BBC is publicly funded and generally aims to be factual so yes. The guardian and telegraph are good quality reporting but the guardian has extreme liberal bias and the telegraph has extreme conservative bias so you have to bear this in mind when drawing any conclusions. The Times is a bit more in the middle. All the tabloids like daily mail and the sun are trash for ‘the masses’, essentially clickbait before the internet existed.

That’s a fair point!

For the sake of argument, what would you call a seat that was not next to the aisle? I’m not defending them but at the same time I’d understand window seat just means ‘against fuselage’, yet I agree this is a confusing term.

My dad is a retired driving instructor and has come across people similar to this. Undiagnosed learning difficulties are probably part of it, but in many cases the people that struggled also had English being not a native language. Maybe it is the combination of the two in these extreme cases

I don’t think I’ve played a single one of his games and I’m guessing I’m probably not going to start now :p

This is a satirical opinion piece and is actually supposed to be onion like

Because it’s sensationalist reporting that is capitalising on existing anxieties in society.

The MELD score for liver transplants has been used for at least 20 years. There are plenty of other algorithmic decision models used in medicine (and in insurance to determine what your premiums are, and anything else that requires a prediction about uncertain outcomes). There are obviously continual refinements over time to models but nobody is going to use chatGPT or whatever to decide whether you get a transplant.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/hep.21563

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/hep.28998

There is an implicit assumption here that models are being ‘trained’, perhaps because LLMs are a hot topic. By models we are usually talking about things like decision trees or regression models or Markov models that put in risk probabilities of various eventualities based on patient characteristics. These things are not designed to mimic human decision makers, they are designed to make as objective a recommendation as possible based on probability and utility and then left down to doctors to use the result in whichever way seems best suited to the context. If you have one liver and 10 patients, it seems prudent to have some sort of calculation as to who is going to have the best likely outcome to decide who to give it to, for example, then just asking one doctor that may be swayed by a bunch of irrelevant factors.

Sigh. Unfortunately there’s a lot of misinformation around this topic that gets people riled up for no reason. There’s plenty of research in healthcare decision making since Paul Meehl (see Gerd Gigerenzer for more recent work) that shows using statistical models as decision aids massively compensate for the biases that happen when you entrust a decision to a human practitioner. No algorithm is making a final call without supervision, they are just being used to look at situations more objectively. People get very anxious in healthcare when a model is involved and yet the irony is humans alone make terrible decisions.

I mean this is politics in general