Comment and SocietyA recent scandal over food hygiene ratings shows how deception destroys trust within society. We need to fight back, says Jonathan R. Goodman 20 November 2024 Simone RotellaUntil a few weeks ago, I relied on restaurant hygiene ratings when deciding where to have dinner. The score given by the UKs Food Standards Agency ranges from 0 to 5, where 0 indicates urgent improvement is required. It is traditionally a good predictor if you are fastidious or if you just want to avoid nasty parasites like Giardia.Yet in October, the BBC revealed some businesses misrepresent their hygiene scores, posting a 5 when their ratings are as low as 0. The signal of hygiene I relied on wasnt always reliable.This was just one incident that had

Humidity makes Shanghais heat more unbearablelukyeee1976/Getty ImagesMy office felt like a steamer on Monday morning, wrote Chinese influencer Bi Dao in a social media post in August. He fetched a drink from a supposed cold-water dispenser it was 40.8C (105F). Bi, who lives in Hangzhou, a regional capital on Chinas east coast, decided to roam the city with a temperature gun, pointing it at things to find out exactly how hot they had got. The ground was 72.6C, the seat of a sharing bike was 56.5C, the handrail in the metro station was 45C, even the tree bark was 38.7C, he wrote. He ended his post by thanking Willis Carrier for inventing the air conditioner.Hangzhou is known for its beautiful lake, large pagoda and rolling green tea farms not for heat. But what Bi witnessed was only one of the 60 high-temperature days ones that topped 35C (95F) that grilled the city and its 12.5 million inhabitants this year. Hangzhou isnt alone. Many cities worldwide are feeling the heat. Things are getting so bad that growing numbers of people face temperatures that are beyond human endurance.Already, such conditions kill around half a million each year. That will inevitably rise as climate change increases the number and intensity of heatwaves around the globe. Cities are on the front line of this unfolding crisis. And Chinas vast, densely packed megacities are leading the way. As well as providing a glimpse of what we are in

Nature, Published online: 22 November 2024; doi:10.1038/d41586-024-03803-6The only continent where amber had not been found no longer has that distinction, thanks to a sediment core drilled just offshore.

Nature, Published online: 22 November 2024; doi:10.1038/d41586-024-03800-9Stimulating certain brain cells in mice seems to ease anxiety without causing hallucination-like effects.

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Reviews weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. Well, what about China? This is a comment I get all the time on the topic of climate change, both in conversations and on whatever social media site is currently en vogue. Usually, it comes in response to some statement about how the US and Europe are addressing the issue (or how they need to be). Sometimes I think people ask this in bad faith. Its a rhetorical way to throw up your hands, imply that the US and Europe arent the real problem, and essentially say: if they arent taking responsibility, why should we? However, amid the playground-esque finger-pointing there are some undeniable facts: China emits more greenhouse gases than any other country, by far. Its one of the worlds most populous countries and a climate-tech powerhouse, and its economy is still developing. With many complicated factors at play, how should we think about the countrys role in addressing climate change? Chinas emissions are the highest in the world, topping 12 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2023, according to the International Energy Agency. Theres context missing if we just look at that one number, as I wrote in my latest story that digs into recent global climate data. Since carbon dioxide hangs around in the atmosphere for centuries, we should arguably consider not just a countrys current emissions, but everything its produced over time. If we do that, the US still takes the crown for the worlds biggest climate polluter. However, China is now in second place, according to a new analysis from Carbon Brief released this week. In 2023, the country exceeded the EUs 27 member states in historical emissions for the first time. This reflects a wider trend that were seeing around the world: Developing nations are starting to account for a larger fraction of emissions than they used to. In 1992, when countries agreed to the UN climate convention, industrialized countries (a category called Annex I) made up about one-fifth of the worlds population but were responsible for a whopping 61% of historical emissions. By the end of 2024, though, those countries share of global historical emissions will fall to 52%, and it is expected to keep ticking down. China, like all nations, will need to slash its emissions for the world to meet global climate goals. One crucial point here is that while its emissions are still huge, there are signs that the nation is making some progress. Chinas carbon dioxides emissions are set to fall in 2024 because of record growth in low-carbon energy sources. That decline is projected to continue under the countrys current policy settings, according to an October report from the IEA. Chinas oil demand could soon peak and start to fall, largely because its seeing such a huge uptake of electric vehicles. One growing question: With all this progress and a quickly growing economy, should we be expecting China to do more than just make progress on its own emissions? As I wrote in the newsletter last week, the current talks at COP29 (the UN climate conference) are focused on setting a new, more aggressive global climate finance goal to help developing nations address climate change. China isnt part of the group of countries that are required to pay into this pot of money, but some are calling for that to change given that it is the worlds biggest polluter. One interesting point hereChina already contributes billions of dollars in climate financing each year to developing countries, according to research published earlier this month by the World Resources Institute. The countrys leadership has said it will only make voluntary contributions, and that developed nations should still be the ones responsible for mandatory payments under the new finance goals. Talks at COP29 arent going very well. The COP29 president called for faster action, but progress toward a finance deal has stalled amid infighting over how much money should be on the table and who should pay up. Chinas complex role in emissions and climate action is far from the only holdup at the talks. Leaders from major nations including Germany and France canceled plans to attend, and the looming threat that the US could pull out of the Paris climate agreement is coloring the negotiations. But disagreement over how to think about Chinas role in all this is a good example of how difficult it is to assign responsibility when it comes to climate change, and how much is at play in global climate negotiations. One thing I do know for sure is that pointing fingers doesnt cut emissions. Now read the rest of The Spark Related reading Dig into the data with me in my latest story, which includes three visualizations to help capture the complexity of global emissions. Read more about why global climate finance is at the center of this years UN climate talks in last weeks edition of the newsletter. Keeping up with climate Fusion energy has been a dream for decades, and a handful of startups say were closer than ever to making it a reality. This deep dive looks at a few of the companies looking to be the first to deploy fusion power. (New York Times) I recently visited one of the startups, Commonwealth Fusion Systems. (MIT Technology Review)President-elect Donald Trump has tapped Chris Wright to lead the Department of Energy. Wright is head of the fracking company Liberty Energy. (Washington Post) In the wake of Trumps election, it might be time for climate tech to get a rebrand. Companies and investors might increasingly avoid using the term, opting instead for phrases like energy independence or frontier tech, to name a few. (Heatmap) Rooftop solar has saved customers in California about $2.3 billion on utility bills this year, according to a new analysis. This result is counter to a report from a state agency, which found that rooftop panels impose over $8 billion in extra costs on consumers of the states three major utilities. (Canary Media) Low-carbon energy needs much less material than it used to. Rising efficiency in making technology like solar panels bodes well for hopes of cutting mining needs. (Sustainability by Numbers) New York governor Kathy Hochul has revived a plan to implement congestion pricing, which would charge drivers to enter the busiest parts of Manhattan. It would be the first such program in the US. (The City) Enhanced geothermal technology could be close to breaking through into commercial success. Companies that aim to harness Earths heat for power are making progress toward deploying facilities. (Nature) Fervo Energy found that its wells can be used like a giant underground battery. (MIT Technology Review)

LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman hopes a second Trump term can usher in an era of AI innovation.In a recent op-ed for The Financial Times, he shared several concerns he has for the administration.Hoffman warned that Elon Musk shouldn't use his relationship with Donald Trump to boost xAI.LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman said Elon Musk has a "serious conflict of interest" when it comes to guiding a second Trump administration on AI policies in the US.In an op-ed published Friday with The Financial Times, Hoffman said the advisory role Musk has taken up with Donald Trump could pose a conflict of interest if the xAI founder is guiding the president-elect on laws around artificial intelligence."With direct ownership in the fledgling AI start-up xAI, Elon Musk, who is advising Trump in many domains, has a serious conflict of interest in terms of setting federal AI policies for all US companies," Hoffman wrote. "Using his position to favor xAI in any way, such as awarding it government contracts, encouraging federal agencies to unfairly target AI companies, or imposing new regulations that limit exports will come at the expense of US technological, economic and cultural security and competitiveness."Musk did not respond to a request for comment. Hours after the FT published the op-ed, Musk responded to an X post unrelated to Hoffman's column, criticizing people who post on LinkedIn."I instantly lose respect for anyone who posts on LinkedIn," he said. "Unbearably cringe."Hoffman, who is also the cofounder of Inflection AI, shared his hopes and concerns for Trump's second term in the FT op-ed.Hoffman credited the Biden Administration for leaving behind a "strong Democrat-engineered economy" and said he was hopeful that Trump could build on it, ushering in more business investments and technological innovations around artificial intelligence.But he also warned that a Trump White House could stifle innovation by being unwilling to work with US global allies to develop technology such as AI."While Trump campaigned on the promise of making America more unilateral and insular, I continue to believe a pluralistic, multilateral approach is what creates innovation and prosperity in an increasingly networked world," Hoffman said. "That extends to AI. In contrast, I expect the administration will adopt a mercantilist AI policy that will bar long-standing global allies from accessing US models, infrastructure, and technology."A spokesperson for Trump's transition team did not respond to a request for comment.Hoffman and Musk have a bitter rivalry that dates back to thePayPaldays in 2000, when Musk's online banking company at the time,X.com,merged with Confinity, a security software company, to become PayPal.The two CEOs have recently been more public about their rivalry, particularly over political disputes. Musk, who has gradually shifted to the Republican Party over the years, has been a vociferous supporter of Trump. Hoffman supported Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign.After Trump's victory on November 5, Musk has already been spending a lot of time in Trump's orbit and has been tasked to lead a new Department of Government Efficiency focused on reducing the size of the federal government.Hoffman did not respond to a request for comment.

Seven & i Holdings, owner of 7-Eleven stores, is at the center of a three-way bidding war.The company's management, its founders, and a Canadian convenience store company all want control.Depending on who ultimately prevails, the Japan-based company could go private.Japan-based Seven & i Holdings, owner of the iconic global chain of 7-Eleven convenience stores, is at the center of an intensifying bidding war, multiple outlets reported.The company's management, its founding family, and a Canadian company Alimentation Couche-Tard, owner of Circle K convenience stores are all interested in control of the chain, with bids upward of $58 billion.Business Insider previously reportedAlimentation Couche-Tard made its first bid this summer, proposing a purchase to expand its nearly 17,000-store catalog of global convenience storeswith 7-Eleven's approximately 85,000 locations if the sale was approved. The initial offer of $39 billion was rejected for being a dramatically lower valuation than the company would consider for a buyout but the Quebec-based company raised its bid to $47 billion in October, The Wall Street Journal reported.If the deal were to go through, itLast month, in an opposing proposal to the company's board, Seven & i's CEO, Ryuichi Isaka, said the company has "potential for significant growth globally," announcing his aim to increase revenue to about $200 billion by 2030 with a restructuring plan including spinning off its noncore businesses, The Journal reported.This month, Junro Ito, an executive at Seven & i Holdings and the heir to the7-Eleven chain, proposed a management buyout that would take the company private with a $58 billion bid, according to Bloomberg.Ito had been courting investors this summer to buy stock in the chain before Alimentation Couche-Tard's offer to purchase the company outright was on the table. Bloomberg reported he told prospective investors in August that the company "would like to spread our retail business and strengths in food not only within Japan but also around the world."However, it appears Alimentation Couche-Tard's proposal rattled Tokyo's business elite into reconsidering whether the company should be public at all, perEach of the proposals is being considered by a special committee made up of Seven & i Holdings' board members in order to maximize value for its shareholders, per Bloomberg.Seven & i Holdings' stock has responded well to all the interest, increasing nearly 15% from $14.36 per share to $16.49 over the last 30 days and more than 25% this year.The 7-Eleven chain was founded in 1927 in Dallas, per The Journal. It was originally called the Southland Ice Company but was rebranded in 1946 to be called 7-Eleven based on its hours of operation.The convenience store partnered with Ito-Yokado, a Japanese supermarket chain founded by Masatoshi Ito Junro Ito's father in 1973 to build franchised locations in Japan. Ito-Yokado acquired a majority stake in the company in the early 1990s and completed its acquisition in November 2005. Ito-Yokado then reorganized, becoming Seven & i Holdings, that year.Representatives for Alimentation Couche-Tard and 7-Eleven did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

There arent too many people openly calling themselves effective altruists these days. You can mostly give thanks to convicted felon Sam Bankman-Fried for having single-handedly made sure far more people hear effective altruism and think cryptocurrency scams rather than donating lots of money to good causes. But there is still a great deal of work being done in line with the effective altruism (EA) worldview and associated principles: combating lead poisoning, work against factory farming thats based on efficiently finding the best pressure points to improve animal welfare, work on taking down the diseases that are still major killers in poor countries, work on reforming US kidney policy, work on making sure developing advanced AI goes well. A lot of people I talk to think this development the downplaying of EA, if not EA causes is all for the best. Did it ever really make sense to have all those things under one umbrella? Even if there is a benefit to all of these people learning from each other, collaborating closely, moving between roles, and sharing lots of ideas behind the scenes, does it make sense to advertise the umbrella rather than advertise the achievements? (Disclosure: In August 2022, Bankman-Frieds philanthropic family foundation, Building a Stronger Future, awarded Voxs Future Perfect a grant for a 2023 reporting project. That project was canceled.)But a few things fall by the wayside if you stop talking about effective altruism in favor of just talking about the specific issues that the movement tended to zero in on. One of those things? The innovation called earning to give.Earning to give is the controversial effective altruist idea that one good way to make the world a better place is to take a job where you make a lot of money and donate much of that money to important, underfunded work. (To be clear, not any high-paying job would be okay, but industries like tech and finance are generally considered fine.) Its a sharp contrast with the more typical take that if you want to do good with your career, you should steer clear of the temptations of high-salary corporate jobs in favor of working directly at a nonprofit. Earning to give is an idea worth salvagingThere are obviously some problems with the naive formulation of earning to give, which would amount to Just go work at the highest-paying job you can get and donate the money.Some jobs definitely do enough direct harm that, by working in them, you cant possibly accomplish good just by donating your salary. From early on, effective altruists argued not about whether theres a line there obviously is but where to draw it. Marketing addictive cigarettes? Probably not acceptable. Working on advanced AI systems? Well, depends on whether you think those will do social harm on net. Related:Against doomerism(And hopefully it goes without saying that founding a cryptocurrency startup for the avowed reason of earning a lot of money to donate to charity is at absolute best only a good idea if you are very careful not to let your attached hedge fund trade away your customers money. Just so were absolutely clear.)A problem here, of course, is that people making a lot of money generally find it easy to lie to themselves about the social harm their high-paying professions may be generating. And in many cases, the way to do good in the world is to do it directly, not pay for someone else to do it especially if youre a person with rare and in-demand skills.Over the years, many of the people I know who have done earning to give ended up switching to directly working on important problems. That makes sense. If youre a skilled tech or finance person, the kind who can earn a really high salary, theres probably a lot of crucial work that would benefit from your skills, not just your checkbook. But I have always found something valuable and important in the case for earning to give. It goes like this: Theres a lot of important work that needs funding, and an individual familys donations my wife and I give around $50,000 a year can make a huge difference in getting some of that important work done. Billionaire foundations will never cover all of it, and its better for organizations to be funded by motivated individuals than by billionaire foundations anyway. It distorts their priorities less, its much less politically awkward, and committed individuals can take bets that foundations cant or wont.I also like earning to give for its unabashed friendliness to capitalism, which is a rare quality on the do-gooder left. I believe that the last century has made the world much, much better for the vast majority of people, and while targeted scientific innovation is a huge part of the story, another huge part of the story is the astounding success of market economies. Why did the world get better? Mostly through people doing valuable stuff, often for selfish and pecuniary reasons. The Vox guide to givingThe holiday season is giving season. This year, Vox is exploring every element of charitable giving from making the case for donating 10 percent of your income, to recommending specific charities for specific causes, to explaining what you can do to make a difference beyond donations. You can find all of our giving guide stories here.Not every big-dollar job is ethical, and Id strongly encourage thought about what specifically you do and whether it makes the world a better place. But I generally think participating in the economy is a basically good and admirable thing to do, even though many progressives think of it as a morally negative one.And I want there to be a vision for fixing our world that proceeds from the premise that abundance is good, that wealth is good, that growing the pie is good, that trade-offs are real, and that we will have to create new things and generate new wealth in order to make those trade-offs more bearable. These convictions have always seemed to me like a firmer foundation for fixing the world than their ideological competitors. Capitalism is good, actuallyJust as I like earning to give for these reasons, a lot of people have always disliked earning to give for precisely the same reasons. Earning to give says that you can do a lot of moral good through active participation in our capitalist system, through trying to make a lot of money and then purchasing the things you want (research, bednets, wealth redistribution, you name it) with the money you earned. It is a capitalist ideology. It makes a lot of sense to me that people who think of capitalism as a dirty word arent enthusiastic about the idea of harnessing it in the name of altruism and that lack of enthusiasm is shared by many of my fellow travelers in the effort to make the world a better place. But if you think capitalism is a net good, like I do, I think you should be enthusiastic about the possibility of earning to give. You can see it as one among many ways to do good, but also a particular strategy that the world could use a lot more of. And if, like my family, youre wealthy and have high-income jobs, Id strongly encourage you to consider making large annual donations. I wont claim its easy. It makes budgeting more difficult, and delays home renovations that wed like to get done. But the money that a high-income American family can spare without giving up any essentials is enough money to accomplish an enormous amount in the world. We are the beneficiaries of the wealthiest society in human history. We live in material abundance our ancestors couldnt have imagined. We can afford to set some of that aside and use it to get things done for the world.A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

Timothe Chalamet, Paul Mescal, Zendaya the celebrity look-alike contests sweeping the US and the UK seem to be more than just a weekend fad. Despite sporadic attendance and skeptical media coverage, the events keep happening, sometimes with repeat contests for various celebrities in different cities. Disappointed by the lack of Jack Schlossberg look-alikes in New York? Not to worry, the ultimate Schlossberg doppelgnger might get their chance to shine in Washington, DC, this weekend.Why now, you might ask? What weird burble in the zeitgeist has somehow manifested in lines of identical Chalamets? Is it that we cant get enough of Hollywood it boys? Is it that, as a society, were tiring of lives lived primarily online? Is it that were all thirsty for more fun, low-stake events that are free and open to the public?I turned to a Zayn Malik look-alike contest attendee for answers. I was probably just going to stay home, but I was like, no, some divine spirit is calling me to this look-alike contest, Natalie Miller, a social producer from Bushwick, told me. Miller and a friend attended the contest last Sunday in Maria Hernandez Park. The winner, 29-year-old Shiv Patel, seemed prepared for glory; he told Brooklyn Mag the win adds to my lore. Naturally, Miller got a photo.Its almost a real celebrity moment.However tongue-in-cheek the events and the participants might be, the glee theyre producing is real. Everyone was just having such a good time, and it was 30 minutes, but it was just the best part of everyones day, Miller said.Its been a minute since the public took to the streets for fun reasons. While flash mobs of the early 2010s quickly got deemed cringe, viral dance memes of the mid-10s often resulted in injuries, and the past few years of Pokmon Go may have inadvertently aided our dystopian nightmare, these look-alike contests seem, so far, to be wholly banal. (Well, notwithstanding that one guy who got arrested.)[T]he timothee chalamet lookalike competition just shows that the people yearn for weird town events like we live in gilmore girls, as one viral post put it.Indeed, theres plenty of precedent for precisely this type of quirky celebration. This moment harks back to an era well before the internet, when people were arguably considerably more bored and desperate for entertainment or, as Jeremy O. Harris put it, Great Depression era coded. In other words, we might be seeking refuge from our current reality in wholesome, mindless community spectator events. Historian and folklorist Matthew Algeo noted to Vox that such crazes historically spring up amid times of intense technological and social change changes that necessarily create public anxiety and a longing for community and simple entertainment.We think of the Great Depression as an economic event, but it was also a psychological event, Algeo said. Were going through a psychological event right now. Theres a hunger for diversion.Algeo is the author of Pedestrianism, about the massively popular walking contests of the 1870s and 80s, in which crowds would fill huge stadiums, including Madison Square Garden, to watch other people walk around in circles for hours. People are looking for new and interesting forms of entertainment, Algeo said, something that everybody can relate to. As for what the spectators get out of it, Algeo admitted that, as interesting entertainment goes, walking competitions and look-alike contests are a little like watching paint dry. He suggested one reason people turn out for the events is that they get a perverse joy in watching other people putting themselves out there in public. While ironic glee could certainly be one factor, Miller suggests a purer motivation.It honestly felt like a One Direction meet and greet, Miller, a longtime Directioner, told me. I was so nervous going up to [Patel]. Its just so fun to experience that joy again.One might assume that the primary appeal of these look-alike contests would be to the fandoms of those specific celebrities, but that isnt the case; Miller said she was pleasantly surprised at the way most people in attendance at the Zayn contest seemed to be locals rather than fans. It felt like a local community gathering and it was just so joyous, Miller said of the crowd. Algeo told me the local community appeal is understandable.It reminds me of how famous walker Edward Payson Weston would go to these small towns and do these challenges where he would walk 100 miles in 24 hours in somebodys barn, Algeo said. Everybody had to come out and see it because it was live entertainment, and that really brought communities together. This is kind of the same thing. It gives people a reason to get out of their houses and share an experience with other people, in real time and in real life. He also compared the current craze to flagpole-sitting of the 20s and 30s, when the public would go gawk at other humans sitting, where else, atop flagpoles.It sounds silly, but I think the fact that its silly might make it all the more appealing to people, Algeo said. Especially in this day and age, with everything so intense and polarized and fractured. Its hard to summon a lot of negative emotions about a celebrity look-alike contest. Thinking back to the Depression, it probably doesnt hurt that in the current age of inflation, these events are free.Theres also perhaps a little bit of stunt myth-making afoot. The flagpole-sitting craze began because a theater hired a Hollywood stuntman named Shipwreck Kelly to sit atop a flagpole to promote a new film. From there, the trend went viral. Likewise, the look-alike contests might have been born out of self-promotion as much as wholesome community fun. The organizer of the first look-alike contest, the Timothe Chalamet competition famously attended by Timothe Chalamet himself, is Anthony Po, a New York-based YouTuber with nearly 2 million followers tuning in to his stunt videos, which range from sneaking into cults to manufacturing paranormal sightings. He swiftly moved on from the look-alike contest uproar to planning his next big event: a boxing match between his alter-ego, Cheeseball Man, and a mysterious newcomer named Cornhead Killer. Still, it would seem that, so far, Cornhead Killer has nothing on Sunday in the park with Zayns. Its objectively so funny to see a bunch of people standing in a straight line that all look really similar, Miller assured me. Millers giddy joy in congregating with her fellow Directioners and fellow Bushwick community members would seem to support Algeos hypothesis that, in the end, people just like to watch other people do things. No matter what theyre doing, theres probably any human activity you could get a crowd for.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

Got yourself a PS5 Pro or planning to pick one up? Here are the games that truly sing on Sony's latest hardware thanks to Pro-specific patches - which have you tried?