Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

Here’s a fun twist you might not expect: a recent study shows that most people can't tell if a poem was crafted by a human or AI — and even more surprising, we often prefer the AI versions! Researchers Brian Porter and Edouard Machery from the University of Pittsburgh put this theory to the test, and the results reveal something pretty quirky about our poetic tastes. <h2>Human or AI? You decide!</h2>For this experiment, Porter and Machery recruited over 1,600 participants and gave them a batch of <keyword id="6355263" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="poetry" source="Orion">poetry</keyword> to read. Each participant got ten poems, five written by legendary poets like William Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, Lord Byron, and T.S. Eliot, and five crafted by ChatGPT-3.5 mimicking these poets’ styles. Participants had no idea which ones were real and which were AI. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="115273975" title="5 interesting takeaways from Slack&amp;#39;s survey of 17,000 desk workers about AI" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>The shocker was that readers were more likely to think the AI poems were written by humans! In fact, the poems people thought least likely to be human were often written by the very poets we’d consider masters of the craft. <h2>What makes a poem feel "real"?</h2>Curious to dive deeper, the researchers set up a second experiment with 696 new participants. This time, each reader rated poems on things like beauty, emotion, rhythm, and originality. The readers were divided into three groups: some were told the poems were written by humans, others by AI, and a third group got no information at all. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="115299674" title="Instead of killing jobs, there&amp;#39;s a strange AI hiring boom happening, according to Marc Andreessen" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>They found that if you tell someone a poem was AI-generated, they’re likely to rate it lower on just about every quality. But here’s the twist: when people didn’t know who wrote the poems, they often rated the AI-generated ones higher than the human written ones! <h2>So, why are we falling for AI poetry?</h2>Turns out, AI poems often end up being a little more straightforward and easy to enjoy, while poems by famous poets can be more complex and challenging. Instead of appreciating the depth of a classic poet’s work, readers sometimes mistake complexity for confusion and move on. <keyword id="23985627" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="AI-generated-poems" source="keywords">AI-generated poems</keyword>, meanwhile, serve up their message in a style that feels familiar and easy to “get,” making them more enjoyable at first glance. Basically, we tend to believe we’ll prefer human poetry. But in reality, AI’s smooth style is just easier to like — and we interpret this as a sign the poem was created by a human. The findings of this research have been published in Scientific Reports and can be accessed <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-76900-1">here</a>.

New study finds readers can’t tell AI poems from human ones — and they often prefer AI

Smartphones have changed how we connect, work, and entertain ourselves, but they might also be silently reshaping our closest relationships. A recent study titled ‘Impact of Smartphones on Parent-Child Relationships’ sheds light on a growing concern: the excessive use of smartphones is creating barriers between parents and children in India. The sixth edition of the vivo Switch Off survey, conducted in collaboration with CyberMedia Research (CMR), highlights how technology, while indispensable, has become a source of conflict in family dynamics. The findings are a stark reminder of the need for balance in a world increasingly dominated by screens. <h2>Children are more aware of smartphone impact </h2> One surprising revelation from the study is that children appear more aware of the negative impact of <keyword id="24400365" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="excessive-smartphone-use" source="keywords">excessive smartphone use</keyword> than their parents. About 69% of children acknowledged that smartphone overuse has led to conflicts with their parents, and an overwhelming 94% suggested that their ideal phone for parents should focus on basic features like calling, messaging, and a camera—stripping away apps for entertainment, gaming, or social media. Children also demonstrated a desire for collective change: 66% said they would give up social media if their peers did the same, while over 90% wished that some popular social media platforms had never been created. <h2>Parents spend more time on their phones than children </h2> While 75% of parents worry about their children’s ability to build meaningful relationships, the irony is evident. Many parents overlook how their own smartphone habits are affecting their bond with their kids. On average, parents spend more than five hours daily on their phones, compared to four hours for children. A striking 73% of parents admit that their device use has caused friction at home. Even during significant moments like family vacations or celebrations, both groups confess to using their phones, underscoring how deeply ingrained this habit has become. <h2>Yearning for stronger bonds </h2> Despite the challenges, there’s a shared longing for deeper connections. About 76% of children and 84% of parents expressed a wish to strengthen their relationships through meaningful family time, free from digital distractions. Both groups are exploring solutions such as creating “phone-free” zones at home and setting mutual screen-time limits. One-third of children believe the world would be better off without certain apps, reflecting their frustration with the digital environment they’ve grown up in. Yet, they also see hope in collective action—if their families and friends embrace healthier smartphone habits, they’re ready to follow suit. <h2>Expert opinion </h2> Highlighting the issue, Riddhi Doshi Patel, a child psychologist and parenting counsellor, noted, “Excessive smartphone use is silently eroding emotional bonds between parents and children. Campaigns promoting mindful tech use aren’t just helpful; they’re transformative. They can foster genuine connection and create homes where relationships flourish beyond screens.” To address these challenges, vivo has collaborated with experts like Catherine Price, author of How to Break Up with Your Phone, and Riddhi Doshi Patel to offer practical advice. Their guidance includes actionable steps like setting screen-time boundaries, creating phone-free zones, and prioritising face-to-face interactions. What are your thoughts on this growing issue? Can families bridge the digital divide, or is it a price we’ll continue to pay for staying connected?

Parents spend more time on their smartphones than children and this might be straining relationships, new study suggests

A bartender at a high-end restaurant in south Brooklyn, Alessia Gonzalez doesn't feel free to speak her mind at work, at least on political issues. The neighborhood, Bay Ridge, is a Republican stronghold, and customers are often decked out in <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-madison-square-garden-rally-overshadow-economy-puerto-rico-2024-10">MAGA</a> hats.Gonzalez, 27, says that if she were to discuss her political views, particularly her belief that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-says-killed-hamas-chief-yahya-sinwar-oct-7-mastermind-2024-10">Gaza</a>, she'd be judged by coworkers and customers or face even worse consequences. "I feel like I could be fired," she says.When politics comes up at work, Gonzalez stays mum. "I feel the need to sort of put on a mask and not necessarily agree with them or show them any kind of support, but at the same time not express my own opinion so that I don't make anyone uncomfortable or make anyone look at me differently," she says.Fernando, a 30-year-old from Colombia who works in advertising in New York, is far more <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/american-republicans-in-israel-mobilizing-expat-vote-for-trump-2024-10">supportive of Israel</a>, and he too withholds his views of the conflict around his coworkers. He worries that one colleague, who is outspoken in her opposition to Israel's treatment of Palestinians, would have more questions than he's willing or prepared to answer. "I don't say anything about it, because my thoughts are sometimes very opposite," says Fernando, who asked for partial anonymity to protect his relationships.Withholding one's real views, or what public-opinion researchers call "self-silencing," appears to be widespread in the US. As part of a <a target="_blank" href="https://populace.org/research">new study</a>, the think tank Populace and the research firm YouGov conducted a survey in the US in which 58% of respondents said they thought most people don't feel comfortable expressing their honest opinions about sensitive issues and 61% said that in the past year they themselves had "avoided saying things that they believe because others might find them offensive." The study, "Social Pressure Index: Private Opinion in America," of more than 19,000 respondents found evidence that a majority of all demographic groups — age, gender, race, income, and political party — had self-silenced in the past year."Social norms have made it costly to express views that one considers to be controversial, and therefore people withhold those views," says James Gibson, a professor of government at Washington University in St. Louis who's studied public opinion for more than 40 years and was not involved in Populace's study.Not everyone agrees that all private views, regardless of how objectionable they are, should be voiced in the public square or even at home. The old saying "no politics at the dinner table" seems to have existed since there have been politics to talk about at dinner tables. Pushing certain views that violate basic social norms out of the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/discourse">discourse</a> can be a powerful form of accountability and a way to shape public debate for the better. But critics of self-censorship argue that when too many people aren't saying what they actually think, it inhibits the vigorous public debate necessary for a healthy society. "If people are self-censoring, deliberation is compromised and that's very, very damaging, in my view, to democracy," Gibson says. The study found that the more people self-silence, the less they trust other people.In the final sprint of another bilious and barbed US presidential election season, where the final polls show Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump in a deadlock, it's clear the country is deeply divided. Public-opinion experts say polarization perpetuates self-censorship by creating an environment where the perceived costs of dissent are higher. "Your brain assumes the loudest voices repeated the most are the majority," said Todd Rose, the CEO of Populace and a former professor at Harvard's Graduate School of Education. People fear repercussions for expressing opinions that differ from what they perceive to be the majority viewpoint. In turn, dishonest public debate makes us believe that we're more divided than we really are."Self-silencing can lead to a lot more than just saying nothing," Rose said. "It can end up leading to this place where public consensus looks very different than private consensus."But the more we know about what we actually believe, the likelier we may be to meet in the middle.America seems to be suffering from what the German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann coined in the 1970s as a "<a target="_blank" href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228049403_The_Spiral_of_Silence_A_Theory_of_Public_Opinion">spiral of silence</a>." Noelle-Neumann argued that people are reluctant to share their opinions on controversial topics when they subconsciously perceive that the majority disagrees with them. As a result, majority views come to be seen as dominant over time, shrinking room for conversation and compromise.In reality, we very well might agree on a lot more than we admit to today. To try to measure people's private views, the Populace researchers used what's called the list-experiment method. This involved dividing respondents into two groups. One was presented a series of lists each containing three statements (e.g., "Class size significantly affects student achievement"). The other was presented with a series of identical lists but with a fourth statement added — these extra statements were the ones that the researchers were actually interested in testing (e.g., "I support school choice in public education"). For each list, respondents were asked how many of the statements they agreed with, an indirect line of questioning meant to encourage honest responses. The researchers could then compare the two groups' answers to estimate how many people actually agreed with the statements being tested. Finally, the researchers conducted a separate, "public" survey in which a different set of people were asked directly whether they agreed or disagreed with the statements being tested.Take abortion, as one example. Populace found that Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim respondents in the list experiment were all more likely than comparable respondents in the public survey to support the idea that "abortion should be legal in most cases." While just 39% of Protestants in the traditional survey agreed with that statement, Populace estimated that 54% agreed in the private structure. Among Muslims, the difference was 43% agreeing with the statement versus an estimated 66% who privately agreed. Overall, Populace found that 55% of respondents publicly said abortion should be legal in most cases, compared with 63% thought to have privately agreed. (Both figures were far higher than those in polling from <a target="_blank" href="https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2024/05/PP_2024.5.13_abortion_TOPLINE.pdf">Pew</a> and <a target="_blank" href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx">Gallup</a>, which included question wording with a wider range of possible responses than the agree-disagree format of the Populace study.)Democrats and Republicans were also more privately aligned on the question of defunding the police. While 27% of Democratic respondents publicly agreed with the statement "I support defunding the police," just 3% privately supported the movement. At the same time, just 1% of Republicans privately supported it and 6% publicly supported it.The survey also found that Republicans and wealthier people were more likely to privately feel that society isn't fair than they publicly acknowledged. Rose posited that Democrats tend to be more publicly concerned with unfairness, particularly when it comes to marginalized groups. Republicans define themselves in opposition to that. That dynamic is on display in this election as, for example, former Trump attacks Harris for defending a federal law that permits government-funded gender-affirming healthcare for prisoners and migrants. But privately, they acknowledged that they agree. While 50% of Republicans publicly said "we live in a mostly fair society," just 11% privately agreed.Another thing liberals and conservatives might secretly agree on: that they don't trust the government, at all. Democrats were far more likely to differ in their private and public responses on this: While 36% publicly agreed with the statement "In general, I trust the government to tell me the truth," just 5% were estimated to have privately agreed. Similarly, 2% of Republicans were thought to privately trust the government to tell the truth, while 14% said so publicly. Other surveys have <a target="_blank" href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/11/23/1-trust-in-government-1958-2015/">similarly found</a> historically low levels of trust in major institutions like the government and the media across the political spectrum.Rose is particularly concerned about low levels of trust — of the government, the media, and other people. A lack of social trust causes people to resent each other, look for scapegoats, and become susceptible to demagoguery, he said. "By almost any measure, social trust is a phenomenal predictor of the health and vibrancy of democracies," Rose says.Not everyone is convinced that American society is suffering from a complete breakdown in societal trust. Gibson argues the long-established survey measure of whether we trust each other — agreement with the statement that "in general, most people can be trusted" — is too vague to be accurate. "You've got to build in some context to let people know what the question is. You can't allow their imagination just to go crazy."Overall, certain groups — including Gen Zers, political independents, and college graduates — were more likely to produce dramatically different results in the public and private surveys, Populace found. Gibson speculated that this might be because these groups tend to be more aware of social norms, and sensitive to the costs of violating them.Gen Zers, 72% of whom said they had self-silenced in the past year, might be influenced by their heavy use of social media, which "makes it very easy to manufacture false consensus," Rose argues. They also have a particularly keen awareness of being harassed or canceled for voicing unpopular opinions. For wealthier and more-educated people, the costs of offending customers, an audience, a fellow country-club member, or a business partner might be higher. "In a society where reputation matters a lot, in an attention economy, there's actually a lot more incentive to hold views that are consistent with what you think people want to hear," Rose says. The risks of social ostracism might not be as acute for lower-income people and those with less education, as they're often already socially and economically excluded. And ironically, the Silent Generation (born from 1928 to 1945) reported self-silencing the least.Engaging in public debate or even just a dinner-table discussion can be contentious and uncomfortable. But Rose and Gibson argue that the only way to build a less polarized and self-censoring society is through hard conversations."As we start to find the moral courage to be honest with each other, respectfully," Rose says, "I think you're going to see the revealing of a common ground that we can start to anchor in and start to try to solve some of the real problems we face as a country."That revelation, however, will have to wait until after Election Day.<a target="_blank" rel="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/author/eliza-relman">Eliza Relman</a> is a policy correspondent focused on housing, transportation, and infrastructure on Insider's economy team.

A new study shows that Americans secretly agree on more than they admit

A <keyword id="20558223" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="blood-test" source="keywords">blood test</keyword> measuring two specific fats, along with <keyword id="20100635" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="inflammation" source="keywords">inflammation</keyword>, could help predict a woman's risk of developing heart conditions in the next 30 years, according to a study of nearly 28,000 women in the US. The two fats in one's blood sample that the test measured were LDL, or 'bad' <keyword id="19898368" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="cholesterol" source="keywords">cholesterol</keyword>, and lipoprotein(a), which is partly made of LDL. Inflammation was measured by detecting levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive proteins. When the three measures -- inflammation, cholesterol and lipoprotein(a) -- of a woman's blood sample were analysed together, researchers found that women having the highest levels were 2.6 times more likely to have a major adverse <keyword id="23010849" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="cardiovascular-event" source="keywords">cardiovascular event</keyword>, including a heart attack. The link was found to be even stronger for stroke -- women with the most elevated levels were 3.7 times more likely to experience a stroke over the next 30 years, the team of researchers, including those from Brigham and Women's Hospital, US, said. They added that the three measures can better predict the risk of major cardiovascular events over the next three decades than measuring only one. The findings were published in the <keyword id="20060225" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="New-England-Journal-of-Medicine" source="keywords">New England Journal of Medicine</keyword>. "We can't treat what we don't measure, and we hope these findings move the field closer to identifying even earlier ways to detect and prevent heart disease," author Paul M Ridker, Brigham and Women's Hospital, said. For the study, the researchers analysed blood samples and medical information from 27,939 healthcare providers living in the US, who participated in the <keyword id="23010850" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Womens-Health-Study" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Women's Health Study" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Women's Health Study">Women's Health Study</keyword>. The women were on average aged 55 at the study's start (1992-1995) and followed for 30 years. Over the study period, about 3,660 of the women experienced a major cardiovascular event for the first time, including a heart attack, stroke, or death due to related reasons. Assessing cardiovascular risk individually due to each of the three measures, the researchers found that the women having the highest levels of inflammation had a 70 % higher chance of a major cardiovascular event. The women with the highest levels of 'bad' cholesterol and lipoprotein(a) were found to be at a 36 % and 33 % higher chance, respectively, of developing heart-related conditions. While only women were studied for this research, the researchers expect to find similar results in men, they said. Studies in recent years have shown how high levels of inflammation can interact with fats to compound heart disease risks, which helps explain why lower levels are better, according to the researchers. They explained that immune cells, which help the body repair wounds or infection, can also sense the accumulation of extra cholesterol in cells or become active in response to the build-up of plaque and send out inflammatory signals. This creates a hyper-inflammatory environment where plaque can form, become larger, or even rupture -- and cause cardiovascular events, the authors said. Through a combination of lifestyle changes and drug therapy, the researchers said that each of the three risk factors can be addressed. Studies have shown that lowering cholesterol and inflammation both significantly reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke, they said. The new data strongly supports earlier and more aggressive use of targeted preventive interventions, particularly among women for whom cardiovascular disease remains under-diagnosed and under-treated, the researchers said.

Fats in blood, with inflammation, could better predict heart disease risk in women, study finds

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Fasting may lead to better blood sugar control and more fat loss, suggests a study on metabolic syndrome.</li><li>Evidence indicates that intermittent fasting helps you eat less without cutting calories.</li></ul>Eating all your meals and snacks in an eight- to 10-hour window each day may help you to lose weight and improve your blood sugar control, new research suggests.The findings, published September 30 in <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M24-0859 ">Annals of Internal Medicine</a>, add to a growing school of evidence that intermittent fasting has promising health benefits, particularly for people who want to tackle their metabolic health.<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/intermittent-fasting-benefits-and-risks-for-longevity-weight-loss-cancer-2024-4">Intermittent fasting</a> is a hugely popular diet, often touted by celebrities, longevity influencers, and C-suite executives. The idea is that it's not just about what you eat, but when. Adherents limit all of their food intake to a specific window of time each day, which varies based on which style of fasting they follow.In the new study, people who fasted for three months lost more weight than those who didn't, and ate fewer calories without specifically trying to.Here's more detail:<h2 id="5e9cea79-ff4c-41d7-a500-5569ad7572e6">The study, explained</h2>A research team from the University of California San Diego School of Medicine and The Salk Institute wanted to test whether fasting could help people with <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/guides/health/diet-nutrition/metabolic-syndrome-diet">metabolic syndrome</a>, a collection of risk factors for chronic illnesses. The condition includes <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/5-warning-signs-you-might-have-high-blood-sugar-doctors-2024-9">high blood sugar</a> as well as high levels of body fat, and increases the odds that someone will develop heart disease and diabetes.For three months, the researchers followed 108 adults with metabolic syndrome, in theirs 50s on average.Half of the participants were randomly assigned to follow their typical eating pattern, with some general nutrition advice about healthy eating, such as seeking inspiration from the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/mediterrean-diet-healthiest-best-overall-2024-1">Mediterranean diet</a>.The other half were given the same advice, but were also instructed to limit their eating to eight to 10 hours a day, and tracked their eating on a smartphone app called myCircadianClock.By the end of the study, both groups lost a small amount of weight. However, participants who did intermittent fasting lost a bit more weight, and had a much bigger drop in their body fat percentage, since more of the weight they lost was fat instead of muscle.They also had significantly better blood sugar control and <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/guides/health/treatments/how-to-lower-a1c">HbA1c</a>, a measure of average blood sugar over time that's used to screen for diabetes and prediabetes.<h2 id="ec8f7f48-08a1-475f-82cd-64683e60709a">Fasting works by helping you eat less, experts say</h2>The science behind fasting suggests it's effective because it helps you eat less.The fasting group in the newest study ate 350 fewer calories on average each day, according to the data, although they weren't specifically asked to cut calories. Most of that calorie reduction came from eating fewer carbohydrates and less fat. They ate about the same amount of protein.Previous evidence suggests that <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-protein-maximize-muscle-gains-2022-9">eating enough protein</a> can help maintain muscle during weight loss. That may explain why participants in this study held on to their muscle mass, while other research has found some kinds of fasting may have a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/new-research-finds-intermittent-fasting-may-not-boost-weight-loss-2020-9">risk of muscle loss</a>.<h2 id="bda8f51e-0f31-4bbd-8c9d-fee50210382e">To get the benefits of fasting, stop eating at night</h2>Another potential benefit to fasting is that it helps you tap into your body's natural internal clock, known as circadian rhythm, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/intermittent-fasting-benefits-and-risks-for-longevity-weight-loss-cancer-2024-4">Satchidananda Panda</a>, a pioneer in fasting research and co-author of the latest study, previously told Business Insider.Panda and other experts say the easiest way to start reap the benefits of fasting is to <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/protein-at-night-may-slow-digestion-researcher-says-2024-3">stop eating three hours before bed</a>.This simple 12-hour fast may boost your health and help cut down on <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/study-eating-at-night-linked-higher-calorie-intake-junk-food-2020-9">potential junk food snacking</a>, too.

To burn fat and improve blood sugar, try intermittent fasting, a new study says

<ul class="summary-list"><li>A study finds that dorm-style housing could be an efficient path to convert vacant office space. </li><li>Conversions to apartments are often costly and can face regulatory barriers.</li></ul>Conversion to housing is often touted as a solution to the problems facing the office sector, and a new study points to a more efficient way to pull off such overhauls, which are usually costly and difficult. "Flexible co-living," or dormitory-style apartments where residents share kitchen, bathroom, laundry and living spaces, could be a more efficient path to converting unused space, according to a study published Tuesday by the Pew Charitable Trusts and design firm Gensler It's "an innovative approach to the office-to-residential conversion market—one that is scalable and poised to facilitate meaningful, long-term transformation in these cities and the lives of its residents," said Wes LeBlanc, Principal and Strategy Director at Gensler.The report comes as companies reevaluate their need for office space in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. With many workers still remote or in hybrid positions, office vacancies have climbed. The national office vacancy rate is set to rise to around 20% by the end of this year, according to commercial real estate firm CBRE.At the same time, the US faces a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-housing-affordability-home-shortage-market-construction-population-cities-zillow-2024-6">housing supply problem</a>, with the country short between 2.3 million and 6.5 million units, according to <a target="_blank" href="http://Realtor.com">Realtor.com</a> data. As a result, a record 50% of renters are cost-burdened, or spend more than 30% of their income on rent, the new report says.Office-to-residential conversions have been touted as a solution to problems in both commercial and residential markets, but such overhauls are often costly and complicated. Some architects have <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-nyc-office-buildings-towers-became-housing-2023-9">cut holes in the middle of skyscrapers</a> to bring in more light, but such huge redevelopment, plus the high costs of plumbing and electrical system makeovers, comes at a huge cost. That might be justified for luxury units, but less so for more affordable housing.The firms' study says dorm-style renovations would be far cheaper and more feasible. They suggest a setup with furnished, dorm-style apartments on the perimeter of floors to maximize natural light and ensure each unit has a window. Shared spaces, meanwhile, will cover the middle of each floor.They say such a setup would lower construction costs by 25%-35% compared to traditional office conversions, which would allow for lower rents that would be affordable for those earning well below the area's median income.The report suggests this setup looks especially promising in three cities—Denver, Minneapolis and Seattle— where soaring office vacancy rates, high median rents, and minimal local regulatory barriers provide an ideal backdrop for office conversions to co-living spaces.In an example mapped out for Seattle, where the downtown office vacancy rates average 30%, the study propsed a 120 square foot unit outfitted with a bed, desk, microwave, and refrigerator. (The typical studio in Seattle is more than three times that size at 440 square feet.)Such a model would cost renters around $1,000 per month, or $700 each for a double room, while a typical studio apartment in downtown Seattle rented for approximately $1,530 per month as of August 2024.The study's authors say this type of housing could reinvigorate downtown areas plagued by empty office buildings, the experts say."Cities across the country are facing two major challenges: a severe housing shortage and empty office buildings. This is a win-win," said Alex Horowitz, project director at Pew's housing policy initiative. "Housing is now the largest expense for families. All Americans, particularly underserved communities, need the opportunity to secure homes they can afford."The report comes as the number of office spaces <a target="_blank" href="https://www.rentcafe.com/blog/rental-market/adaptive-reuse-office-to-apartments-2024/#:~:text=From%20Boardrooms%20to%20Bedrooms%3A%20A,Conversions%20Expected%20in%20Major%20Cities&amp;text=From%202021%20to%202024%2C%20the,increased%20from%2012%2C100%20to%2055%2C300.">set for residential conversions</a> is on the rise, up to 55,000 this year. That marks a 357% increase from 2021, according to Yardi Matrix data.

'Flexible co-living' could help bring down office-conversion costs and add housing supply, new study says     

<ul class="summary-list"><li>A new study shows 51.6% of US stocks since 1925 lost value over their lifetimes.</li><li>But there are steps one can take to mitigate risk, says Lance Roberts.</li></ul>It may come as a surprise that most stocks lose value over their lifetimes, given the long-term outperformance of major indexes like the S&amp;P 500.A <a target="_blank" href="https://download.ssrn.com/2024/10/1/4897069.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline&amp;X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEC0aCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIQDN0qA7vH3iVQ7kMnZb4o9%2B6lcNFjaOmf49w%2Bw5bU5jTwIgcl%2BOpTpgkU0WOQS0sUYTeqH4vOVA8%2B8E6WE59iHcgnEqxgUIlv%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAEGgwzMDg0NzUzMDEyNTciDCv3AwTMvnly0NCcWyqaBSrLGbVPR%2FoKw54NV4LpS3q9DrkC7NW5xBeK2ftAprs7ZR3zweHEhwYokQZoeckyXVjOYsfI5OgW5X%2Bhoc1%2BXcM0CqhRVsDEfiBV4qaTawLsmCdPLxe25894Br3LsWasPrlqCZAH0%2BxqDk2kc9I8ll7kgw29%2Bmxqt0yMQeFb94WPydLAWP2stv7jD115u2xfyuzvMlKTlQ8n4q5ZgJrPTd0kZ6g17XIlXbj8IL%2BvVqr7whu15KdngyMNqBNVU9GkBTLR81ubC8l%2B%2FTW3xSxgv6BbMntgX35R6HQv2uOzghLnb1qbkEdKYJFV4R62Fte8CUaOCwctmVXfLasGnKnT5BSiEdYnOhZQbdlmUPn%2FAWZdQRjqL8wm0iDfuM4BtEY1z0ciIiJ4NY0j7oglRko3K4qqP40u1U6CaAH2DhQeFdhQKa439hGN9RDg9RBi3%2FJ3onq6CHpFJuwtPv8Yku5vVy6xtVdk3YQ96ByG3T1VmjbABE3GdTwdsUxl%2BQfCS3RY%2FjHUDhbCai6ISC224s0DqUFs8FScV5TgvzgtkV8H4DuKVmOiK5qPX7vYHRRhbwcuBjxYMYZQjiAoTTckr2YYAKBnKsROl%2FnNdm4G5ajKXDWMAg9Qr2lp7MOSOYS2HRoUq3WQM%2BqPFe5dvmhJAi0VdiglMOVr2nOKLlcJYslVEmVSPh1gsSwc%2FuGB3zqv4nMD9aF9yURFCH3D4hSVN7yxxfiICYhDa7ShR7zJrYlE3ynmdUq93rBo7BNZYUB9osihmSdmZ%2BmgMv7JbliHmQQ3%2BAcziK6rMzmyeIRnAvLRc2RBywKi0xELG%2BhdhhaHjhpIfp2om%2FUK0K40CScj8RPLooS%2BESjM7Um1N3VZOe6BAOYE5BLTmiyHG1QMezDZ9tq4BjqxATVtLNrOOHOYEAQZIosRIxp1zb2GclGkoEhSicOA%2BE%2BbO2hvslHnjd40DFltPtmBYF11Njs6G5hJhfO692AkL4qSuuMuHPv7kdkzrC8POj3h6JnqrPdWUkFqC%2F3UWvPe87E26USmQo59UWLnXFizN94H58Zcmu5wf9eSMFxKG4clIBMWdttM170wHE3yM%2FIChBmKC8unL1x%2BrW9N%2Fub9QEc8ltLUIq3rvQN8AOBHPZYX8A%3D%3D&amp;X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&amp;X-Amz-Date=20241021T213401Z&amp;X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&amp;X-Amz-Expires=300&amp;X-Amz-Credential=ASIAUPUUPRWEZRIUPSYY%2F20241021%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&amp;X-Amz-Signature=1021ef908b230aa75cb64668700a9ac247e2301ab654cc87622c3e6185016a1c&amp;abstractId=4897069">recent paper</a> from Arizona State University professor Hendrik Bessembinder found that 51.6% of 29,078 US stocks since 1925 have lost value from when they were listed. The median return of those stocks was -7.4%.If you're an investor who likes to keep your money in individual stocks instead of an index fund, those might be scary statistics. But there are a few steps you can take to mitigate risk, according to RIA Advisors Chief Investment Strategist Lance Roberts, who discussed the paper in a recent note.To start — it's advice you hear time and again — make sure your money is diversified enough.Diversification comes in many forms. In addition to putting money into stocks, perhaps consider investing in bonds and real estate, Roberts said. You could also consider spreading your money across a number of different industries and sectors, instead of having your whole portfolio in, say, a few tech stocks. A simple way of doing that could also be putting money into an index fund.You can also set up stop-loss orders. This can be done in a brokerage account, and your position is sold if a share price falls to a certain point. There's also the trailing stop-loss order, Roberts said, which adjusts based on upward movements in a stock's price. So a 5% stop-loss limit, for example, moves up to correspond to a level 5% below a stock's rising price, but will never dip below the original stop-loss limit."This safeguard ensures that you are not solely reliant on timing the market, which, as we all know, is nearly impossible to do consistently," Roberts said.And third, take profits on gains. With Nvidia and other AI stocks delivering ungodly returns over the last couple of years, this piece of advice might be good for investors in those firms to hear. It can be tempting to stay fully in a stock that has treated you well. But doing so may also melt away the wealth you've built if the stock has a sudden turnaround, Roberts said."This is not an uncommon issue that I always see with clients and prospects," Roberts wrote. "Greed comes in three destructive forms: 1) the need to make more, 2) the lack of knowing when "enough is enough," and 3) the unwillingness to pay taxes."He suggested a strategy resembling something like taking half of your gains and buying safer assets like Treasurys, and said to keep in mind that paying taxes on capital gains can be cheaper than suffering losses."As investors, it's crucial to understand that market gains are never guaranteed and that the risks of overexposure can be devastating," Roberts said. If you're "riding the wave of massive market gains, ask yourself: Is now the time to take some chips off the table? Are your investments aligned with your long-term goals and risk tolerance?"

A new study shows most stocks have lost value in the last 100 years. Take these 3 steps to protect your portfolio.

When ChatGPT launched in November 2022, it was being looked upon as something straight out of a Sci-Fi film. The <keyword id="19896272" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="generative-AI" source="keywords">generative AI</keyword> chatbot could write, code, compose music and whatnot. While many people started using the AI chatbot everyday and started appreciating it, there were others who were afraid that the chatbot would take away their jobs. And then there were people who believed that knowing how to use <keyword id="20096338" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="AI-tools" source="keywords">AI tools</keyword> would be a necessary skill in the future. “AI won’t replace your job but someone using AI tools would” was a popular quote surfacing on LinkedIn at the time AI tools started getting popular. And as per a recent study, this quote holds true. A new study by Gartner says that by 2027, a staggering 80% of engineering professionals may find themselves at risk of <keyword id="20080267" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="job-loss" source="keywords">job loss</keyword> if they do not adapt and enhance their skills, particularly in the face of advancing generative AI technologies. Generative AI is changing the way software development and engineering roles are approached at the workplace. This shift poses significant challenges for engineers who have relied on traditional skills and methods. As AI systems become more capable of performing tasks previously done by humans, engineers must recognise the importance of staying current with new tools and methodologies to remain competitive in the job market. According to an Analytics India Mag report, industry experts warn that those who do not actively pursue further education or training may struggle to secure employment. As the demand for <keyword id="23563446" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="AI-related-skills" source="keywords">AI-related skills</keyword> rises, professionals who fail to adapt risk being left behind. The pressure to keep pace with technological advancements is not just a trend; it’s becoming a necessity for career survival. To mitigate the risks associated with job displacement, engineers should engage in <keyword id="20186222" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="lifelong-learning" source="keywords">lifelong learning</keyword>. Upskilling can take various forms, including online courses, workshops, and certifications focused on AI and machine learning. Many educational institutions and online platforms are responding to this need by offering specialised programmes tailored to the demands of the industry. The call for continuous learning is not just about acquiring new technical skills. It also involves developing soft skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and adaptability. These competencies are increasingly valuable in a world where collaboration with AI systems will become the norm.

Study reveals 80% of software engineers must upskill by 2027 to keep their jobs

<ul class="summary-list"><li>A new academic study said people are diverting stock investments into legal gambling.</li><li>The researchers founded that household investments are reduced by roughly $2 for ever dollar wagered.</li></ul>The surging popularity of legal sports betting has been met with fanfare from American consumers. But a new <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4881086">working study</a> finds its rise is coming at the expense of stock investments.The research, which has yet to be peer-reviewed, found that the net investments held by a household is reduced by roughly $2 for every dollar directed towards a bet."Our results suggest that access to online sports betting comes at the expense of equity market attachment and exacerbates financial difficulties faced by constrained households," a group of five academic researchers wrote.Betting took over the modern American sports experience in 2018, when the Supreme Court overruled a federal law prohibiting it. States were left with the control, and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/sports-betting-apps-online-gambling-lottery-draftkings-fanduel-2024-3">38</a> have since legalized it.With gambling made as simple as downloading an app, billions have been wagered. Where the total amount bet in the US stood at $1.1 billion in January 2019, this figure catapulted to $14 billion the same month this year, data from the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.sportsbookreview.com/news/us-betting-revenue-tracker/">Sports Book Review</a> shows.The study said US households bet an average of $1,100 per year, or $280 a quarter — a number that's continued to grow by $25 per quarter.Meanwhile, the researchers found that net investments typically fell nearly 14% in the two to three years after a legalization occurred in a state.Further, the study noted that financially constrained households tend to contribute a larger chunk of their income toward sports gambling, and are therefore hit harder by the negative effects."These households, already in relatively bad financial shape, are more likely to divert funds from their investment portfolios to betting activity," the researchers wrote. "Given that sports betting has a negative expected value, this finding underscores the potential for sports betting legalization to exacerbate financial vulnerability and hardship."A <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/sports-betting-debt-bankruptcy-gambling-young-men-research-addiction-2024-8">separate recent working paper</a> reached a similar conclusion, outlining how credit has been damaged in areas where sports gambling is legal. In these areas, credit scores have dipped 1%, while debt collection and bankruptcies have jumped 8% and 28%, respectively."It's never enough," Michelle Malkin, the director of East Carolina University's Gambling Research &amp; Policy Initiative, previously told Business Insider. "You've got to keep on gambling. So it's this cyclical thought pattern of, 'I can fix my problems by keeping gambling and getting that next win.'"

You Searched For "new study" and got 9 results

New study finds readers can’t tell AI poems from human ones — and they often prefer AI

BI India Bureau

Parents spend more time on their smartphones than children and this might be straining relationships, new study suggests

Divyanshi Sharma

A new study shows that Americans secretly agree on more than they admit

Eliza Relman

Fats in blood, with inflammation, could better predict heart disease risk in women, study finds

PTI

To burn fat and improve blood sugar, try intermittent fasting, a new study says

Gabby Landsverk

'Flexible co-living' could help bring down office-conversion costs and add housing supply, new study says

Kelly Cloonan

A new study shows most stocks have lost value in the last 100 years. Take these 3 steps to protect your portfolio.

William Edwards

Study reveals 80% of software engineers must upskill by 2027 to keep their jobs

Divyanshi Sharma

The rise of legal sports gambling is coming at the expense of stock investing, new study shows

Filip De Mott

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides