More than half of Americans seem to think that climate change won’t affect them personally, a new poll shows. Only 45 percent think that global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetime, and just 43 percent say they worry a great deal about climate change. But climate change is already affecting us — so why don’t people realize that? The reason has to do with a mixture of politics and psychology.
The poll, conducted by Gallup, shows that many Americans “perceive climate change as a distant problem,” says Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. A lot of people think that we won’t bear the brunt of climate change until 2050 or 2100, and that other parts of the world will be affected,…
Traditional TV viewership is in decline as people cut the cord and opt for cheaper streaming services like Netflix and Hulu instead. But what about the 90 million U.S. subscribers who still pay around $ 100 a month for traditional pay TV?
Unsurprisingly, the main reason for keeping pay TV is the ability to watch live broadcasts, with 71 percent of TV subscribers noting that as a Top 3 reason to keep pay TV, according to a new survey by Deloitte. Less obvious is that a majority of Americans are holding on to their pay TV subscriptions because it’s bundled with their internet subscription. Some 56 percent consider the bundle a major reason to keep their TV subscription, partly because it makes the overall price seem like a better deal.
Cable and satellite companies often include TV, internet and telephone for a single reduced price. For many, the cost they’d have to pay for internet alone doesn’t seem much less than they would pay for all three services individually, so the perceived value can seem tempting. In turn, the cable companies are able to eke out higher overall monthly fees by throwing in those “extras.”
Interestingly, 70 percent of pay TV subscribers also say they are paying too much for their subscriptions. Couple that statistic with the proliferation of lower-cost “skinny bundles” and broadband options, and the two main reasons for keeping traditional TV — live TV and the internet bundle value — seem less substantial. If you could get live TV for less, why wouldn’t you?
Other reasons for retaining pay TV include DVR, and because people “have had it for so long and don’t want to change.”
Deloitte’s survey was conducted online during November 2017 among 2,088 consumers. It’s weighted to be representative of U.S. consumers.
Americans’ obsession with the internet is still growing.
New data from Pew Research Center found that 26 percent of American adults admit to being online “almost constantly,” and 43 percent go online “several times a day.” In 2015, roughly 21 percent of American adult admitted to being online “almost constantly.”
Unsurprisingly, young people are more likely to be internet-obsessed than the general population. About 39 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds reported going online “almost constantly,” compared to 36 percent back in 2015.
Pew pointed out the obvious: That this increase in internet usage is likely tied to the rise of internet-connected mobile devices. But it’s also worth noting that many of the world’s most valuable companies have built empires by encouraging people to get online; Google and Facebook, for example, have anchored their entire business to people spending time online where they’ll see more advertisements. Even modern business tools like Slack seem designed for an always-online worker.
Don’t expect this number to decline, either. Facebook and Google are also spending millions on ways to get more people onto the internet. Facebook is testing solar-powered drones that would provide constant wireless access to remote areas, and Google wants to do the same with giant balloons.
Americans have been targeted on social media by Russian agents on a mission to harvest personal information. The agents pretended to work for organizations promoting African-American businesses as a ruse to obtain personal information from black business owners during the 2016 presidential election campaign. Using names like “BlackMattersUS” and “Black4Black,” the agents set up hundreds of social media accounts. Facebook’s recently introduced tool for identifying Russian propaganda doesn’t address Kremlin agents masquerading as Americans. TechNewsWorld
A handful of U.S. intelligence agencies have advised American citizens not to buy smartphones made by Chinese tech firms.
Six top intelligence officials, including the directors of the FBI, CIA, NSA and Defense intelligence Agency, gave the stern warning when testifying to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, CNBCreported.
The officials suggested that devices manufactured by firms such as Huawei or ZTE may pose a security threat to U.S. citizens who purchase them. Reportedly, a senator asked the agency chiefs to raise their hands if they recommended U.S. customers buy or use these products. None of them did, according to CNN Tech.
There’s a risk when letting any firm “beholden to foreign governments” into U.S. telecom networks, FBI Director Chris Wray explained during his testimony.
“That provides the capacity to exert pressure or control over our telecommunications infrastructure,” Wray added. “It provides the capacity to maliciously modify or steal information. And it provides the capacity to conduct undetected espionage.”
Huawei is the largest telecommunications equipment maker in the world, and more recently, it surpassed Apple as the world’s second-largest smartphone brand.
But while Huawei and other Chinese OEMs are dominant forces in their home market, they’ve mostly failed to gain any sort of traction in the U.S. Earlier this year, a plan to sell Huawei devices via AT&T fell through.
Largely, that’s because of U.S. government suspicion that the Chinese government could use smartphones and other devices made in China as espionage tools.
Congress has both introduced and passed legislation preventing government and federal agencies from buying from Chinese firms, or contracting them for other services. In 2012, Congress released a report saying Huawei and ZTE should be “viewed with suspicion,” CNN reported
For its part, Huawei said in a statement to CNBC that it “poses no greater cybersecurity risk” than any other tech vendor. Huawei CEO Richard Yu has also criticized American carriers and their “measured resistance” to Chinese firms, accusing them of diminishing customer choice.
It’s only the latest push by lawmakers to restrict foreign-made services or products due to intelligence concerns. Russia-based cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab, for example, has been banned from federal systems, CNN Tech reported.
Over the past few years, the water crisis in Flint, Michigan has cast a spotlight on the consequences aging infrastructure can have on water quality. However, a new report indicates that similar problems could be more widespread than we realized.
The study looked into health-related violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act that occurred between 1982 and 2015, which pertained to 17,900 community water systems. Using this data, authors Maura Allaire, Haowei Wu, and Upmanu Lall analyzed spatial and temporal trends in problems with the water supply.
The researchers found that during each year within the timeline they examined, between 9 and 45 million people had been affected by violations — accounting for between 4 and 28 percent of the U.S. population.
What happened in Flint is certainly significant in its own right, but the study points toward an even more alarming reality: that it’s part of a much broader trend.
Clear and Pure
The paper does note that generally speaking, people in the U.S. do have good access to clean drinking water. Around 7 or 8 percent of community water systems report at least one violation in a given year, which is said to be relatively low. Still, there’s room for improvement.
The water crisis in Flint is thought to have contributed to public health concerns ranging from an uptick in cases of Legionnaires’ disease to a decrease in birth rates. Though the situation in Flint is perhaps a more extreme case of potential violations, particularly those associated with the use of lead pipes.
Other water quality infractions which may be considered less severe can still cause trouble, though. For example, in the U.S. around 16.4 million cases of acute gastroenteritis are attributed to community water systems every year.
At present, state enforcement agencies do not have a systematic method of determining which water systems are in need of additional monitoring and inspection. While samples are taken from systems with recent violations on a more regular basis, Allaire, Wu, and Lall’s paper suggested maintaining high standards could be made easier if authorities identified “hotspots,” and the circumstances that seem to lead to violations.
To that end, the paper highlighted hotspots in parts of Texas and Oklahoma — two areas where water systems with repeat violations are more common. Though, in general, these violations seem to be more common in rural parts of the country as opposed to urban areas. In any case, low-income communities are often hit hardest. Conversely, privately-owned utilities and systems that purchase their water from other utilities experience fewer violations.
By paying more attention to spatial and temporal trends in drinking water violations, we might be able to allocate resources to the systems in need of scrutiny. However, the modernization efforts necessary to address these problems present a host of challenges: aging infrastructure, impaired or contaminated water at the source, and a lack of community finances are all flagged as contributing factors to this ongoing problem.
Americans are concerned about how growing automation will affect their jobs. There seems to be no limit to what tasks sophisticated robots can perform equal to or better than us, yet experts and the public alike disagree on how to respond to this displacement. In a 2018 Gallup and Northeastern University poll, 48 percent of Americans agreed that a universal income program is a positive solution.
Does this poll mean that Americans are on board? Well, not exactly. While just below half are in favor, the majority disagreed about the use of UBI. More so, while an overwhelming 65 percent of Democrats support the concept of a universal income, only 28 percent of Republicans do, according to this poll.
In fact, according to the poll, 81 percent of those who identify as “very liberal” voiced support for UBI while only 27 percent of those who identify as “very conservative” said the same. If any type of universal income system is considered in the U.S., will it further divide the country’s parties?
Beyond the disparity in agreement over whether to implement a UBI, not everyone agrees on how we might pay for such a program. Only 45 percent of those polled would be willing to pay higher taxes to fund such a program. Interestingly enough, however, 80 percent of those who are in favor of a universal income also expect that business who benefit from artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous technologies should pay for it.
This line of thinking aligns with the concept of a “robot tax,” something that Bill Gates overwhelmingly supports. The thinking behind this is that, because a human worker pays taxes, automation could lead to both job loss and a severe blow to government finances.
Because the workers they are replacing would pay taxes, this idea argues that it would only be right if taxes were paid on behalf of the robot — by the company that built it. There are those who say that this de-incentivizes innovation, but others agree that it could be a feasible solution to the cost of such a program.
Technology will unquestionably continue to advance, and innovation continue to streamline our lives, improve medical care, and push forward progress across fields and occupations. Among those polled by Gallup either, 76% either agreed or strongly agreed that AI will “fundamentally change the way people work and live in the next ten years.” Presently, 77% are “mostly positive” or “very positive” about AI’s impact, yet it’s clear that automation will lead to job losses at rates we have never experienced before. While not everyone agrees on the prospect of UBI, solutions must be found.
There’s no doubting the transformative power of technology. Advances in tech have led to new and improved entertainment experiences, from allowing us to stream our favorite shows on-demand to immersing us in virtual worlds. They’re changing how we earn a living by making it easier to work remotely, and now, instead of going out to buy stuff, we shop online. Americans are staying home more, and according to a new study, that lifestyle change is affecting energy consumption.
The researchers found that Americans are staying home an average of eight days more in 2012 than in 2003. Conversely, by spending more time at home, Americans spent less time traveling (1.2 days) and staying in non-residential buildings or areas (6.7 days) in 2012 compared to 2003.
The age of the survey respondents affected the time they spent at home, according to the researchers’ analysis. People between the ages of 18 and 24 spent an average of two weeks more at home in 2012 compared to 2002, a change that was 70 percent higher than the rest of the population.
As for what they were doing at home, most people spent their time working, watching videos, and using computers. At the same time, people also spent more time doing the “essentials,” such as sleeping, preparing meals, and eating.
The researchers didn’t simply focus on the fact that Americans are staying home more, though — they also looked at how that lifestyle change affected energy consumption. What they found surprised them: staying at home decreased the average national demand for energy by an estimated 1,700 trillion BTU in 2012. That’s equivalent to about 1.8 percent the total national energy demand for the year.
“We did expect to see net energy decrease, but we had no idea of the magnitude,” said lead researcher Ashok Sekar from the University of Texas at Austin in a news release.
Let’s put that 1.8 percent or 1,700 trillion BTU into perspective.
As Sekar told Futurism, that amount of energy is approximately equivalent to the state of Kentucky’s total energy consumption in 2015. It’s most than what Connecticut, Hawaii, and Nevada combined consumed that same year, and it’s nearly half the total energy consumed by the state of New York in 2015.
“You could also compare [it with the] annual energy use of a car,” co-author Eric Williams told Futurism. “1,700 trillion BTU is equivalent to 30 million cars’ worth of gasoline usage over a year.”
This change in lifestyle could have a noticeable environmental impact.
If Americans are staying home more often, that means they are consuming less fuel for transportation, which remains one of the biggest contributors of greenhouse gasses. In 2015, around 27 percent of carbon emissions in the U.S. came from transportation, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Presumably, that number could’ve been higher had technology not made it possible for Americans to work or shop remotely.
The team did note that their study doesn’t account for variances in location, labor markets, or demographics that could impact activities and, therefore, emissions.
“The trend we report in the study is for the average population,” Sekar told Futurism. “The results can vary very much between people living in urban versus rural areas. [For example], people living in the city may use public transportation which has relatively much less energy consumption than people driving their cars.”
Americans are using less energy — paradoxically, by spending more time indoors, according to a new study in the journal Joule. But researchers point out that keeping more lights on was offset by lifestyle changes that kept people inside instead of r… Engadget RSS Feed
One in six US adults (or around 39 million people) now own a voice-activated smart speaker, according to research from NPR and Edison Research. The Smart Audio Report claims that uptake of these devices over the last three years is “outpacing the adoption rates of smartphones and tablets.” Users spent time using speakers to find restaurants and businesses, playing games, setting timers and alarms, controlling smart home devices, sending messages, ordering food, and listening to music and books. Over half of respondents keep their smart speaker in the living room, followed by the kitchen (21 percent), and master bedroom (19 percent).
The survey of just under 2,000 individuals found that the time people spend using their smart speaker…