Similarly to what Will has written, I think that the part of the article most illuminating for non-quantitatively inclined readers would be a very number-heavy paragraph. In the paragraph that begins with "What fraction of people....", Prof Goodman and Prof De Vivo clearly spell out the calculations for what the fraction of people having the experience being evaluated die from COVID-19 is. Because this solution is prefaced with step-by-step arithmetic, this part of the discussion will be most illuminating for non-quantitatively-inclined readers such as myself.

Dear Will, This is a really great response, and one that I think is really intriguing. Speaking specifically towards your second question ("Does knowing more about the things that stress you out actually help you live a happier and healthier life?"), I wonder how accurate this question is. For example, I know that school is my biggest factor of stress in my life, but solely knowing that does not help me live a happier life. I think that, in order to truly lead a happier life, one must work towards mitigating their factors of stress, rather than just solely understanding what their stress factors are.

Dear Jaron, thank you for the insightful comment. I too was intrigued by Avi Loeb's statement that technology will be able to replace humans at some point in the future. While I theoretically comprehend this opinion, I immediately disagreed with it when I heard it. I then realized that one reason why I may have so quickly challenged Loeb's theory was because it is frightening to us humans (who I would like to think are irreplaceable). The casual nature in which Loeb discussed this issue surprised me, since this assertion was such a shock to me. I would love to see if he still agrees with this statement in five or ten years, as the advancements made in technology over the next ten years would presumably demonstrate vast differences from today's technology.

Dear Jaida, I think that this is a really interesting idea that gets into concepts of philosophy, metaphysics, and ethics. When I read your response, I instantly thought of the ideas presented in The Giver, where society has removed pain, fear, hate, etc. from the community. While I do think that the idea of humans having the ability to know everything is a very fascinating one, I think that it could severely harm the purposes and motives behind living, thus making life futile and hopeless for many. Because of this, I do not think that humans should try to figure out every single element regarding our existence, even though it is an incredibly intriguing concept.

Dear Daniel, I too am curious about the limitations of artificial intelligence with respect to music. I feel that, especially for pop music, R&B, and hip-hop, sometimes the voices of the singers and rappers actually more than the lyrics being sung/rapped. I wonder what Ben Schneiderman would say about this idea, and I am interested at what he thinks restricts the abilities of machine learning to successfully compose pop/R&B/hip-hop music.

Vincent, I thought that your post was really interesting, and I love how you simplified a major viewpoint from Gina McCarthy. However, I did have one question after reading your comment. How do you think that the public could become more educated on the statistics and science of climate change? It seems like this is a very challenging task due to the poor education system in the US. I know that, in the United States, only about 1/3 of individuals have a college degree, which is one (of many) examples that might make educating individuals on climate change difficult. How do you think that we can avoid this obstacle and educate Americans (and those around the world) about climate change?