 |
|
|
|||||
If you slip a tiny wearable device on your fingertip and slide it over a smooth surface like a touchscreen, you can feel digital textures like denim or mesh. The device, designed by researchers at Northwestern University, is the first of its kind to achieve human resolution, meaning that it can more accurately match the complex way a human fingertip senses the world. In previous attempts at haptic devices like this, once you compare them to real textures, you realize theres something still missing, says Sylvia Tan, a PhD student at Northwestern and one of the authors of a new study in Science Advances about the research. Its close, but not quite there. Our work is trying to just get that one step closer. [Photo: Northwestern University] The wearable, made from flexible, paper-thin latex, is embedded with tiny nodes that push into the skin in a precise way and can move up to 800 times per second. Past devices had low resolutionthe touch equivalent of a pixelated image or an early movie from the 1890s with so few frames that the movement looks jerky. Using nodes and arranging them in a particular density improves that resolution. [Photo: Northwestern University] Earlier devices were also bulky. The ultrathin new technology, which weighs less than a gram, is designed to be comfortable to wear. A big goal was to make it very lightweight so you arent distracted by it, Tan says. And [to make] something that we call ‘haptically transparent’that means that even when youre wearing it, you can still perceive the real world, so you can perform everyday tasks. [Photo: Northwestern University] In the study, users could identify fabrics like corduroy or leather with 81% accuracy. The technology is still in development, but in the future, it could make it possible to feel products as you shop online. It could also have more immediate uses for people who are visually impaired, like making it possible to feel a tactile map or translating text on a screen to braille without a large, expensive device. On devices like microwaves, where physical buttons have often been replaced by flat touchscreens, the wearable could help a visually impaired person know where to push. It could also help improve human-robot interfaces. “In the medical field, the Da Vinci robot has very good kinesthetic force feedback,” Tan says. “But getting a surgeon to feel exactly what’s happening at your fingertip as you move the angle of your finger is not quite there. And that’s very important for high-skill workers.”
Category:
E-Commerce
Heres a sad story: The other day, my wife and I woke up and realized we were out of coffee. Honestly, if you want to throw a wrench into the Murphy household and hamper our routine, take away the coffee. Anyway, the story ends much better; I threw on a baseball hat and drove to the supermarket down the road. But it also reminded me of a study Ive wanted to share here, led by researchers at Tulane University who analyzed data on 40,725 Americans and their coffee-drinking habits over nearly a decade. In short, they found something remarkable about when people drink their coffee. Drink it in the morning The study, supported by the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, was published in January in the European Heart Journal. It determined that people who drink coffee primarily in the morning had significantly lower mortality rates than people who either dont drink coffee at allor who drink it throughout the entire day. Examples: Morning coffee drinkers had a 16% lower risk of dying from any cause during the study period compared with non-coffee drinkers. They also had a 31% lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease specifically. People who drank coffee all day long, by contrast, showed no significant reduction in mortality risk compared with non-coffee drinkers at all. Research so far suggests that drinking coffee doesnt raise the risk of cardiovascular disease, and it seems to lower the risk of some chronic diseases, such as Type 2 diabetes, said Lu Qi, who led the study at Tulane Universitys School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. Given the effects that caffeine has on our bodies, we wanted to see if the time of day when you drink coffee has any impact on heart health. Morning type versus all-day type The study included adults from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 1999 and 2018. Researchers identified two distinct patterns of coffee drinking among participants: Morning-type drinkers (36% of participants): People who consumed most or all of their coffee in the morning hours. All-day-type drinkers (14% of participants): People who spread their coffee consumption throughout the day and evening. The remaining 50% of participants either didnt drink coffee or didnt fit cleanly into either pattern. Over a median follow-up period of 9.8 years, researchers recorded 4,295 deaths from all causes, 1,268 deaths from cardiovascular disease, and 934 deaths from cancer. After adjusting for factors like total caffeine intake (both caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee), sleep hours, diet, and other lifestyle variables, the morning-type pattern emerged as significantly protectivewhile the all-day-type pattern did not. More coffee, better resultsbut again, only in the morning Heres where it gets even more interesting. Among morning coffee drinkers, the protective effect increased with the amount of coffee consumed. People who drank moderate amounts (two to three cups per day) or heavy amounts (more than three cups per day) in the morning showed the strongest associations with lower mortality risk. But among all-day coffee drinkers, no such association appeared. Drinking more coffee throughout the day didnt provide any measurable mortality benefit at all. Coffee drinking timing significantly modified the association between coffee intake amounts and all-cause mortality, the researchers wrote. Higher coffee intake amounts were significantly associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality in participants with morning-type pattern but not in those with all-day-type pattern. Why timing might matter The researchers proposed two potential mechanisms to explain their findings. First, consuming coffee in the afternoon or evening may disrupt circadian rhythms. A previous clinical trial found that heavy coffee consumption in the afternoon or evening reduced peak nighttime melatonin production by 30% compared with controls. Lower melatonin levels have been linked to higher oxidative stress, elevated blood pressure, and increased inflammationall risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Second, coffees health benefits come largely from anti-inflammatory compounds. Pro-inflammatory markers in the blood follow a circadian patterntheyre typically highest in the morning and gradually decline until reaching their lowest levels around 5 p.m. Therefore, drinking coffee when inflammation is naturally highest may amplify its anti-inflammatory benefits more effectively than spreading consumption throughout the day. Not the first time We should acknowledge that this study shows correlation, not causation. Its possible that morning coffee drinkers have other habits or characteristics researchers didnt identify that contribute to their longevity. That said, this study takes its place alongside a growing body of research suggesting that coffee consumption is associated with significant health benefits. Among them: A 2018 study of 500,000 people in JAMA Internal Medicine found a clear across-the-board increase in longevity among people who drink lots of coffee. A 2025 study of 47,513 women from Harvard found that drinking at least one cup of coffee daily was associated with significantly higher odds of healthy agingdefined as reaching 70 or older with good mental and physical health, no memory problems, and freedom from 11 major chronic diseases. Every additional cup increased those odds by 2% to 5%. A study published in 2022 following 171,616 people in Great Britain found that both men and women between ages 37 and 73 who drank 1.5 to 3.5 cups of coffee each day had up to a 30% lower chance of dying from any cause during the seven-year study period. A 2023 study in the Journal of the American Medical Directors Association that followed 12,583 participants over 20 years found that those who drank copious amounts of coffee were twice as likely to avoid becoming physically frail as they aged into their 70s. Perhaps most intriguingly, a 2019 study from the University of South Australia analyzing 347,077 coffee drinkers found that health benefits increase with consumptionbut only up to about five cups per day. Beyond that, the risk of heart disease starts to increase. Head to the market Im not ging to suggest you should race out and start pounding five cups of coffee before noon. But for those of us who already drink coffee in the morningand I dont think the Murphy household is a rarity at all in thisits reassuring. Just dont run out. Thats when the drama starts. And keep a baseball cap near the door, in case you forget and have to make an early shopping trip. Bill Murphy Jr. This article originally appeared on Fast Companys sister publication, Inc. Inc. is the voice of the American entrepreneur. We inspire, inform, and document the most fascinating people in business: the risk-takers, the innovators, and the ultra-driven go-getters that represent the most dynamic force in the American economy.
Category:
E-Commerce
If there’s an AI application in media that has had a rough road, it’s the chatbot. With the runaway success of ChatGPT, the whole idea that chat might be the next big thing in audience experiences took on new value, and several publications dove in, offering portals or widgets that enable readers to explore their content in a new way. I think it’s fair to say none of these have been home runs, but some are more promising than others. Chatbots from Skift, USA Today, and The Texas Tribune have all seen some quiet success in user engagement, and while “chat” likely won’t save the media industry, it may well play an important role. Beyond the wins of improving site search and providing unique audience data, publisher-owned AI chat experiences may chart a path to the most mythical of all beasts in the AI era: the new business model. This is where Times new AI Agent comes in. Time recently unveiled a new AI experienceyes, a chatbot, but one trained on the entirety of Times archive, about 750,000 articles going back to 1923. It has common AI-powered features like summarization, translation, and the ability to read an audio version of the article, but the main point is that the foundation of its knowledge base is a large corpus of human-verified journalism. Right now it’s deployed only on politics and entertainment stories, according to Axios. {"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/mediacopilot-logo-ss.png","headline":"Media CoPilot","description":"Want more about how AI is changing media? Never miss an update from Pete Pachal by signing up for Media CoPilot. To learn more visit mediacopilot.substack.com","substackDomain":"https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/","colorTheme":"blue","redirectUrl":""}} Times Agent vs. Perplexity I’ve been trying out the Agent to see if it provides a better experience than a more generic AI portal like Perplexity or ChatGPTevaluating the outputs by looking at accuracy, recency, structure, and sourcing. Exploring the topic of the recent government shutdown and how it compares to other shutdowns in the past, I queried the Agent with the following prompt: Give me a briefing on the history of U.S. government shutdowns, breaking down succinctly why each happened, when they happened, how long they lasted, and which party was presumed to have “won.” It responded in six lengthy bullet points, each one summarizing the shutdown across the dimensions I asked for, along with a journalistic caveat at the end saying, “Time’s coverage emphasizes that winners are often a matter of political framing rather than an objective metric.” When I asked for the breakdown as a table, it said it wasn’t able to create one, though it created a more structured, numbered list as a consolation prize. Specific Time articles were linked in each bullet. The Agent appeared a bit challenged to bring up-to-the-minute information to the query. Absent from its summary was any mention that the shutdown was on the verge of ending (I performed these searches on November 12), and it was imprecise about the length, twice saying it had lasted 35-plus days. To be fair, that figure is probably what’s most relevant to the query, since day 35 is what made the shutdown the longest in history, and the query itself is clearly focused on historical data rather than what’s happening now. On Perplexity, the chatbot responded with a table as the primary output, plus it was more precise about the shutdown’s current length (43 days) and mentioned a tentative deal had been reached. The response had less prose overall, and it harvested the information from several different sources (the main feature of Perplexity), including Wikipedia, CBS News, ABC News, CNN, NPR, and others. The (AI) business of information Based on what I experienced, I’d probably call it a tie, so points to Time and its partners at Scale AI for creating a user experience comparable to a multibillion-dollar company. But user experience is only one dimension of why you’d turn to Times AI Agent. The real value is in: The reliability of the information. As I said at the outset, because the Agent is “grounded” on the publisher’s content, which is guided by journalistic standards, it has the advantage of not potentially being skewed by unreliable sources. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t ever hallucinate or make errors of omission, but it’s starting with verified raw material. The licensing of that information. While everyday consumers typically aren’t concerned with whether the AI chatbot they’re using respects copyright, businesses who want to build on top of AI products are. By targeting the Agent solely at its archive, Time is addressing a key fear of any partners: Will they be held liable for surfacing content that doesn’t belong to them? That provenance is especially important for compliance teams in regulated industries that want to plug an agent like this into internal research tools or customer-facing products. All this points to the deeper strategy behind just launching a new reader experience with the “agent” label. If Times archive can power an AI experience to visitors of its website, that can also be adapted to anyone who wants to pay for it. And it wouldn’t require handing over any IPonce a deal is signed, you’d need to create just a simple technical handshake, presumably via MCP (model context protocol) between a client’s front end and Times Agent. A bank, for instance, could wire the Agent into its internal policy portal so staff can query vetted news content without ever leaving the companys systems. This is conceptually similar to the licensing deals that Time and others have already signed with AI companies like OpenAI, but it’s technically different in an important way. A typical licensing agreement involves permission (often retroactive) to use the site’s content for training, plus access to the site for AI search crawlers so it can summarize news stories in response to user queries. Those searches rely greatly on metadata, the process is far from comprehensive, and there is limited visibility in how the content is used. A better system would mean the publisher owns the agent layer and interface, which is what Time has done. Once you’ve done the hard work of formatting, ingesting, and processing your archive for AI, it makes its information much more reliable and easy for systems to parse, and you can choose to license it on yor own terms. That has an effect on the overall power dynamic of any deals; the publisher now becomes a tool vendor as much as a content supplier. So new kinds of deals are possible, but the question is: Will anyone make them? Time has a big archive, but it’s still small compared to the entire news output of the media industrysomething ProRata is closer to building with its Gist search engine (which also includes Time). Then again, if buyers can get what they need from only a few specific sources, why not just pay for access to those and be done with it? This mirrors the age-old debate around cable channels: Will customers of this kind of information want to get it as a bundle, or la carte? Either way, the transformation of big archives into AI-ready corpuses, easily plugged into information portals (public or private), could end up being a large part of how media companies monetize their content in the future. Creating new business models is a phrase that gets tossed around all the time in the media, but hardly ever seen, kind of like Bigfoot. We might have just had a sighting. {"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/mediacopilot-logo-ss.png","headline":"Media CoPilot","description":"Want more about how AI is changing media? Never miss an update from Pete Pachal by signing up for Media CoPilot. To learn more visit mediacopilot.substack.com","substackDomain":"https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/","colorTheme":"blue","redirectUrl":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||