The question of how to live is not new, but is instead perhaps the oldest of philosophical puzzles. From Plato’ Republic to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, conceptions of ‘the good life’ have long argued that morality is humankind’s central defining feature. While it’s true that we are capable of self-reflection and action, however, to think that this is what defines man is to commit an error of bad faith, or inauthenticity; we are neither so entirely free nor so completely beholden to the world. Here, I’ll argue that the answer to the question of how to live can only be answered through a philosophy of love.

So far, I have been dealing with a pain that many of us share: every year, in France, 220,000 women are victims of domestic violence. The collective “Feminicides by partners or exes” keeps counting the ones who are killed, every two or three days. The government does not take any relevant measure.

This pain is even bigger when I see my creation being distorted and hijacked by entitled people who grant themselves use of it to display calls for murder of so-said “TERFs”, collages written in gender-neutral language to evoke feminicides, or idiocies like “Pootriarchy”.

Digital media defines modern childhood, but its cognitive effects are unclear and hotly debated. We believe that studies with genetic data could clarify causal claims and correct for the typically unaccounted role of genetic predispositions. Here, we estimated the impact of different types of screen time (watching, socializing, or gaming) on children’s intelligence while controlling for the confounding effects of genetic differences in cognition and socioeconomic status. We analyzed 9855 children from the USA who were part of the ABCD dataset with measures of intelligence at baseline (ages 9–10) and after two years. At baseline, time watching (r = − 0.12) and socializing (r = − 0.10) were negatively correlated with intelligence, while gaming did not correlate. After two years, gaming positively impacted intelligence (standardized β =  + 0.17), but socializing had no effect. This is consistent with cognitive benefits documented in experimental studies on video gaming. Unexpectedly, watching videos also benefited intelligence (standardized β =  + 0.12), contrary to prior research on the effect of watching TV. Although, in a posthoc analysis, this was not significant if parental education (instead of SES) was controlled for. Broadly, our results are in line with research on the malleability of cognitive abilities from environmental factors, such as cognitive training and the Flynn effect.