I'd like to see this in action. Sounds incredibly pricey (even if it's much cheaper than the alternatives) and I've no idea how it works, but it may be interesting.
University classes are set to be given a futuristic spin by letting lecturers appear as hologram-like apparitions beamed in from afar. Imperial College London will show off the technology at a special event later on Thursday before deploying it more widely. It believes it will be the first academic body to do so regularly.
"The lecturers have a high-definition monitor in front of them which is calibrated so they can point at people and look them in the eye. They can really interact."
They use a technique developed by a Canadian company, Arht Media. "The problem with Pepper's Ghost is that it can be intricate to set up and can cost about £150,000 to run an event," said Dr Lefevre. "This is simpler - you project upon a glass screen, and a backdrop behind it uses software to give it an illusion of depth. It runs at the low thousands each time, so for the first time universities can afford it."
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46060381
Thursday, 1 November 2018
Don't ever fuck with psychologists
Fear is the mind-killer...
In 1998 at a high school in Tennessee, a teacher complained of a pungent “gasoline-like” smell in her classroom. Soon after, she fell ill, reporting symptoms such as nausea, shortness of breath, dizziness and a headache. Almost immediately several students in her class started to experience similar symptoms and, before long, the rest of the school was stricken.
The building was evacuated as Fire fighters, ambulances and police arrived on the scene to tend to the sick. That evening the local emergency room admitted 80 students and 19 staff members; 38 were hospitalised overnight.
But what was the mysterious toxic gas that sparked the outbreak? Several extensive investigations by Government agencies found nothing. Blood tests showed no signs of any harmful compounds. Instead, according to Timothy Jones a local epidemiologist, the fear of being poisoned had spread, fuelling the symptoms experienced by everyone inside.
A report in the New England Journal of Medicine attributed the outbreak to a phenomenon known as ‘mass psychogenic illness’, which occurs when the fear of infection spreads just as virulently as the disease itself. The students and staff had decided that, based on the behaviour of those around them, there was a real threat they needed to be afraid of.
It would have been nice to know why the teacher got sick though !
Dr Emily Holmes [is] a clinical psychologist at Oxford University who uses a selection of film clips to scare people in the lab. Holmes’s research simulates the symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) by using moments from films scary enough to invoke flashbacks in the viewer later – a hallmark symptom of the disorder.
“There are a lot of individual differences in what scares people. We want our clips to be so fearful that they intrude into your consciousness when you don’t want them to... we’re trying to create a fear response that persists long after the viewing to simulate the effects of PTSD. The most effective clips were those that were very disturbing or showed some kind of terrible event that was impossible to stop."
In fact, Cantor’s participants were so affected by these films that many of them lost sleep and developed phobias long after the film. But why is it that we can’t tell the difference between a real threat and a fake one?
“The amygdala doesn’t control what we think, but rather our instinctive bodily reaction to an event,” says Cantor. “It evolved so that when we came across something threatening, regardless of whether it’s real or not, it reacts. Your memory in the hippocampus then makes an association to what you felt when you first encountered that event.”
Unfortunately the more highly evolved part of the brain, the forebrain, finds it difficult to override the reaction of the amygdala to tell us that there’s nothing to be afraid of. “It’s hard for our conscious mind to damp down our physiological reactions,” says Cantor. “For example, people who had an adverse reaction to Jaws not only find themselves scared of going into the ocean, but also find themselves afraid to go into lakes and pools, even though they know there’s no possibility of finding a shark in either. The same is true for depictions of the supernatural in films; we’re afraid of something with such power that it’s beyond our ability to control, and our conscious mind can’t reverse that.”
http://bit.ly/2Rsjywc
In 1998 at a high school in Tennessee, a teacher complained of a pungent “gasoline-like” smell in her classroom. Soon after, she fell ill, reporting symptoms such as nausea, shortness of breath, dizziness and a headache. Almost immediately several students in her class started to experience similar symptoms and, before long, the rest of the school was stricken.
The building was evacuated as Fire fighters, ambulances and police arrived on the scene to tend to the sick. That evening the local emergency room admitted 80 students and 19 staff members; 38 were hospitalised overnight.
But what was the mysterious toxic gas that sparked the outbreak? Several extensive investigations by Government agencies found nothing. Blood tests showed no signs of any harmful compounds. Instead, according to Timothy Jones a local epidemiologist, the fear of being poisoned had spread, fuelling the symptoms experienced by everyone inside.
A report in the New England Journal of Medicine attributed the outbreak to a phenomenon known as ‘mass psychogenic illness’, which occurs when the fear of infection spreads just as virulently as the disease itself. The students and staff had decided that, based on the behaviour of those around them, there was a real threat they needed to be afraid of.
It would have been nice to know why the teacher got sick though !
Dr Emily Holmes [is] a clinical psychologist at Oxford University who uses a selection of film clips to scare people in the lab. Holmes’s research simulates the symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) by using moments from films scary enough to invoke flashbacks in the viewer later – a hallmark symptom of the disorder.
“There are a lot of individual differences in what scares people. We want our clips to be so fearful that they intrude into your consciousness when you don’t want them to... we’re trying to create a fear response that persists long after the viewing to simulate the effects of PTSD. The most effective clips were those that were very disturbing or showed some kind of terrible event that was impossible to stop."
In fact, Cantor’s participants were so affected by these films that many of them lost sleep and developed phobias long after the film. But why is it that we can’t tell the difference between a real threat and a fake one?
“The amygdala doesn’t control what we think, but rather our instinctive bodily reaction to an event,” says Cantor. “It evolved so that when we came across something threatening, regardless of whether it’s real or not, it reacts. Your memory in the hippocampus then makes an association to what you felt when you first encountered that event.”
Unfortunately the more highly evolved part of the brain, the forebrain, finds it difficult to override the reaction of the amygdala to tell us that there’s nothing to be afraid of. “It’s hard for our conscious mind to damp down our physiological reactions,” says Cantor. “For example, people who had an adverse reaction to Jaws not only find themselves scared of going into the ocean, but also find themselves afraid to go into lakes and pools, even though they know there’s no possibility of finding a shark in either. The same is true for depictions of the supernatural in films; we’re afraid of something with such power that it’s beyond our ability to control, and our conscious mind can’t reverse that.”
http://bit.ly/2Rsjywc
Not every anomaly discredits a theory
In 1832, Henry Thomas De la Beche undertook a geological survey of Devon. This work eventually led to the establishment of the Geological Survey in 1835, but not before De la Beche had suffered great public embarrassment. While he mapped the strata in Devon, his colleagues Roderick Murchison and Adam Sedgwick were similarly engaged in Wales, respectively establishing the Silurian and Cambrian systems. Everyone assumed that the rocks in Devon were around the same age as those in Wales. But in 1834, when De la Beche found Carboniferous fossils in coals embedded in the middle of rocks he thought were Silurian, he declared that William Smith’s theory of ordering the rocks using the fossils they contained must be wrong. Murchison leapt to the attack even though he had never examined the Devonshire strata himself. This deeply offended De la Beche, who believed that the validity of field work should not be questioned on theoretical grounds.
When Murchison and Sedgwick examined the Devonshire rocks themselves in 1836, they found that De la Beche had made a mapping error. The coal deposits were in fact at the top of the Devonshire strata rather than in the middle, so they assumed the coal must lie at the bottom of the Carboniferous, sitting on the older Silurian rocks – what’s known as an unconformity. De la Beche was publicly criticised and the fledgling Geological Survey was nearly brought to an untimely end. But the arguments didn’t end there. De la Beche was forced to admit his error, but he insisted that there was no unconformity between the coal strata and the older Silurian rocks. To their discomfort, Murchison and Sedgwick could not identify an unconformity either and had to admit that there wasn’t one.
There followed much debate and extensive investigations ranging as far afield as Russia, where in 1840 Murchison discovered a layer similar to the coal found in Devon, positioned between well-defined Silurian and Carboniferous deposits. This finally put an end to what became known as the Great Devonian Controversy and led to the definition of a new period called the Devonian. It also led to a fundamental change in geological practice and the value of fossils as stratigraphic indicators was established beyond question. Fortunately, the Geological Survey survived this early trauma and De la Beche became its first Director. Both the Geological Society and the Geological Survey still exist today.
http://bit.ly/2RdwaXV
When Murchison and Sedgwick examined the Devonshire rocks themselves in 1836, they found that De la Beche had made a mapping error. The coal deposits were in fact at the top of the Devonshire strata rather than in the middle, so they assumed the coal must lie at the bottom of the Carboniferous, sitting on the older Silurian rocks – what’s known as an unconformity. De la Beche was publicly criticised and the fledgling Geological Survey was nearly brought to an untimely end. But the arguments didn’t end there. De la Beche was forced to admit his error, but he insisted that there was no unconformity between the coal strata and the older Silurian rocks. To their discomfort, Murchison and Sedgwick could not identify an unconformity either and had to admit that there wasn’t one.
There followed much debate and extensive investigations ranging as far afield as Russia, where in 1840 Murchison discovered a layer similar to the coal found in Devon, positioned between well-defined Silurian and Carboniferous deposits. This finally put an end to what became known as the Great Devonian Controversy and led to the definition of a new period called the Devonian. It also led to a fundamental change in geological practice and the value of fossils as stratigraphic indicators was established beyond question. Fortunately, the Geological Survey survived this early trauma and De la Beche became its first Director. Both the Geological Society and the Geological Survey still exist today.
http://bit.ly/2RdwaXV
Ending paralysis
Three paralysed men, who were told they would spend the rest of their lives in a wheelchair, are able to walk again thanks to doctors in Switzerland. An electrical device inserted around the men's spines boosted signals from their brains to their legs. And it also helped damaged nerves in the spinal cord to regrow. The researchers hope that this unexpected bonus will enable some paralysed people ultimately to regain independent movement. BBC News has had exclusive access to the patients in the clinical trial, the results of which are published in the journal Nature.
The first patient to be treated was 30-year-old Swiss man David M'zee, who suffered a severe spinal injury seven years ago in a sporting accident.
David's doctor said he would never walk again. However, thanks to an electrical implant developed by a team at École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), he can walk more than half a mile with the implant turned on.
As I strolled with him on a cloudless sunny day in the foothills of the Alps overlooking Lake Geneva, he told me how the ability to walk, albeit for short periods under controlled conditions, had changed his life. "To me it means a lot. I'm surprised at what we have been able to do. I think you've got to try the impossible to make the possible possible. It's a lot of fun - it feels really good," he said.
"I came with my daughter, Charlotte, who was one month old at the time. As we approached David, he looked her in the eye and said, 'I will walk before you'. " When Charlotte took her first step she was 14 months old, by which time David was walking by Lake Geneva. "He said to her, 'I have beaten you'."
To Dr Courtine's surprise, the spinal implant did more than enable David to walk. "What was completely unexpected was the spinal cord repair that we observed. What we observed in animals is that it seems that the nerve fibres are regrowing and reconnecting the brain to the spinal cord," he said.
David had his implant surgically inserted by one of Switzerland's leading neurosurgeons, Dr Jocelyne Bloch, from Lausanne University Hospital. She told me that she was also astonished at David's improvement. David can now walk up to eight paces when his implant is turned off and this is the first time that this has been recorded in a chronic spinal injury.
Out of the lab, in the real world, it is hard for David to walk more than a few paces. The signals from the implant soon become uncomfortable and so can't be used all the time. The system is also expensive and not reliable enough to be used outside of the laboratory for day-to-day use, so it's far from a cure.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-46043924
The first patient to be treated was 30-year-old Swiss man David M'zee, who suffered a severe spinal injury seven years ago in a sporting accident.
David's doctor said he would never walk again. However, thanks to an electrical implant developed by a team at École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), he can walk more than half a mile with the implant turned on.
As I strolled with him on a cloudless sunny day in the foothills of the Alps overlooking Lake Geneva, he told me how the ability to walk, albeit for short periods under controlled conditions, had changed his life. "To me it means a lot. I'm surprised at what we have been able to do. I think you've got to try the impossible to make the possible possible. It's a lot of fun - it feels really good," he said.
"I came with my daughter, Charlotte, who was one month old at the time. As we approached David, he looked her in the eye and said, 'I will walk before you'. " When Charlotte took her first step she was 14 months old, by which time David was walking by Lake Geneva. "He said to her, 'I have beaten you'."
To Dr Courtine's surprise, the spinal implant did more than enable David to walk. "What was completely unexpected was the spinal cord repair that we observed. What we observed in animals is that it seems that the nerve fibres are regrowing and reconnecting the brain to the spinal cord," he said.
David had his implant surgically inserted by one of Switzerland's leading neurosurgeons, Dr Jocelyne Bloch, from Lausanne University Hospital. She told me that she was also astonished at David's improvement. David can now walk up to eight paces when his implant is turned off and this is the first time that this has been recorded in a chronic spinal injury.
Out of the lab, in the real world, it is hard for David to walk more than a few paces. The signals from the implant soon become uncomfortable and so can't be used all the time. The system is also expensive and not reliable enough to be used outside of the laboratory for day-to-day use, so it's far from a cure.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-46043924
Google's employees are fed up of arseholery
Staff at Google offices around the world are staging an unprecedented series of walkouts in protest at the company's treatment of women. The employees are demanding several key changes in how sexual misconduct allegations are dealt with at the firm, including a call to end forced arbitration - a move which would make it possible for victims to sue.
Forced arbitration, a common contract clause for Silicon Valley workers, demands any disputes are dealt with internally rather than through other methods such as the courts. Critics of forced arbitration say it is used to not only protect the reputations of both the company and the accused, but also to silence victims who are unable to appeal against decisions or take further action.
Staff involved in Thursday's walkout will leave a note on their desks telling colleagues: "I’m not at my desk because I’m walking out with other Googlers and contractors to protest sexual harassment, misconduct, lack of transparency, and a workplace culture that’s not working for everyone." They are also making formal demands to Google’s management. They are:
An end to forced arbitration in cases of harassment and discrimination for all current and future employees;
A commitment to end pay and opportunity inequality;
A publicly disclosed sexual harassment transparency report;
A clear, uniform, globally inclusive process for reporting sexual misconduct safely and anonymously;
The elevation of the chief diversity officer to answer directly to the CEO, and make recommendations directly to the board of directors;
The appointment of an employee representative to the board.
Which are all very reasonable things that people should be entitled to, not have to protest for. I'm amazed forced arbitration is a thing. How can a contract be legal if it requires you to give up your right to a judicial hearing ? Plato had the essence of it (caveats notwithstanding in order to make the point succinctly) :
Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46054202
Forced arbitration, a common contract clause for Silicon Valley workers, demands any disputes are dealt with internally rather than through other methods such as the courts. Critics of forced arbitration say it is used to not only protect the reputations of both the company and the accused, but also to silence victims who are unable to appeal against decisions or take further action.
Staff involved in Thursday's walkout will leave a note on their desks telling colleagues: "I’m not at my desk because I’m walking out with other Googlers and contractors to protest sexual harassment, misconduct, lack of transparency, and a workplace culture that’s not working for everyone." They are also making formal demands to Google’s management. They are:
An end to forced arbitration in cases of harassment and discrimination for all current and future employees;
A commitment to end pay and opportunity inequality;
A publicly disclosed sexual harassment transparency report;
A clear, uniform, globally inclusive process for reporting sexual misconduct safely and anonymously;
The elevation of the chief diversity officer to answer directly to the CEO, and make recommendations directly to the board of directors;
The appointment of an employee representative to the board.
Which are all very reasonable things that people should be entitled to, not have to protest for. I'm amazed forced arbitration is a thing. How can a contract be legal if it requires you to give up your right to a judicial hearing ? Plato had the essence of it (caveats notwithstanding in order to make the point succinctly) :
Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46054202
Bacteria that make nuclear waste less hazardous
It had been thought that the presence of cement would result in conditions too alkaline for microbes to grow – it has a pH of around 11, similar to bleach. To see if this was so, Lloyd’s team studied a lime kiln site in the UK’s Peak District to see if microbes could be found growing in conditions similar to those that would be expected in a nuclear disposal site. “We went to see if there was biology there and there was,” says Lloyd. “We found they could grow at pH values you would probably find developing around these cementitious waste forms.”
The radiation levels typically found at nuclear waste dumps don’t seem to pose a problem for bacteria either. “It doesn’t kill them,” says Lloyd. “If anything, it actually stimulates the microbes.”
The words, "what could possibly go wrong ?" do leap to mind, but :
The study found that the way bacteria process waste products means hazardous material is less likely to seep into the environment. Some nuclear waste contains cellulose, which can break down to form isosaccharinic acid (ISA) under alkaline conditions. ISA can form a soluble complex with uranium, helping it to leak out of the waste repository. But bacteria seem to use ISA as a carbon source and degrade it, keeping radionuclides in solid form – which means they stay in place.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431211-300-radiationeating-bacteria-could-make-nuclear-waste-safer
The radiation levels typically found at nuclear waste dumps don’t seem to pose a problem for bacteria either. “It doesn’t kill them,” says Lloyd. “If anything, it actually stimulates the microbes.”
The words, "what could possibly go wrong ?" do leap to mind, but :
The study found that the way bacteria process waste products means hazardous material is less likely to seep into the environment. Some nuclear waste contains cellulose, which can break down to form isosaccharinic acid (ISA) under alkaline conditions. ISA can form a soluble complex with uranium, helping it to leak out of the waste repository. But bacteria seem to use ISA as a carbon source and degrade it, keeping radionuclides in solid form – which means they stay in place.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431211-300-radiationeating-bacteria-could-make-nuclear-waste-safer
When satire is polarising and when it's persusaive
Interesting. I wish the article contained links to the sources though, because there are a number of potential caveats it doesn't much describe.
Amy Becker of Loyola University Maryland in Baltimore veered away from satirical news in her study published this summer about “sarcastic content.” She showed university students a video from The Onion, another video by The Weather Channel, or a control video. Both non-control videos were humorous takes on climate change. But the Onion video had a clear point of view, illustrated by its wry title: “Climate Change Researcher Describes Challenge of Pulling Off Worldwide Global Warming Conspiracy.” In contrast, the Weather Channel video poked fun at people who both do and don’t believe in climate change.
Becker found that only the Onion video had an effect. It increased people’s certainty that climate change was happening while also increasing their perception of the magnitude of the problem. As with previous studies, the video only made a difference among people who didn’t already think climate change was an important issue. “It seems that one-sided sarcasm can activate less-interested individuals to engage with the climate change issue,” the authors wrote.
There are people who are opposed, believers, neutral-interested and neutral-uninterested. Using humorous articles to engage the previously uninterested group is pretty obviously a good idea. Less obviously :
Feldman and colleagues published research that found that people who watched more satirical news were more likely to follow news about science and technology, the environment, and global warming. The effect was strongest for people with the lowest levels of formal education.
Furthermore, people inclined to disagree with an idea may argue less if it’s presented satirically. “Because people are focused more on understanding the joke and processing the humour, they have fewer resources leftover to counter-argue any message that they might disagree with,” Feldman says. “That allows some persuasive messages to kind of seep in and penetrate whereas otherwise they might not.”
That's an interesting take on the whole cognitive ease thing (https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RhysTaylorRhysy/posts/JH9Bptq5fs1). It wouldn't fit my intuition here. It might be right, but I would think if you actually get people to start thinking about something, they will, well, start thinking about it. They won't run out of mental resources : on the contrary, they'll start using them to examine the issue. If Feldman did a study to investigate this, the article does a disservice by not quoting it - as it's written, it appears to be a mere hypothesis based on correlations without examination of the underlying causes. That people who are more interested in sci/tech also watch satire doesn't in any way imply that the satire is persuading them of anything.
And it's easy to see so many ways in which this could go wrong. Yes, engaging the unengaged is a good thing. But what effect does it have on those who are already interested ? I'd bet good money that it will strengthen the stance of those who are already have an opinion either way - they will use their now more active brains to rationalise their stance, not examine the issue for itself. For the interested neutrals it's harder to predict. I should think the studies quoted would have looked at this, but the article doesn't say what they found on that aspect. It does at least state some caveats :
Even when people do get the joke, satire can be very polarising, Feldman says. “It attracts an audience who is already pretty liberal in orientation, and it in many ways preaches to the choir.” This can help mobilise like-minded audiences, but “it can also be really alienating to the other side.” It’s also possible that joking about a subject could make it seem less serious, Feldman says.
https://undark.org/article/satire-science-communication/
Amy Becker of Loyola University Maryland in Baltimore veered away from satirical news in her study published this summer about “sarcastic content.” She showed university students a video from The Onion, another video by The Weather Channel, or a control video. Both non-control videos were humorous takes on climate change. But the Onion video had a clear point of view, illustrated by its wry title: “Climate Change Researcher Describes Challenge of Pulling Off Worldwide Global Warming Conspiracy.” In contrast, the Weather Channel video poked fun at people who both do and don’t believe in climate change.
Becker found that only the Onion video had an effect. It increased people’s certainty that climate change was happening while also increasing their perception of the magnitude of the problem. As with previous studies, the video only made a difference among people who didn’t already think climate change was an important issue. “It seems that one-sided sarcasm can activate less-interested individuals to engage with the climate change issue,” the authors wrote.
There are people who are opposed, believers, neutral-interested and neutral-uninterested. Using humorous articles to engage the previously uninterested group is pretty obviously a good idea. Less obviously :
Feldman and colleagues published research that found that people who watched more satirical news were more likely to follow news about science and technology, the environment, and global warming. The effect was strongest for people with the lowest levels of formal education.
Furthermore, people inclined to disagree with an idea may argue less if it’s presented satirically. “Because people are focused more on understanding the joke and processing the humour, they have fewer resources leftover to counter-argue any message that they might disagree with,” Feldman says. “That allows some persuasive messages to kind of seep in and penetrate whereas otherwise they might not.”
That's an interesting take on the whole cognitive ease thing (https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RhysTaylorRhysy/posts/JH9Bptq5fs1). It wouldn't fit my intuition here. It might be right, but I would think if you actually get people to start thinking about something, they will, well, start thinking about it. They won't run out of mental resources : on the contrary, they'll start using them to examine the issue. If Feldman did a study to investigate this, the article does a disservice by not quoting it - as it's written, it appears to be a mere hypothesis based on correlations without examination of the underlying causes. That people who are more interested in sci/tech also watch satire doesn't in any way imply that the satire is persuading them of anything.
And it's easy to see so many ways in which this could go wrong. Yes, engaging the unengaged is a good thing. But what effect does it have on those who are already interested ? I'd bet good money that it will strengthen the stance of those who are already have an opinion either way - they will use their now more active brains to rationalise their stance, not examine the issue for itself. For the interested neutrals it's harder to predict. I should think the studies quoted would have looked at this, but the article doesn't say what they found on that aspect. It does at least state some caveats :
Even when people do get the joke, satire can be very polarising, Feldman says. “It attracts an audience who is already pretty liberal in orientation, and it in many ways preaches to the choir.” This can help mobilise like-minded audiences, but “it can also be really alienating to the other side.” It’s also possible that joking about a subject could make it seem less serious, Feldman says.
https://undark.org/article/satire-science-communication/
Protecting biodiversity with philanthropy
I've never heard of Hansjörg Wyss before, but apparently he's awesome.
For my part, I have decided to donate $1 billion over the next decade to help accelerate land and ocean conservation efforts around the world, with the goal of protecting 30 percent of the planet’s surface by 2030. This money will support locally led conservation efforts around the world, push for increased global targets for land and ocean protection, seek to raise public awareness about the importance of this effort, and fund scientific studies to identify the best strategies to reach our target.
I believe this ambitious goal is achievable because I’ve seen what can be accomplished.
Indigenous peoples, local leaders and conservation groups around the world are already busy setting aside protected areas that reflect the conservation, economic and cultural values of nearby communities. Financial support from philanthropists and governments is critical to helping these leaders conserve places like the coral reefs of the Caribbean, the glaciers of Argentina and what is known as the “place of many elephants” in Zimbabwe.
I’ve seen this unfold firsthand. Over the past two decades, my foundation has supported local efforts to protect wild places in Africa, South America, Europe, Canada, Mexico and the United States, donating more than $450 million to help our partners conserve nearly 40 million acres of land and water. And just as the Grand Canyon and the Grand Teton national parks have become economic engines in the United States, these new, locally developed protected areas will create jobs, attract visitors and support sustainable economic growth.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/opinion/earth-biodiversity-conservation-billion-dollars.html
For my part, I have decided to donate $1 billion over the next decade to help accelerate land and ocean conservation efforts around the world, with the goal of protecting 30 percent of the planet’s surface by 2030. This money will support locally led conservation efforts around the world, push for increased global targets for land and ocean protection, seek to raise public awareness about the importance of this effort, and fund scientific studies to identify the best strategies to reach our target.
I believe this ambitious goal is achievable because I’ve seen what can be accomplished.
Indigenous peoples, local leaders and conservation groups around the world are already busy setting aside protected areas that reflect the conservation, economic and cultural values of nearby communities. Financial support from philanthropists and governments is critical to helping these leaders conserve places like the coral reefs of the Caribbean, the glaciers of Argentina and what is known as the “place of many elephants” in Zimbabwe.
I’ve seen this unfold firsthand. Over the past two decades, my foundation has supported local efforts to protect wild places in Africa, South America, Europe, Canada, Mexico and the United States, donating more than $450 million to help our partners conserve nearly 40 million acres of land and water. And just as the Grand Canyon and the Grand Teton national parks have become economic engines in the United States, these new, locally developed protected areas will create jobs, attract visitors and support sustainable economic growth.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/opinion/earth-biodiversity-conservation-billion-dollars.html
A robot artists that's actually pretty good
These are much better than that other AI-painting that sold for an absurd sum at auction recently. For one thing, they don't resemble that famous "very hairy monkey in an ill-fitting tunic". They actually look like people, and the drawing technique is clever and interesting to watch.
https://kottke.org/18/10/a-robot-that-draws-algorithmically-generated-portraits
https://kottke.org/18/10/a-robot-that-draws-algorithmically-generated-portraits
We'll name it later
I propose we call it Bob. Gaia-Enceladus ? That's about the most out-of-touch name imaginable. Plus it's a lot to type. Thus :
Some 10 billion years ago, the Milky Way merged with a large galaxy. The stars from this partner, named Bob, make up most of the Milky Way's halo and also shaped its thick disk, giving it its inflated form. A description of this mega-merger, discovered by an international team led by University of Groningen astronomer Amina Helmi, is now published in the scientific journal Nature.
The chemical signature of many halo stars was clearly different from the 'native' Milky Way stars. "And they are a fairly homogenous group, which indicates they share a common origin." By plotting both trajectory and chemical signature, the 'invaders' stood out clearly. Helmi says, "The youngest stars from Bob are actually younger than the native Milky Way stars in what is now the thick disk region. This means that the progenitor of this thick disk was already present when the fusion happened, and Bob, because of its large size, shook it and puffed it up."
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-astronomers-giant-early-days-milky.html
Some 10 billion years ago, the Milky Way merged with a large galaxy. The stars from this partner, named Bob, make up most of the Milky Way's halo and also shaped its thick disk, giving it its inflated form. A description of this mega-merger, discovered by an international team led by University of Groningen astronomer Amina Helmi, is now published in the scientific journal Nature.
The chemical signature of many halo stars was clearly different from the 'native' Milky Way stars. "And they are a fairly homogenous group, which indicates they share a common origin." By plotting both trajectory and chemical signature, the 'invaders' stood out clearly. Helmi says, "The youngest stars from Bob are actually younger than the native Milky Way stars in what is now the thick disk region. This means that the progenitor of this thick disk was already present when the fusion happened, and Bob, because of its large size, shook it and puffed it up."
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-astronomers-giant-early-days-milky.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)