MIL Submissions Engine

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Katya Rubia, Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience, King’s College London

Diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are rising rapidly in the UK. More children and teenagers than ever are being referred for assessment and support, and families are often facing long waits and limited options once a diagnosis is made. Schools, health services and parents are all under growing pressure to find treatments that genuinely help children manage their difficulties with attention, impulsivity and activity levels.

At the same time, there is no shortage of new ideas being promoted as solutions. Some are supported by evidence, while others sound promising but rest on much shakier foundations. One of the challenges for families is working out which treatments are truly effective and which are driven more by hope than by solid proof.

For many children with ADHD, stimulant medication such as methylphenidate is known to be highly effective. Decades of research show that these medicines can reduce core symptoms and help children function better at home and at school. For some families, medication can make a life-changing difference.

Even so, medication is not an easy choice for everyone. Many parents and young people worry about side-effects, stigma or the idea of taking medication long term. These concerns are understandable and often lead families to look for alternatives that feel more natural or less medical.

Against this backdrop, brain stimulation devices have increasingly been promoted as a drug-free option for ADHD. These devices deliver very mild electrical stimulation to specific nerves or parts of the brain. They are generally considered safe, with side-effects that tend to be mild and short-lived, such as skin irritation or tingling. Safety, however, is not the same as effectiveness.

One of the most widely discussed of these technologies is trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS). The trigeminal nerve is the largest nerve in the face and carries signals to the brain. Devices using this approach are worn on the forehead and deliver gentle electrical pulses, usually during sleep. The idea is that stimulating this nerve might influence brain systems involved in attention and self-control.

This technology became the only medical device cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for ADHD in children in 2019. For many families seeking non-medication options, regulatory clearance can suggest effectiveness, even when the supporting evidence is limited.

What is less widely understood is that this decision was based on very limited evidence. The main study supporting clearance involved just 62 children. While the study reported improvements in ADHD symptoms, it had major weaknesses. In particular, the children who were meant to act as a comparison group received no stimulation at all.

This matters because expectations can strongly influence how people experience and report symptoms, especially when a treatment involves advanced technology. If children or parents can easily tell whether a device is switched on, beliefs about whether it “should” work can affect how improvements are noticed or reported, even if the device itself has no real effect.

Despite these limitations, FDA clearance helped legitimise the device and fuelled interest around the world. TNS began to be marketed in private clinics, including in the UK, often at significant cost to families.

Some families bought the device abroad or through private providers, hoping it would offer benefits without medication. Meanwhile, the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has taken a more cautious stance, saying that stronger evidence is needed before such devices could be recommended within the NHS.

It was clear that better evidence was needed to answer a simple question that matters deeply to families: does TNS actually help children with ADHD?

Testing the claim

Our new study was designed to find out. We carried out a large, independent UK clinical trial of TNS, recruiting 150 children and teenagers with ADHD in London and Southampton. This made it substantially larger than the studies that had come before. Crucially, our study was designed so that expectations were carefully controlled.

Children in both groups wore identical-looking devices, and both groups felt sensations from the device. This meant that neither families nor participants could easily tell whether they were receiving real stimulation or a placebo version. This kind of design allowed us to test whether TNS itself had any effect beyond expectation alone.

Our findings were clear. We found no evidence that trigeminal nerve stimulation improved ADHD symptoms. Children who received active stimulation did no better than those who received the placebo device. There were no improvements in attention, behaviour, anxiety, mood or sleep.

These results challenge the earlier study that led to regulatory clearance in the US. They also highlight why large, carefully designed trials are so important, particularly for treatments that generate excitement and hope. Without strong controls, it is easy to mistake expectation for effectiveness.

Technology-based brain treatments are especially vulnerable to this problem. When families are told that a device can “correct” or “normalise” brain activity linked to ADHD, expectations can understandably run high. Without rigorous testing, this can lead to the benefits being overstated and families being misled.

For families in the UK, the message from our research is an important one. TNS appears to be safe, but safety alone is not enough. A treatment that does not work offers no real benefit and may divert time, money and energy away from approaches that are known to help.

Our findings also serve as a reminder that official approval or marketing claims do not always mean a treatment is effective. Clearance can sometimes reflect that a device is safe to sell, not that it has been proven to work well.

ADHD can be a serious and lifelong condition for many children and young people. As diagnoses continue to rise, so too does the responsibility to ensure that families are offered support and treatments guided by robust evidence – not hype, hope or premature conclusions.

_The Conversation asked NeuroSigma, the maker of the TNS device mentioned in this article, to comment on the issues raised in this article. A company spokesperson said the study design mentioned in this article may have limited the ability to detect treatment effects. In particular, they noted that the primary outcome measure relied on parent-reported assessments rather than clinician-rated ADHD scales. NeuroSigma maintains that clinician assessments are more reliable and less prone to bias, and says it is therefore unsurprised by the study’s findings.

NeuroSigma also highlighted an ongoing, larger double-blind randomised controlled trial led by researchers at UCLA, involving 225 children and using clinician-rated outcomes alongside biomarker data. The company says it expects results from this study later this year and believes they will confirm both the safety and effectiveness of eTNS therapy.

This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme (NIHR130077), a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) partnership. The design, management, analysis and reporting of the study are independent of the funder and the device manufacturer. Katya Rubia is also supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS foundation Trust and King’s College London (NIHR BRC Maudsley) and by NIHR grant (NIHR203684), Medical Research Council (MRC) (APP32868), Medical Research Foundation (MRF-176-0002-RG-FLOH-C0929) and Rosetrees Foundation (3442198). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the MRC, NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care or any of the other funding bodies.

Aldo Alberto Conti does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Brain device for ADHD shows no benefit in major UK trial – https://theconversation.com/brain-device-for-adhd-shows-no-benefit-in-major-uk-trial-273628

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simon Boxall, Senior Lecturer in Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton

Over Christmas, vegetables, bananas and insulation foam washed up on beaches along England’s south-east coast. They were from 16 containers spilled by the cargo ship Baltic Klipper in rough seas. In the new year, a further 24 containers fell from two vessels during Storm Goretti, with chips and onions among the goods appearing on the Sussex shoreline.

For most people this is a nuisance – or perhaps a bit of fun. For oceanographers like me, who study tides and currents, it is also an accidental experiment – a rare chance to watch the ocean move things around in real time. Think of it as a very large message in a bottle.

In reality, cargo has been falling off ships since traders first went to sea. What has changed is that, in the modern world, most goods are transported in standardised containers. Apart from oil, gas, vehicles, bulk grain, aggregates – and people – pretty much everything is moved this way.

More than 250 million containers are shipped around the world each year, and it is likely that over 80% of goods in your home travelled at some point in a container by sea.

Losses are rare. Industry group the World Shipping Council estimates that over the past ten years an average of 1,274 containers a year have been lost globally, out of hundreds of millions transported. This figure does vary: in 2020 a single huge ship the ONE Apus lost around 1,800 containers of its 14,000 load in a Pacific storm, while in 2024 global losses were estimated at just 576.

Ducks go global

Some losses make the news in unexpected ways. In January 1992, 12 containers washed off the Ever Laurel in the North Pacific. One of these contained 28,800 bath toys – plastic beavers, frogs, turtles and ducks – which spilled into the ocean and washed up on beaches around the Pacific over the next decade or more.

Curt Ebbesmeyer and James Ingraham, oceanographers from Seattle, tracked these so-called “friendly floatees” around the world and used them to improve scientific models of ocean circulation. In more recent years I’ve looked at the progress of these floatees into the Arctic and beyond.

Not all cargoes are this benign or useful. In January 2007, the MSC Napoli was hit by a major storm in the Channel and lost 114 containers, 80 of which washed up on beaches around Branscombe in Devon. Containers of wine, BMW motorbikes and perfumes drew locals to scour the beach for prizes but there were also far more sinister containers of explosives, weed killers, fertilisers and acid.

Both the cargoes and the containers themselves pose serious risks. Chemicals can destroy habitats, while containers can sometimes lurk one or two metres below the surface, kept semi-buoyant by trapped air, making them difficult to detect and capable of causing serious damage in a collision.

Designed for speed – not 100% security

Modern container ships are designed for speed and efficiency in port. A single 400-metre vessel can carry up to 25,000 containers, many towering high above deck like a block of flats. The containers interlock and are secured using industry standard fixings – one reasons cranes are able to rapidly move them around a port. In severe storms, however, the forces involved can exceed what the fixings are designed to withstand, and containers can be dislodged, particularly those at the edge.

It is almost impossible to secure cargo 100% safely. To do so would mean smaller ships, with cargo held internally, reversing decades of efficiency gains. That would mean far more ships required to move the same volume of goods, higher costs for consumers, great fuel use per tonne of goods, and a higher overall risk of accidents. It would also clog up ports around the world.

The English Channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world and is regularly battered by storms. Southampton, the UK’s second busiest container port, is also one of only a few worldwide that can accommodate the largest container ships. It is therefore no surprise that container losses are often visible along England’s south coast.

Looking ahead, the risks are unlikely to diminish. Climate change is intensifying storms as oceans warm, while international trade continues to grow and ships become ever larger.

The ship owners – usually through their insurance companies – are responsible for cleaning up spills, but the system only works if the losses are reported. Until now, containers lost at sea have often gone unreported or their contents have been barely documented.

However, from January 1 2026, new international rules introduced by the World Shipping Council working with the International Maritime Organisation (the UN Agency responsible for shipping) will require ship owners to report all cargo losses and their contents. While this may not prevent containers being lose at sea, it should improve tracking, recovery and accountability.

If you see a container on a beach, resist the temptation to see it as an early Christmas present. You should report it immediately to the coastguard – scavenging wrecks can count as theft. In the UK, who owns what washes up is decided by a single civil servant with the grand title of the Receiver of Wreck. Critically, that container may contain a far less pleasant cargo that could ruin your Christmases for years to come.

Simon Boxall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why do onions and chips keep washing up on England’s south coast? Here’s the science – https://theconversation.com/why-do-onions-and-chips-keep-washing-up-on-englands-south-coast-heres-the-science-274095

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Yasemin Kor, Beckwith Professor of Management Studies, Cambridge Judge Business School

Consumers are surrounded by food that is highly conducive to weight gain. No one likes dieting and very few have lasting success. But now weight-loss injections are seen as gamechangers, yielding results that seem miraculous for people who have struggled with their weight.

Around the world, obesity, high blood pressure, and abnormal blood sugar and lipid levels (so-called “metabolic syndrome”) have now been shown to affect 31% of women and 26% of men. The same study estimated that globally 1.54 billion adults had metabolic syndrome in 2023.

The new genre of weight loss injections (GLP-1 agonists) have been shown to reduce weight by 16-23% in roughly one year. These drugs are expensive, but some healthcare programmes cover the cost for those who need them the most.

In the UK, they are covered by the NHS for patients who are both severely obese and also suffer from specific weight-related health problems such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Some who can afford to pay may be able to get a prescription with less-pressing health conditions.

In the meantime, prices of the drugs are starting to come down thanks to commercial competition and patents expiring. And a more convenient pill form is now available in the US and likely to become available in some other markets in the near future, meaning the overall uptake of these drugs could grow exponentially.

This might all seem like bad news for the food industry. After all, the people who are taking these drugs, often for at least a year, have significantly reduced appetite. This will amount to a sizeable drop in demand for food products. So it’s interesting to consider how the food industry might react to this – with an aggressive response that revamps food product lines to promote better nutrition and health? Or with a wait-and-see approach to determine the long-term future of the drugs?

People taking weight-loss drugs still need to get enough protein, fibre and other nutrients to prevent muscle loss and to keep their digestive systems functioning. It takes tricky calculations and consistent planning to figure out how to obtain all essential nutrients in small plates day after day. This can be a new business opportunity for food companies.

Companies in the sector have introduced product lines with meals designed specifically for those on weight-loss medications – M&S (Nutrient Dense), Morrisons (Small & Balanced) and Nestle (Vital Pursuit). There are also smaller entrepreneurial companies in the mix – BistroMD, Field Doctor, Jane Plan and MealPro, for example. These specialise in meal preparation and delivery based on customers’ needs (for example, GLP-1-optimised, heart-healthy or diabetes-friendly) or taste preferences.

Others will no doubt follow – but companies like M&S and small specialised firms are the ones showing more agility and capability in this space right now.

The shadow of ultra-processed foods

However, beyond GLP-friendly ready meals, food companies must confront a major problem: they are a significant contributor to the global epidemic of metabolic syndrome due to their promotion of the ultra-processed and highly processed foods found everywhere – from supermarkets, to workplace cafeterias and food outlets.

It is not only consumers who rely on these products; food companies earn significant profits from them. GLP-1 drugs may help reduce consumers’ dependence on such foods, but could they also encourage companies to adjust their product ranges and offer more space for healthier options on shelves and menus?

And even though recent research has shown that people who stop taking the drugs often gain back the weight they lost very rapidly, these drugs will not go away. They will most probably be carefully combined with other tools for effective long-term weight and metabolic syndrome management.

Customers can expect to spot more GLP-1-friendly food products in all supermarkets this year. But unfortunately, with some exceptions, it is unlikely that consumers will see a significant reduction in highly processed or ultra-processed foods – or a big increase in the amount of healthier food on sale.

Food companies are likely to continue generating revenue from less healthy products for as long as demand remains strong. That’s the usual response of established firms that are disrupted by technology, competition and new business models. Most prefer to take a wait-and-see approach, keeping their bigger portfolio and overall business strategy intact, and plan to calibrate a response based on the perceived urgency and size of the threat.

But, in this case, that could be a big mistake. A tentative approach reinforces the already negative image of large food firms when it comes to public health. Introducing a limited range while failing to act on the damaging effects of their other product lines could further erode consumer trust.

It could also open the door to competition from pharmaceutical companies, technology startups, and speciality food firms that take alternative approaches to food and health. These could involve even more sophisticated prepared-meal options, supplements and customised meal kits. The wait-and-see approach, however, delays the development of new products and business strategy.

Ultimately, customer choices matter – and increasingly shoppers have more options. People with metabolic syndrome are more than likely to try weight-loss medications that may reverse their health problems. They are also likely to invest in approaches that will help them maintain their weight loss. Food and health companies that make it their mission to promote wellbeing are going to be tomorrow’s winners.

Yasemin Kor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How will weight-loss jabs change the food industry? – https://theconversation.com/how-will-weight-loss-jabs-change-the-food-industry-273849

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Thusha Rajendran, Professor of Psychology, The National Robotarium, Heriot-Watt University

On the arm of Swiss tennis player Stan Wawrinka is tattooed a quote by Samuel Beckett: “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”

This excerpt from novella Worstward Ho seems motivational and suggests that perseverance is needed for success. However, the word failure carries a weight with it, especially if used as a label, as if it were an essential part of someone.

Yet, in evolution, the creative arts, engineering and education, failure is a process – without which success is not achievable.

“Error” might actually be a better term than failure, because error generates variation. And this variation is important in understanding the uniqueness of human creativity.

Generative AI can create fashion models, award-winning art and actors. But generative AI lacks the artist’s drive, their ability to reflect and know the significance about why and for whom the art is being created.

If we consider creativity as a process, then in order to create new and novel art, errors, mistakes, dead ends are required. In short, failure.

Generative AI also cannot understanding concepts such as aesthetic failure (when musicians use failure as a catalyst for improvisation), or have the desire to connect with an audience in a live performance. Creation can be outsourced but human creativity and the impulse to connect cannot.

Perfectionism is an illusion

Learning from mistakes in not a new idea in teaching, but with the rise of generative AI the temptation for both students and educators might to see generative AI as a way to eradicate failure, a guarantee of high grades at school and university.

However, this risks not providing students with the experiences they will need to be lifelong learners. British psychiatrist and cyberneticist W. Ross Ashby wrote: “The whole function of the brain is summed up in: error correction.”

Here, the key to understanding the brain is not in the error, but the process of correcting the error. Similarly, in his book To Engineer Is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design, the engineer Henry Petroski argues that failure is vital to the advancement of engineering and design, because it drives process.

Not that anyone deliberately designs bridges to collapse, but the knowledge of how to put things right comes from understanding why things went wrong. Petroski also argues that prolonged success leads to failure, but this is because of complacency.

In deciding what we want from AI, complacency (not failure) is our biggest enemy. Across many domains failure is not just necessary, but vital for success.

For example, a research study has found that both AI models and human dermatologists perform worse on images of dark skin tones and uncommon diseases when presented with a set of diverse skin images. This highlights the problems of a lack of exposure to variations in skin types and rare skin diseases in both AI trained datasets and humans.

Driverless vehicles have issues with merging into traffic and halting because they do not have a mental representation of the intentions of other road users.

By contrast, humans understand driving as a social, interactional and transactional endeavour – as much as a technical one – and, so, find ways to negotiate, to yield and say thank you.

Appreciating this a powerful counter narrative to perfectionism in all its guises. The most seductive of which is perhaps the promise of an AI-created utopia.

The question is whose vision of paradise is this and what are we forsaking by not questioning it. What we do risk losing by not striving, by not making (or accepting mistakes), of seeing beauty in imperfection?

The fallacy is that we have no agency, that technology cannot be imbued with moral ambition. However, history shows us that humans can and do shape technologies. For example, the printing press was repurposed from publishing books to printing newspapers – thereby creating the means and a mechanism for a free press.

So, there is no such thing as technological inevitability. We can decide what the relationship between humans and AI will look like – through consumer choice, the ballot box and legislation – and with it all the groundbreaking, creative and beautiful mistakes it will bring.

Thusha Rajendran does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why failure is a necessary ingredient for success – especially in the era of AI – https://theconversation.com/why-failure-is-a-necessary-ingredient-for-success-especially-in-the-era-of-ai-272820

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Gover, Senior Lecturer in British Politics, Queen Mary University of London

The House of Lords has voted, by a significant margin of 261 to 150, to prevent children under 16 in the UK from using social media platforms.

There has been growing political interest in introducing a ban after a similar change came into effect in Australia in late 2025. Around 60 Labour MPs have signed a letter publicly calling for the prime minister to act, while the matter was also raised at prime minister’s questions by the Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch.

This latest vote in the Lords on January 21 will add momentum to these calls. But how significant is the vote, and how likely is it to ultimately be passed into law?

Wednesday’s vote in the Lords took place on an amendment – that is, a proposed change – put forward to the government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill by cross-party peers led by Conservative former minister Lord Nash.

While government ministers opposed Nash’s proposal, and whipped Labour members of the Lords to vote against it, the chamber as a whole opted to back the amendment – producing what is referred to as a government defeat.

Unlike some other votes in parliament, which may be considered non-binding, votes on legislation can present a bigger headache for the government. This is because, if the text in this amendment remained in the bill when it completed its passage and received royal assent, it would become legally binding.

Yet government defeats in the Lords are not unusual, and not necessarily a sign of major trouble. During the 2019-24 parliament, the then Conservative governments suffered over 400 defeats in the Lords – most of them also on amendments to government legislation. Since 2024, under Labour, the number is already well over 100. One reason for this is that, in contrast to the Commons, no party has a majority of seats in the Lords. This means that, if opposition peers are united, governing parties can often be outvoted.

Both Houses must usually agree to a bill in identical form before it can be passed into law. Once both chambers have considered this bill, it will therefore begin a process known as “ping pong”’ – whereby it moves back and forth between the two Houses until all disagreements have been resolved. While in principle the Lords could insist repeatedly on this amendment, it is in practice rare for peers to dig in for long. Members of the Lords often describe their role as being to ask the Commons to “think again”.

The most important actors here are therefore not in the Lords – but MPs in the Commons.

Labour backbench MPs will be key

When the bill later returns to the Commons for the first ping pong stage, MPs will have three options on this amendment: to accept the Lords’ position, reject it outright, or propose an alternative form of words.

The government has a large majority in the Commons, and it is very likely to be able to use this position to get its way on this amendment. Early indications are that ministers intend to ask MPs to reject the amendment. This would effectively delete the proposal from the bill and then send the issue back to the Lords for further consideration.

Yet the prospect of a Commons vote does nonetheless create a problem for the government. This is an issue on which there is known to be widespread disquiet on the Labour benches – almost certainly extending beyond the 60-odd MPs who signed the public letter. Some of these may be reluctant to back down without some sort of concession.

While the government is very unlikely to be defeated in the Commons, this is not necessarily the point. Even the prospect of public dissent can be highly embarrassing, risking perceptions of a divided party unable to command the support of its own backbenchers while also eroding goodwill.

It is for this reason that government ministers are likely to adopt a conciliatory tone when the bill returns to the Commons. It is very unlikely they will accept the Lords amendment outright, but it is possible they may be willing to adopt a compromise form of words – a dynamic that is relatively common in response to Lords defeats.

But it is perhaps even more likely that MPs may be swayed by firm non-legislative commitments by ministers on future action they will take. Indeed, the government has already promised a rapid consultation – announced earlier this week – and this may provide many Labour MPs with the cover they need to back down for now. Others may use the threat of this vote to try to push ministers further, for example by seeking commitments on how the outcome of the consultation will be taken forward.

Taken together, it is very unlikely that the vote in the Lords this week will prove to be the end of the story on this issue. It is quite possible that, by the time the government has finished guiding this bill onto the statute book, this amendment will have been entirely removed. But it may nonetheless have served a large part of its intended purpose by putting pressure on ministers to act.

Daniel Gover does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The House of Lords has voted to stop under 16s using social media – what happens now? – https://theconversation.com/the-house-of-lords-has-voted-to-stop-under-16s-using-social-media-what-happens-now-274139

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Noel Carroll, Associate Professor in Business Information Systems, University of Galway

The retirement of West Midlands police chief Craig Guildford is a wake-up call for those of us using artificial intelligence (AI) tools at work and in our personal lives. Guildford lost the confidence of the home secretary after it was revealed that the force used incorrect AI-generated evidence in their controversial decision to ban Israeli football fans from attending a match.

This is a particularly egregious example, but many people may be falling victim to the same phenomenon – outsourcing the “struggle” of thinking to AI.

As an expert on how new technology reshapes society and the human experience, I have observed a growing phenomenon which I and other researchers refer to as “cognitive atrophy”.

Essentially, AI is replacing tasks many people have grown reluctant to do themselves – thinking, writing, creating, analysing. But when we don’t use these skills, they can decline.

We also risk getting things very, very wrong. Generative AI works by predicting likely words from patterns trained on vast amounts of data. When you ask it to write an email or give advice, its responses sound logical. But it does not understand or know what is true.

There are countless anecdotal examples of people feeling like AI use is making them “lazy” or “stupid”. A recent study found that generative AI use among university students is driven by higher workloads and time pressure, and that greater AI use is associated with increased procrastination and memory loss and poorer academic performance. Misuse of generative AI tools (for example, to cheat on exams) may undermine skills like critical thinking, creativity and ethical decision-making.

Recognising atrophy

You might observe this happening in your own life. One sign might be that you’ve moved away from creating an initial unpolished version of a task. Not so long ago, you might have started with a rough draft – a messy, human brainstorming process on a whiteboard, a notepad or the back of a napkin.

You may now feel more comfortable with the “prompt-and-accept” reflex: asking for and accepting solutions, rather than trying to tease out your own ideas and solve problems.

If your first instinct for every task is to ask an AI tool to give you a starting point, you are skipping the most vital part of thinking. This is the heavy lifting of structure, logic and sparking new ideas which excite us.

Another sign of atrophy is a shrinking of your frustration threshold. If you find that after only 60 seconds of mental effort you feel an itch to see what AI suggests, your stamina for ambiguity, a little self-doubt and frustration is probably compromised. Impatience cuts off the cognitive space needed for divergent thinking – the ability to generate multiple unique solutions.

Do you find yourself accepting AI-generated output without questioning its validity? Or do you find yourself unable to trust your own gut instinct without checking with an AI search? This may be a sign that you are shifting from being a decision-maker to a decision-approver or worse, a passive passenger of your own thinking process.

Reclaim your thinking

How can you combat this cognitive atrophy? The goal should not necessarily be to quit using AI entirely, but to move toward responsible autonomy – reclaiming your capacity to think and make decisions for yourself, rather than blindly outsourcing judgement to AI systems. This requires building some strategic friction back into your daily life. It means embracing uncertainty and learning from the process of thinking, even if you are wrong on occasion. Here are some practical things you can try:

1. The 30-minute rule

Before you open any AI interface, try to commit to 30 minutes of deep thinking. Use a pen and paper. Pick your topic or task, and map out the problem, the potential solutions, the risks and the stakeholders. For example, before asking an AI tool to draft a marketing strategy, map out your target audience. Try to identify potential ethical or reputational risks and sketch out some ideas.

By doing the initial cognitive work, you will likely feel a stronger sense of ownership for your output. If you eventually use AI, use it to refine your thoughts, not replace them.

2. Be sceptical

One of the most persistent concerns is that people use AI as an oracle and believe its output without question. Instead, treat it as a deeply unreliable colleague who may know the right answer, but hallucinates from time to time.

Task yourself with finding three specific errors with AI’s output, or to break its logic. Tell yourself that you can do better. This forces your brain out of the consumer mode and back into creator and editor mode, keeping your critical faculties sharp.

3. Create thinking spaces

Identify one core task in your personal or professional life that you enjoy doing, and commit to performing it entirely without AI assistance. These thinking spaces help your brain maintain its ability to navigate complex and open-ended challenges from scratch.

As you regain confidence, try branching out to other tasks. If you lead a team at work, allow people to have time to think slowly in this way, free from the pressure of producing more.

4. Measure your ‘return on habit’

Think about the “return on habit” – the long-term benefits such as improved health or happiness gained from consistently practising small positive routines. Ask yourself: Is this AI tool making me smarter, or just faster? Is faster better? For whom?

If a tool helps you notice things you did not see before, it may enhance your thinking, not replace it. However, if it is merely replacing a skill you used to possess and did well, it is an atrophying agent. If you are not gaining a new capability in exchange for the one you have outsourced, you may be conceding to the algorithms.

Noel Carroll does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Is AI hurting your ability to think? How to reclaim your brain – https://theconversation.com/is-ai-hurting-your-ability-to-think-how-to-reclaim-your-brain-272834

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Hammad Nazir, Senior Lecturer in Engingeering, University of South Wales

Space agencies are no longer talking about visiting the Moon, they’re planning on living on it.

Nasa wants a permanent lunar presence by the 2030s through its Artemis programme. China, meanwhile, has set its sights on landing astronauts on the Moon by the end of the decade, with plans for a construction of a permanent lunar base alongside international partners. The goal is to establish a lunar research station by the mid-2030s.

But all of these grand ambitions rest on a surprisingly fragile foundation. How do you store energy in a place where almost everything is trying to destroy your battery?

It’s a question science fiction rarely pauses to consider. Films are happy to show rockets launching and habitats glowing against the darkness of space, but the power that keeps those systems alive is usually treated as a given. In real life, engineers know better because in space, batteries are often the weakest link.

In films such as The Martian and Interstellar, we see solar panels, generators or reactors in passing. But the hardest part of the problem – how energy is stored, protected and managed over long periods in extreme environments – is largely invisible.

Power systems just work reliably in the background. Batteries don’t degrade, freeze, overheat or fail at the worst possible moment. The chemistry that keeps rovers moving and life-support systems running is rarely questioned. After all, a degrading anode probably doesn’t make for gripping cinema.

Back in real life on Earth, batteries benefit from a mild, predictable environment. Space is the opposite, however. Temperatures can swing between -150°C during a lunar night and more than +150°C in direct sunlight. Intense radiation breaks chemical bonds. With no atmosphere, heat has nowhere to go. Even microgravity can alter how fluids move inside a battery cell.

The lithium-ion batteries that power phones, laptops and electric cars were never designed for this. Even today’s space missions rely on heavily modified, specialised systems. For example, the Perseverance rover on Mars carries batteries built to survive deep cold and dust storms. While the International Space Station replaced its ageing nickel–hydrogen units with lithium-ion packs engineered to withstand years of rapid thermal cycling.

If the human race is serious about lunar habitats, long-range rovers and sustained missions, we will need battery chemistry far more resilient than those used on Earth.

What space really does to a battery

My colleagues and I are trying to understand what really happens to a battery when it is pushed far beyond the conditions it was designed for. We use advanced modelling tools to recreate the extremes of space, from radiation that slowly degrades electrode materials to the way heat builds up when there is no air to carry it away.

What we see is sobering. In our simulations, electrodes can fracture during the deep freeze of a lunar night. Under direct sunlight, cells can overheat rapidly. During Martian dust storms, certain components degrade far faster than many existing models predict.

Each of these simulations is paired with experiments in our laboratory, where we test this behaviour under controlled conditions. By combining modelling with hands-on research, we are trying to pinpoint the precise mechanisms that cause failure, and how they might be prevented.

Again and again, our work shows the same thing: space doesn’t just stress a battery but exposes every weakness at once. A design that works perfectly well on Earth may survive only minutes on the Moon.

Surviving in space means rethinking what a battery is for. Energy density matters, but so do issues like safety, thermal stability and longevity.

One promising option is magnesium–air batteries, which use a lightweight and abundant metal and could deliver very high energy for their mass. These systems may be well suited to drones, mobility units or emergency backup power, where weight is critical.

For crewed missions, reliability often matters more than capacity. Lithium titanate batteries sacrifice some energy density but offer exceptional thermal stability, long cycle life and improved safety under stress. They are qualities which make them attractive for spacecraft and lunar surface systems.

Why this matters now

As off-world bases grow, energy storage will start to resemble a terrestrial power-grid problem. Here, sodium-ion and potassium-ion batteries could play a role. They are cheaper and easier to scale than lithium-based systems, making them potential candidates for stabilising habitat-scale energy networks on the Moon or Mars.

Certain types of technology could even serve multiple functions. Electrochemical systems that both store energy and generate useful compounds, such as hydrogen peroxide, could support sterilisation, water treatment or oxygen-related processes inside sealed habitats. In space engineering, a single system that does more than one job saves mass, and mass is everything.

If we can build batteries that survive space, the different futures imagined on screen may stop being fantasy and become genuine engineering problems. And that may be closer than most people realise.

Hammad Nazir does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. From lunar nights to Martian dust storms: why batteries struggle in space – https://theconversation.com/from-lunar-nights-to-martian-dust-storms-why-batteries-struggle-in-space-272379

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Inderjeet Parmar, Professor in International Politics, City St George’s, University of London

As Donald Trump’s second term unfolds, the contradictions at the heart of his “America First” agenda are increasingly apparent. What began as a populist revolt against elite globalism appears to have morphed into policies that alienate the very rural and small-town constituencies that backed him in 2016, 2020 and 2024.

These rust-belt and rural counties were drawn to his promises of economic revival, border security and non-interventionism. Yet, emerging signs of fracture in this Maga base suggest a potential backlash in the upcoming midterms.

The administration’s domestic policies, coupled with aggressive foreign postures, are accelerating disillusionment among Trump’s core supporters.

Domestically, Trump’s intensified immigration enforcement has backfired. Ramped-up ICE raids were sold as fulfilling pledges of mass deportations targeting “criminals”. But these operations have swept up undocumented workers essential to rural economies. Small family farms and businesses in states including California, Idaho and Pennsylvania are reliant on immigrant labour for harvesting crops, dairy operations, and meatpacking. They now face acute shortages.

Agricultural employment dropped by 155,000 workers between March and July 2025, reversing prior growth trends. Farmers in Ventura County, California, for example, denounced raids that targeted routes frequented by agricultural workers. Fields lie unharvested signalling financial ruin for some operations. Family-run farms struggle to find replacements. Low wages and gruelling conditions simply fail to attract American-born labourers.

This labour crisis exacerbates a broader sense of betrayal. Rural voters supported Trump for his anti-elite rhetoric, expecting protection for their livelihoods. Instead, the administration’s actions have hollowed out local workforces without viable alternatives.

The H-2A visa programme, meant to provide temporary foreign workers, has been streamlined – but remains insufficient amid ongoing raids, which deter even legal migrants. These disruptions ripple through small-town economies, where agriculture underpins community stability. Democrats, sensing opportunity, are investing in rural outreach, emphasising economic populism to woo disillusioned voters who feel abandoned by Trump’s enforcement zeal.

Compounding these woes are the ongoing tariff disruptions. Trump touts his tariffs as tools to “make America great”, but in fact they have driven up costs for the same rural groups. Between January and September 2025, tariffs on imports from China, Canada, Mexico, and others have surged, collecting US$125 billion. However, the figure may be even higher according to experts.

But while the administration claims these taxes punish foreign adversaries, the burden falls squarely on American importers and consumers. Small businesses, which account for around 30% of imports, faced an average of US$151,000 in extra costs from April to September 2025, translating to $25,000 monthly hikes. Farmers, already squeezed by low grain prices, pay more for necessities, such as fertilisers (hit by 44% effective tariffs on Indian imports) and machinery parts.

Midwest producers of soybeans, corn, and pork – key US exports – suffer doubly from retaliatory tariffs abroad, which reduce demand and depress revenues. In Tennessee and Pennsylvania, builders report 2.5% rises in material costs, while food prices climb due to duties on beef, tomatoes and coffee.

Trump, meanwhile, is perceived as profiting personally. His properties and branding deals benefit from economic nationalism, even as family farms teeter on the verge of bankruptcy. This disparity fuels resentment. Polls show Trump’s approval slipping in swing counties, with economic anxiety eroding the loyalty that once overlooked his character flaws.

Foreign policy compounds domestic fractures

These domestic fractures are mirrored in foreign policy, where Trump’s interventionism starkly contradicts his campaign pledge of “America First” restraint. Having promised no new wars, he has instead pursued aggressive postures that many Republicans view as unnecessary. The most emblematic is his renewed bid to acquire Greenland, apparently by negotiation or force, which has swiftly followed the US raid on Venezuela in the first week of January, accompanied by threats against other Latin American countries including Cuba and Colombia.

The US president has justified demands for control over the Arctic island – citing threats from Russia and China – as a strategic necessity. But but Nato allies such as Denmark – of which Greenland is a constituent part – have rebuked it as an potentially alliance-shattering move. Congressional Republicans, including Mitch McConnell and Thom Tillis, have broken ranks, warning that force would obliterate Nato and tarnish US influence.

Such dissent highlights broader paradoxes. Trump’s populist realism prioritises tough rhetoric for domestic consumption but yields aggressive, even reckless actions abroad. His administration is effectively dismantling post-1945 institutions while embracing 19th-century spheres-of-influence and outright colonialist thinking, including invoking an updated version of the 1823 Monroe doctrine.

Read more:
The ‘Donroe doctrine’: Maduro is the guinea pig for Donald Trump’s new world order

Rural voters, weary of endless wars, supported his non-interventionist promises. Now they see echoes of past entanglements in Trump’s suggestion that the US could intervene in Iran. This cognitive dissonance is accelerating disillusionment with his presidency.

These self-inflicted but inherent contradictions are hastening a pivotal reckoning for Trumpism. In many counties that have thrice backed him – and especially in swing counties – economic hardship and policy betrayals erode the cultural ties binding rural America to the Republican party. Democrats, through programmes such as the Rural Urban Bridge Initiative, are betting on this “betrayal” narrative, spotlighting farmers’ plights to flip seats in November 2026.

Polls show Latinos and independents souring on Trump, with the US president’s base turnout potentially waning as the midterm elections approach in November. If Republicans suffer larger-than-expected losses in those elections, it could mark the decline of Trumpism’s grip by exposing its elite-serving underbelly beneath populist veneer.

Yet, without a compelling alternative vision, Democrats risk squandering this opening. For now, the fractures signal that Trump’s “America First” policies may ultimately leave its rural and rust belt champions behind. Whether Trumpism proves resilient or begins a long decline may well be decided not in Washington and Mar-a-Lago, but in the county seats and small towns that once formed its unbreakable base.

Inderjeet Parmar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Signs that Trump’s economic policies are alienating his rural Maga base – https://theconversation.com/signs-that-trumps-economic-policies-are-alienating-his-rural-maga-base-273876