 |
|
|
|||||
Households that have bought Bens Original rice products will want to check their pantries right away. The brand, owned by food giant Mars, has issued a voluntary recall for select rice products. At issue is the possibility of small stones mixed in the rice, which could cause intestinal and other damage if consumed. Heres what you need to know about the Bens Original rice recall. Whats happened? On October 10, Bens Original announced a voluntary recall of some of its rice products. That recall notice was later published on the U.S. Food and Drug Administrations (FDA) website on October 14. The voluntary recall was initiated after Bens Original discovered that some of its rice products may contain small stones mixed within the rice. The recall notice states that these objects are small, naturally occurring stones originating from the rice farm. According to the recall notice, if the rice products do have small stones in them, the objects pose possible risk of oral or digestive tract injury if consumed. What products are being recalled? Bens Original says the recalled items only include a limited number of three select products. Whether the product is included in the recall depends on the batch codes and best by dates listed on the products packaging. The recalled products include: Ben’s Original Ready Rice Long Grain White Rice: batch codes 533ELGRV22 or 534ALGRV22 and Best By date of August 2026. Ben’s Original Ready Rice Whole Grain Brown Rice: batch codes 534AMGRV22, 534BMGRV22, or 534DMGRV22 and the best buy date of August 2026. Bens Original Ready Rice Long Grain & Wild Rice: batch codes 533BMGRV22, 533CLGRV22, or 533CMGRV22 and the best by date of August 2026. Where were the recalled products sold? According to the recall notice, the recalled products were sold at numerous stores across America. Depending on the specific recalled item, those stores may include: Amazon HEB Piggly Wiggly Target United Markets But the recalled products may have been sold at additional stores, the notice cautions. Impacted retailers are not limited to the ones mentioned in the recall notice as additional retailers may have purchased products distributed by Associated Grocers, C&S, and Dot Foods from August through September. Has anyone been harmed? Thankfully, the recall notice states that no reports of injury or illness in relation to the recalled products have been reported to date. However, as the recalled products have a long shelf life with a best by date of August 2026, it’s likely the recalled products are still sitting in many peoples cupboards. What should I do if I have the recalled products? The recall notice warns consumers who are in possession of the recalled products not to consume them. Instead, consumers should contact Bens Original Consumer Care to start the return process. The number consumers should call is 1-800-548-6253. Full details of the recall can be found on the recall notice here.
Category:
E-Commerce
There is an all-out global race for AI dominance. The largest and most powerful companies in the world are investing billions in unprecedented computing power. The most powerful countries are dedicating vast energy resources to assist them. And the race is centered on one idea: transformer-based architecture with large language models are the key to winning the AI race. What if they are wrong? What we call intelligence evolved in biological life over hundreds of millions of years starting with simple single-celled organisms like bacteria interacting with their environment. Life gradually developed into multi-cell organisms learning to seek what they needed and to avoid what could harm them. Ultimately humans emerged with highly complex brains, billions of neurons and exponentially more neural interactions designed to respond to their needs, interactions, and associations with each other and the world. Creating an artificial form of that likely involves more than cleverly generating language with tools trained on massive repositories of largely non-curated text and marketing it as intelligence. What if aggregating the vast collective so-called wisdom accumulated on the internet and statistically analyzing it with complex algorithms to mindlessly respond to human prompts is really just an unimaginably expensive and resource-intensive exercise in garbage-in-garbage-out? At best, it may be a clever chronicler of common wisdom. At worst, its an unprecedented and unnecessary waste of resources with potentially harmful consequences. Eerily foreshadowing a critique of current mainstream AI, Immanuel Kant famously wrote in his landmark work, A Critique of Pure Reason, “thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.” Put another way, can eons of evolved intelligence be replicated and reduced to the worlds greatest parrot or the mother-of-all autocompletes? With all of the global power, hype, and resources behind this one approach, you may have the impression that it is the only viable way to create an artificial form of human intelligence. Fortunately, it is not. Incrementalism On the incrementalist end of the spectrum of AI research and development, there are approaches that seek to make more efficient use of resources such as grouping small language models (SLMs) with AI agents (https://www.fastcompany.com/91281577/autonomous-ai-agents-are-both-exciting-and-scary) to allow more focused, economical inquiries and responses. (See, Small Language Models are the Future of Agentic AI, Cornell University, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.02153). The theory is simple: employ flexible, efficient AI agents (technology that can autonomously interact with the environment and perform tasks without human supervision) to access SLMs, smaller, more targeted, and less resource-intensive sets of data. The underlying theory is the same for SLMs and LLMsaggregating data and statistically modeling it to generate text or other data. SLMs are just a smaller and more efficient (but inherently more limited) way of doing this. This approach can incorporate additional technology to achieve greater accuracy such as retrieval augmented generation (RAG). RAG can access more targeted, verifiable, and critically, real-time information rather than simply relying on static (pretrained) data alone. A whole greater than the sum of its parts A more significant possible alternative to the LLM and GPT architecture that more closely simulates how we think is based on attempting to replicate evolutionary biology. One company pioneering such work is Softmax (named for a statistical function used in machine learning) led by a cofounder of Twitch, Emmett Shear, who briefly served as CEO of OpenAI. This approach is modeled on cellular biology and the idea that individual parts (cells) working (or in alignment) with each other can form a whole with greater coordinated functionality than the individual parts. A human being is made up of individual but synchronized cells that, on their own, dont function like us, but somehow cohere to allow us to think and function as human beings. In terms of building a computer model, AI agents are the equivalent of cells in this approach that in theory at least, can work together to form a greater functioning, learning entity. If the current domination of LLMs and GPT architecture continues and other innovative approaches fall (or are pushed) by the wayside, it wouldnt be the first time in the history of computing that commercial forces overrule potentially better alternatives (see Why bad ideas linger in software, Alan Kay, 2012, address to the Congress on the Future of Engineering Software). As Albert Einstein famously noted, if he had an hour to save the world, he would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and five minutes solving it. The massive entities pushing the current dominant approach to AI development have yet to define the problem they are trying to solve. LLMs and GPT have proven able to perform tasks that people find useful and they will likely continue to do so. The question is, what if anything, does that have to do with intelligence, human or otherwise?
Category:
E-Commerce
Apple TV+ is dead. Long live Apple TV. On October 13, in a press release about F1: The Movie, Apple TV+ nonchalantly slipped in a line that from here on out it will be known simply as Apple TV, with a vibrant new identity. The streaming services new name is the same as Apples connected smart TV device product and appeffectively merging all of the brands TV-centric products under one moniker. Anyone who enjoys a bit of time winding down in front of the television knows about the plus sign. Its come to represent nearly every streaming service out there: Disney+, ESPN+, BET+, Discovery+, even NASA+. Many streamers that dont have the Plus now once did (were looking at you, Hulu). And theres a reason this convention became ubiquitous. When streaming services first became popular in the mid-2010s, broadcast companies were tasked with creating streamer names that helped users understand the value proposition of the service. The Plus, after it was adopted by an initial few companies, quickly became a recognizable shorthand for streamer. Today, though, consumers are much more familiar with the joys (and, often, frustrations) associated with the many streaming services available to them. In casual conversation, most people arent even tacking on the Plus in these services namessimply saying that a show is available on Disney or Apple TV is enough to get the point across. On the brand side, streaming services have become less of a side offering and more of a core product. Now some streamers are grappling with how to adjust their branding to cut out the noise and escape the categorys sea of samenessand it might just mean that the Plus is on its way out. Fast Company asked four branding experts what they think of Apple TVs new identity. Heres what they had to say: Weve seen streamers like HBO Max, Paramount+, and now Apple TV adjust their branding over the past few years. Why do you think these streaming companies are having such a hard time getting it right? The offerings across these platforms are nearly identical,” says Kennedy Placek, director of partnerships and client services at the creative agency Lexicon Branding. “They each carry powerful parent brands, and with that comes hesitation to dilute the brand. Using the plus sign was a safe move for signaling more without undermining the equities of the master brand. The problem is that when everyone is using [a plus sign] and consumers are exposed to [it] in nearly every category, it loses credibility or meaning. It essentially stands for nothing. Ben Sherwood, creative partner at the agency Design Bridge and Partners, says, Streaming companies aren’t necessarily getting it wrong, but rather navigating an incredibly volatile and saturated market. Branding these services is inherently difficult because their core productcontentis a moving target due to constant mergers, acquisitions, and licensing shifts. Why might Apple TV have decided to lose the plus sign? Are we likely to see other streamers follow suit? The plus sign no longer adds value or generates interest. Apple has always been known for its simplicity, and its decision to remove the + is a return to that focus,” says Placek. “Apple TV on its own is consistent with other offers like Apple Music, Apple News. Apple has and continues to be a role model for other brands, so I wouldnt be surprised if others follow suit. Richard Swain, partner at the global brand agency Further, says, Apple dropping the plus says less to me about streaming and more about the convergence of hardware and software. When they launched the service, they needed to separate it from the physical Apple TV device and the content-aggregation platform. Today audiences understand those distinctions, so Apple can afford to simplify. Its also a signal that the plus era has probably run its course. Dropping it is a show of confidence from Apple. Sherwood notes, We absolutely think we’re likely to see other streamers follow suit. As brands mature and seek clearer differentiation in a crowded space, shedding generic suffixes is a natural evolution. How much of a role does branding play in a streamers success, especially in the current environment of mounting costs and subscription tiers? It definitely matters, arguably now more than ever,” says Swain. “Amazon has had to work so much harder to earn credibility in streaming because its brand is anchored in convenience and commerce. That association can be hard to shake. Meanwhile, companies like Netflix, and until recently HBO, have built brands that make you feel something before you even press play. The ta-dum or the crackle of HBO static arent just logos or sounds, theyre Pavlovian cues that set your expectation about what experience youre about to embark on. Matt Sia, executive creative director at brand design agency Pearlfisher, says, I think it would be in the best interest of these brandsespecially the big, iconic onesto draw less attention to what they’re doing and just continue doing good things for their audience. I heard that Apple TV called it a vibrant new identity, and I think that was a miss. I don’t think they should have said anything; they could have just dropped [the plus sign]. Sometimes drawing attention to it is almost like, Look at this brand-new identity! and it becomes a meme. Lexicon Brandings Placek concludes, At this stage, branding matters less than the story they tell and the offer that supports their stories. It is all a big sea of sameness. Consumers have a hard time deciphering what they get in each bundle, and likely make decisions based on loyalty or simply out of fatigue. To be frank, I dont think people choose one platform over the other simply because one has a plus sign. Symbols dont drive choice. Clarity does.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||