‘Incarcerated women struggle against a system built around the needs of men’
Loretta Lynch at USA Today
Women “struggle to overcome a unique set of obstacles throughout their experience with the criminal justice system,” says Loretta Lynch. They “face distinct parental, health and economic challenges that affect their rehabilitation while incarcerated.” Women have not “received the attention they deserve, partly because men dramatically outnumber women in our prisons and jails.” By “further tailoring our approach for justice-involved women, we can prevent crime, strengthen families, and break intergenerational cycles of victimization and incarceration.”
‘Artificial intelligence wasn’t born yesterday’
David Gelernter at The Wall Street Journal
It is “great to see money pouring into industrial artificial intelligence research, but many investors don’t seem to know much about it or where the field is headed,” says David Gelernter. Some “uninformed observers believe that AI actually began with ChatGPT,” but “in fact AI research began, slowly, in the 1950s.” AI will “push our standard of living higher. It already has. But it will also weaken the human mind by taking over ordinary tasks.”
‘The fury of the frequent flyer’
Brooke Masters at the Financial Times
Frequent flyer programs “are highly sophisticated businesses, more profitable in some ways than the airlines to which they are attached,” says Brooke Masters. The “cries of bait and switch reflect just how far these programs have wormed their way into customer lives.” But “carefully tailored bonuses could do much to rebuild loyalty,” because “mileage programs won’t be nearly as lucrative in the future if customers end up loathing the associated airlines.”
‘Politicized science may make us sicker’
Christian Schneider at National Review
In the past, science was “treated as beyond a matter of mere opinion; trials are run, evidence is gathered, and cures are developed,” says Christian Schneider. But “many of those engaged in scientific research no longer value the trust placed in them by regular citizens.” People “don’t care which candidates the editors of science magazines are voting for, and they care even less which ones those magazine editors want them to vote for.”