Word of What Day?

Apparently, as a regular user of the Dictionary.com Web site, every morning my Inbox gets a “Word of the Day” message. This morning’s “word” was “déjà vu.” I am waiting to see if it will turn up again tomorrow!

Just Sayin’

Nvidia CEO Jenson Huang doing his best to listen patiently to United States President Donald Trump (screen shot from an Al Jazeera video)

I realize that this may sound a little brash. However, given my own background at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, I feel an interjection may be necessary. This involves video that showed up this morning as a NewsFeed article from Al Jazeera. The descriptive text for that video reads as follows:

US President Donald Trump makes a surprise call to the CEO of AI chip company, Nvidia, interrupting a live event to discuss recent fears of AI development. While talking to Jensen Huang over speakerphone, Trump called the concerns ‘a hoax’.

I suppose that, as usual, our President just wanted to attract attention to himself; but I think that he should leave matters of artificial intelligence to students and practitioners of artificial intelligence!

Is This How You Want to Shop in Hong Kong?

 https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/9/5/shoppers-interact-with-hong-kongs-first-robot-shopkeeper

Donald Trump: A President for the 20th Century?

 https://abc7.com/post/arcadegov-white-house-website-debuts-5-retro-arcade-video-games-promote-trumps-agenda/19792571/

“Loose Lips” About Artificial Intelligence

I just finished reading an online article from the Web site for The New York Times with the following headline: “Bill Gates Warns A.I. Is More Dangerous Than Big Tech Will Admit.” The author was Karen Weise, described in the header to the article as having “covered Microsoft since 2018.” The substance was the result of her conversation with Gates, which took place last week.

Some readers may know by now that, as an undergraduate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, I first had a desk at the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Laboratory in my junior year. I wrote both my senior thesis and my doctoral dissertation under the support of Professor Marvin Minsky, one of the “founding fathers” of AI and author of “Steps toward artificial intelligence, “ published in the January, 1961 issue of the Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers. As the old joke goes, if Minsky, who died in January of 2016, read Weise’s article, he would turn over in his grave!

I would like to take as a point of departure what I feel is a critical sentence in Weise’s article: “Mr. Gates conceded that he also might be a flawed messenger simply because of his vast wealth and history as Microsoft’s aggressive chief executive.” Indeed, Gates is definitely a “flawed messenger;” but the reason is that neither he nor Microsoft has ever been an authoritative source for any of the “steps toward artificial intelligence” in Minsky’s article. Indeed, I have to wonder whether or not Gates knew very much about Minsky (or even if he knew or met him at all).

Weise goes on the say that Gates was “stunned” by ChatGPT. To be fair, I would guess that few, if any, readers know very much about the origin of this software. That origin took place in the mid-Sixties, when Joseph Weizenbaum created a “chat” program called ELIZA. As Weizenbaum’s Wikipedia page puts it, the program, named DOCTOR, “was capable of engaging humans in a conversation which bore a striking resemblance to one with an empathetic psychologist.”

Anyone visiting the AI Lab was probably introduced to ELIZA. My own favorite story took place when the Merce Cunningham Dance Company visited Boston. By that time I had written a generous number of articles about that company, including a performance-by-performance account of a winter season at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, which appeared in Ballet Review. During the Boston visit, the stage director accepted my invitation to visit the AI Lab, and one of the dancers, Sandra Neels, joined him for that visit. Since I know that she would not be interested in “technical talk,” I sat her down at a workstation that was connected to ELIZA. After the “business” part of the visit was concluded, she was still typing away. When I asked her what she thought about it, she replied, “It’s like talking to Merce!”

I suppose it would be somewhat brash to suggest that a Cunningham dancer knew more about artificial intelligence that Gates does. Nevertheless, I have to wonder just how much Gates knows about how that discipline came to be and how it has advanced over the course of over half a century! Mind you, I am all for writing about artificial intelligence; but I am afraid that Weise has not yet established herself as an “informed source!”

Is Artificial Intelligence an “Industry?”

This morning I found myself reading an article in the DealBook Newsletter of The New York Times. This was one of those times when the “sub-headline” was more important to me than the headline. There were only two sentences; but it was the first that drew my attention: “Investors including BlackRock have committed an eye-popping amount to lend to the artificial intelligence industry.” This reminded me that artificial intelligence has come a very long way since the undergraduate and graduate yeas I spent at the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

A “laboratory” is, of course, a venue for research. My own research efforts yielded theses for both my senior year and my doctoral studies. It never occurred to me that artificial intelligence would be an industry. The “founding fathers” focused attention on trying to figure out what mental processes are and how they work. Their approach was to try to build software models to simulate those processes and then explore how those models behaved. This was all inspired by the “Turing test,” Alan Turing’s proposal that software could be called “intelligent” if one could not distinguish its behaviors from those of a human being.

Larry Fink, Chairman and CEO of Black Rock (photograph by Karsten Moran for The New York Times)

To be fair, there are many situations in which those behaviors would be able to benefit industry. However, industry depends on a more important benefit: Investment. This is why the Times showed the above photograph of Larry Fink, Chairman and CEO of Black Rock. The caption for the photograph explains that his business is “lining up money to finance the artificial intelligence boom;” and the Times seems to associate that with industry. Unfortunately, calling artificial intelligence itself an “industry” is not just a matter of putting the cart (research) before the horse (product). It seems to suggest than there is no difference between cart and horse!

Mind you, I still appreciate the Times as a news source; but the very name “DealBook” strikes me as a red flag that “hype” is likely to prevail over substance!

Balanced News

Some readers may recall that yesterday I wrote about an SFGATE article entitled “'Epidemic levels': California's e-bike war explodes in Orange County.” Today saw a “response” to this “call” in an article by Luke Spray, identified as a freelance contributor. This time the headline was “The e-bike is quietly reshaping life in SF.” Spray never makes any mention of yesterday’s article, but it is clear that he is on “the other side of the fence.” Instead of yesterday’s “darker vision of the e-bike world, where suburban idyll is shattered by hordes of law-breaking riders, often children, on souped-up electric weapons of discomfort, mayhem and, occasionally, death,” Spray’s three-paragraph article optimistically concludes that the “e-bike is transforming how people experience the city and redefining what freedom of mobility looks like.”

Cyclists on e-bikes on Market Street in San Francisco (photograph by Justin Sullivan, taken on July 29, 2004, from the SFGATE Web page for this article, courtesy of Getty Images)

Personally, I am not sure that Spray knows was “freedom of mobility” is! Does he know that the Department of Motor Vehicles has a well-defined code of the “rules of the road,” which makes it clear that “mobility” has its constraints? Sadly (at least to the best of my knowledge), there is no such “code” governing sidewalks, suggesting that, in that setting, “freedom of mobility” knows no bounds. As a result, I think it is fair to ask Spray whether he interviewed any pedestrians (who are, after all, “people”) before writing his article!

Why Not San Francisco?

As many readers probably know, SFGATE is basically the “digital spinoff” of the San Francisco Chronicle. Thus, while I provide myself with a satisfying number of news feeds, which I manage through The Old Reader, I still enjoy the “affordances of paper,” particularly when it comes to the comics pages. When I turn to local news, I have a feed for ABC7 but not for SFGATE. However, because SFGATE knows my electronic mail address, I receive a few items every day; and these direct me to news items that I usually have not seen in the Chronicle.

More often than not, I skim SFGATE sources; but today was an exception. The title of the article was “'Epidemic levels': California's e-bike war explodes in Orange County” with “Injuries are up 430%, and the hard-nosed district attorney has had enough” as a subtitle. The opening paragraph describes the e-bike as a potential “reason to rejoice, as the state continues to stretch toward giant climate goals like carbon neutrality by 2045.” However, the next sentence calls attention to “a darker vision of the e-bike world, where suburban idyll is shattered by hordes of law-breaking riders, often children, on souped-up electric weapons of discomfort, mayhem and, occasionally, death.”

To be fair, there is more to the situation than “cool technology.” Ever since my wife and I left Palo Alto and made our Opera Plaza condominium our primary residence, I have enjoyed the pleasures of being a pedestrian. Nevertheless, I sometimes think that the sidewalks are more dangerous than the streets for motor vehicles. Furthermore, this is not just a case of the new generation of electronic vehicles. For some reason or another, sidewalks seem to be “fair game” for bicycles, roller skates, and skateboards. You would think that pedestrian safety would be monitored by the police; but, over the course of the last two decades, I have yet to see a “beat cop” negotiating either pedestrians or motorists. This is a far cry from the setting I encountered back in the day when I would get off a train at New York’s Grand Central Station and walk from there to Lincoln Center. The streets were crowded; but, thanks to the police force, they were more orderly than Van Ness Avenue!

Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer, who is not afraid to “tell it like it is!” (photograph by Allen J. Schaben, courtesy of the Los Angeles Times and Getty Images)

This now takes me back to the SFGATE article about Orange County. Here are two more paragraphs:

From his Santa Ana office, Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer has led a sweeping effort to solve the region’s e-bike and e-motorcycle headaches, including increased threats of prison time for family members who have enabled misuse of these vehicles. In May, Spitzer debuted a new law enforcement unit called RIDE SAFELY (a muddy partial acronym meaning “Smart Accountability for E-Bikes and E-Motos and Law Enforcement for Youth”). The group’s stated focus is to review existing e-bike and e-moto cases with increased scrutiny for possible prosecution, and to “assist law enforcement agencies through the investigatory process” as needed, as noted in a news release.

“The death and devastation caused by e-Bikes and E-Motorcycles has reached epidemic levels,” Spitzer says in the release.

Of course, actions speak louder than acronyms; but Spitzer deserves credit for raising his voice. Now, will anyone else earn credit by paying attention and doing something?

Why I Continue my Loyalty to Apple (and macOS)

What Windows users encounter (from the article being cited)

 https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-patches-570-vulnerabilities-exploited-zero-days/

Technology is as Serious as War

Georges Clemenceau (provided to Wikimedia Commons by the German Federal Archive as part of a cooperation project, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany license)

My guess is that just about everyone has encountered the aphorism “War is too important to be left to the generals,” which is usually attributed  to Georges Clemenceau, who was prime minister of France during the first quarter of the last century. This morning I was reminded that digital technology is just as important. As might be guessed, the trigger for that association can be traced back our president, Donald Trump.

The source of that trigger was the following New York Times headline: “Trump Plans to Sign Executive Order Granting Oversight of A.I. Models.” The subtitle of the headline is just as chilling: “The executive order, which would signal a shift from the hands-off approach the White House previously took, follows debates over how to gain control over A.I. models without disrupting innovation.” To be fair, a considerable amount of my time went into the theory and practice of artificial intelligence (A.I.) during about half of my undergraduate years and all my research efforts as a graduate student. I suspect that neither of the authors of the Times article, Tripp Mickle and Sheera Frenkel, are as informed about A.I. as well as any students (undergraduate and graduate) and professionals.

To be fair, on the other hand, I suspect that both of those authors are better equipped to make decisions about A.I. than anyone working in the White House (at any level), not to mention those working in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. One way of putting this is that there is a very wide gap between expertise in the digital world and decision-making at just about any level of the structure of our government. Sadly, I doubt that such a gap can be closed, simply because it takes too much time; and those working for the government have their hands fuller than ever.

When “Cool” AI Software May Be High-Risk

Photograph of home page for Anthropic’s Claude (photograph by Dado Ruvić, courtesy of Reuters)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/apr/10/us-summoned-bank-bosses-to-discuss-cyber-risks-posed-by-anthropic-latest-ai-model

Is YouTube a Social Network?

This morning Zoe Kleinman, Technology Editor for the BBC, decided to do the best she could in dealing with the assets and liabilities of social media. I have no idea whether or not she wrote her own headline. As headlines go, it was more than a bit on the long side; but it was still designed to draw attention, at least as far as I was concerned when I encountered it. The full text is as follows:

'A game-changing moment for social media' - what next for big tech after landmark addiction verdict?

The article involves the question of whether software classified as “social networks” does more harm than good. Kleinman wasted no time in citing a recent Los Angeles court decision that came down on the “harm” side in a seriously big way:

The tech giants in this case, Meta and Google, must now pay $6m (£4.5m) in damages to a young woman known as Kaley, the victim at the centre of this case.

She claimed the platforms left her with body dysmorphia, depression and suicidal thoughts.

Both companies intend to appeal, with Meta maintaining a single app cannot be solely responsible for a teen mental health crisis.

Google, meanwhile, says YouTube is not a social network.

At the very least, I think we need to consider the validity of that final sentence.

By way of disclaimer, I am not a particularly heavy user of YouTube; but it is still a major factor involving the writing that I do. Were it not for YouTube, I would not be able to follow those performances by the Detroit Symphony Orchestra that are live-streamed (and, yes, my thoughts about the San Francisco Symphony often involve reflecting on my experiences with similar ensembles). Basically, I watch YouTube content attentively (“live” or otherwise) when I wish to then write about the music being performed; and that is the only thing I do with the site.

Nevertheless, most (if not all) YouTube Web pages allow for comments. That service draws far more attention than attending a concert through cyberspace. Democracy Now! is a global news program that livestreams through YouTube. It is produced by Amy Goodman, who made the “great leap forward” from public radio to cyberspace. Since launching her site, she has accumulated about 3.27 million subscribers; and this morning’s broadcast already has 656 comments. As a student, I learned about how information was shared in the agora in ancient history. The scope of that agora has now grown to accommodate anyone with access to the World Wide Web.

Emma Lazarus (photograph by William Kurtz)

The British comedy group Beyond the Fringe had a joke about the danger of the Statue of Liberty. They singled out this sentence from Emma Lazarus’ poem “The New Colossus”: “Give me your tired, your poor,/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.” The punch line in the joke was the problem that “people did” as a response! Those “people” are now “responding” to invitations to comment on Web pages; and sometimes the enthusiasm to respond runs way ahead of understanding the source for the response.

For better or worse, I have tended to pay more attention to getting my own thoughts in order than worrying about what other people think. Writing is an exercise to keep my cognitive capacities active. If an opinion is questioned, then answering it is just another facet of cognitive exercise. I appreciate the opportunity, even if it turns out that I was mistaken about something. Nevertheless, I am sure that I am in a minority category; but, if it continues to exercise cognition, I do not see any reason to complain.

Audium to Present a Month of Pamela Z

The Audium listening space (from the City Box Office Web page for the performances being discussed)

Readers that follow Bleeding Edge articles on this site probably already know about Audium. This is a highly unique performing space with 176 loudspeakers that can surround listeners with sounds that can move past, over, and under them. These “sound sculptures” are then given “live” performances in total darkness, thus affirming the name of the venue through its reliance on audiences prepared to exercise their respective auditory systems.

To encourage the use of this technology, Audium invites creative artists through residency support. At the end of this month composer and performer Pamela Z will conclude her residence. Her results will then be performed at Audium. The title of her full-evening program will be Arbeitsklang, which translates into English as “worksound.”

Those performances will all begin at 8 p.m. on Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays throughout the entirety of next month. General admission (to which the usual fee will be added) will be $30. There will be ADA (Americans with Disabilities) accessible seating at the same price. Students and the underemployed will be admitted at the discount rate of $20. For those that do not follow the Bleeding Edge regularly, Audium is located at 1616 Bush Street at the corner of Franklin Street. Doors will open at 7:30 p.m., and there will be no late entry.

YouTube Finds its Way to Television

I must confess to a bit of pleasure in encountering this article from The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/19/youtube-uk-tv-set-most-popular

My wife and I get our television from xfinity, and it did not take me long to discover that the service included a plethora of apps. Most of these were of little interest, but I was glad to see that YouTube was one of them.

One of the screenshots captured from a Detroit Symphony Orchestra performance on YouTube 

There are any number of settings in which a television screen is preferable to a computer screen. However, the asset that probably means the most to my wife and I is our ability to watch performances by the Detroit Symphony Orchestra. We have been watching the live broadcasts since September of 2012. Because these begin at 5 PM on the West Coast, we usually have dinner while watching. Some may see this as a decadent approach to “serious music,” but neither of us feels that eating distracts from listening! Some readers probably already know that, after the concert, I can go back to the computer and find a screenshot to include with the article I write about the performance!

Anthropic Echoes “Boss” Tweed

Photograph of Claude being used on a cell phone (provided by GK Images/Alamy, used under the headline of the article from The Guardian being discussed)

Marvin Minsky, one of the “founding fathers” of artificial intelligence (AI), was my advisor for the thesis papers I wrote in my senior undergraduate year and my doctoral dissertation. As a result, it is difficult for me to encounter any news article purporting to write about that topic without my “Spidey-sense” tingling. This happened this morning when I was reviewing my news feeds from The Guardian. When I saw the headline “US military used Anthropic’s AI model Claude in Venezuela raid, report says” I could not resist reading further.

The critical sentence near the beginning of the article is as follows:

Anthropic’s terms of use prohibit the use of Claude for violent ends, for the development of weapons or for conducting surveillance.

This appeared shortly after the opening sentence:

Claude, the AI model developed by Anthropic, was used by the US military during its operation to kidnap Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela, the Wall Street Journal revealed on Saturday, a high-profile example of how the US defence department is using artificial intelligence in its operations.

One would think that this is a cut-and-dried case of cognitive dissonance. However, this seems to be a case in which silence is louder than dissonance. William Christou, author of the article, put it this way:

A spokesperson for Anthropic declined to comment on whether Claude was used in the operation, but said any use of the AI tool was required to comply with its usage policies. The US defence department did not comment on the claims.

In other words, both sides are waffling, recalling the words of Boss Tweed when reporters tried to call out his corruption: “What are you gonna do about it?” One would think that both Anthropic and the Department of Defense should be called out to answer that question. For now, however, it seems as if we shall have to cope with deafening silence!

Why "Selling It" Still Takes Priority over Safety

 https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/e-bike-crash-injury-21331489.php

Anne Hege Coming to 836M

Anne Hege preparing the set design for The Glance

Some readers may recall my account of performances at the 836M Gallery, named after its address at 836 Montgomery Street, for this past fall. The next music event will begin about a month from now. Composer, musician, and instrument designer Anne Hege will have a four-month residency, which will conclude with performances at the ODC Theater at the end of May.

Hege will use her residency to develop a 90-minute “laptopera” entitled The Glance and based on the myth of Orpheus. (Those familiar with the myth will recognize that the title reflects its tragic climax.) Her performances involve an imaginative synthesis through both analog and digital technologies. Her first “laptopera” was entitled The Furies and was first performed in 2022 by the Stanford Laptop Orchestra. Her current performances are with her electronic duo New Prosthetics and the laptop ensemble Sideband.

This is basically a “heads up” preview. Dates and times of the performance have not yet been announced. The best source for that information will by the ODC Performance & Event Calendar. Thus far, only one event has been scheduled at that venue at the very beginning of May. Those wishing to see the performance of The Glance can make regular visits to that Calendar to check out the final weekend of that month.

Meanwhile, next month will see a preview event entitled Soft Opening. Audiences are invited to witness how Hege works with vocalist Sidney Chen, who will be singing the role of Hades. This open rehearsal will take place in the 836M Gallery beginning at 6:30 PM on Thursday, February 19. Because it is a gallery, 836M never charges for admission.

Of “Lies, damned lies, and statistics” (again)

As I previously wrote back in 2019, this is a phrase famous enough to have its own Wikipedia page. Mark Twain cited it in Chapters from My Autobiography, where he attributed it to Benjamin Disraeli. While that attribution is questionable, it certainly does not undermine the semantic substance. Mind you, statistical results are only as good as the sample space from which they are computed, which is why willful distortion of the sample space will often (if not always) lead to “damned lies.”

Photograph from the article for The Guardian showing private jets at an airport in Arizona (provided by Associated Press photographer Ross D Franklin)

That said, when we are not yet halfway through the first month of the year, Oxfam has come up with a chilling statistic. I read about it this morning in an article for The Guardian by Rosie Peters-McDonald. Her first two sentences say it all:

The world’s richest 1% have used up their fair share of carbon emissions just 10 days into 2026, analysis has found.

Meanwhile, the richest 0.1% took just three days to exhaust their annual carbon budget, according to the research by Oxfam.

Peters-McDonald then goes on to add insult to injury:

Not only are the super-rich responsible for most carbon emissions, but they also invest in the most polluting industries. A billionaire carries, on average, an investment portfolio in companies that will produce 1.9m tonnes of CO2 a year – roughly equivalent to the annual emissions of 400,000 petrol cars.

Now my guess is that many of these billionaires account on the belief that the “man on the street” neither knows nor cares about statistics. For better or worse, belief tends to be guided by “what television tells us;” and, sadly, too often television relies on that old line from the “Daily News” song:

Don’t try to confuse my mind with facts.

More often than not, the “human condition” relies on the preference of what we would like things to be, rather than what they are. My guess is that that “richest 1%” are well aware of these statistics. They probably even know better than to dismiss them as “damned lies.” Rather, they probably take comfort in the fact that the remaining 99% either just does not care or feels helpless about doing anything. I put myself in the latter category, since I know that this kind of writing is very unlikely to have much impact. Nevertheless, I feel that the least I can do is to make my opinions known “on the record!”

Is Artificial Intelligence Bad for Your Health?

It was only about half a month ago that I continued to pursue “the distorted semantics of ‘artificial intelligence [AI].’” The fact is that, when I write about science and technology in my feeds managed by The Old Reader, citations of AI tend to be more abundant than ever. As readers may recall, I came to grasp the concept of artificial intelligence through both the writings of its earliest pioneer, Alan Turing, and my advisor for both by undergraduate and doctoral dissertations, Marvin Minsky, who ran the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

I suspect both of them would turn over in their graves if they knew how Google decided to pick up the baton for AI research and development and run with it. Indeed, Google’s approach to AI recalls Lord Ronald, a fictitious character created by humorist Stephen Leacock who “flung himself upon his horse and rode madly off in all directions.” Google apparently wants AI to summarize complexity, which is a risky undertaking, because it is unclear that Google knows which direction to go.

 

Photograph by Caia Image/Alamy from the Guardian article being cited 

That risk reflects a motto I learned during my time with Minsky: “Every complex question has a simple answer … and it’s wrong!” As Andrew Gregory, Health editor for The Guardian, observed: “People are being put at risk of harm by false and misleading health information in Google’s artificial intelligence summaries.” As a good journalist, Gregory provided Google’s side of the story:

Google said the vast majority of its AI Overviews were factual and helpful, and it continuously made quality improvements. The accuracy rate of AI Overviews was on a par with its other search features like featured snippets, which had existed for more than a decade, it added.

The problem is that, where health is concerned, “on a par” is not good enough. A “matter of life and death” is not resolved through the law of averages!

When I have to make decisions regarding my personal health, I have relied consistently on the University of California at San Francisco for over a decade; and I shall continue to turn to the Internet to satisfy my needs to learn more about music!

When a “Hack” has Consequences

During my student years at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, there was a generous amount of recreation referred to as “hacking.” Hacks were nothing more than pranks that usually involved a twist grounded on some technology infrastructure. More often than not, that infrastructure involved computer software, often based on artificial intelligence. Since those days are now half a century ago, most hacks covered a gamut between moderately amusing and annoying.

Freelance journalist Samantha Smith, whose image on X was altered (from the BBC article being discussed)

These days, that gamut has widened, particularly on the annoying side. This morning I read a BBC article filed by Technology Reporter Laura Cress with the headline “Woman felt 'dehumanised' after Musk's Grok AI used to digitally remove her clothes.” My guess is that there are any number of computer graphics tools that can enable such an image transformation. For all I know, some of them have been demonstrated at technical conferences (which I no longer attend, since my days of presenting research results of my own have now passed).

There is a tendency to regard any new software capability as progress. How that software is used does not “enter into the equation.” However, while an algorithm for more efficient search is a software achievement, there is a “social dimension” where images are concerned, particularly when they are images of the “real world,” rather than some elaborate abstraction. In my student days little attention was given to whether or not a “hack” involved that “social dimension;” but, as was clear from that BBC article, those creating imaginative new software need to be more aware of “social consequences.”

One can only wonder if any of the software training programs include the examination of how any invention has, out of necessity, a “social dimension.” That BBC article suggests that, for the most part, that social dimension is overlooked. Sadly, I do not expect that the article will have any impact on updating those training programs. As usual, entropy rules!