1923 stories
·
2 followers

AI mathematicians might be correct, but that doesn’t mean they’re useful

1 Share

Thanks to AI, famous mathematical conjectures are seemingly getting overturned faster than red cards at a World Cup. But there’s something that’s been bugging me about all these new AI proofs.

Take the recent mathematical proof – or rather disproof – of the Jacobian conjecture by Fable, announced on X:

It’s a remarkable finding, which has solved a puzzle that has frustrated mathematicians for decades. And in many ways, it’s the best in mathematical elegance and accessibility: a proof that can fit in a tweet and could be verified by any mathematics undergrad, or even a bright high school student.

Like many others, the first thing I did when I saw it was put the (x, y, z) co-ordinates into the equation to check it held up. But, like others, I then wondered how Fable had managed to spot such an elusive equation. And that’s where I hit a wall. It’s unlikely Fable found it by brute force alone – after all, humans have been trying for decades – but it’s still not clear exactly what it did behind the scenes.

What should one do?

Back in 1985, mathematician Jean-Pierre Serre expressed caution about the rise of proofs that ran to hundreds of pages, which hardly any humans could be expected to understand or check:

‘What should one do with such theorems, if one has to use them? Accept them on faith? Probably. But it is not a very comfortable situation.’

Serre was talking of proofs that were hard to verify. In contrast, AI proofs like the above are fairly easy to check. But the path the AI took to get there is often beyond reach. We have the what, but we frequently lack the why.

To paraphrase Serre: what should we do with such proofs?

In a recent talk, mathematician Terence Tao points out that there is more to mathematical research than just showing things are true:

For a proof to actually contribute to the broader field, it is not enough for it to be correct and easy to read. It also needs to be accepted and valued by the community. Other mathematicians need to digest the result and incorporate it into their own work.

Authors can assist in the digestion process by describing their own insights and stories from when they were working on the problem. However, current AI tools are quite opaque about their problem-solving process. This is particularly true for proprietary models whose inner workings remain a corporate secret.

Tao concluded with a suggestion that the ultimate goal of mathematical research is to have verified solutions that are ‘digested, accepted, and incorporated into the definitive theory of the field’.

Solved conjectures and stamp collecting

Nobel laureate Ernest Rutherford supposedly once said that ‘all science is either physics or stamp collecting’. In his view, the distinction came about because physics aimed to derive fundamental laws and mathematical principles, whereas other fields merely observe and categorise.

Many fields would rightly take issue with this generalisation, but the quote still came to my mind this week. Because I realised that I now knew a famous conjecture was false, but I didn’t have much beyond that.

Are we just collecting lots of little AI-proof-shaped stamps? In the long run, I expect it won’t be that simple. AI has the potential to show us a lot of things we’ve so far missed. But ‘show’ is the operative word here. It won’t be enough to tell us lots of things are true (or false); we’ll need the tales and theories that others can build on.


If you’re interested in reading more about mathematical proof and AI, you might like my latest book Proof: The Uncertain Science of Certainty.




Read the whole story
mrmarchant
1 hour ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

How the Words We Teach English Language Learners Changed

1 Share
How the words we teach English language learners changed

Read the whole story
mrmarchant
2 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

When Stupid Was a Diagnosis

1 Share

A dark history that is in danger of returning as support for people with disabilities withers

The post When Stupid Was a Diagnosis appeared first on Nautilus.



Read the whole story
mrmarchant
3 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Fourier Transforms: way more fundamental than you think

1 Share

In the beginning...

I first heard about the Fourier Transform in a stuffy lecture theater. I was fighting off sleep at the time and thought the whole thing was just too abstract  and so did my fellow students judging by their nodding heads. Still, I was good at math and I learned what I needed to get through the exam. It's only years later that I realized how fundamental and important the Fourier Transform is in the real world.  The professor could have made his lectures come alive if only he'd only given us a taste of why it's so consequential in so many areas. 

In this blog post, I'm going to make up for my professor's shortcomings and explain why it's so important. I'm also going to share some of the math because that shows where it all comes from and how it can be used. But first, let's have a really high-level explanation of what a Fourier Transform is.

The ELI5 version of Fourier Transforms

The Fourier Transform converts data measured in one domain to data in the inverse domain. For example, it can convert music in the time domain to its constituent frequencies in the frequency domain. 

It works by decomposing a signal into a series of overlapping sine waves. Even a square pulse can be decomposed into sine waves, in this case yielding an infinite number of them. Once you have the sine waves, you can work out their frequencies and so do the conversion from the time to to frequency domain. Understanding that any signal is a sum of sine waves opens the door to understanding natural phenomena like analog circuit behavior or heat flow.

There are two types of Fourier Transform: a version which works on discrete data (like sampled music) and a version which works on continuous data (for example, an equation describing the orbit of a planet).

What use is it?

The easiest example to explain is processing audio data like music. Digitized music is in the time domain and applying the Fourier Transform puts the data in the frequency domain. Once it's in the frequency domain we can do things like filtering out frequencies we don't want. For example, by removing frequencies humans can't hear, we can compress the data (which is partly how MP3 works).

It's not just music signals; the Fourier Transform is used extensively in signal processing, including processing radar, sonar, radio signals, images (including medical images), and seismology data. It's the same idea in each field: by transforming the data into the inverse domain some types of processing become a lot easier. 

It turns out it's fundamental to quantum mechanics too. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that you can't know a particle's position and momentum both with 100% accuracy; the more you know about one, the less you know about the other. In quantum theory, position and momentum are Fourier Transform pairs, which means one is the Fourier Transform of the other. This relationship directly leads to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as I'll show later.

Back in the 19th century, the transform was originally developed to model the flow of heat. Legend has it, Napoleon wanted more efficient cannons, so he engaged Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier to study the limiting factor for cannons, which was heat flow. In solving this problem, one of Fourier's key insights was that any complex signal or wave could be decomposed into a series of overlapping sine waves. At the time, this idea was very controversial and it took some time for the scientific community to accept it.

(Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier - by Julien-Léopold Boilly - Public Domain)

These uses cases should have been enough to wake up sleepy students, but there's more.

It turns out, Fourier Transforms play a key role in probability theory, which is why they're used to model risk in insurance companies. I'll come back to this in a later blog post.

Given what we already know, it's probably not a surprise that they're used to solve some differential equations; an intractable problem in one domain might be very solvable in the inverse domain. Perhaps more surprisingly, they also creep into number theory.

I haven't covered all of its uses, but let's move on to defining some quantities and the Fourier Transform itself.

WTF - too many fs and notation issues

There's a really dumb problem with the Fourier Transform, there are two many things beginning with f. We have f for frequency, function, and Fourier. Capital letters only take us so far so we're going to have to make some choices about what characters we use for what. I'm following the herd with my choice of notation.

  • \(f\) is for function
  • \(\mathcal{F}\) is for the Fourier Transform
  • \(\mathcal{F}^{-1}\)  is for the inverse Fourier Transform
  • \(\nu\) is for frequency - don't confuse this symbol with \(v\) for velocity
  • \(\omega\) is for angular frequency

Angular frequency is the number of radians per second and there are \(2 \pi\) radians in a complete oscillation. Here's how frequency and angular frequency are related:

\[\omega = 2  \pi \nu \]

Why do we care about angular frequency? Because \(2 \pi \nu\) crops up a lot in Fourier math and using \(\omega\) just simplifies things. 

Discrete Fourier Transforms

Let's imagine we have a signal we've sampled in the time domain, say we sample some live music at a rate of 96 kHz (or one sample every 10 micro-seconds). We'll represent our signal like this:

\[\{x_n\} = \{x_0, x_1, x_2, ..., x_{N-1}\}\]

The Fourier Transform of \(x_n\) is:

\[ X_k = \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} x_n \cdot e^{-i2\pi \frac{k}{N} n} \]

which gives us the transformed data set:

\[\{X_k\} = \{X_0, X_1, X_2, ..., X_{N-1}\}\]

This is all very abstract, so let me show you what this means in reality. Let's imagine that our music is a simple sine wave that looks like this:

\[x_n = \sin(2\pi \cdot 9000 \cdot t)\]

Of course, we're dealing with discrete data in this section, so we're going to sample the data at 48 kHz. If we plot it out, it looks like this (the light blue line is just to guide the eye, the dots are the measured data):

Now, let's Fourier Transform the data. After the transform, we get data in the frequency domain that looks like this:

See the peak in Fourier Transform plot? That tells us the frequencies present in the data. In this case, we know there's only one frequency and we know what it is, but that's not always the case. We can use this technique to find out the "active frequencies" in a piece of music or speech. The chart below is the Fourier Transform of some sampled music, you can see the frequencies present and you can see this is much, much more complex than a simple sine wave.

(BTW - do you think you can identify the piece of music? It's a 10 second burst from the start of a very famous song.)

Once we know all the frequencies present, we can remove some of them and transform the signal back to the time domain, which takes us to the inverse Fourier Transform.

Let's say we've done what we want to do with the frequency domain data \({X_k}\), how do we bring the data back to the time domain? With an inverse Fourier Transform defined like this:

\[ x_n = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} X_k \cdot e^{i2\pi \frac{k}{N} n} \]

I'll do one more example to give you a flavor of what you can do with this method. Let's say we have a more complicated time domain signal with two frequencies, like this:

\[x(t) = 0.5\sin(2\pi \cdot 9000 \cdot t) + 1.0\sin(2\pi \cdot 12000 \cdot t)\]

Here's what this looks like on a chart:

How might we get rid of one of the two frequencies? Let's start by doing a Fourier Transform and looking at the data. We can see the two peaks corresponding to the two frequencies. 

Let's cut the higher frequency out so the data looks like this.

Now, let's transform the data back to the time domain. Here's what we get (chart below). 

We've filtered out the higher frequency.

In reality, digital filtering is much more sophisticated than this, but this simple example gives you a taste of what's possible.

Before I move on to talk about continuous data, it's worth noting that the discrete Fourier Transform only works on data that's been sampled at regular intervals. This sounds like it's trivial, but it has important consequences for real-world analysis.

Continuous Fourier Transform

To put it simply, continuous data is data that has values at all points, it has no gaps, meaning it isn't sampled. In the continuous case, we have the equations that govern the data. Good examples of continuous data include the equations governing the motion of planets, probability distributions, and electrical voltage.

We'll start with a continuous function, \(f(x)\), its Fourier Transform is:

\[F(\omega) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(t)\, e^{-i\omega t} \, dt\]

To go back, there's the inverse Fourier Transform, defined like this:

\[ f(t) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} F(\omega)\, e^{i\omega t} \, d\omega \]

For a continuous signal defined like this:

\[ x(t) = 0.5\sin(2\pi \cdot 9000 \cdot t) + 1.0\sin(2\pi \cdot 12000 \cdot t) \]

It's looks like this in the time domain:


Its Fourier Transform looks like this:

Just as in the discrete case, the transform of the signal lets you clearly see the frequencies present in the data and their relative importance. The frequency at 12 kHz is "louder" and we can see that from the equation and the Fourier Transform.

It's often useful to know how much power is present at different frequencies. We can do this by something called the power spectral density. The Fourier Transform often gives complex data (in the sense of complex numbers, meaning having a real and imaginary component). The power spectral density is the magnitude squared of the real component.

Proof by assertion

I've just quoted the Fourier Transform equations without having derived them. That's deliberate because I want to focus on their use and properties rather than spending too much time on the math (it's also a pain to write so much LaTex). Years ago, my professor focused on their derivation and we spent lecture after lecture on derivations, which for me missed the point. I want to focus on their use.

The dirac delta function and quantum theory

This is a little abstract, but it does help explain how the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle comes from the Fourier Transform. It's also a nice example of it's use.

The dirac delta function is a weird mathematical function. It's not really a function, it's something else, but it is useful. The function is zero everywhere except at zero where it has the value infinity. Mathematically, this is:

\[ \delta(x) = \begin{cases} +\infty, & x = 0 \\ 0, & x \neq 0 \end{cases}, \quad \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\delta(x)\,dx = 1 \]

Here's a chart showing the same idea.

Let's say we know the position of a subatomic particle with 100% certainty. That means the uncertainty in /(x/) is 0, so we can model the position using a dirac delta function.

Momentum is the Fourier Transform of position, and here's the Fourier Transform of the dirac delta function.

This chart shows the Fourier Transform has the same value everywhere. In other words, all possible momentum values are equally likely. Which means if we know the position with 100% certainty we know the momentum with 0% certainty.

The properties of Fourier Transforms

In professional use of the Fourier Transform, we're often combining multiple functions and transforming them, so it's useful to know how the transform behaves. Let's go through some of its properties.

Scaling

If we have a function \(f(at)\), where \(a\) is a constant, then:

\[ \mathcal{F}\{f(at)\}(\nu) = \frac{1}{|a|}\mathcal{F}\{f\}\left(\frac{\nu}{a}\right) \] \[ \mathcal{F}^{-1}\left\{\frac{1}{|a|}\mathcal{F}\{f\}\left(\frac{\nu}{a}\right)\right\}(t) = f(at) \]

Linearity

If \(f(t)\) and \(g(t)\) are functions with Fourier Transforms \(F(\nu)\) and \(G(\nu)\), and \(a\) and \(b\) are constants, then:

\[ \mathcal{F}\{af(t)+bg(t)\}(\nu) = a\mathcal{F}\{f\}(\nu) + b\mathcal{F}\{g\}(\nu) \]

Time reversal

\[ \mathcal{F}\{f(-t)\}(\nu) = \mathcal{F}\{f\}(-\nu) \] \[ \mathcal{F}^{-1}\{\mathcal{F}\{f\}(-\nu)\}(t) = f(-t) \]

Time shifting

This property says that shifting a signal in time (e.g., delaying it) adds a phase shift to the Fourier Transform of the signal. That's a little too complex (pardon the pun) for me to explain here.

\[ \mathcal{F}\{f(t-t_0)\}(\nu) = e^{-i2\pi\nu t_0}\mathcal{F}\{f\}(\nu) \] \[ \mathcal{F}^{-1}\{e^{-i2\pi\nu t_0}\mathcal{F}\{f\}(\nu)\}(t) = f(t-t_0) \]

Frequency shifting

This is another property I'm not going to explain too much, other than saying it's similar in concept to the time shifting property.

\[ \mathcal{F}\{f(t)e^{i2\pi\nu_0 t}\}(\nu) = \mathcal{F}\{f\}(\nu-\nu_0) \] \[ \mathcal{F}^{-1}\{\mathcal{F}\{f\}(\nu-\nu_0)\}(t) = f(t)e^{i2\pi\nu_0 t} \]

Conjugation

I've shied away talking about the fact that the Fourier Transform relies on complex numbers underneath. My Professor zoomed in on that area and we spent a long time slogging through complex algebra to get to results. Yes, the fact that they're complex underneath is important, but for me it misses the wood for the trees. Anyway, here's the conjugation property.

\[ \mathcal{F}\{f^*(t)\}(\nu) = \mathcal{F}\{f\}^*(-\nu) \] \[ \mathcal{F}^{-1}\{\mathcal{F}\{f\}^*(-\nu)\}(t) = f^*(t) \]

Differentiation

Differentiation in the time domain corresponds to multiplying by frequency in the frequency domain. This is a very powerful property and can massively simplify some calculations.

\[ \mathcal{F}\{f'(t)\}(\nu) = i2\pi\nu\,\mathcal{F}\{f\}(\nu) \] \[ \mathcal{F}\{f'(t)\}(\omega) = i\omega\,\mathcal{F}\{f\}(\omega) \] \[ \mathcal{F}\{f^{(n)}(t)\}(\nu) = (i2\pi\nu)^n\mathcal{F}\{f\}(\nu) \] \[ \mathcal{F}^{-1}\{i2\pi\nu\,\mathcal{F}\{f\}(\nu)\}(t) = f'(t) \]

Integration

This is another very powerful relationship. It relates integration to division and so may very well simplify calculations.

\[ \mathcal{F}\left\{\int_{-\infty}^{t}f(\tau)\,d\tau\right\}(\nu) = \frac{1}{i2\pi\nu}\mathcal{F}\{f\}(\nu) + \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{F}\{f\}(0)\,\delta(\nu) \] \[ \mathcal{F}\left\{\int_{-\infty}^{t}f(\tau)\,d\tau\right\}(\omega) = \frac{1}{i\omega}\mathcal{F}\{f\}(\omega) + \pi\,\mathcal{F}\{f\}(0)\,\delta(\omega) \] \[ \mathcal{F}^{-1}\left\{\frac{1}{i2\pi\nu}\mathcal{F}\{f\}(\nu)\right\}(t) = \int_{-\infty}^{t}f(\tau)\,d\tau \quad \text{(when } \mathcal{F}\{f\}(0)=0\text{)} \]

Parseval's theorem

Mathematically, this looks difficult, but the meaning is simple: the energy of a signal is the same in the time domain and the frequency domain. This can be very helpful when you're dealing with some complicated systems.

\[ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}|f(t)|^2\,dt = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}|\mathcal{F}\{f\}(\nu)|^2\,d\nu \] \[ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}|f(t)|^2\,dt = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}|\mathcal{F}\{f\}(\omega)|^2\,d\omega \] \[ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}f(t)g^*(t)\,dt = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\mathcal{F}\{f\}(\nu)\mathcal{F}\{g\}^*(\nu)\,d\nu \]

What do the properties mean?

Let's say you're doing some signal processing, maybe trying to process a weak signal in the presence of noise and other signals. You need to do math on the data you receive to filter it, amplify it, and so on. The key signal processing operations all rely on the properties I've just outlined.

Of course, it's not just signal processing. These properties also come into play when you're combining probability distributions to calculate risk. Even something like Parseval's theorem turns out to be important in insurance.

Convolution

One of the most astonishing uses of the Fourier Transform is in convolution. That's such a big topic, I'm going to write my next blog post on it.

The Fast Fourier Transform

The Fourier Transform is important, but it would have remained a theoretical nicety if it weren't for the Fast Fourier Transform.

As I said in the beginning, the key insight Fourier had was that an arbitrary signal can be decomposed into a series of overlapping sine waves. That's great, but to do this kind of decomposition in the real world is computationally very expensive, especially in the digital domain. If it had remained this expensive, frankly we wouldn't be using it much.

The game changer was the discovery of the Fast Fourier Transform (or FFT) algorithm. This slashed the number of computations for digital transformations bringing it well within the reach of computers, even computers in the early days of computing.

The FFT story is an interesting one. It seems to have been discovered several times and the ground work was laid years before it was developed. The math is interesting, but tedious to write out and draw.

Because it's a whole big topic of itself, I'm going to gloss over it for now. I might return to it later in another post. For now, you should know it a very big deal.

Closing thoughts (for now)

I'm going to be bold here. The Fourier Transform (particularly in it's FFT form), has changed the world. It's one of the hidden engines of the modern world, driving areas as diverse as music processing and insurance risk calculation. 

It does neatly illustrate one of the problems we face as a society. It's a crucial core technology to our lives, but it takes serious math to understand it. Which means that the majority of the population don't understand it and aren't in any position to make judgements or decisions about it. If the population doesn't understand key areas, how can a government allocate research funding to those areas and retain public support? Trust is the answer, but that's a whole different blog post.

I would advise that anyone working in math-heavy areas understand the what and why of the Fourier Transform. It's fundamental in many areas. Don't get lost in the derivations, but focus instead on how to use it for your benefit.

Oh, and pay attention to your physics professor when they're lecturing about Fourier Transforms.

AI statement

I (a human being) wrote all of this. I did not use AI for any of the writing. I used AI to generate code to show charts and I used AI to correctly format equations.

Read the whole story
mrmarchant
3 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Understanding large values: It's our ethical duty

1 Share
Understanding large values: It's our ethical duty

Happy Wednesday! I hope you're having a chill week. Do you find this newsletter delightful or thought-provoking? Share it with like-minded friends!

💙 Amanda


Here's a line from 1,000 to 1 billion. It's a linear scale. Where on this line would you place 1 million?

Have a guess? A 2013 study asked this of nearly 500 people. Roughly half got it wrong. Honestly, I'm surprised it wasn't higher. Here's where 1 million falls on that line:

Most of us are terrible at understanding large values. Yet, we encounter these magnitudes frequently in the news: ChatGPT now has 1 billion users; America's national debt is over $39 trillion; Taylor Swift's net worth recently topped $2 billion; and briefly, Elon Musk became the world's first trillionaire.

These numbers are so big they're effectively meaningless. Very few of us have real experience with values in the millions, billions or trillions. (If you are an exception, please become a paid subscriber!) We lack an innate understanding of them.

Day-to-day, we deal with small numbers. We're good at small. Picture three rocks in your head. Easy! Now picture 100 rocks... Not so easy. Now a million? Impossible.

But we can't continue to suck at this. Our world is increasingly moving towards extreme values: Damages from climate change, deaths due to genocide, wealth that knows no bounds. And we can't tackle them if we can't wrap our heads around the numbers.

Luckily, a bit of perspective can help.

CONVERT IT

What time is that number? Let's convert these big values into something we understand better: Time. I think this is one of the clearest ways to understand the extreme differences between million, billion and trillion. Here's what each looks like in seconds.

Seconds Day/year Roughly
1 million 11.6 days A vacation
1 billion 31.7 years A career
1 trillion 31,700 years Longer than human civilization

What time are dinosaurs? This 24-hour clock compresses the entire history of Earth into a single day. Dinosaurs appear about an hour before humans. And humans don't show up until seconds before midnight.

How far is that number? Another way to grasp large values is to convert them to distances. I don't find this as effective as time, but maybe it works for you! (I'm probably too time stressed). Here's what they look like in millimetres.

Millimetres Kilometres Roughly
1 million 1 Down the street
1 billion 1,000 Across France
1 trillion 1,000,000 Around the world 25 times

VISUALIZE IT

Incomprehensible wealth. Mona Chalabi's illustrated piece for the New York Times translates Bezos' bucks into creative comparisons, from cake slices to temperature.

Zoom out to infinity. This 1977 video is a classic. A single, slow zoom takes you from a picnic to the edge of the universe.

PERSONALIZE IT

What's it to you? This piece from the Washington Post personalizes purchases by the ultra-wealthy by comparing them to your own net worth. (It's a few years old, but still useful).

To them, it's trivial. A few days ago, comedian Katherine Ryan popped up on my socials. She tried to put Taylor Swift's $26 million wedding donation into terms an average person might understand — a more normal net worth. It was a great idea, but her math was off. The correct numbers are here:

Net worth Donation
$2.2 billion $26 million
$50,000 $590

EXPERIENCE IT

Real-time trillionaire. Watch as Elon Musk's net worth tracks up and down. I had the page open for less than 10 seconds and he'd already made $80,000.

Just a yacht or two. Modelled on Bill Gates' wealth, this game asks you to spend a virtual fortune. Extravagant purchases — yachts, an NBA team — don't even make a dent.

Keep scrolling... Finally, experience large numbers as a horizontal scroll. With this one, you'll feel the difference.

Do those incomprehensible sums feel a little less incomprehensible now? I hope so. Because our numbness to large numbers can affect how we address large-scale problems.

In a famous study from the '90s, researchers asked people how much they would pay to save 2,000 birds from drowning in an oil spill. Then they asked how much they'd pay to prevent 20,000 birds from drowning. And 200,000? Logically, the amounts should have scaled up. But they didn't. On average, people offered to pay roughly the same amount — $80, $78 and $88 — no matter how many birds were at stake.

This is a cognitive bias called scope insensitivity: Failing to adjust our valuation of a problem in proportion to its magnitude. And it happens with human lives, too.

Once a quantity gets big enough, it just becomes "a lot". "A lot" feels the same whether it's "a lot" times a hundred or "a lot" times a million. Our heads do this naturally, but it's worth working on. You and I might never run into a billion or a trillion anything in our day-to-day, but for us to understand modern problems, we need to cultivate an ability to sense the real difference between them.


HOW THIS WORKS

Not-Ship is free for everyone. And that's absolutely by design. We could all use more data — informing our conversations, our decisions and the way we see the world — and none of us need more ads or paywalls in the way.

But in order for it to stay free, some people simply need to chip in. It's $9/month or $90/year. The model only holds if the people who can pay, do. I hope that's you.


FROM ELSEWHERE

Here's what I found interesting, important or delightful this week:

&, #, @ and ¶ are letters. Promise me you'll watch this video about the origin of common typographic symbols. I had to pause it so many times, just to exclaim: What!? Seriously. Watch it.

We need nitrogen. This gorgeous piece from Reuters explains how fertilizer shortages caused by war in Iran will impact global food prices for some time. (Want more? I explored the data behind national food self-sufficiency. Fertilizer plays a big role!)

Understanding large values: It's our ethical duty

MORE NOT-SHIP

Your summer reading list, based on the data
I analyzed more than 1000 book recommendations; here are the ones that stand out.
Schools are closed, records are broken. Let’s talk heatwaves.
The data are clear — extremely hot days are on the rise.
Banks are funding climate chaos. You don’t have to.
Switching banks could be one of the most climate-friendly decisions you make.

Read the whole story
mrmarchant
3 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Many game sites evade school web filters

1 Share

The Hechinger Report is creating a print edition, and wants young artists to contribute. Find out more here.

This spring, I spoke to a mom in suburban Washington, D.C., who was growing increasingly worried about a lack of filters on her kids’ school devices. During class this year, her kids watched Kendrick Lamar videos on YouTube, she told me. One came home knowing the words to a semaglutide commercial. Parents at the school shared concerns that their fourth graders regularly played a game called BitLife, a text-based life simulation game created in 2018.

She was one of more than 45 parents, educators and experts across the country for my recent story about the dangerous content and games children access on their school-issued devices,

From my reporting, I had already heard of — and tried out — other games elementary students are playing at schools around the country, one featuring Jeffrey Epstein and another where a “corpse-like grandmother” chases players with a bloody baseball bat. In comparison, BitLife’s premise sounded less disturbing than some others I had played, perhaps even relatively innocent. (Spoiler alert: It’s not.) 

I started the game as “Ally Baker,” the daughter of a school psychologist and police officer. The game then presented me with random life scenarios and asked me to choose how to respond. When my character was 5 years old, a screen popped up that read, “You broke your parents’ sex toy while you were trying to understand what it was. What will you do?” (The options were to admit it or lie about it.) My character went on to be assaulted by her brother, diagnosed with depression and diagnosed with cervical cancer. (Between those events, I also failed my driver’s test.) Ally Baker died at age 21.

As disturbing as it is to think about elementary-age children playing this game, I learned while reporting my recent story that this is just the tip of the iceberg. While some districts have layers of blocks and filters, others have a piecemeal approach, with far fewer blocks. And even in some districts that try to block content, children are often able to outsmart the filters and access wildly inappropriate content. In fact, many game designers — and fellow students — are helping them do so. 

When I first navigated to BitLife, for example, the website boasted about being able to circumvent blocks because it was using a proxy server: “BitLife is available to play unblocked right here on Bitlife.School. This means you can start a new life on your school Chromebook, library computer, or even at work during a break.” I found another website hosting the game that advised players they could “press CTRL+Q to hide your screen.” Doing so changed the screen to a page titled “Math Lesson Notes — Week 3 Overview” with notes about a fake math lesson. (Although the tab at the top still read “Bitlife.”) Questions sent to an email address on the Bitlife website were not answered as of Thursday morning.

Many game websites can be concealed with a few keystrokes, as shown here.

I also came across a Google Doc with dozens of links to unblocked games. (Schools use, and do not block, Google Docs.) Not only are these websites well aware of schools trying to block games, some of them seem to be actively trying to enable students to keep playing, illustrating just one more of the many challenges schools are up against when it comes to young children and technology. 

Read my story, published in partnership with Mind/Shift.

This story about games on schools devices was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

The post Many game sites evade school web filters appeared first on The Hechinger Report.

Read the whole story
mrmarchant
4 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories