There's a flood of reports about college students
Ohio State leans into 'AI fluency' for the class of 2029.
apparently using AI to cheat their way through college, and debating whether or not that's the actual problem. Now, NBC4 in Columbus points out Ohio State's new AI Fluency plan that targets the class of 2029 (with some level of assumptions that our current view of generative AI will still be relevant by then), focusing on a few steps:
All undergraduates will be introduced to generative AI basics in the required General Education Launch Seminar.
GenAI workshops will be integrated into the First Year Success Series.
The new 'Unlocking Generative AI' course will be offered and open to all majors.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If You Can Only Buy 1 Cathie Wood Stock in 2025, It Should Be This
Cathie Wood, founder, CEO and chief investment officer of Ark Invest, continues to make headlines for her high-conviction approach to disruptive innovation. Her flagship fund, the Ark Innovation ETF (ARKK), has posted a 52.9% return in the past 52 weeks, reflecting investor confidence. Known for identifying transformational themes early, Wood maintains focused exposure to industries like genomics, autonomous technology, and blockchain. Within this context, Natera (NTRA) has drawn sharp relevance. The company leads in cell-free DNA testing and precision medicine, aligning directly with Ark's long-term thesis. CoreWeave Just Revealed the Largest-Ever Nvidia Blackwell GPU Cluster. Should You Buy CRWV Stock? AMD Is Gunning for Nvidia's AI Chip Throne. Should You Buy AMD Stock Now? The Saturday Spread: Statistical Signals Flash Green for CMG, TMUS and VALE Tired of missing midday reversals? The FREE Barchart Brief newsletter keeps you in the know. Sign up now! For investors seeking a stock that fits the Ark playbook, Natera may represent one of the most fundamentally aligned additions under Wood's current investment lens. Based in Austin, Texas, stands Natera (NTRA), a pioneer in the field of cell-free DNA and genetic testing. The $23.3 billion biotech firm's arsenal includes powerful offerings like Panorama for prenatal screening, Signatera for real-time cancer surveillance, and Prospera, which sharpens the lens on transplant rejection. Over the last three months, the stock has climbed 16.9%, leaving the broader S&P 500 Index's ($SPX) 5.4% gain behind. On May 8, Natera opened the books on its first-quarter, and the results exceeded Wall Street expectations. Investors responded swiftly, with the stock inching up 1.5% the same day. Natera posted $501.8 million in total revenues, a 36.5% year-over-year increase that soared past Wall Street's $443.3 million forecast. Behind those numbers were powerhouse operations. The company processed 855,100 tests during the quarter, up 16.2% year over year. Women's health volumes climbed meaningfully over the fourth quarter, but it was Signatera that stole the spotlight. The personalized, tumor-informed molecular residual disease test reached new heights, recording its highest volume quarter ever. Clinical volumes for Signatera grew 52% year over year, with a sequential gain of roughly 16,005 units over Q4, marking the most significant quarter-on-quarter growth to date. Gross margins landed at 63.1%, reflecting solid cost discipline. Moreover, Natera's net loss narrowed 1% from the year-ago period to $66.9 million. Also, the company managed to trim its loss per share by 10.7% to $0.50, outperforming analysts' projections of a $0.59 loss per share. As for liquidity, the balance sheet remained in good shape. Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash climbed to $973.8 million, up from $945.6 million on Dec 31, 2024. CEO Steve Chapman has made no secret of the firm's long-term vision. He believes Signatera could ultimately generate over $5 billion in annual revenue, and he emphasized that they are still playing in the shallow end of a much deeper market pool. In a move that reinforced this optimism, Natera has raised its full-year revenue guidance to between $1.94 billion and $2.02 billion. That is a $70 million boost from the midpoint of its earlier outlook, pointing to a 26% year-over-year growth. On the other hand, analysts expect the Q2 2025 loss per share to widen 100% year over year to $0.60. For FY25, the loss per share is projected to increase 37% to $2.10, but FY26 could bring relief, with a forecast 64.8% narrowing to $0.74, hinting that profitability may finally be within reach. Analysts seem to be singing in harmony when it comes to NTRA, marking it with a firm 'Strong Buy' rating. Out of 19 analysts following the stock, 16 have given it an enthusiastic 'Strong Buy' rating, and the remaining three have placed their bets on a 'Moderate Buy.' The average price target of $200.42 represents potential upside of 17.6%. Meanwhile, the Street-High target of $251 hints at a 48% climb from current levels. Such projections do not come lightly and often reflect deep-rooted confidence in future earnings momentum and strategic execution. On the date of publication, Aanchal Sugandh did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Company makes game-changing breakthrough that could solve common issue with plant-based food — here's what you need to know
Let's be honest: Plant-based protein doesn't always taste great. Even if you love the idea of eating less meat for your health and the planet, the weird aftertaste of some plant-based meats can be hard to ignore. But that might be about to change. According to FoodNavigator USA, the flavor company T. Hasegawa USA has developed a high-tech, natural flavor that tackles the unpleasant "off" notes of plant proteins such as pea and soy. The whole technology (and science) behind it is pretty impressive. When meat sizzles in a pan or bread gets crispy in the toaster, the Maillard reaction creates craveable aromas and flavors. But plant proteins such as soy and pea don't react the same way during cooking, which can leave them tasting bland or, worse, beany and bitter. If companies want people to go for meat alternatives, there's a need to focus on options that taste good and have pleasant textures. As Mark Webster, vice president of sales and marketing at T. Hasegawa, said, "That is where the headwind is." The T. Hasegawa team tackled this problem by developing a natural flavor technology called Plantreact that increases Maillard reactions — the chemical processes that give so-called browned foods their flavors. This innovation doesn't stop with fake meats. The same flavor solution can also recreate creamy, dairy-like notes in alternative milks and other nondairy products. That's huge for people who love the idea of oat or almond milk but miss the full-bodied taste of cow's milk. Plantreact has been in the works for a while, but it's now ready to hit the market. T. Hasegawa is already working with food brands to roll it out in products. Better flavor means plant-based foods are more enjoyable, which makes it easier for more people to cut back on animal products and reduce pollution, conserve water, and shrink their carbon footprints. This tech is already being explored by plant-based brands looking to improve their products, and it may soon appear in alternative meat and dairy products at your local grocery store. Combined with the work of companies such as Meati and Perfect Day, this kind of innovation helps build a future in which eating more sustainably doesn't mean compromising on taste. Why do you eat plant-based foods? The health benefits It's cheaper It's good for the planet I prefer the taste Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for easy tips to save more and waste less, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Forbes
30 minutes ago
- Forbes
CDC Vaccine Advisors To Vote On Thimerosal In Flu Shots. Here's What To Know About Thimerosal
ATLANTA, GA - OCTOBER 05: A podium with the logo for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ... More at the Tom Harkin Global Communications Center on October 5, 2014 in Atlanta, Georgia. (Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images) The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is set to vote later this week on the issue of thimerosal in flu vaccines. What exactly is thimerosal and is it actually harmful for people that take vaccines containing the substance? Thimerosal is a mercury-based organic preservative that historically was put in several vaccines in low quantities in order to prevent the growth of harmful bacteria and fungi, particularly when multi-dose vials were used. Vaccines can become accidentally contaminated, as may occur with multiple needle punctures with multi-dose vials. Before the late 1990's, infants were recommended to receive three vaccines that contained thimerosal- hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b and diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis. There are no known health risks associated with thimerosal at the concentrations used in vaccines, according to the FDA. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. disagrees. In his 2014 book, he states (as reported in Politico), 'there is a virtually unanimous scientific consensus among the hundreds of research scientists who have published peer-reviewed articles in the field that Thimerosal is immensely toxic to brain tissue.' Thimerosal, as a preservative gets metabolized as ethylmercury, which is distinct from the more toxic methylmercury. In large doses, both compounds can be toxic to the brain and kidney, resulting in tremors, memory loss, mood swings, depression, protein in the urine and kidney damage. However, ethylmercury poses a significantly decreased risk for humans because it has a much shorter half-life of less than week compared to methylmercury, which has a half-life of 1.5 months according to the World Health Organization. Ethylmercury is removed from the body fast and actively excreted into the gut, as oppose to methylmercury that can accumulate in the body and result in potential toxic effects. In 1999, because of scientific uncertainty at the time and theoretical concerns about thimerosal, the preservative was removed from nearly all childhood vaccines as a precautionary measure per the FDA, not because it was shown to cause any harm. The only childhood vaccine that still contains thimerosal in some formulations is the flu vaccine. Part of the reason thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines was because an infant in the early 1990s receiving childhood vaccines could be exposed to a cumulative dose of mercury as high as 187.5 micrograms by the age of 6 months, which exceeded the guidelines put forth by the EPA, but not the WHO. Even at a dose of 187.5 micrograms of ethylmercury, no studies have shown adverse health effects or harm to humans, other than local skin reactions at the injection site of the vaccine, as shown in a study published in the journal Pediatrics. Despite what Secretary of HHS Kennedy has suggested, thimerosal has not been shown to cause autism. In fact both the FDA and multiple peer-reviewed scientific studies have asserted and shown no link between thimerosal use in vaccines and autism. The use of thimerosal in U.S. FDA licensed vaccines has significantly declined because of reformulations and the availability of vaccines in single-dose containers. Currently, a couple of flu vaccines are formulated to contain thimerosal, although the majority of flu vaccines that currently exist do not contain thimerosal. The ACIP will convene later this week to hold a vote on the status of thimerosal on vaccines. Even if completely removed from the flu vaccine, the vaccine will not 'become' safer, as decades of research has already shown thimerosal to be safe and effective as a preservative. Experts warn that holding the vote could cast doubt on vaccine uptake. Dr. Jeremy Faust, Editor-in-Chief of MedPage Today, writes, 'Elevating this debunked myth to national policy lends credence to misinformation, and sets the stage for other actions that may undermine vaccine confidence in the United States.'
