Two threats loom large as the third decade of the 21st century begins. While they manifest in starkly different ways, both are the product of human behavior. Both will profoundly shape our lives in the years to come and there is little sign that we as a species are addressing and mitigating the consequences of either challenge. And, most alarming, only collective action will work. No matter how motivated some of us may be, failure to work together will ensure that these challenges overwhelm us.

The first challenge is that of climate change. 2019 will be remembered as the year that we passed a tipping point in global warming. Global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise yet governments continue to refuse to take the threat seriously.

Experts believe that climate change constitutes an existential threat to civilization and the world faces a planetary emergency. Average temperatures around the world have already risen 1 degree Celsius from pre-industrial levels and experts believe those emissions must be cut by 25 percent over the next decade to keep warming under 2 degrees; they must be halved to keep temperatures from rising just 1.5 degrees.

Climate change is transforming the planet. Biodiversity is experiencing an existential threat, with 1 million plant and animal species at risk of extinction. Oceans are changing too as waters become warmer. Fish, coral and other forms of marine life are migrating or dying. Ecosystems are being altered and the effects are impossible to predict.

Meanwhile, polar ice sheets are melting, with the thaw in Antarctica threatening to raise sea levels by more than five meters by 2300. New, more accurate measurements indicate that far more coastal land is at risk of submersion. In Japan, for example, 27 percent of the population of Nagoya will be affected by rising sea levels, along with 26 percent of Osaka residents. The country will lose nearly all its beaches leaving less than 10 meters in half its coastal zones by 2065.

Yet despite the growing evidence of the threat posed by climate change, governments procrastinate and pass the buck. There is no sign of the emergency response that is required.

Even Japan, which has prided itself for having a special relationship with the environment and has historically led in environmental diplomacy, is guilty of complacency. Japan relies on coal for about one-third of its electricity generation it currently has 46.5 gigawatts of coal capacity and another 11 gigawatts is planned. It is the only Group of Seven economy that is building new coal plants and it is a major exporter of coal plant technology. Japan should be leading the effort to respond to this crisis. Instead, its energy polices may exacerbate it.

The second danger is the increasing role of technology in our daily lives and its almost infinite capacity for disruption. Ironically, while technology is heralded as the likely fix to climate ills, it has also been deployed in forms and ways that prevent the formation of consensus that would allow countries to tackle the problem. For example, the media has been weaponized to divide and alienate societies, tearing apart their social fabric and facilitating a slide into paralysis or chaos. Climate change is just one issue that can be used as a wedge to divide a nation.

But we must be alert to new dangers posed by emerging technologies. Privacy is disappearing as ubiquitous devices leave a digital footprint or fingerprint wherever we go, in the real world or online. Governments and businesses are acquiring deep and ever increasing insight into who we are, where we go and even how we think. That data is piling up and can be used to either improve our lives or invade them.

In some cases, the distinction between the two is blurred. The marriage of sensors, big data and AI offers the potential for real-time surveillance, which can provide unprecedented security or George Orwells Big Brother. This threat has long been mooted Orwell first published his dystopian take on the future in 1949 but the enabling capabilities now exist. Technological authoritarianism is a real prospect and for some countries it is an increasingly profitable export.

While these are two disparate threats, there is one common denominator: Both are man-made. And both will become even more threatening if we continue the laissez-faire approach that fails to intervene and bend both phenomena toward more sustainable trajectories.

Read more:
Collective action needed to meet existential threats - The Japan Times

Every year people come up with New Years Resolution ideas and set goals but they fail. Human behavior expert Dr. Alok Trivedi gives tips on how you can improve your life, stop procrastinating and not be overwhelmed by your resolutions.

For more information about Dr Alok Trivedi visit: Alignedperformanceinstitute.comLike Dr Trivedi on Facebook at: Facebook.com/Alok.trivedi.16Follow Dr Trivedi on Twitter at: Twitter.com/DrAlokTrivedi

Want to hear more of Mason? Check out:MasonVeraPaine.comfor the latest interviews. Like Mason on Facebook at:Facebook.com/MasonVeraPaineand follow her on Twitter at:Twitter.com/MasonVeraPaine. Interested in being a guest on the show or wish to send pitches contact us at: Contact@Masonverapaine.com

Read the original post:
How to achieve your New Year's Resolutions - WGN Radio - Chicago

The key benefit of Robotic Process Automation (RPA) is that it plays well with other existing technologies

In 2020, the automation market will see a shift from point solutions to more comprehensive offerings

The RPA market will reach $2.9 Bn by 2021

RPA market is evolving at a tremendous pace and is expected to grow at a CAGR of 20.3% between 2019 and 2025. This growth can be majorly attributed to how RPA streamlines and enhances legacy processes and results in high returns on investment (ROI).

Some of the key RPA trends to watch out in the year ahead are:

The key benefit of RPA is that it plays well with other existing technologies. RPA has the potential to adapt quickly to changing circumstances and learn accordingly, hence it enhances processes rather than replacing them. Since its not always feasible to redesign workflows from the ground up, automating inefficient processes with RPA can greatly improve productivity.

In 2020, the automation market will see a shift from point solutions to more comprehensive offerings that will address integration challenges and enable best-in-class features that enterprises require. Digital transformation is a journey. RPA implementation shouldnt be treated as a short term project to gain cost efficiency. It must be integrated in the processes from the beginning to avail comprehensive benefits.

Organizations across the globe are realizing the benefits of incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) within RPA framework to result in intelligent automation. Understanding the range of automation mechanisms, how they relate to one another and how they can be combined and coordinated is a major focus for hyper-automation. This allows software robots to mimic human behavior and handle complex use cases, which was earlier not possible without human intervention.

The emergence of autonomous things is a major landmark in technological progress. Early examples of this include autonomous drones and self-driving vehicles. In 2020, we expect a shift from stand-alone intelligent things to a swarm of collaborative intelligent things, with multiple devices working together, either independent of people or with minimum human input. In the future, autonomous things will go beyond process automation and integrate AI to deliver advanced behaviors that interact more naturally with the environment and people.

RPA taking away jobs is the most debated topic in the industry. It is anticipated that RPA will affect employment and half of the jobs will be replaced by automation. Contrary to popular beliefs, future trends suggest that there will be a collaboration between machines and humans in many areas. As a result, more jobs will be created by enhancing the nature of jobs and there will be a need for RPA and process experts to augment user interfaces and solve business problems.

As per Forrester, the RPA market will reach $2.9 Bn by 2021, which means RPA market will continue to grow at an exponential rate. There will be a sharp rise in adoption and implementation of RPA. It will be used for multiple processes in the organization across departments and it is expected to largely manage customer-focused and external processes.

Message from our partner

View original post here:
5 Robotic Process Automation Trends To Look For In 2020 - Inc42 Media

Love 'em or hate 'em, New Year's resolutions are here to stay, so I've got a few sports ones of my own.

New Year, new you that's what they say. Right?

Fitness. Eat healthier. Read more. Typically, some of the more popular New Year's resolutions you'll see and hear. But while we'd all benefit from the aforementioned declarations, I'm a sports writer, so let's narrow the scope to the people, places and things that reside in my world.

Much like the "real world," the sports universe is imperfect. People make mistakes, there are flawed performances, and despite sometimes century's worth of games played, tweaks are needed to even the most popular and successfully run competitions.

So while all the answers escape me, I have some, and I'll happily make suggestions as to the solutions for a handful of problems facing the sports world in 2020.

Let's begin with the worst rule in football: fumbling into and through the end zone. As it stands now, if a player who's inches from scoring a touchdown fumbles the ball and it rolls into and out of the end zone, the ball is turned over to the defense at their 20-yard line.

This is stupid for several reasons, but primarily because had the same thing occurred a millimeter short of pay-dirt, the offense retains possession at the point it went out of bounds.

So what gives? The defense never recovered the ball, so why should they be rewarded so handsomely for something that they'd see no reward for had it occurred in the field of play?

I'm not sure who conjured up this rule or how much they were drinking when they did, but this is a horrific tenet for which the punishment far exceeds the crime. Fix this, football. Give the offense the ball at the point of the fumble and right this obvious wrong in 2020.

Next, quit testing for marijuana.

I'm not even a "pot guy," but we're long beyond the point where the obvious pros to smoking weed don't outweigh the cons, so, by all means, let these professional athletes cope with pain in the least detrimental way possible.

Let's see, opiate addiction or habitual late-night munchies run? Feels like a no-brainer.

Next, people need to accept imperfection as it pertains to officiating. Everyone, in general, has fallen into this trap that refs, umps, linemen they've all gotten worse. No, television has gotten better, and when you slow things down and zoom in to the nth degree, you have the luxury of applying superhuman strength to human behavior. It's unfair and, for the most part, ruining the viewing experience based on the level of scrutiny which accompanies it.

Moving on, let's get a shot clock in high school basketball. I don't know what needs to happen for this to happen, or what the hang-ups are, but watching games decided based on stalling tactics and free throws is very 1985. Let the better team win, not the team that is the first to a six-point lead late in the third quarter.

Next, and this is outside the sports realm and something teenage Wade would've hated, but how about we get fast food out of our high school cafeterias? This is nothing more than a cash grab by our public institutions. How in the world can we spout-off about childhood health and obesity, then throw Taco Bell into the list of options at are places of education? Kids will eat s**t if you put s**t in front of them. I know because I was a kid who once happily ate my share of s**t. But if it's truly our job as adults to nurture those not yet ready to best decide for themselves, how about we do it?

Next, a legitimate resolution needs to be found to the obvious problem hovering above pay-for-play collegiate athletics. Recent legislation in California, along with NCAA amendments to rules regarding athletes' likeness, is simply further evidence of concessions opposed to legitimate solutions for an understandable problem. Like it or not, society has pushed this issue to the edge of the cliff, so rather than slowly climbing to the bottom, jump off already so we can begin rebuilding a fairly negotiated system from scratch.

Lastly, let's quit acting as if high-level professional athletes and celebrities are brilliant because they're now making a boatload of money off of the court, field, or TV or movie screen. Recognition of the financial benefits to your celebrity is not a sign of intelligence; it's more so just evidence of ambition and the savvy necessary to put smart people around you and listen to them.

I'm not knocking those who are cashing in. In fact, more power to them, after all, they are setting a great example for those coming behind them, as to fiscal responsibility. But making money on your money isn't reinventing the wheel, it's just making the most of a great opportunity.

And for me, I'm just going to continue on my everlasting quest to be better, which means more patience, more understanding, and being less critical of myself and others as a result.

Wish me luck.

Happy New Year! Here's to a fitter, healthier, and better read 2020 and more if I get my way.

You count on us to stay informed and we depend on you to fund our efforts.Quality local journalism takes time and money. Please support us to protect the future of community journalism.

View post:
Evanson column: A few resolutions for the sports world - and beyond - for 2020 - Pamplin Media Group

For health, environmental, and personal reasons, millions of Americans and even some fast-food burger connoisseurs are encouraged by the growth and increasing sophistication of the beef substitutes industry. But will old-school government pushback and a Bootleggers and Baptist-style pro-regulation coalition stall the growth of meat substitutes?

First, lets back up a bit and review the history of consumer regulation.

There was a time back in the 1970s when legislators let little escape their regulating pens, as they were so wholly dedicated in their effort to regulate away every real and imagined imperfection in human behavior. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, for example, wanted to outlaw one wooden Hickory Dickory Dock toy because when a child struck a mallet against it (as designed), it made too much noise.

In another egregious example of overreach, the Federal Trade Commission worried that consumers were just not smart enough to go without federal guidance when laundering and bleaching clothes. The agency issued rules requiring that labels filled with detailed instructions be attached permanently to garments and even to carpets and rugs. It went so far as to provide a glossary of words that could be used.

So, too, there were regulatory forays involving over-the-counter medicines that outlawed the use of such phrases as cures the common cold. After all, everyone knew there is no cure for a cold, even though self-medication can provide some relief. The regulators reasoned that anyone unwittingly buying such advertised products would be misled, evidently thinking Americans are too stupid to figure this out for themselves.

Indeed, the FTC became so fired up in its effort to give detailed consumer guidance that even the Washington Post called it the National Nanny and asked for some regulatory relief in a 1979 editorial.

During these regulatory heydays, I spent some time at the FTC. I learned that those who have the power to regulate also have the power to choose winners and losers. People in the policymaking playpen realized that regulation could be used strategically to expand markets or to raise costs for the rivals of politically influential businesses.

It was during this same period that, inspired by what I was observing, I developed my Bootlegger-Baptist theory for explaining the rise of regulation.

It was named after a dynamic, which can occur with local liquor laws, and it goes like this: Successful federal regulation frequently requires that two quite different interest groups work to support the same regulation. Bootleggers, are black-market business interests, which support prohibition due to the financial gain that comes from undermining their competition. Meanwhile, Baptists take the moral ground. Maybe they hope to make the world a better place for uninformed consumers. They also provide some validation for politicians and regulators.

As a case in point, consider again the FTC laundry-labeling juggernaut. The agency decided that some items of clothing should not be subjected to home laundering and wanted the associated label to say Professionally Launder Only. Producers of self-service, coin-operated, dry-cleaning equipment located in laundromats let out a howl. Meanwhile, the professional laundry industry was smiling.

The same thing happened when the agency determined that some fabric should be labeled, Do Not Bleach. Producers of safe bleach that can be used on sensitive fabrics were not happy. Even though that was then and this is now, there are some indications that the Washington nanny state is ready to strike again.

In December, Sen. Deb Fischer who just so happens to be a long-time member of the cattle industry introduced the so-called Real Meat Act. The Nebraska Republicans bill targets the rapidly-growing market for plant-based beef substitutes, products such as the Impossible Burger, which mimic meats appearance and taste. The legislation would codify a definition for beef and require that the words IMITATION MEAT be placed on product labels.

Noting her concern for consumers, and perhaps hoping to take some moral high ground, the senator said, I think we're seeing a number of fake food fads that are going on and we want to make sure that consumers know what they're buying. When you look at a lot of the plant-based meals that are being put out there, they're trying to piggyback on really, really good nutritious, safe beef. National Cattlemens Association President Jennifer Houston agreed, indicating that the industry merely wants a level playing field. (Shocker.)

Meanwhile, Jessica Almy of the Good Food Institute, which represents producers of plant-based food, indicates that no consumer complaints have been registered. She suggests that the whole effort is about protecting the conventional meat industry, not consumers.

Whats the lesson for 2020? Even at a time when the Trump administration is working almost feverishly to cut back existing rules while stifling new ones, certain regulations have powerful appeal and ready-made coalitions ready to turn them into reality. Could it be that officials on one side of Washington are pruning away rules while legislators on Capitol Hill are calling for more?

It wouldnt be the first time, nor will it be the last.

Bruce Yandle is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is a distinguished adjunct fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and dean emeritus of the Clemson University College of Business & Behavioral Science. He developed the "Bootleggers and Baptists" political model.

Go here to read the rest:
Nanny state comes for the Impossible Burger and other meat substitutes - Washington Examiner

We can see them, but all they know about each other is what they choose to share on social media. (Photo: Netflix)

The age of the social experiment on reality TV has hit a rough patch. Stalwarts of the genre like Survivor and Big Brother have become wildly inconsistent. The former throws too many twists into the mix, while the latter leans heavily on casting archetypes. The competition shows, which once promised real glimpses of human behavior, have become more interested in the game.

And even when those shows do get into social experiments these days, they usually butcher them so badly that you want them to stop. Survivor's recent failure in dealing with unwanted sexual advances dismayed and depressed fans, while pervasive racist and sexist behavior cast a pall over Big Brother 21, culminating in a fascinatingly dismal crowning for winner Jackson Michie. Point being: Whether they're actually trying to be social experiments or not, these shows are no longer suited to exploring human behavior in a reality TV context.

Instead, that mantle has been taken up by The Circle, Netflix's American adaptation of a UK format that beginson New Year's Day. The series, which will drop four episodes a week for three weeks, is like Big Brother in that it features players living in a building together. Where it differs, however, is that they never interact in person. Instead, the eight players (which, in a Love Island-esque fashion, are replaced by other players as the game goes along) interact solely through a social media network, called "The Circle."

Isolated in separate apartments and given multiple TV screens that are connected to The Circle, players must participate in social games, write profiles, upload photos, and chat with their fellow players. At the end of each cycle of gameplay, one player is Blocked, meaning they're eliminated and out of the game. If the idea of watching people talk to screens all day sounds boring to you, trust me, I thought the same until I found myself bingeing every episode of the series via screener in one day. It's an addictive gem of a show, one that really functions as a social game first and foremost.

Like Big Brother and Survivor, the ultimate purpose of the game is to reach the end. That means being well-liked enough to stay atop the social rankings players must rank all their fellow house guests every round but not so socially threatening that you become a target. Having to do this solely over text-based chat means saying all the right things, keeping in touch with everyone regularly, and staying apprised of who does and doesn't like who. The social games are fun, and do sometimes come with rewards, but there's nothing game-changing involved players live or die by their social strategy.

There's an extra wrinkle, though: Some players choose to play as catfish, misrepresenting their identities on The Circle. So there's a natural paranoia that permeates the game: Who is who they say they are, and who's lying to get ahead? It's a fear that feels all too real in the time of Instagram stalking and making friends on Twitter and Facebook. Moreover, it's a twist that would never work on Big Brother, utilizing The Circle's specific format to up the stakes.

What's most appealing about The Circleis the relatability, the idea that all of us are playing a version of this game in our daily lives. Unlike its predecessors, The Circle is the perfect reality competition show for this moment, with a remarkably savvy understanding of how social interactions work in 2019. Not every aspect of the show clicks there's some clunky pacing, especially in the first few episodes but once you plug into this network, you'll be addicted before you know it.

People are talking about The Circle in our forums. Join the conversation.

Kevin O'Keeffe is a writer, host, and RuPaul's Drag Race herstorian living in Los Angeles. Follow his musings and rantings on Twitter@kevinpokeeffe.

Read more from the original source:
The Circle is the Perfect Show for This Moment in Time - PRIMETIMER