The unexpected conclusion here seems to be that biology taught you enough statistics to leave biology financially behind. That is interesting, although six profitable years of gambling may also encourage a rather romantic view of gambling
Avery's experiment is memorable not because "DNA carries heredity" is an important fact but because protein looked like the plausible answer and a relatively simple experiment overturned it...
I get the ad-like vibe, but I think that's slightly unfair to the paper. "General purpose technology" is being used as an economics term here, not as a claim that ChatGPT is universally useful
Interesting data, but I think there's a pretty big trap in treating usage intensity as a proxy for economic impact. The finding that early-career workers send substantially more messages than senior people could mean they're getting huge productivity gains. It could also mean they're the ones doing the work that's easiest to delegate to ChatGPT…
I can easily imagine the phone use and the kid's insecurity both coming from the same underlying family dynamic, rather than one neatly causing the other
Being ignored because someone is staring at a phone absolutely feels different from them just being busy. At the same time, asking teenagers how much their parent's phone use bothers them and then finding that the most bothered teenagers feel less secure in the relationship is not quite the same as showing that the phone caused the insecurity
The worrying part is not just that banned substances show up at trace levels, but that a non-trivial number of products were apparently over the legal limit