Routine tasks such as data extracting, message answering, routine customer service roles – which are often performed by non-supervisors – are more likely to be replaced by AI applications.

Malik et al. (2021) argue that the nature of AI applications can significantly impact employee perception of job satisfaction due to their attitudes towards AI and job security perception.

This research shows that AI satisfaction with service quality mediated the impact of AI service quality on employees’ job satisfaction.

Exploring Misconceptions and Challenges of Electric Vehicle Adoption in India

The study finds that with only 23% of India’s electricity from renewables, the rapid growth of EVs could increase emissions and up to 90% improper battery recycling and disposal further exacerbating environmental harm.

In India, renewable energies share only 23% of the electricity demand. The increase in EVs could negatively impact the environment by increasing emissions through burning more fossil fuels to satisfy those EV’s electricity demand.

A recent study of about 15,000 vehicles from the earliest models through model year 2023 showed that electric vehicle battery replacements due to failure have been rare, at an average of 2.5%, outside of major recalls.4 Vehicle and battery technologies have improved since 2010, when modern EVs first entered the market, and since model year 2016 they have had less than a 0.5% failure rate.

FACT: Electric vehicle battery replacements due to failures are uncommon.

An official website of the United States government Here’s how you know

While it may feel deceptive, we should view AI as an equalizer. People who want tospend time and money to improve their profile already have lots of ways to do so. AI canprovide fast, free assistance to people who can’t make the same investments. It helps usput our best selves forward.

The prospect of armies of chatbots all talking to each other might seem dystopian, butcompare it to the system we have now where users spend on average between three andseven seconds on a single profile before swiping them away forever. And most of theseswipes are, let’s face it, based on the first photo.Al can be used to help screen matches and provide conversation prompts. (Shutterstock)An AI dating assistant could actually give you matches that are based on common interests orother factors more substantial than just looks. You could train the AI to know yourpersonality, and you could give it a sense of what you’re looking for in a partner. It could chatwith the AIs of everyone in your vicinity, and, for the people it thinks might be good matches,

as AI gets more sophisticated and becomes integrated into our everydaylives, we shouldn’t be afraid to allow it to lend us a hand

The prospect of people forming intimate relationships with chatbots raises numerous concerns.Privacy is one of the most pressing.

For the rest of us, though, putting together a profile can be a daunting experience. AI canmake things easier. It can help you write your bio and edit crappy selfies into presentablephotos.

It can suggest places to meet or give you a list of interestingthings to do. It can also help come up with topics of conversation and rehearse yourbanter with you. And it can act as a hype man, to give you some inspiration

AI can act as a style adviser and dating coach

AI can help you create a dating profile

Used in the right way, AI can actually make datingbetter.

While it may feel deceptive, we should view AI as an equalizer. People who want tospend time and money to improve their profile already have lots of ways to do so.

Dating is hard, but as AI gets more sophisticated and becomes integrated into our everydaylives, we shouldn’t be afraid to allow it to lend us a hand. Just don’t forget to thank it at thewedding.

AI is always available, even at 2 a.m., whenyou’ve just been dumped over text. It’s also much cheaper than a human psychologist.

Director, Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics, University of Manitoba

But it’s not all doom and gloom. Used in the right way, AI can actually make datingbetter.

The Kinsey Institute’s annual “Singles in America” survey revealed that 14 per cent ofGen Z-ers, and six per cent of all single people, are already using AI to help with dating

singly, BE clearly lowered the ratings ofspeakers, leading to diminished ratings in 7 of the first 10 dimen-sions including intelligence, articulation, aggression, education,and qualifica

d. All speakers had midwestern accents,thus controlling for regional speaking differences. The only dis-cernible difference among the speeches was the use of BE and therace of the person giving the speec

SAE and BE). All of tspeakers were of the same sex (male), were approximately the sameage (18-24), and were judged by focus groups as delivering thespeech at the same level (6.0-7.0 on a 1

Both White and Blackspeakers of standard dialect were deemed competent, whereas bothWhite and Black speakers of substandard dialect were not

d that BE causednegative evaluation ratings on 16 of 20 (80%) scales. However, 3scales yielded no difference and 1, the perceived trustworthiness ofa person, actually improved with the use of BE, prompting Atkinsto note that BE use does not uniformly alter all aspects of personpercepti

that "negative pro-nouncements on Ebonics reveal a serious lack of knowledge aboutthe scientific approach to language analysis and a galling ignoranceabout what Ebonics is and who speaks it" (p

ted that although standard American English was pre-ferred by all participants on several key measures (including all measuresof competence), speaker dialect did not alter perceived trustworthiness andlikabili

y, linguists and other educators must disseminate knowledgedialects much more broadly than they currently do to combat the unqtioned discrimination that occurs linking language usage to social mobieducational advancement, and pe

T] eachers, policy makers, and educationists need to take account of differences inthe form and function of spoken and written language, of the way in which pupils'gender, social class, and ethnic group may affect the way they speak, of the rela-tionship between standard and non-standard varieties of English, and of the socialattitudes toward linguistic diversity. (Cheshire, Edwards, and Whittle, 1993,

"Much of what the American educational systemteaches children about language is factually incorrect; in this it is thorough,consistent, and successful across social and economic boundaries" (Lippi-Green, 1994, p. 167)

Something approaching [Standard English], or not departing too widely from it, isoften assumed to be necessary for the serious business of formal education, both inthe social sense of being more fitting, and in the cognitive sense of being morestructurally superior. (Edwards and Westgate, 1

exism is illegal, discrimition based on speech patterns "is the site on which racism and ethnoctrism are institutionalized" (Lippi-Green

and society. StandardIdeology, which privileges certain usages and stigmatizes others, adverselyaffects the lives of those who use stigmatized forms (Wi

egory of SSE. This may expboth how speakers conceptualize language and how they identify, wrelative ease and broad agreement, standard and nonstandard formsgardless of their own

The interaction between what might be called 'informal spoken standardEnglish' and nonstandard English is complicated and the borderline be-tween them not at all clear" (Cheshire and Milroy, 1993, p. 7)

Standard Ideology "stresses the impor-tance and superiority of the standard, 'literate' or 'unaccented' variety ofEnglish" (Wiley and Lukes, 1991, p. 514).

eadily. Most people agreethat no two people speak exactly the same, so even among "educatedspeakers" variety exists. Yet they believe in the existence of SSE, even while"[t] he process of standardisation (strictly defined) is based on the idea ofaiming, by any means possible, at un

What prescriptivists seem to overlook is that specific prescriptivechoices are largely based on personal preferences without linguistic orsocial justificati

h. For example, they view individual variation as negative or unaccept-able, that is, one form or the other must be incorrect. Variation, however,reflects appropriate style and register shifts and produces innovation inour standards over time. So the very aspect of spoken la

oom. Most educators may believe, however, that the SWthat they teach equates to the SSE that they speak. Thus, this SWE is thform for which they inevitably hold their students responsible in botspeech and wri

We believe Standard Ideology helps explain this privileging of SSE. Mil-roy and Milroy (1991) demonstrate how Standard Ideology justifies dis-criminatory practices in the schools, the workplace,

kplace. Stigmatized forms are primarily affiliatedwith lower socioeconomic status, groups with the least political power andrecou

) review of the literature demonstrates that formal writing is also"more structurally complex and elaborate" with "longer sentences, . . . lesspersonally involved ... and more detached and abstract ... [and] charac-terized by a higher concentration of new information th

g hasexisted for several thousand years and, due to its permanent nature, hasbeen available for study during that time. We know comparatively littleabout spoken language; the studies that exist are recent and incomplete.

Within their dialects, individuals also control a range of styles, called alinguistic repertoire, whose use varies depending on their interlocutor andthe situatio

ach country eventually ele-vates one dialect to become the standard

Language is an abstract, mental system largely shared by its native speakerThe speakers themselves produce various dialects of a given language. Tclaim is not based on Chomskian notions of language innateness or copetence and performance. Rather, we are referring to the type/tokedistinction, comparable to the distinction between a phoneme andallophones. Language is the type. Each instantiation of a languagetoken of it. A token invariably occurs in a given dialect or, more correctlyan idiolect. We actively reject the popular misconception that allows "tdominant groups [to] succeed in attributing the status of language to thown variety while ascribing the status of dialect t

s from it. Fourth, Standard English is the languagthe classroom. This assumption has never been systematically tested in the liteture by examining the language that teachers use. Nor is it clear that teachbelieve they do or should impose an idealized spoken form

lief. Third, Standard English is the language of the workplaceessential for social mobility. While we do not refute this assumption, we do explothe discrimination that stem

h. First, spoken English equates to written English. Substantial evidendemonstrates that this equation is both misle