TL;DR: As of August 27, get lifetime access to StackSkills Unlimited learning courses for only

The Philadelphia 76ers were without their top two scorers for Friday night’s game against the Eastern Conference-leading Boston Celtics

Five people have been killed in a Kenyan border village as concerns grow over increasing attacks in the country

Despite an obvious connection, this potential Jimbo Fisher replacement is not coming to Texas A&M, man. Now, who could it have been, man? You don't even know, man!

Donald Trump inflated his net worth by as much as $3.6 billion in three separate years between 2011 and 2021, lawyers for the New York attorney general's office alleged Friday, significantly more than previously purported.

Miami Dolphins wide receiver Daewood Davis was released from the hospital on Sunday after being stretchered off the field following what proved to be an...

'Jeopardy!' champ Amy Schneider explained how hosting is a 'lot harder of a job than it looks' as she empathized with Mayim Bialik

In 2020, philosopher Toby Ord published The Precipice, a book on the risk of human extinction. The chances of "existential catastrophe" for humanity in the next century according to Ord? One in six. It was a shocking number that alarmed many. After years of being flooded with warnings over climate change, rogue AI, nuclear weapons and pandemics, it's hard to disagree that humans face worrying chances. In his book, Ord discusses a number of potential extinction events, some of which can be examined through history. His research involved looking at the number of space rocks that have hit the moon over its history to figure out the likelihood than an extinction-sized asteroid hitting Earth. This was, in fact, looked at in 2022 by French scientists Jean-Marc Salotti, he calculated the odds of an extinction-level hit in the next century to be roughly one in 300 million. By contrast, Ord estimated the risk to be one in a million, although he does point out a considerable degree of uncertainty. Probabilities can be hard to understand in this context. Traditional probability, for example, relies on observations and a collection of repeated events, but human extinction would be a one-off. But there is another way to think if, called Bayesianism, after the English statistician Thomas Bayes. It sees probabilities as a ranking system of sorts. Specific number predictions shouldn't be taken so literally, but rather compared to other probabilities to understand the likelihood of each outcome. Ord's book contains a table of potential causes of extinctions, accompanied by his personal estimates of their probability. From a Bayesian perspective, we can view these as relative ranks. Ord thinks extinction from an asteroid strike (one in a million) is much less likely than extinction from climate change (one in a thousand). However, even using Bayesianism traditionally requires the incorporation of observational evidence. So, what do we make of Ord's "one in six"? Well it's better to take it less literally but to think of it as a warning, to jump start action on issues such as climate change to hopefully reduce the risk of human extinction in the next century. Sign up to our free Indy100 weekly newsletter Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.

For a man handed a lifeline in Formula One – with an illustrious Red Bull-shaped reward beckoning down the line – it has not quite been the statement return Daniel Ricciardo envisaged back in July. What did that look like? Top-10 finishes with AlphaTauri, perhaps with a memorable overtake or two evoking the Ricciardo of old back onto the grid. But it has in fact been the complete opposite: the only return has been his return to inactivity. Two races in and a hand injury sustained in practice in Zandvoort, north Holland, back in August has seen the affable Australian feature only on the sidelines again. A seesaw seven weeks have followed: while on one hand confirmation of a seat on the grid in 2024 was, rather peculiarly, confirmed in his absence in Japan, his deputy Liam Lawson caught the eye with a string of impressive performances, including a team-best result of ninth in Singapore. So as Ricciardo struts back into the paddock this weekend in Austin, the broken bone in his hand healed, the pressure is firmly on the 34-year-old’s shoulders at his home from home. Affection works hand in hand with Ricciardo and the United States: he loves America, Americans love him. Last year, weeks after his McLaren exit was announced, the sport’s most cheerful character arrived at the Circuit of the Americas (COTA) on horseback, kitted out in full cowboy apparel. Given his injury hiatus, you’d think no such extravagant entries will be repeated this year. But what he has got back in his hands, as opposed to 12 months ago, is his Formula One destiny. Perhaps fortuitously, too. When Ricciardo left Red Bull for pastures new at the end of 2018, his aspiration was that the grass was greener. Now five years on he is back at Christian Horner’s team, first as a reserve and now at the sister team. A second bite alongside Max Verstappen is what he truly craves. And he has made no secret of that. “Daniel is viewing AlphaTauri… he firmly wants to be pitching for that 2025 Red Bull seat,” said Horner back in July. “That is his goal and objective and, by going to AlphaTauri, I think he sees that as his best route of stating his case for 2025.” And with talk of Sergio Perez’s seat being under threat at Red Bull amid his struggles, there is a feasible route back to the top-table for Ricciardo. Red Bull chief Helmut Marko has already hinted the Mexican’s future seemingly lies away from Red Bull: most probably in a year, perhaps even as early as before next season. But before heading off any top contenders outside the Red Bull mothership, the Australian first has to prove his worth amid the in-house competition. Given Nyck de Vries’s rapid promotion to a seat after just one race last year, Lawson can feel hard done by that his impressive five-race showing – 13th, 11th, 9th, 11th, 17th – in this year’s slowest car hasn’t landed him a seat in 2024. So Ricciardo needs to better Lawson’s two points in the final five races of this season. He also needs to get the better of his teammate, Yuki Tsunoda, who has earned just three 10th-place finishes in 17 races this year. That is the minimum. But back stateside, it is the on-track magic and overtaking propensity of near-enough 10 years ago which will catapult him into Red Bull’s second seat conversation. That will be the key, as opposed to any off-track endeavours or kind words with sponsors. F1 world champion of 1997, Jacques Villeneuve, is quoted as saying this week: “I would ask kids who want to be drivers today – do you want it out of passion or because you want to be like Daniel Ricciardo, smiling in commercials?” While a tad harsh – best to smile than frown, no? – it does point to a school of thought that Ricciardo’s charisma is now a bigger pull than his talent. For any driver of any age, that is the ultimate insult. All of them are fundamentally in F1 to race, to scrap for every point and to jockey for every position. Even Ricciardo, who has endured the worst two years of his career since his anomaly of a win at Monza in 2021, remains adamant his world-class skillset is still present. His ambitions, so told to The Independentin July, remain the highest of highs: race wins and even a world championship. But Ricciardo must grasp the opportunity simply having a seat in this 20-driver sport gives and it starts with the cut-and-thrust of the sprint weekend at COTA. Nobody is expecting wins or podiums in the slowest car. But what people do expect is progress – and glimpses of the man of yesteryear. Read More What is a sprint race in F1 and how does new qualifying shootout work? What time is qualifying at the US Grand Prix on Friday? Sergio Perez addresses Red Bull future McLaren confirm first female driver in development programme Daniel Ricciardo to make F1 return at US Grand Prix Netflix reveal star line-up for F1 Drive to Survive vs Full Swing golf match

Save $120: As of Sept. 26, the 55-inch TCL Q5 QLED TV is only $329.99

Hitting the snooze button on the alarm clock once in a while might actually support the brain’s process of waking from deep sleep, according to a new study. People sometimes want to go right back to sleep even after the alarm goes off in the morning, using the snooze button in clocks and cell phones. Decades of previous research suggested that hitting snooze can have negative effects, both on sleep and the brain’s ability to wake up, but until now there hasn’t been any direct evidence of this, say scientists. The new study, published in the Journal of Sleep Research, assessed how common snoozing is and what effects this behaviour has on sleep, sleepiness, mood, and the brain’s cognitive abilities. Researchers found that those who snooze on an average sleep slightly shorter and feel more drowsy in the morning compared to those who never snooze. But they also saw that there were no negative effects of snoozing on the release of the stress hormone cortisol, mood, or sleep quality throughout the night. In the study, 1732 individuals answered questions about their morning habits, including how often they hit the snooze button with many – especially young adults – reporting that they use the alarm feature regularly. The most common reason for snoozing, according to participants, is feeling too tired to get out of bed when the alarm goes off. In another small follow-up experiment, 31 regular snoozers spent two nights in a sleep lab in order to measure their sleep in more detail. On one of the mornings, they were allowed to snooze for 30 minutes, and on the other, they had to get up right when the alarm went off. While in the first case, participants’ sleep was disturbed during the half hour of snoozing, most of them still got more than 20 minutes of sleep – meaning that their total night’s sleep was not affected much. In the snooze condition, no one had to wake up suddenly from deep sleep, and the snoozers performed a bit better on cognitive tests right upon waking. There were also no clear effects of snoozing on mood, sleepiness, or the amount of cortisol in the saliva. The results hint that half an hour of snoozing may not have negative effects on night sleep and could have some positive effects like a decreased likelihood of waking from deep sleep. However, researchers caution that the second experiment was small and only included people who are regular snoozers who find it easy to go back to sleep after each alarm. They say snoozing is most likely not for everyone. Jennifer Kanaan from the University of Connecticut in the US, who is another sleep scientist unrelated to the study, said the latest findings should be interpreted with caution as it could send the wrong message to people. “If you’re coming in and out of sleep for 30 minutes, after the alarm goes off the first time, you’re costing yourself 30 minutes of uninterrupted, quality, restorative sleep,” Dr Kanaan said in a statement. Instead of trying to figure out how to manipulate our alarm clocks, she says people should make a consistent good night’s sleep a greater priority and be less reliant on snooze buttons. “Simply put, instead of hitting the snooze button they should get more sleep,” Dr Kanaan said. Read More Study reveals why millions of women wake up at 3.29am Consistent lack of sleep may increase risk of future depressive symptoms – study Breakthrough study allows scientists to communicate with people as they sleep How to support a child with a stammer ‘I lost nearly a stone on Ozempic, but now it’s run out what am I to do?’ Miriam Margolyes now has part of a cow’s heart as she opens up about health

President Joe Biden is seeking to rally regional cooperation against China on the margins of the Group of Seven summit in Japan, while confronting a stalemate back in Washington over how to ensure the U.S. avoids default