A Teen Died of Too Much Chile After Eating a Spicy Chip, Autopsy Says

BOSTON — A Massachusetts teen who participated in a spicy tortilla chip challenge on social media died from eating a large quantity of chile pepper extract and also had a congenital heart defect, according to an autopsy report obtained by The Associated Press.

Harris Wolobah, a 10th grader from the city of Worcester, died on Sept. 1, 2023, after eating the chip manufactured by Paqui. The cause of death was listed as cardiopulmonary arrest “in the setting of recent ingestion of food substance with high capsaicin concentration,” according to the autopsy from the Chief Office of the Medical Examiner.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Paqui, pulled the product from store shelves shortly after Harris’ death. The Associated Press sent an email seeking comment Thursday to the Hershey Co., which owns Paqui.

Read More: Why Your Diet Needs More Fermented Pickles

The cause of death was determined on Feb. 27, and the death certificate was released to the city clerk’s office on March 5, according to Elaine Driscoll, a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security.

The Paqui chip, sold individually for about $10, came wrapped in foil in a coffin-shaped box containing the warning that it was intended for the “vengeful pleasure of intense heat and pain.” The warning noted that the chip was for adult consumption only, and should be kept out of the reach of children.

Despite the warning, children have had no problem buying the chips. There have been reports from around the country of teens who have gotten sick after taking part in the chip-eating challenge, including three California high school students who were sent to a hospital. Paramedics were called to a Minnesota school in 2022 when seven students fell ill after taking part in the challenge.

source https://time.com/6978901/spicy-chip-challenge-death/

Watch: Student Journalists Reflect on Covering Widespread Campus Protests

TIME spoke to student journalists from UCLA, Columbia, Northwestern and University of Texas at Austin who were on the front lines covering protests on their own campuses. As the unrest grew, student journalists were often best positioned to tell the story although they faced dual challenges—as members of the media and students at the institutions they were covering.

source https://time.com/6978899/watch-student-journalists-reflect-on-covering-widespread-campus-protests/

How to Hit Pause on AI Before It’s Too Late

Only 16 months have passed, but the release of ChatGPT back in November 2022 feels already like ancient AI history. Hundreds of billions of dollars, both public and private, are pouring into AI. Thousands of AI-powered products have been created, including the new GPT-4o just this week. Everyone from students to scientists now use these large language models. Our world, and in particular the world of AI, has decidedly changed.

But the real prize of human-level AI—or artificial general intelligence (AGI)—has yet to be achieved. Such a breakthrough would mean an AI that can carry out most economically productive work, engage with others, do science, build and maintain social networks, conduct politics, and carry out modern warfare. The main constraint for all these tasks today is cognition. Removing this constraint would be world-changing. Yet many across the globe’s leading AI labs believe this technology could be a reality before the end of this decade.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

That could be an enormous boon for humanity. But AI could also be extremely dangerous, especially if we cannot control it. Uncontrolled AI could hack its way into online systems that power so much of the world, and use them to achieve its goals. It could gain access to our social media accounts and create tailor-made manipulations for large numbers of people. Even worse, military personnel in charge of nuclear weapons could be manipulated by an AI to share their credentials, posing a huge threat to humanity.

It would be a constructive step to make it as hard as possible for any of that to happen by strengthening the world’s defenses against adverse online actors. But when AI can convince humans, which it is already better at than we are, there is no known defense.

For these reasons, many AI safety researchers at AI labs such as OpenAI, Google DeepMind and Anthropic, and at safety-minded nonprofits, have given up on trying to limit the actions future AI can do. They are instead focusing on creating “aligned” or inherently safe AI. Aligned AI might get powerful enough to be able to exterminate humanity, but it should not want to do this.

There are big question marks about aligned AI. First, the technical part of alignment is an unsolved scientific problem. Recently, some of the best researchers working on aligning superhuman AI left OpenAI in dissatisfaction, a move that does not inspire confidence. Second, it is unclear what a superintelligent AI would be aligned to. If it was an academic value system, such as utilitarianism, we might quickly find out that most humans’ values actually do not match these aloof ideas, after which the unstoppable superintelligence could go on to act against most people’s will forever. If the alignment was to people’s actual intentions, we would need some way to aggregate these very different intentions. While idealistic solutions such as a U.N. council or AI-powered decision aggregation algorithms are in the realm of possibility, there is a worry that superintelligence’s absolute power would be concentrated in the hands of very few politicians or CEOs. This would of course be unacceptable for—and a direct danger to—all other human beings.

Read More: The Only Way to Deal With the Threat From AI? Shut It Down

Dismantling the time bomb

If we cannot find a way to at the very least keep humanity safe from extinction, and preferably also from an alignment dystopia, AI that could become uncontrollable must not be created in the first place. This solution, postponing human-level or superintelligent AI, for as long as we haven’t solved safety concerns, has the downside that AI’s grand promises—ranging from curing disease to creating massive economic growth—will need to wait.

Pausing AI might seem like a radical idea to some, but it will be necessary if AI continues to improve without us reaching a satisfactory alignment plan. When AI’s capabilities reach near-takeover levels, the only realistic option is that labs are firmly required by governments to pause development. Doing otherwise would be suicidal.

And pausing AI may not be as difficult as some make it out to be. At the moment, only a relatively small number of large companies have the means to perform leading training runs, meaning enforcement of a pause is mostly limited by political will, at least in the short run. In the longer term, however, hardware and algorithmic improvement mean a pause may be seen as difficult to enforce. Enforcement between countries would be required, for example with a treaty, as would enforcement within countries, with steps like stringent hardware controls. 

In the meantime, scientists need to better understand the risks. Although there is widely-shared academic concern, no consensus exists yet. Scientists should formalize their points of agreement, and show where and why their views deviate, in the new International Scientific Report on Advanced AI Safety, which should develop into an “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for AI risks.” Leading scientific journals should open up further to existential risk research, even if it seems speculative. The future does not provide data points, but looking ahead is as important for AI as it is for climate change.

For their part, governments have an enormous part to play in how AI unfolds. This starts with officially acknowledging AI’s existential risk, as has already been done by the U.S., U.K., and E.U., and setting up AI safety institutes. Governments should also draft plans for what to do in the most important, thinkable scenarios, as well as how to deal with AGI’s many non-existential issues such as mass unemployment, runaway inequality, and energy consumption. Governments should make their AGI strategies publicly available, allowing scientific, industry, and public evaluation.

It is great progress that major AI countries are constructively discussing common policy at biannual AI safety summits, including one in Seoul from May 21 to 22. This process, however, needs to be guarded and expanded. Working on a shared ground truth on AI’s existential risks and voicing shared concern with all 28 invited nations would already be major progress in that direction. Beyond that, relatively easy measures need to be agreed upon, such as creating licensing regimes, model evaluations, tracking AI hardware, expanding liability for AI labs, and excluding copyrighted content from training. An international AI agency needs to be set up to guard execution.

It is fundamentally difficult to predict scientific progress. Still, superhuman AI will likely impact our civilization more than anything else this century. Simply waiting for the time bomb to explode is not a feasible strategy. Let us use the time we have as wisely as possible.

source https://time.com/6978790/how-to-pause-artificial-intelligence/

Billionaire Frank McCourt Wants to Buy TikTok. Here’s Why He Thinks He Could Save It

Billionaire Frank McCourt has long argued that the internet needs to be radically changed on an infrastructural level in order to reduce its toxicity, misinformation, and extractive nature. Now, he’s hoping to slide into a power vacuum in pursuit of that goal. McCourt is putting together a bid to buy TikTok from Chinese technology company ByteDance, which faces a U.S. ban at the end of this year unless it sells the wildly popular app.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

McCourt’s central thesis lies in the belief that users should have more control over their personal data and online identities. His aim is to assemble a coalition to buy TikTok, so that its most valuable user data would be kept not by a single company, but on a decentralized protocol. McCourt has developed this idea in conjunction with technologists, academics, and policymakers via his nonprofit Project Liberty. His plan has received support from notable luminaries including the author Jonathan Haidt (The Anxious Generation) and Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the world wide web.

McCourt did not say how much he thinks TikTok is worth. Other magnates who have expressed interest in bidding for TikTok include Kevin O’Leary and Steve Mnuchin.

But there is no indication that ByteDance plans to sell TikTok; they are challenging the forced sale in the U.S. court system on the grounds of freedom of speech. And McCourt faces many obstacles in folding TikTok into his technological vision while ensuring the app’s profitability—especially because he says he’s not interested in buying the core algorithm that has hypercharged TikTok’s growth. 

Read More: TikTok Vows to Fight Its Ban. Here’s How the Battle May Play Out

In an interview with TIME, McCourt explained his vision for the app and the larger internet ecosystem. Here are excerpts from the conversation.

TIME: A couple years ago, you stepped down as CEO from McCourt Global in order to devote most of your time to Project Liberty, whose goal is fixing the internet. How pivotal could buying TikTok be towards that mission?

Frank McCourt: I think it’s a fantastic opportunity to really accelerate things and catalyze an alternative version of the internet where individuals own and control their identity and data. The internet does not have to operate the way it does right now. It’s important to remember that the other big platforms in the U.S. operate with the same architecture as TikTok: of scraping people’s data and aggregating it and then exploiting it. 

When I say data, it sounds abstract. But it’s our personhood; it’s everything about us. And I think it’s well past time that we correct that fundamental flaw in the design of the internet and return agency to individuals.

Let’s say I’m a small business owner who uses TikTok to post content and sell goods. How would my experience improve under your new design?

The user experience wouldn’t change much. We want this to be a seamless thing. Part of our thinking is to keep TikTok U.S. alive, because China has said they’re not sharing the [core] algorithm under any circumstances. And without a viable bidder to move forward without the algorithm, they may shut it down. But we’re not looking for the algorithm.

Many people contend that the core algorithm is essential to TikTok’s value. Do you worry that TikTok wouldn’t be TikTok without it?

What makes TikTok, TikTok, to me, is the user base, the content created by the user base, the brand, and all the tech short of the algorithm. Of course, TikTok isn’t worth as much without the algorithm. I get that. That’s pretty plain. But we’re talking about a different design, which requires people to move on from the mindset and the paradigm we’re in now. 

It will be a version where everyone is deciding what pieces or portions of their data to share with whom. So you still have a user experience every bit as good, but with much better architecture overall. And not only will individuals have agency, but let’s have a broader group of people participating in who shares in the economic value of the platform itself. 

Read More: Why The Billionaire Frank McCourt is Stepping Down As CEO Of His Company To Focus on Rebuilding Social Media

How would that value sharing work? Are you talking about some sort of directed shares program, or a crypto token?

It’s a bit early to have that conversation. That’s why we’ve retained Kirkland & Ellis to advise us, along with Guggenheim Securities. They’re grappling with and thinking through those very issues right now.

So how would users control their data?

Imagine an internet where individuals set the terms and conditions of their data with use cases and applications. And you’ll still want to share your data, because you’ll want to get the benefits of the internet. But you’re sharing it on a trusted basis. The mere act of giving permission to use it is very different than having it be surveilled and scraped.

The blockchain-based decentralized infrastructure you plan to use for TikTok, DSNP, is already running, and the social media app MeWe is currently migrating its tech and data onto it. What have you learned from MeWe’s transition?

That it works. Like any other engineering challenge, you have to go through all the baby steps to get it right. But the migration started in earnest in Q4, and over 800,000 users have migrated. To me, that’s important that we’re not bringing forward a concept: We’re bringing forward a proven tech solution.

In order to finance this bid, you will seek money from foundations, endowments and pension funds and philanthropies. Are you confident that if you get these big investors on board, you’ll be able to return value to them?

I am. This opens up and unlocks enormous value for investors and users. At the same time, it has a tremendous impact for society. I mentioned the pension funds and endowments and foundations as a category of investor that have a longer term horizon, and look at making investments not strictly on the basis of financial ROI. It’s important they be involved, because this is a societal project to fundamentally change how the internet works.  

We want a lot of people involved in this in different ways, shapes and forms, which is another distinguishing characteristic. We don’t need Saudi money to replace Chinese money. We’re trying to bring forward a solution to address the problem at its root cause, not at the symptomatic level.

You committed $150 million to Project Liberty in 2022. Are you prepared to spend in that ballpark again for TikTok?

Update that number: I’ve committed half a billion dollars to Project Liberty. That should be an indication of my level of seriousness about all this, and my level of seriousness about the bid for TikTok U.S.

source https://time.com/6978468/tiktok-frank-mccourt-ban-sale/

Is ‘Mommy Brain’ Real? What Happens to Your Mind and Body When You Become a Mom

Recently, I was catching up with a friend who’d just given birth to her first baby. I thought about all of the changes I’d experienced since having my 1- and 3-year-old daughters. “I feel like I’m a completely different person,” I said.

As soon as the phrase came out of my mouth, I questioned it. Nearly 2 billion people in the world are mothers. Surely they didn’t all feel completely different after giving birth. Or did they?

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Most people are familiar with the term “mommy brain,” a phrase that describes the brain fog and forgetfulness that many pregnant women and new moms experience. But it turns out there’s way more going on than just forgetting the name of your college professor, and it’s something called matrescence. 

Coined by medical anthropologist Dana Raphael in 1973, matrescence is, quite simply, the process of becoming a mother. It’s an immense physical, psychological, emotional, and social shift—and one that’s far more intense than most people realize.

“When I was pregnant with my first child, I thought pregnancy was a one-time, transient hormonal event, and that when [my daughter] was born, I would just go back to myself,” says Lucy Jones, a journalist and author of Matrescence: On the Metamorphosis of Pregnancy, Childbirth and Motherhood. “But that’s just not what it is at all. It’s actually the most dramatic, seismic, endocrinological, and neurobiological experience you can have in adult life.”

Major changes are at play

Although it’s common knowledge that women undergo massive hormonal shifts on their way to becoming a mom, there’s been a lack of research into new moms’ brains until very recently. But several groundbreaking neuroscience studies have been published in the past few years, Jones says. One showed that pregnancy leads to significant structural and functional changes in the brain, while another demonstrated alterations to gray matter in certain areas of pregnant womens’ brains. (Interestingly, these changes persisted for years after childbirth.) 

Countless other changes are happening too, though they’re harder to quantify. Ask any new mom if she feels like some of her relationships with family and friends have changed since having kids, and she’ll likely say yes. There are also pronounced physical changes—like embracing new postpartum bodies that function differently, whether that means pelvic floor problems, hair loss, or weakened abdominal muscles. Plus, there are emotional changes, like a newfound and fierce protectiveness over our children.

Read More: There’s a New Way for Moms in the U.S. to Recover After Childbirth. Most Can’t Afford It

During the early postpartum period, there’s an immense learning curve. Although this phase can feel overwhelming, one study suggests that if the cognitive challenges present during this time are continued across someone’s lifespan (meaning someone is actively parenting for many years), it can actually be beneficial for brain health later in life. “What we know about the brain is that novelty and complexity and cognitive challenge are very stimulating,” says study author Edwina Orchard, a postdoctoral research associate at the Yale Child Study Center at Yale University. In other research, Orchard has even shown that the more children someone has parented, the younger their brain looks—and that middle-aged parents actually have quicker response times and better visual memories than their childless counterparts.

That suggests a neuroprotective effect of parenthood on brain age. Other research has shown moms’ brains change to varying degrees, says Orchard, who also works at the Before and After Baby Lab, a research group at Yale. “Mothers who experience more pronounced changes also show more sensitive caregiving behaviors,” she says. “They have better attachment or more positive feelings about their child.”

Stronger than before

“Mommy brain” is a real thing, particularly when it comes to word recall and memory. But the idea that new moms undergo some sort of early onset dementia during matrescence is misguided, says Abigail Tucker, author of Mom Genes: Inside the New Science of Our Ancient Maternal Instinct.

Experts believe the cognitive deficit many pregnant women and new moms face when they forget someone’s name or put the cereal in the fridge could very well be the result of sleep deprivation, Tucker says. Or, it could simply be from the shift in focus that new moms are experiencing. 

“All of a sudden, the new mother’s thoughts revolve around a tiny person who didn’t exist a few months or even minutes ago, and everything else falls by the wayside,” Tucker says. “Perhaps there is temporarily less brain power left over for other stuff that suddenly seems so much less important, like remembering to mail a letter.”

Read More: How to Start Strength Training if You’ve Never Done It Before

I was definitely sleep-deprived, forgetful and absentminded during pregnancy and the early postpartum period. (My older daughter used to ask me why I was spacing out so much). But I had this innate sense that I’d also become mentally sharper in many ways. It turns out I was onto something.  

Research has shown pregnant women and new moms are better at facial recognition and reading peoples’ emotions, Tucker says. They’re more alert and even better at identifying colors and scents, possibly to detect potentially harmful foods. They can also be surprisingly calm in stressful situations: One research study found that women late in pregnancy rated an earthquake in California as less stressful than other survivors.

All parents—not just moms—undergo a neural transition 

Moms aren’t the only ones who experience a major identity shift when they become parents.

“Science is showing that, particularly with hands-on, affectionate care, spending time with a child affects a father or a non-biological parent’s hormone levels, shape of the brain, anatomy of the brain, and response to the baby,” Jones says.

One study found the degree to which a new father’s testosterone and cortisol levels changed when his baby was born could predict how involved he’d be with his child later on. Another study found that very involved dads experienced more activation in the amygdala, the area of the brain responsible for decision-making, instinct, and the fight-or-flight response. One study also suggested foster mothers experience similar oxytocin changes as gestational mothers when bonding with their babies.  

Increased awareness

Experts believe matrescence is as significant of a transition as adolescence. Yet the term matrescence (which doesn’t even appear in the Merriam-Webster dictionary) still hasn’t gained much traction in the 50 years since it was coined. 

“Everyone knows adolescents are uncomfortable and awkward because they are going through extreme mental and bodily changes,” Jones writes in Matrescence. “But, when they have a baby, women are expected to transition with ease—to breeze into a completely new self, a new role, at one of the most perilous and sensitive times in the life course.”

Read More: How to Cultivate Hope When You Don’t Have Any

More research on matrescence is being done each year. Historically, perinatal mental-health researchers thought it was important to study moms for the sake of their babies, says Sheehan Fisher, a perinatal clinical psychologist at Northwestern Medicine. “Now, we’ve shifted so that moms’ mental health matters in and of itself.”

More awareness about the changes women go through during this time can be beneficial on both an individual and societal level. Perinatal mental health conditions are common—one in five women experience one during this vulnerable time—plus the majority of new moms in the U.S. still don’t have access to paid maternity leave. 

“I think our understanding of this as a sensitive period should be positioned as strongly as possible to encourage governments to federally mandate paid parental leave for all new parents, not just birthing parents,” Orchard says. “Not just as a physical recovery from birth, but as an acknowledgement of the huge environmental and behavioral identity shifts that are happening through this time.”

source https://time.com/6978104/is-mommy-brain-real/

Biden and Trump Agree to Debate Twice Before November Election. Here Are the Terms

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump have agreed to meet for a pair of televised debates before the Nov. 5 election.

Biden said on X Wednesday that he has accepted an invitation from CNN for a debate on June 27, giving voters an opportunity to hear from both candidates before casting their ballots.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020. Since then he hasn’t shown up for a debate,” Biden said in a video message posted earlier in the day on X. “Now he’s acting like he wants to debate me again. Make my day pal. I’ll even do it twice.” Biden suggested that both candidates could meet on the debate stage for the second round in September, referencing Trump’s ongoing New York hush-money trial by joking that he is “free on Wednesdays,” the usual day off in the trial.

Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee who refused to debate his rivals in the primary race, responded to a proposal by the Biden campaign by saying he is “ready and willing” to debate. He has in recent weeks been challenging Biden to engage in a one-on-one matchup with him, offering to debate the President “anytime, anywhere, anyplace.”

Read More: How Far Trump Would Go

“Crooked Joe Biden is the WORST debater I have ever faced – He can’t put two sentences together!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “I am Ready and Willing to Debate Crooked Joe at the two proposed times in June and September.”

Biden campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon said in a letter that Biden would not take part in the traditional televised showdowns organized by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, citing the commission’s late schedule and past struggles to keep candidates from violating the debate rules. Trump has also leveled criticisms against the commission, arguing that it is biased against him and begins too late in the campaign season.

The Biden campaign proposed several criteria for how the debates should be structured, calling on the debates to be hosted by a broadcast organization that moderated a Republican primary debate in 2016 as well as one that did so in the Democratic primary in 2020, “so neither campaign can assert that the sponsoring organization is obviously unacceptable.” Moderators for the debate, the Biden campaign argued, should be “selected by the broadcast host from among their regular personnel, so as to avoid a ‘ringer’ or partisan.”

Read More: Biden’s Campaign Is In Trouble. Will the Turnaround Plan Work?

“There should be firm time limits for answers, and alternate turns to speak — so that the time is evenly divided and we have an exchange of views, not a spectacle of mutual interruption,” O’Malley Dillon wrote in the letter. She also argued that the debates should be conducted for voters to watch on television from their homes instead of in front of live audiences “with raucous or disruptive partisans and donors, who consume valuable debate time with noisy spectacles of approval or jeering.” 

Trump said he disagreed with Biden’s call not to debate in front of a crowd. “I would strongly recommend more than two debates,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “And, for excitement purposes, a very large venue, although Biden is supposedly afraid of crowds – That’s only because he doesn’t get them. Just tell me when, I’ll be there. ‘Let’s get ready to Rumble!!!’” 

Biden also called for a vice presidential debate to take place in late July after the Republican National Convention.

source https://time.com/6978328/joe-biden-donald-trump-agree-debates-election/

King Charles III Unveils First Official Portrait Since Coronation, Receives Mixed Response

LONDON — King Charles III has unveiled the first portrait of the monarch completed since he assumed the throne, a vivid image that depicts him in the bright red uniform of the Welsh Guards against a background of similar hues.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The larger-than-life painting by artist Jonathan Yeo captures the king with his hands clasped atop the hilt of his sword and a butterfly flitting above his right shoulder. Charles got his first look at the canvas Tuesday at Buckingham Palace.

Yeo began the portrait more than a year before Charles became king, with a sitting at the then-Prince of Wales’ Highgrove estate in June 2021. The last sitting took place in November 2023 at Clarence House, one of the king’s residences in London.

“When I started this project, His Majesty The King was still His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, and much like the butterfly I’ve painted hovering over his shoulder, this portrait has evolved as the subject’s role in our public life has transformed,’’ Yeo said.

The first official painted portrait of King Charles III since his coronation has been unveiled at Buckingham Palace. pic.twitter.com/XLBMg1WxgE

— Historic Vids (@historyinmemes) May 15, 2024

The portrait, which is approximately 8 1/2 by 6 1/2 feet, will be on display at the Philip Mould Gallery in London from May 16 to June 14. From the end of August, it will be displayed at Drapers’ Hall across town.

The portrait was commissioned to celebrate Charles’ 50 years as a member of the Drapers’ Company, which was set up more than 600 years ago as a trade association for wool merchants.

Philanthropy came to be part of their mission and the company is now a grant-giving body.

How has the public reacted to King Charles III’s new official portrait?

King Charles’ new portrait has proven to be controversial in that it has received mixed reactions from the public. Some have commended artist Yeo for breaking with tradition and being “evocative,” and others have labelled the dominant red hue painting as “nightmarish.”

Read some of the reactions to King Charles’ portrait, here:

I know I am in the minority but I really like the first official portrait of King Charles. It is edgy, modern, dramatic and evocative. #kingcharles https://t.co/PhauVu0miM pic.twitter.com/lrnmunJHX6

— Cracked_Canoe (@Cracked_Canoe) May 15, 2024

I appreciate the attempt at something unconventional, but this new King Charles portrait looks like the poster for a truly nightmarish horror movie. https://t.co/BwjojTlZjk

— Kristen Meinzer (@kristenmeinzer) May 14, 2024

I really like the portrait of King Charles by Jonathan Yeo – the go-to artist for slightly edgy but convincingly recognisable contemporary portraits; before photography, to have a great painter capture your real appearance you accepted the revelation of your flaws and your… pic.twitter.com/uvKRfb0646

— Richard Morris (@ahistoryinart) May 14, 2024

Cards on the table, I know very little about art. But having seen this new Jonathan Yeo portrait of King Charles in the flesh – and there is so much more depth and complexity to it in person – I like it. I wonder what King George V and Queen Mary would have made of it though? pic.twitter.com/SzwcwqIDb1

— Rebecca English (@RE_DailyMail) May 15, 2024

King Charles new portrait rings a bell… pic.twitter.com/mBImFbdtRi

— Lucie Fur (@Lucie_Fur99) May 14, 2024

i think what makes the King Charles portrait so excellent is that it is a) an objectively good piece of art and b) simultaneously extremely memeable

— madeline odent (@oldenoughtosay) May 14, 2024

source https://time.com/6978303/king-charles-iii-new-official-portrait-public-response/