The modern world as we know it simply would not exist if not for the mind of Sir Isaac Newton. His synthesis of differential calculus and pioneering research on the nature of gravity and light are bedrocks of the scientific method. However in his later years, Newton's interests were admittedly drawn towards a decidedly non-scientific subject, alchemy. Does that investigation invalidate Newton's earlier achievement, asks theoretical physicist and philosopher, Carlo Rovelli in the excerpt below. His new book of correspondence and musings, There Are Places in the World Where Rules Are Less Important than Kindness: And Other Thoughts on Physics, Philosophy and the World, Rovelli explores themes spanning from science to history to politics and philosophy.  

Riverhead Books

From THERE ARE PLACES IN THE WORLD WHERE RULES ARE LESS IMPORTANT THAN KINDNESS: And Other Thoughts on Physics, Philosophy and the World by Carlo Rovelli published on May 10, 2022 by Riverhead, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC. Copyright © 2022 Carlo Rovelli.

In 1936 Sotheby’s puts up for auction a collection of unpublished writings by Sir Isaac Newton. The price is low, £9,000; not much when compared to the £140,000 raised that season from the sale of a Rubens and a Rembrandt. Among the buyers is John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist, who was a great admirer of Newton. Keynes soon realizes that a substantial part of the manuscript writings deal with a subject that few would have expected Newton to be interested in. Namely: alchemy. Keynes sets out to acquire all of Newton’s unpublished writings on the subject, and soon realizes further that alchemy was not something that the great scientist was marginally or briefly curious about: his interest in it lasted throughout his life. “Newton was not the first of the Age of Reason,” Keynes concludes, “he was the last of the magicians.” 

In 1946 Keynes donated his unpublished Newtoniana to the University of Cambridge. The strangeness of Newton in alchemical guise, seemingly so at odds with the traditional image of him as the father of science, has caused the majority of historians to give the subject a wide berth. Only recently has interest in his passion for alchemy grown. Today a substantial amount of Newton’s alchemical texts have been put online by researchers at Indiana University and are now accessible to everyone. Their existence still has the capacity to provoke discussion, and to cast a confusing light over his legacy. 

Newton is central to modern science. He occupies this preeminent place because of his exceptional scientific results: mechanics, the theory of universal gravity, optics, the discovery that white light is a mixture of colors, differential calculus. Even today, engineers, physicists, astronomers and chemists work with equations written by him, and use concepts that he first introduced. But even more important than all this, Newton was the founder of the very method of seeking knowledge that today we call modern science. He built upon the work and ideas of others — Descartes, Galileo, Kepler, etc — extending a tradition that goes back to antiquity; but it is in his books that what we now call the scientific method found its modern form, immediately producing a mass of exceptional results. It is no exaggeration to think of Newton as the father of modern science. So, what on earth does alchemy have to do with any of this? 

There are those who have seen in these anomalous alchemical activities evidence of mental infirmity brought on by premature aging. There are others who have served their own ends by attempting to enlist the great Englishman among critics of the limitations of scientific rationality. 

I think things are much simpler than this. 

The key lies in the fact that Newton never published anything on alchemy. The papers that show his interest in the subject are extensive, but they are all unpublished. This lack of publication has been interpreted as a consequence of the fact that alchemy had been illegal in England since as early as the fourteenth century. But the law prohibiting alchemy was lifted in 1689. And besides, if Newton had been so worried about going against laws and conventions, he would not have been Newton. There are those who have portrayed him as some kind of demonic figure attempting to glean extraordinary and ultimate knowledge that he wanted to keep exclusively for himself, to enhance his own power. But Newton really had made extraordinary discoveries, and had not sought to keep those to himself: he published them in his great books, including the Principia, with the equations of mechanics still used today by engineers to build airplanes and edifices. Newton was renowned and extremely well respected during his adult life; he was president of the Royal Society the world’s leading scientific body. The intellectual world was hungry for his results. Why did he not publish anything based on all those alchemical activities?

The answer is very simple, and I believe that it dispels the whole enigma: he never published anything because he never arrived at any results that he found convincing. Today it is easy to rely on the well-digested historical judgment that alchemy had theoretical and empirical foundations that were far too weak. It wasn’t quite so easy to reach this conclusion in the seventeenth century. Alchemy was widely practiced and studied by many, and Newton genuinely tried to understand whether it contained a valid form of knowledge. If he had found in alchemy something that could have withstood the method of rational and empirical investigation that he himself was promoting, there can be no doubt that Newton would have published his results. If he had succeeded in extracting from the disorganized morass of the alchemical world something that could have become science, then we would surely have inherited a book by Newton on the subject, just as we have books by him on optics, mechanics and universal gravity. He did not manage to do this, and so he published nothing.

Was it a vain hope in the first place? Was it a project that should have been discarded even before it began? On the contrary: many of the key problems posed by alchemy, and quite a few of the methods it developed, in particular with reference to the transformation of one chemical substance into another, are precisely the problems that would soon give rise to the new discipline of chemistry. Newton does not manage to take the critical step between alchemy and chemistry. That would be down to scientists of the next generation, such as Lavoisier, to achieve. 

The texts put online by Indiana University show this clearly. It is true that the language used is typically alchemical: metaphors and allusions, veiled phrases and strange symbols. But many of the procedures described are nothing more than simple chemical processes. For example, he describes the production of “oil of vitriol” (sulfuric acid), aqua fortis (nitric acid) and “spirit of salt” (hydrochloric acid). By following Newton’s instructions, it is possible to synthesize these substances. The very name that Newton used to refer to his attempts at doing so is a suggestive one: “chymistry.” Late, post-­Renaissance alchemy strongly insisted on the experimental verification of ideas. It was already beginning to face in the direction of modern chemistry. Newton understands that somewhere within the confused miasma of alchemical recipes there is a modern science (in the “Newtonian” sense) hidden, and he tries to encourage its emergence. He spends a great deal of time immersed in it, but he doesn’t succeed in finding the thread that will untie the bundle, and so publishes nothing.

Alchemy was not Newton’s only strange pursuit and passion. There is another one that emerges from his papers that is perhaps even more intriguing: Newton put enormous effort into reconstructing biblical chronology, attempting to assign precise dates to events written about in the holy book. Once again, from the evidence of his papers, the results were not great: the father of science estimates that the beginning of the world happened just a few thousand years ago. Why did Newton lose himself in this pursuit?

History is an ancient subject. Born in Miletus with Hecataeus, it is already fully grown with Herodotus and Thucydides. There is a continuity between the work of historians of today and those of antiquity: principally in that critical spirit that is necessary when gathering and evaluating the traces of the past. (The book of Hecataeus begins thus: “I write things that seem to me to be true. For the tales of the Greeks are many and laugh‑ able as they seem to me.”) But contemporary historiography has a quantitative aspect linked to the crucial effort to establish the precise dates of past events. Furthermore, the critical work of a modern historian must take into account all the sources, evaluating their reliability and weighing the relevance of information furnished. The most plausible reconstruction emerges from this practice of evaluation and of weighted integration of the sources. Well, this quantitative way of writing history begins with Newton’s work on biblical chronology. In this case too, Newton is on the track of something profoundly modern: to find a method for the rational reconstruction of the dating of ancient history based on the multiple, incomplete and variably reliable sources that we have at our disposal. Newton is the first to introduce concepts and methods that will later become important, but he did not arrive at results that were sufficiently satisfactory, and once again he publishes nothing on the subject. 

In both cases we are not dealing with something that should cause us to deviate from our traditional view of the rationalistic Newton. On the contrary, the great scientist is struggling with real scientific problems. There is no trace of a Newton who would confuse good science with magic, or with untested tradition or authority. The reverse is true; he is the prescient modern scientist who confronts new areas of scientific inquiry clear-sighted, publishing when he succeeds in arriving at clear and important results, and not publishing when he does not arrive at such results. He was brilliant, the most brilliant—but he also had his limits, like everyone else.

I think that the genius of Newton lay precisely in his being aware of these limits: the limits of what he did not know. And this is the basis of the science that he helped to give birth to.

Four decades after famed film director Quentin Tarantino and his "Pulp Fiction" co-writer Roger Avary started their employment at Video Archives in 1983, the pair are reuniting once again to host a podcast exploring those seminal moments and the movies that influenced their later careers in The Video Archives Podcast, premiering on Sirius Stitcher later this summer. 

“We never imagined that 30 years after we worked together behind the counter at Video Archives, we would be together again doing the exact same thing we did back then: talking passionately about movies on VHS,” Tarantino and Avary said in a joint statement. “Watching movies was what originally brought us together and made us friends, and it’s our love of movies that still brings us together today.”

The films will be pulled from Tarantino's extensive collection of more than 8,000 tapes and DVDs — Video Archives' actual archives that he bought after the rental shop went out of business. 

Sirius has been working to develop its spoken word offerings in recent years, launching three new Marvel podcasts in 2020, reviving Lucille Ball's old radio show, buying "99 Percent Invisible," and purchasing not only Conan O'Brien's podcast but his entire media company to boot. The Engadget Podcast, on the other hand, is entirely subscription-free while Filmcast, from Engadget's own Senior Editor Devindra Hardawar, has all the movie references with (I assume) far fewer N-bombs than Tarantino's.

In 2018, Oregon's Department of Human Services implemented its Safety at Screening Tool, an algorithm that generates a "risk score" for abuse hotline workers, recommending whether a social worker needs to further investigate the contents of a call. This AI was based on the lauded Allegheny Family Screening Tool, designed to predict the risk of a child ending up in foster care based on a number of socioeconomic factors. But after the Allegheny tool was found to be flagging a disproportionate number of black children for "mandatory" neglect, and a subsequent AP investigative report into the issue, Oregon officials now plan to shutter their derivative AI by the end of June in favor of an entirely new, and specifically less automated, review system.

The department's own analysis predicts that the decision will help reduce some of the existing racial disparities endemic to Oregon's child welfare system. “We are committed to continuous quality improvement and equity,” Lacey Andresen, the agency’s deputy director, said in a May 19 email to staff acquired by the AP. 

A number of states across the country have already implemented, or are considering, similar algorithms within their child welfare agencies. But as with Northpoint's COMPAS before them, their implementation have raised concerns about the transparency and reliability of the process as well as their clear tendency towards racial bias.

“Making decisions about what should happen to children and families is far too important a task to give untested algorithms,” US Senator Ron Wyden (OR-D) said in a statement. “I’m glad the Oregon Department of Human Services is taking the concerns I raised about racial bias seriously and is pausing the use of its screening tool.”

In its place, the Oregon DHS will implement a Structured Decision Making model used by California, Texas and New Jersey. Oregon's other child welfare AI, one that generates a score for whether or not a foster kid should be reunited with their family, remains on hiatus.

Ahead of the NAMM 2022 trade show being held in Anaheim next weekend, San Francisco's Playtime Engineering has unveiled a pair of toys, the Blipbox SK2 synthesizer and the Blipbox myTrack groovebox, designed to help even the youngest musically-inclined minds produce, record, save and share electronic beats and melodies. 

Playtime Engineering

The SK2's spacey surface detailing belies its ability to generate more than 400 pre-recorded melodies ranging from chiptunes to orchestral, as well as multi-mode filters, 16 oscillator schemes and stereo multi-tap delay functions. A signal flow diagram is printed on the unit's front face and all of the controls are labelled so that even basement-level beginners can easily learn and discover new synth sounds. Users will be able to export their tracks through a 1⁄4-inch audio out and import new sounds through the MIDI In.

The myTRACK, conversely, is a kid-sized multi-track sampling device that uses a 5x5 grid of playpads to trigger beats and sequences (think, a toned down Ableton Push 2). Each of the 48 pre-included instruments can be applied to any, or all five, of the available tracks as can the process effects controlled by the device's physical levers. In fact, many of the myTRACK's more advanced features are presented as dedicated, physical buttons rather than as buried submenu options. Additionally, those pre-packed sounds and sequences can be updated via USB-C to include new sets such as orchestra, hip-hop, jazz, rock and EDM. An incorporated microphone allows your future Grandmaster Flash to explore the outside world in search of new sounds to capture and modulate. The myTRACK offers a 5-pin MIDI OUT port so that the device can connect to and control an SK2 while its USB-C port is class-compliant USB MIDI in and out, so you'll be able to use it with any Mac or Windows DAW.

Playtime Engineering

The SK2 will retail for $199 and be available in November 2022. The myTRACK will follow in Q1 2023 for $249

The COVID-19 pandemic changed how we live, how we work, how we get from where we live to where we work or even if we have to leave where we live to get to where we work. But the number of workers that have had their commutes shortened from 45 minutes to 45 feet constitute only a fraction of the American workforce — the remainder are still making the twice daily trek. In his new book, Going Remote: How the Flexible Work Economy Can Improve Our Lives and Our Cities, urban economist Matthew E. Kahn examines how this tectonic shift in work-life balance might eventually play out, as well as the increased economic and social stratification it could bring about.

UC Press

Excerpted from Going Remote: How the Flexible Work Economy Can Improve Our Lives and Our Cities by Matthew E Kahn, published by the University of California Press. © 2022 by Matthew E Kahn.

Not everyone can engage in remote work. If 35 percent of the workforce is engaged in remote work at least a few days a week, this will have at least three effects on other workers. First, service jobs demand will rise in the residential areas where remote workers move to. As remote workers move farther from city centers, this will create exurban demand for service workers at the Starbucks and other stores where they shop. Land prices are cheap at the suburban fringe and the purchasing power of such local service providers will be higher than if they sought jobs in the center city. While service workers cannot work remotely, they can move to remote locations where rents are cheaper if more people work from home. If 35 percent of the workforce begins to work from home three days a week and thus are home five days a week, there is a demand for a service sector in areas where they live. This creates new jobs for less educated workers in such areas. In these areas, housing is cheap. This increases the quality of life for such service providers. There will also be new construction jobs as new homes are built farther from the employment centers. Families who spend more time at home will invest money to upgrade the home. This creates new opportunities for those who supply home improvement services. Some people may add a new office to their home or other features to customize it to their needs.

While there are significant opportunities for less skilled workers to live and work far from the cities in the cheaper parts of metropolitan areas, one countervailing force is the rising minimum wage. In cities, the minimum wage is usually not binding as workers must be paid higher nominal wages to attract them. In contrast, in more suburban and exurban areas, being required to pay service workers $15 or more per hour may reduce demand for workers. If workers can find very cheap housing far from the cities, then many would be willing to work for less than $15 an hour. While most people think that a high minimum wage is “good” for low-skill workers, economists emphasize the likely unintended consequence. When employers are required by law to pay a higher than competitive market wage to people, they create fewer jobs. For example, such firms can substitute and rely on robots or other pieces of capital. Economists argue that a higher minimum wage increases unemployment for less skilled workers. In places where housing is cheaper, the minimum wage will more likely be a binding constraint on employers. The net result here is perhaps counterintuitive. Less skilled workers will gain more from the rise of WFH when they live and work in states with less generous minimum wages.

Throughout this chapter, I have focused on how the WFH eligible reconfigure their lives to make the most of this new opportunity. Here it is important to note that those who are currently not WFH eligible are not locked into this category. Younger workers can retrain in fields to open up this possibility for themselves. Parents of younger children can make investments in their children to raise their probability of being WFH eligible in the future.

Those who work in the service industry and thus earn a living from face-to-face interaction still gain from the rise of WFH because they gain from a larger menu of options of where to live their lives. If a wealthy environmentalist community forms in Bozeman, Montana, then this creates new opportunities for those in the service sector to live and work there. While this option may not be attractive to everyone, the key is to increase the menu of possibilities. Non-WFH-eligible workers know themselves and their life goals, and they will make the right choices for themselves and gain from having a larger menu of alternatives.

As more people have the opportunity to live and work where they want to be, this increases not only their physical and mental health but also the accountability of our institutions. If there are places whose governments are failing to meet the desires of local residents, then people will be more likely to move away. In this setting, real estate prices will more quickly reflect changes in local quality of life. If an area features a rising crime rate, in the new WFH economy people will “vote with their feet” and real estate prices will decline in that area. This demands that local officials be more responsive in addressing emerging quality-of-life challenges because if they fail to do so, the tax base will shrink.

While this has been an optimistic chapter, I must add a few cautionary notes about concentrated urban poverty. WFH creates an incentive for the American people to spread out. This chapter has sketched out the benefits from this emerging trend. At the same time, such suburbanization may contribute to the further isolation of the urban poor. Poor people live in center cities in areas such as Baltimore and Detroit because there is old, cheap housing and there is good public transit. If the poor remain in these center city areas and richer people are suburbanizing, then there is greater geographic isolation of the poor and this may reduce political support for programs that redistribute to them because there is an “out of sight, out of mind” effect and the physical distance between the groups acts as a type of moat. Past research in urban economics has documented that college graduates are more likely to suburbanize when violent crime increases in the center city. This propensity to engage in “flight from blight” is likely to increase in a WFH economy because educated people no longer commute to center city jobs five times a week.

A wise man once said, "never tell me the odds" but whether you're calculating the chances of successfully navigating an asteroid field (3,720:1), shouting "Shazam" and having it work twice in a row (9 million:1), or winning the state lottery (42 million:1 in California), probabilities influence outcomes in our daily lives for events large and small alike. But for the widespread role they play in our lives, your average person is usually just pretty ok with accurately calculating them. As we see in the excerpt below from James C. Zimring's latest title, Partial Truths: How Fractions Distort Our Thinking, our expectations regarding the likelihood of an event occurring can shift, depending on how the question is posed and which fraction is focused upon.

Columbia University Press

Excerpted from Partial Truths: How Fractions Distort Our Thinking by James C. Zimring, published by Columbia Business School Publishing. Copyright (c) 2022 James C. Zimring. Used by arrangement with the Publisher. All rights reserved.

Mistaking the Likely for the Seemingly Impossible: Misjudging the Numerator

The more unlikely an event seems, the more it draws our attention when it does occur and the more compelled we feel to explain why it happened. This just makes good sense. If the world is not behaving according to the rules we understand, perhaps we misunderstand the rules. Our attention should be drawn to unlikely occurrences because new knowledge comes from our attempts to understand contradictions.

Sometimes what seems to be impossible is actually highly probable. A famous example of this is found with playing the lottery (i.e., the lottery fallacy). It is well understood that it is incredibly unlikely that any particular person will win the lottery. For example, the chance of any one ticket winning the Powerball lottery (the particular lottery analyzed in this chapter) is 1/292,000,000. This explains why so much attention is paid to the winners. Where did they buy their ticket? Did they see a fortune teller before buying their ticket, or do they have a history of showing psychic abilities? Do they have any special rituals they carry out before buying a ticket? It is a natural tendency to try to explain how such an unlikely event could have occurred. If we can identify a reason, then perhaps understanding it will help us win the lottery, too.

The lottery fallacy is not restricted to good things happening. Explanations also are sought to explain bad things. Some people are struck by lightning more than once, which seems just too unlikely to accept as random chance. There must be some explanation. Inevitably, it is speculated that the person may have some weird mutant trait that makes them attract electricity, or they carry certain metals on their person or have titanium prosthetics in their body. Perhaps they have been cursed by a mystical force or God has forsaken them.

The lottery fallacy can be understood as a form of mistaking one probability for another, or to continue with our theme from part 1, to mistake one fraction for another. One can express the odds of winning the lottery as the fraction (1/292,000,000), in which the numerator is the single number combination that wins and the denominator is all possible number combinations. The fallacy arises because we tend to notice only the one person with the one ticket who won the lottery. This is not the only person playing the lottery, however, and it is not the only ticket. How many tickets are purchased for any given drawing? The exact number changes, because more tickets are sold when the jackpot is higher; however, a typical drawing includes about 300 million tickets sold. Of course, some of the tickets sold must be duplicates, given that only 292 million combinations are possible. Moreover, if every possible combination were being purchased, then someone would win every drawing. In reality, about 50 percent of the drawings have a winner; thus, we can infer that, on average, 146 million different number combinations are purchased.

Of course, the news does not give us a list of all the people who did not win. Can you imagine the same headline every week, “299,999,999 People Failed to Win the Lottery, Again!” (names listed online at www.thisweekslosers.com). No, the news only tells us that there was a winner, and sometimes who the winner was. When we ask ourselves, “What are the odds of that person winning?” we are asking the wrong question and referring to the wrong fraction. The odds of that particular person winning are 1/292,000,000. By chance alone, that person should win the lottery once every 2,807,692 years that they consistently play (assuming two drawings per week). What we should be asking is “What are the odds of any person winning?”

In probability, the chances of either one thing or another thing happening are the sum of the individual probabilities. So, assuming no duplicate tickets, if only a single person were playing the lottery, then the odds of having a winner are 1/292,000,000. If two people are playing, the odds of having a winner are 2/292,000,000. If 1,000 people are playing, then the odds are 1,000/292,000,000. Once we consider that 146 million different number combinations are purchased, the top of the fraction (numerator) becomes incredibly large, and the odds that someone will win are quite high. When we marvel at the fact that someone has won the lottery, we mistake the real fraction (146,000,000/292,000,000) for the fraction (1/292,000,000) — that is, we are misjudging the numerator. What seems like an incredibly improbable event is actually quite likely. The human tendency to make this mistake is related to the availability heuristic, as described in chapter 2. Only the winner is “available” to our minds, and not all the many people who did not win.

Similarly, the odds of twice being struck by lightning over the course of one’s life are one in nine million. Because 7.9 billion people live on Earth, it is probable that 833 people will be hit by lightning twice in their lives (at least). As with the lottery example, our attention is drawn only to those who are struck by lightning. We fail to consider how many people never get struck. Just as it is unlikely that any one particular person will win the Powerball lottery, it is highly unlikely that no one will win the lottery after a few drawings, just given the number of people playing. Likewise, it is very unlikely that any one person will be twice hit by lightning, but it is even more unlikely that no one will, given the number of people in the world.

So, when we puzzle over such amazing things as someone winning the lottery or being twice struck by lightning, we actually are trying to explain why a highly probable thing happened, which really requires no explanation at all. The rules of the world are working exactly as we understand them, but we are mistaking the highly likely for the virtually impossible.

The days of the gas-powered lawn mower and leaf blower are numbered in California. Last October, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1346, banning the sale of new gas-powered tools in the state by 2024, akin to its ban on new internal combustion vehicle sales by 2035.

And the Golden State is far from alone, "I think that the easier the manufacturers make it for other states to adopt the same sort of ban, the more states will do it," University of Southern California environmental law professor Robin Craig told CBS. Lawmakers in Illinois and New York both are seeking to pass similar bills at the state level while cities like Brookline, Massachusetts; Montclair, New Jersey; and Burlington, Vermont, have all independently enacted seasonal bans of their own on gas-powered leaf blowers.

And it’s not just because internal combustion (IC) landscaping equipment is so loud — leaf blowers average 70 dB at 50 feet (the operator hears closer to 95-100 dB) while mowers start at around 85 dB — they are also significant emitters of greenhouse gasses. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) notes that running an IC mower for 1 hour emits the equivalent amount of carbon as driving a 2017 Camry 300 miles from LA to Las Vegas. Operating a 2-stroke leaf blower for the same amount of time produces the same amount of carbon as driving to Denver, roughly 1,000 miles from LA.

Education Images via Getty Images

That’s actually an improvement from what we saw in the ‘80s and ‘90s before California instituted CARB. Today’s small engines are 40 to 80 percent more efficient and cleaner burning than they were before the agency got its start but, regardless, there are still some 16.7 million small (sub-19kW) engines in California — that’s three million more than the number of light duty passenger vehicles currently operating in the state. And given that the average price of a gallon of gas in America is currently $4.37 (the highest since 2000, per AAA), running all those noisy, thirsty mowers and blowers is getting untenably expensive as well.

With a long, hot summer of high gas prices imminent and the writing on the wall for 2-stroke engines, what better time than now to electrify your lawn care equipment? But before you head down to your local home improvement center, here’s some advice on what to look for in an electric mower directly from the people who design them.

Catherine Falls Commercial via Getty Images

Gas or Electric

Much like the auto industry’s ongoing transition from IC engines to EVs, lawn care equipment makers have spent recent years investing heavily in battery-based systems and have seen the performance of these power plants rapidly improve to be practically on par with the gas engines they’re replacing — not to mention being quieter, less expensive to operate and generally better for the environment.

For example, your average electric mower or leaf blower is going to produce around 75 dB of noise (equivalent to a running washing machine) — granted, that’s only a 10dB difference between the gas and electric motors, but because decibels are measured along a logarithmic scale, it actually sounds nearly half as loud to the human ear. And unlike gas mowers, using an electric doesn’t require you to don hearing protection (though safety glasses are always a good idea). What’s more, electric engines (with their decided lack of moving parts) wear much more gently than their internal combustion counterparts: No spark plugs to replace, oil to change, gas-oil ratios to measure and pour.

“Many professional-grade battery-powered tools come equipped with a brushless motor, which is virtually maintenance-free,” Stihl battery product manager, Paul Beblowski, told Engadget via email. “With a battery — there’s no need to buy, transport, or store fuel. There’s no tune-up for an electric motor and no need to winterize.” Aside from sharpening the cutting blade once a season or so, all owners really need to do is ensure the battery gets recharged before their next mowing session.

Found Image Holdings Inc via Getty Images

That’s not to say gas mowers are overnight relics. There are still plenty of use cases in which going with a conventional mower makes more sense, like when you need to clear more than an acre of land, or have to cut through dense, damp underbrush on difficult terrain, or are cutting on a remote field far from power outlets (sit down, Lightning Pro). A given unit of gasoline is still 100 times more energy dense than even the bloodiest-edge battery technology.

When it comes to choosing between a corded versus battery electric mower, “buyers must evaluate the size of their yard, access to outlet, and overall need for convenience,” Beblowski said. “It would make most sense to use a battery-driven mower when there is no access to an outlet or the customer wants the convenience provided by not dragging a cord through their yard. In addition, if the user is mowing around their pool or other water sources, it would make sense to stay away from cords and rely on a battery-driven mower.”

Another thing to consider is that while corded mowers will never run out of power, the amount that they can draw from a standard outlet cannot exceed 15 amps and 1800 watts (15 amps because that’s the US regulation, 1800 watts = 15 amps x 120 volts) — that’s actually the theoretical maximum and will continually throw breakers with that much load, so electric mowers typically top out at 13 amps (and therefore 1500 watts). So, if you’re looking for a heavy duty, high performance mower, especially a riding rig, battery-based systems will largely be your only electrified option.

How electric motors work

Standing in the power tool aisle of your local, prepare to be inundated with signage and branding calling out various aspects of the electric motor’s performance like “13 amps of power!” or “70 minutes of runtime!” These are helpful metrics but can be misleading and finding the right ratio of volts, watts and amps in that electric mower is paramount to getting the most out of your lawn care investment.

Elena Gromova via Getty Images

For those of us that slept through that day of high-school science class, a quick analogy of how electricity works: it’s like plumbing. The given rate of water flowing through a pipe — Wattage, the electrical equivalent of gallons per minute — is determined by the ratio between the water pressure (aka Voltage) and the diameter of the pipe that it’s flowing through (the circuit’s Resistance). If you want to increase the wattage (that is boost the flow of electrons or, by this analogy, have more gallons flow per minute) you either have to increase the water pressure (increase the circuit’s voltage) or widen the pipe (i.e. use a higher amperage wire which lowers resistance).

“A good measuring tool for batteries is watt-hours (comparable to the size of a gas tank),” said Guy Dekowski, Outdoor Senior Product Manager at Dewalt. “Battery watt-hours are battery voltage multiplied by amp hours. This is a good signal of how long the mower can potentially run.”

“It’s important to differentiate between voltage and the amount of work a tool can actually do,” Beblowski said, noting that equating voltage to a motor’s overall power is a common misconception. “While voltage is a factor, the true energy capacity of a battery is measured in watt-hours… the watt-hours tell you the power of the tool. So, if you have an 80-volt system and a 2 Ah battery, you’re looking at 160 watt-hours, but if you have a 36-volt system and a 5 Ah battery, the power is actually higher at 180 watt-hours.”

Unfortunately there is no hard and fast rule governing whether high voltage - low amp tools or low voltage - high amp tools are generally superior. “There are pros and cons to both configurations,” said Dekowski. “Generally higher voltage is capable of more power; however there are variables outside of voltage and current to consider. For example, the deck and blade design have an impact on performance.”

“Hills and the thickness of their grass,” are two yard feature factors users should consider, Dekowski continued. “If a user has an incline, a self-propelled mower may suit them best. The thickness of the grass also plays a factor in the runtime of their mower. In thicker grass, the mower will pull more power driving the need for a mower capable of longer runtime.”

What to look for in an electric mower

The size and shape of your lawn will also impact the size and style of the mower that you need. Pay attention to the mower’s deck size, that indicates how wide of a swath it can clear with each pass. You’ll clear your yard in fewer passes with a 21-inch deck than you will with a 14-inch, though the corollary to that is wider mowers tend to be heavier and less maneuverable than their skinnier counterparts.

If you’ve got a compact urban backyard that needs tending, you can more likely get away with just a small push mower such as the 14-inch Worx 40V, 4Ah Power Share. More expansive suburban yards will do well with a larger, perhaps self-propelled model like the 21-inch Stihl 36V, 6Ah RMA 510 or a 20-inch, 12-amp corded Greenworks mower, while rural homeowners might need something a bit more heavy-duty like Toro’s 21-inch 60V, 6Ah Super Recycler or this 42-inch, 75Ah rideable Ryobi.

“Twenty to 21-inch decks are the most popular for a couple reasons,” Dekowski said. “First, it helps keep the weight at a minimum but the deck is still large enough to minimize work. The other benefits are maneuverability and compactness for storage.”

Like any other tool purchase, when shopping for a new mower try to stick to established, reputable brands like Stihl, Stanley Black and Decker (which owns DeWalt), Makita, Ryobi, Toro, Hart, Greenworks and Sun Joe. Pricing is going to range anywhere from around $125 for a compact, corded unit for urban yards up to a couple thousand for a burly zero-turn riding mower.

Zhanna Danilova via Getty Images

Regardless of which brand you choose there are a few features that you should look for in a quality electric mower:

• Deck material: Avoid mowers with plastic decks. Sure you’ll save a few pounds in weight but those made with metal housings will stand up to the elements, kicked stones and general wear and tear for far longer than their plastic counterparts.

• Comfortable handles: You’re going to be squeezing these things for the better part of an hour as you systematically amble around the yard, better make sure they’re not going to chafe.

• Big wheels: Getting stuck in a rut is bad enough when it’s just in the metaphorical sense. Make sure it doesn't happen where the neighbors can see by using a mower with 10-inch rear, 8-inch front ball bearing wheels, suggests Beblowski.

• Height adjustment: As a rule of thumb, you should be taking off about a third of the grass’ total height every time you mow (chopping it to about 2 to 3¾ inches tall). However, weather and solid conditions will impact how fast the blades grow between cuttings so having a mower that can adjust its blade height is key to maintaining a healthy lawn. Look for a model that can span from 1 - 4-inches off the ground.

• Beware the brush: Electric motors come in two flavors — brush and brushless. The former has a tendency to overheat and stall while the latter generates more power, less heat and requires basically zero maintenance. Guess which you should choose.

• Bagging options: Your willingness to go back and rake the whole yard vs stop occasionally to empty clippings on to the compost pile is a pretty strong indicator of whether you should spring for a side discharge, mulching or bagging mower.

• Accessorize: One of the biggest benefits of choosing a battery over a corded mower is that manufacturers designed their battery packs to work in a wide array of power tools and gadgets, from leaf blowers and limb loppers to snowblowers and soil tillers. So if you’re looking to update more than just your mower, maybe take a look and see what other gadgets its batteries are rated for use on.

With the long Memorial Day weekend just around the corner, now is the perfect time to get your yard trimmed up and ready for post-lockdown barbeque parties — as well as defensible for what’s sure to be an unrelenting wildfire season throughout the American West.

Cadillac has released more details about the vehicle and its features ahead of online orders reopening for its highly-anticipated Lyriq EV on May 19th. The crossover will start at $62,990 and just $2,000 more for its 4WD variant. What's more, Cadillac is sweetening the deal by including either two years of unlimited public charging through EV Go or up to a $1,500 credit for a home charging unit through QMerit.

Orders will open for both the RWD and AWD versions at the end of this week. Customers will have two additional exterior paint options — Opulent Blue Metallic and Crystal White Tricoat — to choose from that happens. Customers should expect the RWD models to arrive first — it's coming this fall after the summer production run of the Lyriq Debut Edition concludes. The AWD models should hit dealerships by early next year. Cadillac also unveiled the EPA-rated mileage of 312 miles for the RWD Lyric (no official word yet on the AWD version but assume it to be a bit lower). 

The company also announced on Monday that it is partnering with both charging station network EV Go and home charging system installers, QMerit, to help reticent buyers overcome their range anxiety through the judicious application of cash. Lyric shoppers will have their pick of two included charging options: two years of unlimited charging sessions at EV Go's 850-plus stations or they'll receive up to a $1,500 rebate for the installation of a Level 2 AC home charging unit. Opting for the public charging option will be faster (with a 190kW max rate on a Level 3 DC charger, the Lyric will add 76 miles of range in about 10 minutes) while the home charging method won't require you to hang around a parking lot for 45 minutes while the Lyric's batteries refill.  

Do not be swayed by the dulcet dial-tones of tomorrow's AIs and their siren songs of the singularity. No matter how closely artificial intelligences and androids may come to look and act like humans, they'll never actually be humans, argue Paul Leonardi, Duca Family Professor of Technology Management at University of California Santa Barbara, and Tsedal Neeley, Naylor Fitzhugh Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School, in their new book The Digital Mindset: What It Really Takes to Thrive in the Age of Data, Algorithms, and AI — and therefore should not be treated like humans. The pair contends in the excerpt below that in doing so, such hinders interaction with advanced technology and hampers its further development.

Harvard Business Review Press

Reprinted by permission of Harvard Business Review Press. Excerpted from THE DIGITAL MINDSET: What It Really Takes to Thrive in the Age of Data, Algorithms, and AI by Paul Leonardi and Tsedal Neeley. Copyright 2022 Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. All rights reserved.

Treat AI Like a Machine, Even If It Seems to Act Like a Human

We are accustomed to interacting with a computer in a visual way: buttons, dropdown lists, sliders, and other features allow us to give the computer commands. However, advances in AI are moving our interaction with digital tools to more natural-feeling and human-like interactions. What’s called a conversational user interface (UI) gives people the ability to act with digital tools through writing or talking that’s much more the way we interact with other people, like Burt Swanson’s “conversation” with Amy the assistant. When you say, “Hey Siri,” “Hello Alexa,” and “OK Google,” that’s a conversational UI. The growth of tools controlled by conversational UIs is staggering. Every time you call an 800 number and are asked to spell your name, answer “Yes,” or say the last four numbers of your social security number you are interacting with an AI that uses conversational UI. Conversational bots have become ubiquitous in part because they make good business sense, and in part because they allow us to access services more efficiently and more conveniently.

For example, if you’ve booked a train trip through Amtrak, you’ve probably interacted with an AI chatbot. Its name is Julie, and it answers more than 5 million questions annually from more than 30 million passengers. You can book rail travel with Julie just by saying where you’re going and when. Julie can pre-fill forms on Amtrak’s scheduling tool and provide guidance through the rest of the booking process. Amtrak has seen an 800 percent return on their investment in Julie. Amtrak saves more than $1 million in customer service expenses each year by using Julie to field low-level, predictable questions. Bookings have increased by 25 percent, and bookings done through Julie generate 30 percent more revenue than bookings made through the website, because Julie is good at upselling customers!

One reason for Julie’s success is that Amtrak makes it clear to users that Julie is an AI agent, and they tell you why they’ve decided to use AI rather than connect you directly with a human. That means that people orient to it as a machine, not mistakenly as a human. They don’t expect too much from it, and they tend to ask questions in ways that elicit helpful answers. Amtrak’s decision may sound counterintuitive, since many companies try to pass off their chatbots as real people and it would seem that interacting with a machine as though it were a human should be precisely how to get the best results. A digital mindset requires a shift in how we think about our relationship to machines. Even as they become more humanish, we need to think about them as machines— requiring explicit instructions and focused on narrow tasks.

x.ai, the company that made meeting scheduler Amy, enables you to schedule a meeting at work, or invite a friend to your kids’ basketball game by simply emailing Amy (or her counterpart, Andrew) with your request as though they were a live personal assistant. Yet Dennis Mortensen, the company’s CEO, observes that more than 90 percent of the inquiries that the company’s help desk receives are related to the fact that people are trying to use natural language with the bots and struggling to get good results.

Perhaps that was why scheduling a simple meeting with a new acquaintance became so annoying to Professor Swanson, who kept trying to use colloquialisms and conventions from informal conversation. In addition to the way he talked, he made many perfectly valid assumptions about his interaction with Amy. He assumed Amy could understand his scheduling constraints and that “she” would be able to discern what his preferences were from the context of the conversation. Swanson was informal and casual—the bot doesn’t get that. It doesn’t understand that when asking for another person’s time, especially if they are doing you a favor, it’s not effective to frequently or suddenly change the meeting logistics. It turns out it’s harder than we think to interact casually with an intelligent robot.

Researchers have validated the idea that treating machines like machines works better than trying to be human with them. Stanford professor Clifford Nass and Harvard Business School professor Youngme Moon conducted a series of studies in which people interacted with anthropomorphic computer interfaces. (Anthropomorphism, or assigning human attributes to inanimate objects, is a major issue in AI research.) They found that individuals tend to overuse human social categories, applying gender stereotypes to computers and ethnically identifying with computer agents. Their findings also showed that people exhibit over-learned social behaviors such as politeness and reciprocity toward computers. Importantly, people tend to engage in these behaviors — treating robots and other intelligent agents as though they were people — even when they know they are interacting with computers, rather than humans. It seems that our collective impulse to relate with people often creeps into our interaction with machines.

This problem of mistaking computers for humans is compounded when interacting with artificial agents via conversational UIs. Take for example a study we conducted with two companies who used AI assistants that provided answers to routine business queries. One used an anthropomorphized AI that was human-like. The other wasn’t.

Workers at the company who used the anthropomorphic agent routinely got mad at the agent when the agent did not return useful answers. They routinely said things like, “He sucks!” or “I would expect him to do better” when referring to the results given by the machine. Most importantly, their strategies to improve relations with the machine mirrored strategies they would use with other people in the office. They would ask their question more politely, they would rephrase into different words, or they would try to strategically time their questions for when they thought the agent would be, in one person’s terms, “not so busy.” None of these strategies was particularly successful.

In contrast, workers at the other company reported much greater satisfaction with their experience. They typed in search terms as though it were a computer and spelled things out in great detail to make sure that an AI, who could not “read between the lines” and pick up on nuance, would heed their preferences. The second group routinely remarked at how surprised they were when their queries were returned with useful or even surprising information and they chalked up any problems that arose to typical bugs with a computer.

For the foreseeable future, the data are clear: treating technologies — no matter how human-like or intelligent they appear — like technologies is key to success when interacting with machines. A big part of the problem is they set the expectations for users that they will respond in human-like ways, and they make us assume that they can infer our intentions, when they can do neither. Interacting successfully with a conversational UI requires a digital mindset that understands we are still some ways away from effective human-like interaction with the technology. Recognizing that an AI agent cannot accurately infer your intentions means that it’s important to spell out each step of the process and be clear about what you want to accomplish.

Google Assistant is already pretty handy, filling in your payment info on take out orders, helping get the kids to school on time, controlling your stereo systems' volume and your home's smart light schedules. At the I/O 2022 developers conference on Wednesday, company executives showed off some of the new features arriving soon for the AI.

The first of which is "Look and Talk." Instead of having to repeatedly start your requests to Assistant with "Hey Google," this new feature relies on computer vision and voice matching to constantly pay attention to the user. As Google's VP of Assistant, Sissie Hsiao, explained on stage, all the user has to do is look at their Nest Hub and state their request. Google is also developing a series of quick commands that users will be able to shout out without having to gaze longingly at their tablet screen or say "hey Google" first— things like "turn on the lights" and "set a ten-minute alarm."

All of the data captured in that interaction — specifically the user's face and voice prints, used to verify the user — are processed locally on the Hub itself, Hsiao continued, and not shared with Google "or anyone else." What's more, you'll have to specifically opt-in to the service before you can use it.

According to Hsiao, the backend of this process relies on a half dozen machine learning models and 100 camera and mic inputs — ie proximity, head orientation and gaze direction — to ensure that the machine knows when you're talking to it versus talking in front of it. The company also reports that it has worked stridently to make sure that this system works for people across the full spectrum of human skin tones. 

developing