When your circle gets smaller,
your vision will get clearer. There's strength in loyalty,
Not numbers
Scientists discover “negative time” in bizarre quantum experiment where photons exit atoms before entering ZMEScience
Utroba Cave, in the Rhodope mountains, Bulgaria. Carved by hand more than 3000 years ago
Ward Christensen, BBS inventor and architect of our online age, dies at age 78. “Friends and associates remember Christensen as humble and unassuming, a quiet innovator who never sought the spotlight for his groundbreaking work.”
Smith, Michael L., (September 04, 2024). 12 Belmont Law Review (Forthcoming 2025), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4946479 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4946479 – “Faced with optimistic accounts of technological innovations, businesses, law firms, and governments face pressure to rush into adopting these technologies and enjoying the increased efficiency, reduced costs, and other benefits that are promised. This essay sets forth reasons to pause before adopting such technologies. First, new technology is often contrasted with unrealistically dire portrayals of the status quo, which leads to exaggerated accounts of how beneficial the new technology will be. Second, overconfidence in technological fixes, as well as tendencies against revisiting and critiquing traditional ways of doing things may lead to an entrenchment of harmful systems. Third, the institutional incentives and pressures in which technology is employed may affect how that technology is used—leading to unanticipated consequences for those who only consider how technology functions in non-legal settings. While I urge reasons to pause, I do not counsel wholesale rejection of technological innovation. Those considering adopting new technologies should, at the outset, demand transparency from those who manufacture and market technology, particularly the avoidance of imprecise terminology. Developing policies in advance to review and audit new technology may also ensure that those adopting it get what they pay for, and may help mitigate unanticipated harmful consequences.
Finally, contracts with those offering new technology should have frequent renewal opportunities built in to allow those adopting the technology to demand action or back out of adopting the technology should promised benefits never materialize.”
The trailer for season 2 of The Diplomat. Keri Russell? Witty banter? What’s not to like? I enjoyed season 1 and will probably give this a shot. Premieres Oct 31 on Netflix.
Hearing Things: “The music industry is once again at a crossroads. Streaming was supposed to democratize music, making it more equitable for all. That didn’t happen. Now the most famous artists are dominating the industry like never before, while everyone else is scrounging for pennies. What’s left of music media is chasing those same huge artists for an ever-decreasing slice of the SEO pie.
Virality is king, stan armies run rampant, A.I. is ascendant. It can sometimes feel like the urge to make a meaningful connection with an artist, album, or song is almost passé. We are a worker-owned music and culture platform with the freedom and expertise to delve into the art we love (or absolutely do not love!) in a way that furthers the conversation instead of just regurgitating it.
We are writers and editors with many decades of collective experience covering music and culture at Pitchfork, The Fader, Vibe, Spin, Gawker, Jezebel, and elsewhere. There’s a good chance we’ve played a part in introducing you to some of your favorite artists and deepened your appreciation of some of this century’s most important records. At Hearing Things, we’re continuing to do that work—and more—on our own terms…”
The Climate Historian: “…In the mid-20th century, as evidence mounted linking smoking to lung cancer, the tobacco industry didn’t just fight back—they mastered the art of deflection. Instead of outright denying the dangers, they funded research to stir doubt, muddying the scientific waters.In the 1950s, the Tobacco Institute launched its “health reassurance” campaigns. These campaigns framed smoking as a lifestyle choice, not a public health crisis, deflecting blame from the product to the individual.
With this strategy of producing scientific uncertainty and casting smoking as a personal responsibility issue, the industry successfully evaded regulation for decades. This strategy—creating doubt and shifting responsibility—became a blueprint for other industries facing inconvenient truths, from climate change to pollution.
Their message: the problem isn’t the product; it’s the person using it. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the broader gun lobby have used similar strategies, particularly since the 1970s, to deflect attention away from the role of firearms in gun violence. The NRA portrays gun violence as a problem rooted in individual behaviour rather than the accessibility of guns.
Their slogan “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” has turned what could have been a conversation about gun regulation into one about personal responsibility…
The redirection of responsibility from corporations to individuals stands as one of the most masterful corporate manoeuvres. It paved the way for what would become a pervasive strategy in the years to come: the individualization of responsibility. Nowhere has this tactic been more fully realised than in the fossil fuel industry. By positioning climate change as an issue of individual behaviour—whether it is our dietary habits, the light bulbs we use, or how often we drive or fly—fossil fuel corporations have obscured their role in environmental destruction. This narrative creates a convenient illusion: that climate change can be solved through small personal sacrifices rather than meaningful policy reform and corporate accountability. Take, for example, the concept of “personal carbon footprint.” BP promoted the idea in the mid-2000s, launching one of the first personal carbon footprint calculators and asking individuals to calculate their own greenhouse gas emissions. The message was clear: the solution to climate change lies not in changing corporate behaviour, but in you choosing to turn off the lights when leaving the room. And while no one can argue that reducing personal emissions is unimportant, it’s the sheer audacity of the campaign that stands out…”
