• Tomato plants are covered in tiny anti-pest booby traps
    www.newscientist.com
    The hairs on tomato plants are actually tiny pest trapsJalaal Research Group/University of AmsterdamFor hungry insects, walking along a tomato stalk in search of a green meal can be like navigating a minefield.Jared Popowski at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands was trying to measure the mechanical properties of tomato plants in the lab. Then a tiny hair on one of the stalks started oozing liquid and it happened so quickly that his camera barely caught it. He had inadvertently triggered one of the plants pest-protection mechanisms.
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·144 Views
  • Gene-edited cells that evade rejection show promise in type 1 diabetes
    www.newscientist.com
    A transmission electron micrograph of a section through pancreas tissue, showing cells that produce insulinSTEVE GSCHMEISSNER/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY/AlamyThe first human trial of insulin-producing cells that have been gene-edited to evade immune attack is a success so far. The cells have survived and produced insulin for a month after being injected into a 42-year-old man with type 1 diabetes early in December.As a precaution, only a small number of insulin-producing beta cells were injected into a forearm muscle in this initial test, so the man still needs insulin injections. It also remains to be seen how long the
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·147 Views
  • Glyphosate-resistant weeds have evolved in the UK for the first time
    www.newscientist.com
    EnvironmentThe herbicide glyphosate is helping farmers adopt more environmentally friendly practices, and resistant weeds will make this transition more difficult, experts say 10 January 2025 Italian ryegrass is a common weed in arable cropsJohn CussansWeeds resistant to the herbicide glyphosate have found been found in the UK for first time. The species in question, called Italian ryegrass, is very widespread in the UK, but specimens impervious to the chemical have only been found on one farm in Kent.Glyphosate has been helping farmers adopt more environmentally friendly farming practices known as regenerative agriculture, says John Cussans, a weed management expert at consultancy firm ADAS. His team confirmed that the plants were resistant in tests in a greenhouse.It may affect our ability to transition our farming system, says Cussans. Herbicide resistance to glyphosate is a very significant practical problem on a farm.AdvertisementIn the UK, farmers use glyphosate mainly to clear all plants in a field before planting seeds. This allows them to avoid ploughing, which damages soil health, increases erosion and reduces carbon storage.Minimising soil disturbance is one of the key planks of regenerative agriculture, along with crop rotation and maintaining ground cover.Glyphosate is relatively environmentally benign compared to other agrochemicals, says Helen Metcalfe at Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, UK. It shows very little bioaccumulation and low toxicity. And it supports regenerative practices like minimum tillage, which is really great for soil health. It can actually have environmental benefits compared to some of the alternatives. Unmissable news about our planet delivered straight to your inbox every month.Sign up to newsletterWeeds are a massive problem for farmers, says Paul Neve at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. We lose more crop yield to weeds than we do to insect pests and pathogens.Around the world, at least 56 weed species including Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) have evolved glyphosate resistance, and it has happened independently in hundreds of different places. Such weeds are a major problem for many farmers in the US and Argentina, where crops developed to be unaffected by glyphosate have been grown on a large scale for many years.But actually, given that the first case was 30 years ago, this hasnt exploded into a huge problem, says Neve.It is a big issue on individual farms where resistant weeds are present, says Neve, but weeds spread more slowly than, say, insecticide-resistant insect pests. Taking precautions such as cleaning farm equipment to get rid of any seeds can slow their spread.Farmers also need to adopt a range of weed control measures and not rely solely on glyphosate, says Metcalfe. We found that if farmers focus on weed control and implement all these alternatives to glyphosate, that it is possible for profits to start recovering after five to 10 years, she says.Cussanss team stepped up surveillance in the UK in 2018, testing more than 300 samples of Italian ryegrass. He thinks the resistant plants on the farm in Kent almost certainly evolved in situ, rather than being brought in from elsewhere.He also thinks the fact that resistance seems to have taken much longer to evolve in the UK than in other countries could be because farmers there dont grow crops genetically modified or conventionally bred to be resistant to glyphosate. With such crops, glyphosate can be applied to control weeds while crops are growing as well as before planting seeds.Topics:
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·144 Views
  • Meta's chief marketing officer says he's worried 'too much censorship is actually harmful'
    www.businessinsider.com
    Meta's chief marketing officer Alex Schultz is concerned that "too much censorship" is harmful. Schultz's comments come after Meta updated several policies, including content moderation.The new guidelines change what is permissible to be said about LGBTQ+ people. Meta's chief marketing officer warned that greater censorship on its platforms could "harm speech" from the LGBTQ+ community aiming to push back against hate.Alex Schultz posted his feelings on Meta's decision to change its policy on hateful conduct earlier this week in a post on its internal forum."My perspective is we've done well as a community when the debate has happened and I was shocked with how far we've gone with censorship of the debate," Schultz wrote in the post, seen by Business Insider.He added that his friends and family were shocked to see him receive abuse as a gay man in the past, but that it helped them to realize hatred exists."Most of our progress on rights happened during periods without mass censorship like this and pushing it underground, I think, has coincided with reversals," he said."Obviously, I don't like people saying things that I consider awful but I worry that the solution of censoring that doesn't work as well as you might hope. So I don't know the answer, this stuff is really complicated, but I am worried that too much censorship is actually harmful and that's may have been where we ended up."Earlier this week, the company adjusted its moderation guidelines to allow statements on its platforms claiming that LGBTQ+ people are "mentally ill" and removed trans and nonbinary-themed chat options from its Messenger app, features that had previously been showcased as part of the company's support for Pride Month.Schultz also said that he does not think that censorship and cancel culture have helped the LGBTQ+ movement.He wrote, "We don't enforce these things perfectly," and cited an example of a mistake of taking down images of two men kissing and removing a slur word toward gay people rather than a deliberate move by a "bigoted person in operations."Schultz added, "So the more rules we have, the more mistakes we makeModeration is hard and we'll always get it wrong somewhat. The more rules, the more censorship, the more we'll harm speech from our own community pushing back on hatred."The company's latest decision to roll back its DEI programs has sparked intense internal debate and public scrutiny. The announcement, delivered via an internal memo by VP of HR Janelle Gale, said that the company would dismantle its dedicated DEI team and eliminate diversity programs in its hiring process.The company said Tuesday it will replace third-party fact-checkers on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads with a community notes system, mirroring the approach used on Elon Musk's platform, X. Schulz told BI in an interview earlier this week that the election of Donald Trump and a broader shift in public sentiment around free speech played significant roles in these decisions.He acknowledged that internal and external pressures had led Meta to adopt more restrictive policies in recent years, but the company is now taking steps to regain control over its approach to content moderation.Meta's internal forum, Workplace, saw reactions ranging from anger and disappointment to cautious optimism about the company's direction. One employee lamented the rollback as "another step backward" for Meta, while others raised concerns about the message it sends to marginalized communities that rely on Meta's platforms.At Meta's offices in Silicon Valley, Texas, and New York, facilities managers were instructed to remove tampons from men's bathrooms, which the company had provided for nonbinary and transgender employees who use the men's room and may require sanitary products, The New York Times reported on Friday.Meta didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from BI.You can email Jyoti Mann at jmann@businessinsider.com, send her a secure message on Signal @jyotimann.11 or DM her via X @jyoti_mann1If you're a current or former Meta employee, contact this reporter from a nonwork device securely on Signal at +1-408-905-9124 or email him at pranavdixit@protonmail.com.
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·122 Views
  • The Trump Organization's foreign deals pledge leaves some wiggle room
    www.businessinsider.com
    The Trump Organization announced its ethics plan for Donald Trump's second term.The president-elect's private company said Trump would be walled off from day-to-day duties.Unlike in 2017, the company is leaving the door more open to some foreign transactions.The Trump Organization on Friday announced that President-elect Donald Trump will be walled off from the day-to-day management of his privately held company.Unlike in 2017, Trump's company is not agreeing to a blanket stop on new foreign business transactions. Instead, a five-page ethics plan calls only for a limit on transactions with foreign governments."The Company will not enter into any new material transactions or contracts with a foreign government, except for Ordinary Course Transactions," says a copy of the plan, obtained by CNBC.The language would seem to allow business dealings like the Trump Organization's work with LIV Golf, a competitor to the PGA financed by Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund, to continue. LIV is set to return to Trump National Doral in Florida for an April tournament.Many policies outlined in a five-page document mirror Trump's promises when he took office in 2016. One of the main similarities is that the Trump Organization has again appointed an outside ethics advisor. Bill Burck, co-managing Partner of Quinn Emanuel and a former George W. Bush DOJ official, will serve as the advisor.According to the plan, Burck will review acquisitions over $10 million, leases involving more than 40,000 sq. ft., and new debts of more than $10 million. He will also review deals with the US government as well as with state and local governments.The Wall Street Journal first reported on the ethics plan. The Journal also reported that the Trump Organization wants to reclaim its former Washington, DC, hotel. Congressional Democrats sued Trump when he was in office, alleging he was partly violating theUS Constitution's emoluments clauseby renting out hotel rooms to foreign governments. In 2021, the Supreme Court threw out the remaining emoluments-related lawsuits.Trump has significant assets outside of his eponymous firm. He has a significant stake in Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of his social media platform Truth Social. Trump's shares are a large part of the reason why his net worth is now estimated to be over $6 billion.
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·119 Views
  • The 20 best small cities in the US
    www.businessinsider.com
    20. Arlington, MassachusettsArlington, Massachusetts. Demetri2K/Getty Images Median housing cost: $1,100,000Population: 46,30819. Needham, MassachusettsWellesley, Massachusetts, pictured here, borders Needham. Denis Tangney Jr./Getty Images Median housing cost: $1,375,000Population: 32,091 18. Downers Grove, IllinoisDowners Grove, Illinois. Patricia Ybarra/Getty Images Median housing cost: $483,000Population: 49,70617. Saratoga Springs, New YorkSaratoga Springs, New York robertcicchetti / iStock Median housing cost: $742,500Population: 28,544 16. Kaysville, UtahKaysville, Utah. raclro/Getty Images Median housing cost: $754,500Population: 32,94115. Castle Rock, ColoradoCastle Rock, Colorado. Shutterstock Median housing cost: $656,000Population: 81,415 14. Noblesville, IndianaThe Hamilton County courthouse building in Noblesville, Indiana Purdue9394/Getty Images Median housing cost: $394,500Population: 73,91613. Leesburg, VirginiaLeesburg, Virginia. Gerville/Getty Images Median housing cost: $741,250Population: 49,312 12. Fair Lawn, New JerseyPaterson, New Jersey, pictured here, borders Fair Lawn and is a 20-minute drive from New York City. iShootPhotosLLC/Getty Images Median housing cost: $630,000Population: 35,56411. Milton, MassachusettsBoston, Massachusetts, pictured here, is a 20-minute drive from Milton. Shutterstock Shutterstock Median housing cost: $1,025,000Population: 28,630 10. Westfield, IndianaWestfield, Indiana. Michael Sinclair/The City of Westfield Median housing cost: $421,000Population: 57,7469. Bozeman, MontanaBozeman, Montana. Hannah Lorsch/Shutterstock Median housing cost: $685,000Population: 57,305 8. Lancaster, PennsylvaniaLancaster, Pennsylvania. Christian Hinkle/Shutterstock Median housing cost: $236,000Population: 18,6777. Brentwood, TennesseeBrentwood, Tennessee. Brentwood, Tennessee. Facebook/City of Brentwood, Tennessee Local Government Median housing cost: $1,200,000Population: 45,265 6. Apex, North CarolinaA home in Apex, North Carolina. Malcolm MacGregor/Getty Images Median housing cost: $660,000Population: 72,2255. Appleton, WisconsinAppleton, Wisconsin. Appleton Downtown/Facebook Median housing cost: $260,000Population: 74,719 4. Fishers, IndianaFishers, Indiana. Getty Images Median housing cost: $415,000Population: 104,0943. Lexington, MassachusettsLexington, Massachusetts. bpperry/Getty Images Median housing cost: $1,600,000Population: 34,454 2. Brookfield, WisconsinBrookfield, Wisconsin. Getty Images Median housing cost: $462,500Population: 41,8841. Carmel, IndianaCarmel, Indiana. Michael Godek/Getty Images Median housing cost: $479,500Population: 102,296
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·106 Views
  • NYC’s congestion pricing is unpopular for now
    www.vox.com
    After a last minute about-face, pushback, and compromise, congestion pricing officially went into effect this week in New York City. The first-in-the-nation policy which tries to reduce traffic and raise revenue for public transit by charging drivers a steep fee to use the busiest roads in Manhattan has been, to say the least, controversial. Back in June, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul abruptly slammed the brakes on congestion pricing just weeks before it was set to launch, only to eventually bring it back at a lower rate. At the time, a Siena College poll had found that nearly two-thirds of New Yorkers opposed the plan. And since it launched, some people living in and around Manhattan have aired their grievances about the extra charge, and businesses have said that the new scheme will cause them to raise their prices.Its way too soon to measure how congestion pricing is faring in New York, either in terms of its popularity or effects on transportation in the region. Commute times have reportedly been shorter on bridges and tunnels entering Manhattan. And while there are anecdotes of quieter streets within the congestion relief zone which is anywhere in Manhattan south of 60th Street traffic data so far shows that there hasnt been much of a change in commuting patterns compared to previous weeks. Its also hard to say how much of any traffic changes have been a result of congestion pricing as opposed to, say, brutally cold weather.Thats why it will take many months to get a sense of how successful New Yorks congestion pricing model is, and what its other effects may be. Will New York see carbon emissions decrease, for example, like cities with congestion pricing have experienced? Other American cities are also watching how it unfolds to see if they could implement something like it. But in the meantime, New Yorkers eager to know how this will play out can look at how congestion pricing has worked in other cities that have given it a shot. What New York can learn from other citiesLondon implemented congestion pricing in 2003, then charging vehicles 5 to enter the citys busiest streets on weekdays between 7 am and 6:30 pm. Just before the toll was put in place, only 39 percent of Londoners supported the plan similar numbers to the Siena poll showing the (un)popularity of NYCs plan. Five months after the program launched, public support for congestion pricing grew to 59 percent, buoyed by noticeably decongested roads. In the policys first year, London saw a 30 percent reduction in traffic.Stockholm was a similar story. When the city first imposed a congestion tax in 2006, it started with a seven-month trial period. During this time, the policy effectively removed some 100,000 cars off the roads in the relief zone, easing traffic and improving peoples commute times. Shortly afterward, Stockholm residents approved a referendum to make congestion pricing permanent, and public support swelled to 70 percent by 2011.In both London and Stockholm, residents were resistant at first but eventually they experienced the promised benefits of reduced traffic and better public transportation and eventually came around to the idea, said Sarah Kaufman, the director of New York Universitys Rudin Center for Transportation.That doesnt mean that the same exact trend will play out in New York. For one, New Yorks policy is more stringent. In London, weekend tolls are only in place between noon and 6 pm and in Stockholm, drivers arent charged a toll on the weekends at all. By contrast, New York will still be charging drivers the peak toll on Saturdays and Sundays from 9 am to 9 pm. New Yorks policy also applies year-round, whereas Stockholms policy varies: Drivers dont pay the toll during July, and they pay lower, off-peak prices between December and March. There are also limits to how much tolling the public is willing to accept. There was an expansion of the London program between 2007 and 2010 into some wealthier western neighborhoods. [Then-mayor of London] Boris Johnson eliminated the expansion, however, due to continued opposition from the neighborhood, wrote Yonah Freemark, a researcher at the Urban Institute who often focuses on transportation policy, in an email.Still, the effects of congestion pricing on the number of vehicles on the road are clear. When Milan briefly suspended its car tax in 2012 due to a court ruling after car owners protested, traffic quickly soared. Congestion pricing was reinstated after a few months, and traffic again subsided. So is congestion pricing here to stay?Examples from cities around the world show that congestion pricing is a resilient policy because public support for the program tends to grow after it launches. But New Yorks situation might have unique challenges. One reason is that the opposition includes especially loud voices. President-elect Donald Trump, for example, vowed to end the program by rescinding its federal approval once hes back in the White House though its unclear whether a move like that could withstand the courts. Its possible that a conservative future governor of New York could attempt to stop the program in part or fully, Freemark added.Still, positive public opinion would make this more difficult and the key in changing public opinion on the toll is to ensure that residents actually feel the positive effects of it. The benefits have to go hand in hand with the fees, Kaufman, from NYU, said.London, for example, added 300 buses to its fleet when congestion pricing went into effect, showing residents that investments into public transit were actually being made. In the spring, New York is expected to increase service on at least 24 bus routes. In New York, when somebody sees a new elevator at their home subway station or when their bus trip takes half the time it did before, or they feel like theyre not completely drowning in honking noises as they walk down the street, then New Yorkers will start to appreciate the program, Kaufman added. So if lawmakers invested in congestion pricing want to help New Yorks policy follow that of other cities, they need to also invest in public transit and follow a simple formula: Make the trains (and buses) run on time, and more driving commuters will happily leave their cars at home.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:
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·137 Views
  • The Supreme Court doesn’t seem likely to save TikTok
    www.vox.com
    On Friday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will decide if the popular social media app TikTok can still exist in the United States once a law that effectively bans the app goes into effect January 19. After the arguments, its not looking good for TikTok fans.The first two-thirds of Fridays argument in TikTok v. Garland were about as lopsided as any court hearing can be. The justices grilled two lawyers arguing that TikTok should be allowed to continue to operate, because the federal law banning it violates the First Amendment.At the heart of the case is the fact that TikTok is owned by ByteDance, a company based in China, a US adversary. Last year, a federal law was enacted that effectively bans TikTok in the United States unless the company is sold to a new owner one that cannot be controlled by the Chinese government (or by some other foreign adversary). According to TikToks legal team, the law would force TikTok to go dark in the United States on January 19, and that shutdown violates Americans right to freedom of speech.By the time the two lawyers arguing against the ban Noel Francisco who represents TikTok, and Jeffrey Fisher who represents a group of TikTok users took their seats, it appeared likely that all nine justices would vote unanimously to uphold the ban.That said, the picture grew more nuanced after US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar stood up to defend the ban. Many of the justices seemed skeptical of Prelogars most aggressive legal arguments, which suggest that a law that shuts down a forum that tens of millions of Americans use to engage in free speech does not implicate the First Amendment at all. And some of them, particularly Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, expressed idiosyncratic concerns, which suggest they may ultimately side with TikTok.Still, Francisco and Fishers time at the podium went so badly that it is hard to see TikTok prevailing all nine of the justices took turns grilling these lawyers with questions that cut at the core of Francisco and Fishers arguments. It is likely that many of the skeptical questions Prelogar faced, by contrast, were driven by concerns about overreaching in a decision ruling in TikToks favor, rather than by a desire to see TikTok prevail.RelatedTikTok should lose its big Supreme Court caseBroadly speaking, the TikTok case pits two well-established legal rules against each other. As a general rule, the government does not get to decide who owns media companies: If the government had this power, it could force every newspaper and other media outlet in the country to sell itself to one of President-elect Donald Trumps allies, effectively eliminating the free press.That said, the government has long forbade foreign nationals from controlling key communications infrastructure in the United States. This practice stretches at least as far back as the Radio Act of 1912, which only permitted US companies and citizens to obtain a license to operate a radio station.Based on Fridays argument, it is likely that this second principle the principle that permits the government to prevent foreign nations from controlling US communications infrastructure will prevail.The Court is likely to rule against TikTok, but it isnt quite sure how to do soBroadly speaking, the justices expressed three different reasons why the Court might uphold the TikTok ban at the heart of this case.One of those arguments is grounded in the governments long history of locking foreign nationals out of ownership of US communications infrastructure. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in particular, pointed to this long tradition, which began more than a century ago, and that remains part of US law today.Current law, for example, prohibits any foreign government or the representative thereof from having a radio station license, and it broadly bars noncitizens and companies with significant foreign ownership from controlling those stations. The TikTok case applies the principle that foreign nationals can be barred from controlling key communications infrastructure to a new context a social media app instead of a radio station but the basic principle remains the same.A second argument, pressed by several justices and particularly by Chief Justice John Roberts, is that the TikTok ban is lawful because Congress wasnt really motivated by a desire to restrict speech. In Robertss words, Congress was not concerned about the content that appears on TikTok, it was concerned about what the foreign adversary is doing.It is true, of course, that a law that effectively shuts down a social media platform will quiet TikToks approximately 170 million US users, but this result is incidental to the governments true purpose, which lawmakers explicitly stated is preventing the Chinese government from collecting data on Americans and from manipulating what content they see. Lawmakers who supported the bill were clear that they see TikTok as a national security threat.Its also likely that these users would only be temporarily prevented from posting videos online, because ByteDance could later sell TikTok to a US company. At one point, in response to a question by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Prelogar noted that even if TikTok is shut down on January 19, it could come back to life at some future date after ByteDance sells the company to someone else. Meanwhile, several competitors already provide essentially the same service.Finally, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised a third argument against TikToks position. She argued that the law at issue in the case isnt really about speech at all. Rather, it is about TikToks right of association with a China-based company. The First Amendment often protects a right to associate with whoever we chose to be associated with, just as it protects free speech. But, as Jackson noted, the Court has permitted laws that prohibit Americans from associating with terrorist organizations and foreign adversaries. She pointed, in particular, to Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), which upheld a ban on providing material support or resources to certain foreign terrorist organizations, even when an American merely wants to train members of those organizations on how to use humanitarian and international law to peacefully resolve disputes. So, if Congress can ban Americans or US companies from associating with a foreign terrorist organization, why cant it also ban Americans from associating with a company that can be controlled by an adversarial foreign government?Based on Fridays argument, it is unclear which of these three arguments or perhaps which combination of them will be showcased in the Courts ultimate opinion. Still, the justices appeared sufficiently skeptical of TikToks legal position that it seems unlikely that the company will prevail.Though the Court is likely to uphold the TikTok ban, many of the justices also appeared worried that their opinion could harm Americans free speech rights if it is not carefully crafted. Justice Elena Kagan, for example, pressed Prelogar on how she can square her arguments in the case with the Courts previous decisions protecting the free speech rights of communists.As Kagan noted, the government often targeted the Communist Party in the United States due to concerns that it was part of a broader Communist International movement and even took direction from the Soviet Union. Yet these ties to a foreign adversary were not sufficient to justify restricting communist speech.Several justices also seemed concerned that some of Prelogars most aggressive arguments went too far. At one point in her brief, for example, Prelogar argued that the First Amendment simply does not apply at all to this case, because ByteDance is a foreign corporation and foreign companies are not protected by the First Amendment. Elsewhere, she argued that the Court should only apply a diminished level of scrutiny to the TikTok ban because the law is content neutral.Many of the justices took issue with this content neutrality claim. As Alito noted, a law that says Joe cant talk anymore targets Joe because of the content of his speech. So why doesnt a law which effectively says that ByteDance cant operate a media outlet in the US also engage in content discrimination?As Jackson put it, the whole point of requiring ByteDance to divest from TikTok is that, in some instances, the government thinks that TikTok will promote different content if it has a different owner.That said, the fact that the justices seemed to reject Prelogars most sweeping arguments does not necessarily mean the government will lose. Broadly speaking, in constitutional cases like this one, courts begin by asking which level of scrutiny should apply to a law. Laws that encroach on core constitutional rights are typically subject to strict scrutiny, which means that the law must be as narrowly crafted as possible in order to advance a compelling goal. Most laws subject to this test are struck down. Laws that dont really touch upon constitutional rights at all are almost always upheld. And laws that fall somewhere in the middle are subject to intermediate scrutiny, which functions similarly to strict scrutiny but also gives the government a little more leeway to operate.Without diving too deep into the weeds of these tiers of scrutiny, a topic that is typically covered over several weeks in any law students introductory constitutional law class, its worth noting that the federal appeals court that heard the case ruled that the TikTok ban would even survive strict scrutiny in part because the governments interest in preventing China from collecting data on tens of millions of Americans is so compelling.So, while the justices did hit Prelogar with several tough questions, these questions may have been intended to probe which level of scrutiny they should apply in their opinion and not whether they should ultimately uphold the law.All of this said, it is always risky to predict the outcome of a Supreme Court case based solely on the justices comments at oral argument. So it is possible that TikTok will somehow assemble five votes to strike down the law at issue in this case.But that outcome does not seem likely. It is more likely that, come January 19, TikTok will go dark in the United States.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:
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·134 Views
  • Should fluoride be in our water?
    www.vox.com
    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has put the decades-old debate over water fluoridation back on the table. As President-elect Donald Trumps pick for Health and Human Services secretary, he might become the most powerful public health figure in the US who believes we should take fluoride out of our water. Currently, its up to municipalities to set their own water fluoride doses most of them set them around 0.7 milligrams per liter of water so its unclear whether a federal agency will be able to change course on water fluoridation in the US. About 63 percent of Americans have fluoridated water. Millions of Americans also drink water that is naturally fluoridated at even higher levels.The video explains how this renewed attention on water fluoridation is happening at a time when new science is emerging on the topic. Historically, water fluoridation has done wonders for combatting tooth decay, primarily in children. But scientists are looking into whether its still having the same effect today, given how widespread topical fluoride and regular dental care is now.There is a growing scientific debate about whether the doses we are exposed to in the US are safe for developing brains.Part of the difficulty of the science on fluoride is that when it comes to studying fluorides risks, there has never been a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study the gold standard in science for proving causation. All of the studies we mention in the video are observational. This lack of study is typical in epidemiology when researching something that could be harmful in some doses. But surprisingly, theres never been this kind of trial on the benefits of water fluoridation, either. However, the University of North Carolina is currently conducting the first-ever trial of this kind on the benefits of water fluoridation.Its worth noting that this video talks about studies that look at the link between childhood IQ and high fluoride levels. These types of studies are done on a population level so, averaging IQ across a large group. The study of IQ is problematic in some scenarios. But one expert I spoke to explained why its the best tool epidemiologists have for doing this type of research.Historically, there have been concerns about how IQ is racially biased, Bruce Lanphear, a professor of health sciences at Simon Fraser University, told me. But in fact, probably of all the different measures we use for brain function broadly, IQ is the optimal one we use. In contrast with some of the behavioral scores which are most typically based upon parent report. And those are valuable and theyve been validated. But IQ is not only validated, its been shown to work consistently, at least within homogeneous groups.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: Video
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·140 Views
  • Someone Likely Used a Sophisticated Phone-Spying Device at the 2024 DNC
    gizmodo.com
    The Electronic Frontier Foundation has come to the conclusion that someone likely deployed a mobile phone surveillance system during the Democratic National Convention last summer, according to a new report from Wired. Evidence for that assertion comes from Cooper Quintin, a senior technologist at EFF, who has spent time investigating whether police technologies were deployed during the event from the event. Wired worked together with the EFF to conduct an analysis of wireless signal data. What they found was evidence that someone may have used a cell-site simulator to spy on devices. Cell-site simulators are controversial police tools that can grab wireless signals out of the air and store them for later analysis. Cell-site simulators basically conduct Man-in-the-Middle style attacks, convincing mobile devices that they are cell towers and that they should send their signals to them. These attacks can reveal critical personal information, like location data, call metadata, and app traffic, providing a critical window into mobile activity. A popular brand of cell-site simulators is the Stingray. Wired reporters traveled to the DNC last summer and used phones equipped with special software. That software had been created by the EFF and was designed to pick up on data anomalies related to the devices. Wired describes their experiment thusly:WIRED attended protests across the city, events at the United Center (where the DNC took place), and social gatherings with lobbyists, political figures, and influencers. We spent time walking the perimeter along march routes and through planned protest sites before, during, and after these events. In the process we captured Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and cellular signals. We then analyzed those signals looking for specific hardware identifiers and other suspicious signs that could indicate the presence of a cell-site simulator. After analyzing the data from those devices, Quinton told Wired that it appeared to show that someone may have been deploying a cell-site simulator in the area at the time of the convention. Wired writes that one of the devices the reporters were carrying abruptly switched to a new tower. That tower then asked for the devices IMSI (international mobile subscriber identity) and then immediately disconnecteda sequence consistent with the operation of a cell-site simulator.This is extremely suspicious behavior that normal towers do not exhibit, Quintin told Wired, of the analysis. This is not 100 percent incontrovertible truth, but its strong evidence suggesting a cell-site simulator was deployed. We dont know who was responsibleit could have been the US government, foreign actors, or another entity. Gizmodo reached out to the EFF for more information. Its unknown what might motivate someone to use a surveillance system at the Democratic National Convention, though there was one obvious reason why police would want to surveil local phones at the time. The convention was marred by ongoing protests over the Biden administrations support of the Israeli assault on Gaza. At the time of the protests, over 40,000 Palestinians had reportedly been killed, the majority of which were women and children, according to one UN estimate. Thousands of protesters gathered outside the DNC in Chicago. In some cases, protesters were arrested for having breached a barricade outside the convention center.
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·132 Views