, cardiovascular and developmental health issues.

Although we have a good understanding of the significant effect PM2.5 has on the health of our lungs, scientists are only just beginning to uncover all the ways these particles affect the health of our skin.

This latest study provides yet more evidence of the effects that pollution appears to have on our skin health. The study found that participants with eczema had been exposed to slightly higher than average PM2.5 levels than those without the condition. This difference was linked to a significantly higher incidence of eczema in those exposed to high levels of air pollution. This was true even after the researchers adjusted their analysis to account for other factors that may have affected a person’s risk of eczema.

While this study can’t directly prove that air pollution caused or worsened eczema in these participants, numerous studies have pinpointed the ways in which air pollution affects the skin. This may help to explain the link the study found.

Research shows the tiny size of PM2.5 allows it to infiltrate the skin barrier – the body’s first line of defence. This means it can penetrate skin cells directly, reaching deeper layers where it can cause even more damage to cells. This disruption can impair the skin’s natural defences, leading to increased inflammation and skin sensitivity. For people already struggling with eczema, this intrusion is like pouring salt on an open wound.

Other studies may point to reasons why air pollution could trigger or worsen eczema in the first place.

It appears that PM2.5 may interact with our skin’s immune responses in ways we are only beginning to understand. When these particles reach the skin, they bind to a receptor called the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), a protein known to mediate how cells respond to environmental toxins. This interaction can ignite a cascade of immune responses – essentially triggering an inflammatory response in the skin. For someone prone to eczema, these immune responses can result in the itching, swelling and redness that define the condition.

Eczema causes itching, redness and discomfort.
Kmpzzz/ Shutterstock

Previous studies have also found that people with eczema have an impaired skin barrier, making them more susceptible to absorbing external irritants such as pollutants. In addition, research supports the idea that PM2.5 might exacerbate eczema by further compromising the skin barrier.

Health risks

These findings couldn’t come at a more critical time. Globally, air pollution levels are rising – and urban populations are being exposed to ever-higher amounts of PM2.5. According to the World Health Organization, around 90% of people globally breathe air with unsafe levels of pollutants. Already vulnerable groups – including children, the elderly and those with pre-existing skin conditions – could be most at risk of developing eczema.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that pollution affects health in multifaceted ways, beyond just respiratory issues. Our skin, the body’s largest organ, is also at risk. Recognising these connections could guide policies to enforce stricter air quality controls, protecting not only the air we breathe but also the skin we rely on for protection.

On a personal level, reducing direct exposure to polluted air can be beneficial – especially for those prone to eczema. Some ways of doing this include staying indoors on high-pollution days, using air purifiers and covering exposed skin.

There’s also promise in treatments targeting the AhR pathway. Current research into treatments that activate “good” pathways of AhR in the skin shows potential for managing eczema symptoms – especially for those exposed to elevated PM2.5 levels. Tapinarof, a cream investigators are currently testing, could potentially counterbalance the harmful effect of pollution on the skin if proven successful. This could provide hope to eczema sufferers.

This emerging understanding on the hidden impacts of air pollution suggests that it could be a hidden culprit in the global rise of skin issues such as eczema. Läs mer…

On Sunday November 23 1924, 100 years ago this month, readers perusing page six of the New York Times would have found an intriguing article, amid several large adverts for fur coats. The headline read: Finds Spiral Nebulae are Stellar Systems: “Dr Hubbell Confirms View That They Are ‘Island Universes’; Similar to Our Own”.

The American astronomer at the centre of the article, Dr Edwin Powell Hubble, was probably bemused by the misspelling of his name. But the story detailed a groundbreaking discovery: Hubble had found that two spiral-shaped nebulae, objects made up of gas and stars, which were previously thought to reside within our Milky Way galaxy, were located outside it.

These objects were actually the Andromeda and Messier 33 galaxies, the closest large galaxies to our Milky Way. Today, up to several trillion galaxies are estimated to fill the Universe, based on observations of tens of millions of galaxies.

Four years before Hubble’s announcement, an event called “the great debate” had taken place in Washington DC between the American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis. Shapley had recently shown the Milky Way to be larger than previously measured. Shapley argued that it could accommodate spiral nebulae within it. Curtis, on the other hand, advocated for the existence of galaxies beyond the Milky Way.

In hindsight, and ignoring certain details, Curtis won the debate. However, the method Shapley used to measure distances across the Milky Way was critical to Hubble’s discovery, and was inherited from the work of a pioneering US astronomer: Henrietta Swan Leavitt.

Edwin Hubble made his discovery at the Mount Wilson Observatory in California.
Edwin Powell Hubble Papers / The Huntington, Author provided (no reuse)

Measuring distances to stars

In 1893, a young Leavitt was hired as a “computer” to analyse images from telescope observations at Harvard College Observatory, Massachusetts. Leavitt studied photographic plates from telescope observations of another galaxy called the Small Magellanic Cloud carried out by other observatory researchers.

Leavitt was searching for stars whose brightness changed over time. From over a thousand variable (changing) stars, she identified 25 were of a type known as Cepheids, publishing the results in 1912.

The brightness of Cepheid stars changes with time, so they appear to pulse. Leavitt found a consistent relationship: Cepheids that pulsed more slowly were intrinsically brighter (more luminous) than those pulsing more quickly. This was dubbed the “period-luminosity relationship”.

Other astronomers realised the significance of Leavitt’s work: the relationship could be used to work out distances to stars. While a student at Princeton University, Shapley used the period-luminosity relationship to estimate distances to other Cepheids across the Milky Way. This is how Shapley reached his estimate for our galaxy’s size.

On 5-6 October Edwin Hubble took this image of the Andromeda Galaxy (Messier 31), which established that it was a separate galaxy from our own.
Mount Wilson Observatory, Author provided (no reuse)

But, in order for astronomers to be sure about distances within our galaxy, they needed a more direct way to measure distances to Cepheids. The stellar parallax method is another way to measure cosmic distances, but it only works for nearby stars. As the Earth orbits the Sun, a nearby star appears to move relative to more distant background stars. This apparent motion is known as stellar parallax. Through the angle of this parallax, astronomers can work out a star’s distance from Earth.

The Danish researcher Ejnar Hertzsprung used stellar parallax to obtain the distances to a handful of nearby Cepheid stars, helping calibrate Leavitt’s work.

The New York Times article emphasised the “great” telescopes at the Mount Wilson Observatory near Los Angeles, where Hubble was working. Telescope size is generally assessed by the diameter of the primary mirror. With a 100-inch (2.5-metre) diameter mirror for collecting light, the Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson was the largest telescope at the time.

Diagram of how the distance to a near star is determined using the stellar parallax method.
Jeff Grube, Author provided (no reuse)

Large telescopes are not only more sensitive to resolving galaxies, but also create sharper images. Edwin Hubble was therefore well placed to make his discovery. When Hubble compared his photographic plates taken using the 100 inch telescope with those taken on previous nights by other astronomers, he was thrilled to see one bright star appear to change in brightness over time, as expected for a Cepheid.

Using Leavitt’s calculations, Hubble found that the distance to his Cepheid exceeded Shapley’s size for the Milky Way. Over subsequent months, Hubble examined other spiral nebulae as he searched for more Cepheids with which to measure distances. Word of Hubble’s observations was spreading among astronomers. At Harvard, Shapley received a letter from Hubble detailing the discovery. He handed it to fellow astronomer Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, remarking: “Here is the letter that has destroyed my universe”.

Expansion of the Universe

Besides estimating the distance to a galaxy, telescopes can also measure the speed at which a galaxy moves towards or away from Earth. In order to do this, astronomers measure a galaxy’s spectrum: the different wavelengths of light coming from it. They also calculate an effect known as the Doppler shift and apply it to that spectrum.

The Doppler shift occurs for both light and sound waves; it is responsible for the pitch of a siren increasing as an emergency vehicle approaches, then decreasing as it passes you. When a galaxy is moving away from Earth, features of the spectrum known as absorption lines have longer measured wavelengths than they would if they were not moving. This is due to the Doppler shift, and we say that these galaxies have been “redshifted”.

Edwin Hubble seated at the 100 inch Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory.
Edwin Powell Hubble papers, The Huntington Library, San Marino, California, Author provided (no reuse)

Beginning in 1904, the American astronomer Vesto Slipher used the Doppler technique with a 24-inch telescope at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona. He found that nebulae, including Andromeda, were all redshifted. Slipher found they were moving away from Earth at speeds as high as a thousand kilometres a second.

Hubble combined Slipher’s measurements with his distance estimates for each galaxy and discovered a relationship: the further a galaxy is from us, the faster it is moving away from us. This can be explained by the expansion of the Universe from a common origin, which would become known derisively as the Big Bang.

The announcement 100 years ago cemented Hubble’s place in the history of astronomy. His name would later be used for one of the most powerful scientific instruments ever created: the Hubble space telescope. It seems incredible how, over the course of just five years, our understanding of the Universe was brought into focus. Läs mer…

Parents frequently lie to their children. “No, you can’t have any chocolate – it’s all gone,” when there’s a jumbo bar of Dairy Milk in the cupboard. “No, you can’t have my phone to watch YouTube – the battery’s flat,” when it’s at a solid 65%.

Lies like these make parents’ lives easier, particularly so when the children are small. Lying might also be thought to be in kids’ own interests. For instance, young children get told that eating carrots will help them to see in the dark.

Leveraging the promise of superpowers might help children develop habits that will serve them well in the longer term. Similarly, lies might be told to protect children from what might be distressing truths. Communicating about death or serious illness with young people can be challenging, and it may be tempting to distort reality in order to avoid upsetting them.

But before lying becomes a habit, it’s worth dwelling upon the reasons for doing so – and considering whether a different approach would be better.

Types of lie

Roughly, people lie when they say things they believe to be false with the intention of deceiving others.

Philosophers have discussed various definitions of lying in order to develop a definition that captures all and only those cases which we think really are instances of lying. For example, we want our definition of lying to exclude jokes or metaphors or some cases of exaggeration (“it’s raining cats and dogs”, “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse!”).

Lying can be well meaning, such as white lies and noble lies. White lies are small lies told to protect social relations – for instance, to avoid upsetting or offending someone (“that jacket really suits you”). Noble lies serve some greater good, such as maintaining political harmony (“We have nothing to fear but fear itself”).

There are also some edge cases, which don’t quite meet the definition of lying given above. Altruistic “lies” are told to get someone to believe the truth – if you know someone will disbelieve you, then you might say something strictly false, but with the intention of getting them to believe the truth.

For example, Ben always confuses cinnamon with nutmeg. He loves cinnamon and hates nutmeg but believes, incorrectly, that he loves nutmeg and hates cinnamon. Sally knows Ben’s preferences and also that he reliably mistakes cinnamon for nutmeg. She offers Ben a cinnamon bun and tells him “you’ll love it – it’s full of nutmeg”. In cases such as these, there is no intention to deceive.

Alternatively, someone might intend to deceive without making a false statement: lies by omission involve misleading someone by leaving out relevant information. It is also possible to deceive by telling the truth – for example, responding “I prefer brie” when asked “did you eat the bit of Stilton I was saving?”. This is known as paltering.

But the lies that parents often tell children aren’t these “sort-of” lies.

Why shouldn’t we lie to children?

Clearly, adults sometimes lie to other adults. Some philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, think that lying is never justified, even if the consequences of telling the truth could be disastrous. But we don’t have to take such an extreme position to think that the ways and frequency with which people lie to children are troubling.

Sometimes a lie is a quick way to avoid a meltdown.
MIA Studio/Shutterstock

People don’t just lie to children when the implications of telling the truth would be very severe. People often lie to children for trivial reasons – to avoid the effort of explaining the truth, to avoid another meltdown, to speed up some process or gain compliance.

And the lies aren’t always that small. Children might be told the police will come and arrest them if they don’t obey their parents’ demands. Small children are not well placed to judge the plausibility of these claims and can’t be expected to recognise their absurdity.

So what, if anything, is wrong with lying to children like this? I think there are a few reasons why lying to children is not trivial.

Trust: One problem is the risk of being found out, and the subsequent loss of trust. It seems important that children can trust adults, particularly their parents. Lying to children jeopardises that trust and may be associated with other negative outcomes, such as higher levels of psychosocial maladjustment later in life.

Child development: Some of the lies that get told to avoid distress or confrontation might appear kind, but they serve to bypass the need for children to exert self-control or prevent them from developing an understanding of the world. Meltdowns and confrontation are unpleasant but unavoidable with children, and they must learn to manage emotions like frustration and injustice.

Respect: It’s important to remember that children are people too. We don’t casually lie to other adults partly because it’s disrespectful to act as if the accuracy of their beliefs is unimportant. We should have the same approach to children.

Reflecting on our reasons: By committing to tell the truth we force ourselves to reflect upon our behaviour. For instance, what is the real reason your toddler isn’t allowed to watch cartoons right now, or you won’t take them to the playground? Parents have an incredible degree of power over their children, and it should be deployed responsibly. Telling the truth can encourage us to think about why we’re controlling our children in particular ways and whether or not it’s justified.

Parenting can be exhausting, and lying is the easy option. But treating children with respect and supporting them to develop and mature requires holding ourselves to higher standards of truthfulness. So think about why you won’t hand over the bar of chocolate to your three year old, and consider giving that as the reason next time the request comes. Läs mer…