city:san francisco

  • The Dead Kennedys - I Fought the Law
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dB_ubVAnGw

    1978 / 1987 - I Fought the Law - The Dead Kennedys version
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Fought_the_Law#Dead_Kennedys_version

    Songwriters: Sonny Curtis, Jello Biafra, East Bay Ray

    The punk band Dead Kennedys put together their own version of “I Fought The Law” shortly after San Francisco politician Dan White murdered city Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone in 1978. Most of the lyrics were re-written so the song was from White’s point of view; the chorus was changed to “I fought the law, and I won”, with the final line in the final chorus changed to “I am the law, so I won.” The song portrays White as someone who got away with first-degree premeditated murder and is unrepentant about it and specifically cites his use of the diminished responsibility defense. It also makes use of the reference “Twinkie defense”, where lead singer Jello Biafra sings “Twinkies are the best friend I ever had”.

    Dead Kennedys lyrics

    Drinking beer in the hot sun
    I fought the law and I won, I fought the law and I won
    I needed sex and I got mine
    I fought the law and I won, I fought the law and I won

    The law don’t mean shit if you’ve got the right friends
    That’s how this country’s run
    Twinkies are the best friend I’ve ever had
    I fought the law and I won, I fought the law and I won

    I blew George and Harvey’s brains out with my six-gun
    I fought the law and I won, I fought the law and I won
    Gonna write my book and make a million
    I fought the law and I won, I fought the law and I won

    I’m the new folk hero of the Ku Klux Klan
    My cop friends think that’s fine
    You can get away with murder if you’ve got a badge
    I fought the law and I won, I fought the law and I won

    I fought the law and I won
    I am the law so I won

    The Crickets - I Fought The Law
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKrxq5U8SBY

    The Crickets furent le groupe de Buddy Holly jusqu’à sa mort le 3 février 1959 .

    1958 / 1959 / 1960 - I Fought the Law - The Crickets version

    Songwriter: Sonny Curtis of the Crickets
    The Crickets lyrics

    I’m breakin rocks in the hot sun
    I fought the law and the law won
    I fought the law and the law won

    I miss my baby and good fun
    I fought the law and the law won
    I fought the law and the law won

    I’ve left my baby and it feels so bad
    Guess my race is run
    Shes the best girl that I ever had
    I fought the law and the law won
    I fought the law and the law won

    Robbin people with a zip-gun
    I fought the law and the law won
    I fought the law and the law won

    I needed money cause I had none
    I fought the law and the law won
    I fought the law and the law won

    I’ve left my baby and it feels so bad
    Guess my race is run
    Shes the best girl that I’ve ever had
    I fought the law and the law won
    I fought the law and the law won

    A titre de comparaison voici la version qui a rendu célèbre la chanson et en a fait la clé du succès des Bobby Fuller Four .

    Bobby Fuller Four - I Fought The Law - 45 RPM Original Mono Mix
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc8fdHYMLT4

    Une fois tombé entre les producteurs des grands labels le Bobby Fuller Four sort une version beaucoup moins hard .

    Bobby Fuller Four I Fought The Law Stereo Single Mix
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzgKR-AkhBs

    #musique #rock_n_roll #punk #politique #gay

  • Apocalypse Now ?

    Le pays va-t-il se retourner contre les riches ? Contre l’innovation technologique ? Est-ce que ça va se transformer en désordre civil ? En tout cas, plus de 50 % des milliardaires de la Silicon Valley ont pris, d’une manière ou d’une autre, une assurance contre l’apocalypse.

    Tout aussi irrationnel, les mêmes qui font construire un mur de la honte pour se « proteger » des populations du Sud sont en train de coloniser la Nouvelle-Zélande :

    S’ils ne s’accordent pas sur la cause de cette apocalypse, beaucoup trouvent que la Nouvelle-Zélande est le meilleur endroit pour y faire face. Un pays qui ne connaît pas d’ennemi, a peu de chance d’être la cible d’une bombe nucléaire, et composé de nombreuses îles où s’isoler, avec de l’altitude pour faire face à la montée du niveau de la mer, de larges territoires inhabités, peu de pollution… Rien qu’en 2016, 13 000 riches américains y ont demandé un permis de construire. Le pays a dû restreindre par la loi la vente de logements à des étrangers, pour maîtriser la hausse des prix de l’immobilier.

    Ce sont aussi les mêmes qui, déplaçant les populations, détruisant lieux de vie indigènes et zones à défendre, se construisent des rêves d’autonomie :

    Mark Zuckerberg, PDG de Facebook, voit plus grand. Il a acheté un domaine dans le pacifique, sur une petite île au large de Hawaï. Il a payé les poignées de familles présentes sur ses terres, qui y cultivaient de la canne à sucre, pour partir. Il entend s’y faire bâtir une propriété et une ferme bio de 27 hectares, en autosuffisance totale. Un investissement à plus de cent millions de dollars pour assurer sa seule survie et celle de sa famille…

    Là où fleurissent les bunkers de milliardaires : https://www.humanite.fr/nouvelle-zelande-la-ou-fleurissent-les-bunkers-de-milliardaires-670945

    • Nouvelle-zélande. Là où fleurissent les bunkers de milliardaires | L’Humanité
      https://www.humanite.fr/nouvelle-zelande-la-ou-fleurissent-les-bunkers-de-milliardaires-670945


      La bonne nouvelle, c’est que maintenant, nous savons très exactement où trouver les responsables de ce merdier !

      De la Californie à Auckland, les entrepreneurs de la Silicon Valley construisent des abris par peur de la fin d’un monde qu’ils ont participé à créer.

      Les magnats de la Silicon Valley et autres startupers croient-ils sincèrement, comme ils aiment le répéter à longueur de conférences et de plateaux télé, que la technologie va sauver le monde ? La réponse se trouve certainement en Nouvelle-Zélande, où plusieurs dizaines d’entre eux achètent des terres pour se préparer à l’apocalypse. Un haut cadre de Facebook, qui venait de s’offrir quelques hectares boisés sur une île où il a fait installer des générateurs, panneaux solaires et un stock de munitions, le disait clairement à la BBC : « Notre société s’apprête à vivre des changements économiques et technologiques spectaculaires et je ne pense pas que les gens le réalisent. Mais nous, oui, la Silicon Valley vit dans le futur. Avec l’automatisation et l’intelligence artificielle, presque la moitié des emplois américains n’existeront plus dans vingt, trente ans. »
      Une assurance contre l’apocalypse pour les ultrariches

      Un drame social est à venir, qu’ils anticipent d’autant plus qu’ils commencent à avoir conscience qu’ils en sont la cause. Le milliardaire Reid Hoffman, fondateur de LinkedIn, s’interroge donc, dans le New Yorker : « Le pays va-t-il se retourner contre les riches ? Contre l’innovation technologique ? Est-ce que ça va se transformer en désordre civil ? En tout cas, plus de 50 % des milliardaires de la Silicon Valley ont pris, d’une manière ou d’une autre, une assurance contre l’apocalypse. » Pour eux, lorsque le peuple aussi s’en rendra compte et se demandera qui s’est enrichi à milliards en détruisant le travail et en creusant les inégalités, mieux vaudra pour les responsables être à plusieurs milliers de kilomètres de là. Et bien préparés.

      D’autres ultrariches craignent plutôt les bouleversements climatiques, le soulèvement des robots dominés par une intelligence artificielle hostile, Kim Jong-un, un virus… La preuve, il est 23 h 58 sur l’horloge de la fin du monde, tenue à l’heure par l’université de Chicago. S’ils ne s’accordent pas sur la cause de cette apocalypse, beaucoup trouvent que la Nouvelle-Zélande est le meilleur endroit pour y faire face. Un pays qui ne connaît pas d’ennemi, a peu de chance d’être la cible d’une bombe nucléaire, et composé de nombreuses îles où s’isoler, avec de l’altitude pour faire face à la montée du niveau de la mer, de larges territoires inhabités, peu de pollution… Rien qu’en 2016, 13 000 riches américains y ont demandé un permis de construire. Le pays a dû restreindre par la loi la vente de logements à des étrangers, pour maîtriser la hausse des prix de l’immobilier.

      Le milliardaire Peter Thiel, fondateur de PayPal et de Palantir, a lancé le mouvement en 2015, en achetant pour près de 12 millions d’euros une ferme et près de 200 hectares de terrain sur les rives du lac Wanaka, dans le sud de la Nouvelle-Zélande. Il y a fait construit une pièce ultrasécurisée. Avec quatre autres entrepreneurs de la Silicon Valley, dont Sam Altman, patron de Y Combinator, il garde toujours un avion prêt à s’envoler et à traverser 7 000 kilomètres au-dessus du Pacifique au moindre signe d’apocalypse ou de révolte sociale. L’un d’entre eux avoue même conserver dans son garage de San Francisco une moto et des armes, pour rejoindre au plus vite l’avion privé.

      Julian Robertson, milliardaire et président d’un fonds d’investissement californien, a, lui, choisi le lac voisin de Wakatipu. Une dizaine d’autres multimillionnaires californiens ont acheté des propriétés dans la région. Tandis que le financier Bill Foley et le réalisateur de Titanic, James Cameron, ont, eux, opté pour des villas sécurisées sur l’île plus au nord. Sept autres pontes de la Silicon Valley ont opté pour des bunkers blindés, construits à plus de trois mètres sous le sol, et localisables uniquement par GPS dans des grandes prairies de la Nouvelle-Zélande. Et cela au bénéfice d’une entreprise californienne, Terra Vivos, qui fait son beurre en proposant ses solutions contre l’apocalypse. L’entreprise avait déjà pu roder son produit d’appel, un grand bunker antiatomique médicalisé, avec cinéma, armurerie et cellules individuelles, à destination des nombreux Américains qui ont cru à la fin du monde pour le 21 décembre 2012, date de fin d’un calendrier maya. Elle le recycle aujourd’hui pour les cadres de la Silicon Valley qui ont moins de moyens que les hauts dirigeants, et propose des places autour de 35 000 euros par personne dans ces abris collectifs conçus pour trois cents à mille personnes.

      Le fondateur de Terra Vivos se frotte les mains depuis que, en 2017, le sujet privilégié des patrons réunis à Davos lors du forum économique mondial était la peur d’une « révolution ou d’un conflit social qui s’en prendrait au 1 % » le plus riche, raconte-t-il. Pour lui qui doit recycler ses bunkers antiatomiques dans les grandes étendues états-uniennes, la Nouvelle-Zélande n’est pas idéale puisqu’elle est sensible aux tsunamis, notamment en cas de chute de météorite… Mais, sentant l’air du temps, il a investi huit millions pour y bâtir un bunker de trois cents places.
      Le PDG de Facebook a payé les habitants d’une île pour partir

      Le discours prend et les patrons de la Silicon Valley s’arment. Si certains stockent du carburant et des munitions, un autre startuper préfère prendre des cours de tir à l’arc. Steve Huffman, le fondateur de Reddit, s’est fait opérer des yeux parce qu’en cas de désastre, il veut augmenter ses chances de survie sans lunettes ni lentilles de contact. Mark Zuckerberg, PDG de Facebook, voit plus grand. Il a acheté un domaine dans le pacifique, sur une petite île au large de Hawaï. Il a payé les poignées de familles présentes sur ses terres, qui y cultivaient de la canne à sucre, pour partir. Il entend s’y faire bâtir une propriété et une ferme bio de 27 hectares, en autosuffisance totale. Un investissement à plus de cent millions de dollars pour assurer sa seule survie et celle de sa famille… Comme quoi, « après moi le déluge » n’est pas qu’un proverbe, mais bien une philosophie de vie.

      #it_has_begun

  • Know The Coin: Interview with Refereum Founder Dylan Jones
    https://hackernoon.com/know-the-coin-interview-with-refereum-founder-dylan-jones-1f2a65965077?s

    Know The Coin: Interview with Dylan JonesHey there, and welcome to another episode of ChangeNOW’s Know The Coin show! Today’s guest is Dylan Jones, a founder and CEO of Refereum, a #gaming community platform based in San Francisco, that brings together gamers and #blockchain users alike!It’s a pleasure to be here, thank you so much for your time and for listeners to hear about us.Could you please tell our listeners a little bit about yourself and your background? How did you get to #crypto world and was Refereum your first crypto experience?I come from pretty long career in video gaming for spanning about 10 years. I have done basically everything: Facebook games, mobile games, worked on some platforms and analytic systems, done some marketing in game industry. Everyone from our team came from (...)

    #blockchain-technology #cryptocurrency

  • The family that took on Monsanto: ’They should’ve been with us in the chemo ward’ | Business | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/10/edwin-hardeman-monsanto-trial-interview

    Becoming ‘the face’ of the fight
    Advertisement

    Edwin Hardeman and his wife, Mary, never expected that they would become de facto leaders of the federal court fight against the world’s most widely used weedkiller. They just wanted Monsanto to acknowledge the dangers – and potentially save other families from the horror they endured.

    “This is something that was egregious to me. It was my personal battle and I wanted to take it full circle,” said Edwin, whose cancer is now in remission. “It’s been a long journey.”

    Mary bristled when she thought about Monsanto’s continued defense of its chemical: “They should have been with us when we were in the chemo ward … not knowing what to do to relieve the pain.

    “I get angry,” she added. “Very angry.”

    Monsanto first put Roundup on the market in 1974, presenting the herbicide, which uses a chemical called glyphosate, as a breakthrough that was effective at killing weeds and safe. The product has earned the corporation billions in revenue a year, and glyphosate is now ubiquitous in the environment – with traces in water, food and farmers’ urine.

    Hardeman didn’t recognize the term glyphosate when he saw the news report about the Iarc ruling on TV. At that time, the chemotherapy side effects had devastated him – causing violent nausea, swelling that made his face unrecognizable and terrifying feelings of electric shocks jolting his body.

    But when he realized that glyphosate was the main ingredient in Roundup and that research suggested it could be responsible for his form of NHL, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, it clicked: “It just hit me. There’s something going on here.”

    He filed a lawsuit in February 2016. So did hundreds of other cancer survivors and families who lost loved ones, and many of the parallel suits were consolidated as one case under federal judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco.

    The judge selected Hardeman to be first – the so-called “bellwether” trial, meaning it would be the official test case that would inform future litigation and potentially impact settlements for others.

    It was a lot of pressure.

    “Learning I was going to be the plaintiff, the one, the face of the … litigation, was a shock,” he said.

    The unsealed emails and documents suggested that Monsanto had an aggressive PR strategy for years that involved attacking negative research and ghostwriting and pushing favorable studies.

    In one email, a Monsanto executive advised others in the company to be cautious about how they describe the safety of the product, warning: “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”
    Edwin and his wife, Mary, never expected that they would become de facto leaders of the federal court fight against the world’s most widely used weedkiller.

    Edwin and his wife, Mary, never expected that they would become de facto leaders of the federal court fight against the world’s most widely used weedkiller. Photograph: Brian Frank/The Guardian

    Monsanto officials also privately talked about the company writing science papers that would be officially authored by researchers, with one email saying: “We would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit and sign their names.” The internal documents also shined a harsh light on Monsanto’s cozy relationship with US regulators and its media campaign to combat the Iarc ruling.

    (The company has said it was open about its involvement in research.)

    One executive eventually revealed that the company had a roughly $17m budget for PR and public affairs related to Iarc and glyphosate.

    The unusual and severe limitations made the message of the victory all the more powerful, Wagstaff said in an interview: “We were forced, over our objections, to argue just the science. Any argument by Bayer or Monsanto that this was a sympathetic jury to Mr Hardeman … is just not supported by the facts.”

    Mary, who was home sick the day the jury announced, first saw the verdict on Twitter before her husband could break the news: “I let out a scream. It’s a wonder one of my neighbors didn’t come in.”

    With the cancer science proven, Hardeman’s legal team was finally allowed to present evidence and arguments about Monsanto’s “despicable” and “reckless” behavior – and that was a success, too. The jury ruled Monsanto was negligent and owed him $80m in damages.

    Within minutes of the final verdict, a Bayer spokesperson issued a response: The company would appeal.

    In US federal court, there are around 1,200 plaintiffs with similar Roundup cancer cases – and roughly 11,000 nationwide. Despite two jury rulings saying Roundup causes cancer, the corporation’s defense has not changed: Roundup is safe for use.

    “We continue to believe strongly in the extensive body of reliable science that supports the safety of Roundup and on which regulators around the world continue to base their own favorable assessments,” a Bayer spokesperson told the Guardian. “Our customers have relied on these products for more than 40 years and we are gratified by their continued support.”

    Bayer, which has faced backlash from investors and a share price drop in the wake of the Roundup controversy, could be pushed to negotiate a massive settlement with plaintiffs following Hardeman’s victory.

    Hardeman said the very least the company could do is warn consumers: “Give us a chance to decide whether we want to use it or not … Have some compassion for people.”

    Hardeman said it also disturbed him that Bayer and Monsanto still have not done their own study on the carcinogenicity of Roundup, even after all these years. (Monsanto has said the company has gone beyond what was required in testing glyphosate exposure risks.)

    “I worry about the younger generation,” Hardeman said. “Why haven’t you tested this product? Why, why, why? You’ve got the money. Are you afraid of the answer?”

    #Roundup #Perturbateurs_endocriniens #Pesticides #Monsanto #Bayer

  • Wikipedia Isn’t Officially a Social Network. But the Harassment Can Get Ugly. - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/us/wikipedia-harassment-wikimedia-foundation.html

    Unlike social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, Wikipedia relies largely on unpaid volunteers to handle reports of harassment.

    In response to complaints about pervasive harassment, the Wikimedia Foundation, the San Francisco-based nonprofit that operates Wikipedia and supports its community of volunteers, has promised new strategies to curb abuse. In recent months, the foundation has rolled out a more sophisticated blocking tool that it hopes can better control the harassment plaguing some users.

    Sydney Poore, a community health strategist with the foundation, said that when the free encyclopedia was established in 2001, it initially attracted lots of editors who were “tech-oriented” men. That led to a culture that was not always accepting of outside opinions, said Ms. Poore, who has edited Wikipedia for 13 years.

    “We’re making strong efforts to reverse that,” she said, “but it doesn’t happen overnight.”

    A few informed clicks on any Wikipedia article can reveal the lengthy discussions that shape a published narrative. According to interviews with Wikipedians around the world, those digital back rooms are where harassment often begins. A spirited debate over a detail in an article can spiral into one user spewing personal attacks against another.

    “If you out yourself as a feminist or L.G.B.T., you will tend to be more targeted,” said Natacha Rault, a Wikipedia editor who lives in Geneva and founded a project that aims to reduce the gender gap on the website.

    On French-language Wikipedia, where Ms. Rault does much of her editing, discussions about gender can often lead to vitriol. Ms. Rault said there were six months of heated debate about whether to label the article on Britain’s leader, Theresa May, with the feminine version of “prime minister” (première ministre), rather than the masculine one (premier ministre).

    Wikipedians also began to discuss the “content gender gap,” which includes an imbalance in the gender distribution of biographies on the site. The latest analysis, released this month, said about 18 percent of 1.6 million biographies on the English-language Wikipedia were of women. That is up from about 15 percent in 2014, partially because of activists trying to move the needle.

    “The idea is to provide volunteer administrators with a more targeted, more nuanced ability to respond to conflicts,” Ms. Lo said.

    Partial blocks are active on five Wikipedias, including those in Italian and Arabic, and foundation staff members expect it to be introduced to English-language Wikipedia this year. The foundation is also in the early stages of a private reporting system where users could report harassment, Ms. Lo said.

    But there are limits to how effective institutional change can be in curbing harassment on Wikipedia. In the case of Mx. Gethen, their harasser kept posting from different IP addresses, making it difficult for a blocking tool to be effective.

    Although the abuser no longer haunts their internet presence, Mx. Gethen said the sometimes hostile culture on Wikipedia had reduced their editing on the site.

    “I’m not getting paid for this,” they said. “Why should I volunteer my time to be abused?”

    #Wikipédia

  • De simple jeu à prototype de réseau social, comment « Fortnite » entend durer
    https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2019/04/06/de-simple-jeu-a-prototype-de-reseau-social-comment-fortnite-entend-durer_544

    Simple jeu vidéo ou véritable réseau social ? « Fortnite » est en tout cas en train de muer en agora. Une transformation qui ne doit rien au hasard, et tout à la stratégie d’Epic Games. C’était le 20 mars, sur la scène de la Game Developers Conférence (GDC) de San Francisco (Californie) : Tim Sweeney, patron d’Epic Games et depuis peu considéré par Bloomberg comme la première fortune de l’industrie du jeu vidéo, faisait le bilan du succès de Fortnite Battle Royale et alignait des chiffres qui donnaient le (...)

    #game #Epic_Games #jeu #données #BigData #bénéfices #profiling #SocialNetwork

  • In San Francisco, Making a Living From Your Billionaire Neighbor’s Trash - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/07/us/trash-pickers-san-francisco-zuckerberg.html

    A military veteran who fell into homelessness and now lives in government subsidized housing, Mr. Orta is a full-time trash picker, part of an underground economy in San Francisco of people who work the sidewalks in front of multimillion-dollar homes, rummaging for things they can sell.

    Trash picking is a profession more often associated with shantytowns and favelas than a city at the doorstep of Silicon Valley. The Global Alliance of Waste Pickers, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization, counts more than 400 trash picking organizations across the globe, almost all of them in Latin America, Africa and southern Asia.

    But trash scavengers exist in many United States cities and, like the rampant homelessness in San Francisco, are a signpost of the extremes of American capitalism. A snapshot from 2019: One of the world’s richest men and a trash picker, living a few minutes’ walk from each other.

    Mr. Orta, 56, sees himself as more of a treasure hunter.

    “It just amazes me what people throw away,” he said one night, as he found a pair of gently used designer jeans, a new black cotton jacket, gray Nike running sneakers and a bicycle pump. “You never know what you will find.”

    Nick Marzano, an Australian photographer who publishes a glossy magazine, Mission Gold, which documents the world of trash pickers in San Francisco, estimates there are several hundred garbage scavengers in the city.

    “It’s a civic service as I see it,” Mr. Marzano said. “Rather than this stuff going to landfill the items are being reused.”

    Mr. Marzano says there is overlap among trash picking and homelessness and public drug use — the street conditions that have ranked at the top of residents’ concerns for several years. But he sees trash picking, and the spontaneous sidewalk markets that pop up in neighborhoods like the Mission and Tenderloin, as a form of entrepreneurship.

    “It’s the primary form of income for people who have no other income,” he said.

    #San_Francisco #Inégalités #Poubelles

  • BBC - Future - Why there’s so little left of the early internet
    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190401-why-theres-so-little-left-of-the-early-internet

    Tew, who now runs the meditation and mindfulness app Calm, indeed became a millionaire. But the homepage he created has also become something else: a living museum to an earlier internet era. Fifteen years may not seem a long time, but in terms of the internet it is like a geological age. Some 40% of the links on the Million Pixel Homepage now link to dead sites. Many of the others now point to entirely new domains, their original URL sold to new owners.

    The Million Dollar Homepage shows that the decay of this early period of the internet is almost invisible. In the offline world, the closing of, say, a local newspaper is often widely reported. But online sites die, often without fanfare, and the first inkling you may have that they are no longer there is when you click on a link to be met with a blank page.

    You could, quite reasonably, assume that if I ever needed to show proof of my time there it would only be a Google search away. But you’d be wrong. In April 2013, AOL abruptly closed down all its music sites – and the collective work of dozens of editors and hundreds of contributors over many years. Little of it remains, aside from a handful of articles saved by the Internet Archive, a San Francisco-based non-profit foundation set up in the late 1990s by computer engineer Brewster Kahle.

    It is the most prominent of a clutch of organisations around the world trying to rescue some of the last vestiges of the first decade of humanity’s internet presence before it disappears completely.

    Dame Wendy Hall, the executive director of the Web Science Institute at the University of Southampton, is unequivocal about the archive’s work: “If it wasn’t for them we wouldn’t have any” of the early material, she says. “If Brewster Kahle hadn’t set up the Internet Archive and started saving things – without waiting for anyone’s permission – we’d have lost everything.”

    One major problem with trying to archive the internet is that it never sits still. Every minute – every second – more photos, blog posts, videos, news stories and comments are added to the pile. While digital storage has fallen drastically in price, archiving all this material still costs money. “Who’s going to pay for it?” asks Dame Wendy. “We produce so much more material than we used to.”

    “The Internet Archive first started archives pages in 1996. That’s five years after the first webpages were set up. There’s nothing from that era that was ever copied from the live web.” Even the first web page set up in 1991 no longer exists; the page you can view on the World Wide Web Consortium is a copy made a year later.

    “I think there’s been very low level of awareness that anything is missing,” Webber says. “The digital world is very ephemeral, we look at our phones, the stuff on it changes and we don’t really think about it. But now people are becoming more aware of how much we might be losing.”

    We consider the material we post onto social networks as something that will always be there, just a click of a keyboard away. But the recent loss of some 12 years of music and photos on the pioneering social site MySpace – once the most popular website in the US – shows that even material stored on the biggest of sites may not be safe.

    #Archive #Web_archive #Brewster_Kahle #Internet_Archive

  • Google employees are lining up to trash Google’s AI ethics council - MIT Technology Review
    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613253/googles-ai-council-faces-blowback-over-a-conservative-member

    un élément intéressant et à prendre en compte : les deux personnes visées sont également les deux seules femmes de ce comité d’experts. Choisies stratégiquement par Google pour faire jouer l’avantage genre, ou cibles plus évidentes des protestataires parce que femmes ?

    En tout cas, la place que la Heritage Foundation (droite dure et néo-management) prend dans l’espace mental des Etats-Unis, notamment dans le domaine technologique, est à suivre de près.

    Almost a thousand Google staff, academic researchers, and other tech industry figures have signed a letter protesting the makeup of an independent council that Google created to guide the ethics of its AI projects.
    Recommended for You

    Hackers trick a Tesla into veering into the wrong lane
    A new type of airplane wing that adapts midflight could change air travel
    DeepMind has made a prototype product that can diagnose eye diseases
    Watching Boston Dynamics’ new robot stack boxes is weirdly mesmerizing
    NASA has been testing the helicopter that will head to Mars next year

    The search giant announced the creation of the council last week at EmTech Digital, MIT Technology Review’s event in San Francisco. Known as the Advanced Technology External Advisory Council (ATEAC), it has eight members including economists, philosophers, policymakers, and technologists with expertise in issues like algorithmic bias. It is meant to hold four meetings a year, starting this month, and write reports designed to provide feedback on projects at the company that use artificial intelligence.

    But two of those members proved controversial. One, Dyan Gibbens, is CEO of Trumbull, a company that develops autonomous systems for the defense industry—a contentious choice given that thousands of Google employees protested the company’s decision to supply the US Air Force with AI for drone imaging. The greatest outrage, though, has come over the inclusion of Kay Coles James, president of the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that opposes regulating carbon emissions, takes a hard line on immigration, and has argued against the protection of LGBTQ rights.

    One member of the council, Alessandro Acquisti, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University who specializes in digital privacy issues, announced on March 30th that he wouldn’t be taking up the role. “While I’m devoted to research grappling with key ethical issues of fairness, rights & inclusion in AI, I don’t believe this is the right forum for me to engage in this important work," he tweeted.

    The creation of ATEAC—and the inclusion of Gibbens and James—may in fact have been designed to appease Google’s right-wing critics. At roughly the same time the council was announced, Sundar Pichai, Google’s CEO, was meeting with President Donald Trump. Trump later tweeted: “He stated strongly that he is totally committed to the U.S. Military, not the Chinese Military. [We] also discussed political fairness and various things that Google can do for our Country. Meeting ended very well!”

    But one Google employee involved with drafting the protest letter, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that James is more than just a conservative voice on the council. “She is a reactionary who denies trans people exist, who endorses radically anti-immigrant positions, and endorses anti-climate-change, anti-science positions.”

    Some noted AI algorithms can reinforce biases already seen in society; some have been shown to misidentify transgender people, for example. In that context, “the fact that [James] was included is pretty shocking,” the employee said. “These technologies are shaping our social institutions, our lives, and access to resources. When AI fails, it doesn’t fail for rich white men working at tech companies. It fails for exactly the populations that the Heritage Foundation’s policies are already aiming to harm.”

    Messages posted to a Google internal communications platform criticized the appointment of James especially. According to one post, earlier reported by the Verge and confirmed by the employee, James “doesn’t deserve a Google-legitimized platform, and certainly doesn’t belong in any conversation about how Google tech should be applied to the world.”

    As of 5:30 pm US Eastern time today the public letter, posted to Medium, had been signed by 855 Google employees and 143 other people, including a number of prominent academics. “Not only are James’ views counter to Google’s stated values,” the letter states, “but they are directly counter to the project of ensuring that the development and application of AI prioritizes justice over profit. Such a project should instead place representatives from vulnerable communities at the center of decision-making.”

    #Google #Intelligence_artificielle #Ethique #Politique_USA

  • San Francisco Wants to Ban Government Face Recognition
    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/02/san-francisco-proposes-ban-government-face-recognition/581923

    Is it too late, too difficult, or too ironic to try to stop it from becoming a city of surveillance ? A San Francisco lawmaker is proposing what would be a nationwide first : a complete moratorium on local government use of facial-recognition technology. Introduced by San Francisco Supervisor Aaron Peskin, the Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance would ban all city departments from using facial-recognition technology and require board approval before departments purchase new surveillance (...)

    #CCTV #biométrie #facial #surveillance #vidéo-surveillance

  • The impulse to focus on your weaknesses is a vestigial remain of an outmoded era in our evolution
    https://hackernoon.com/the-impulse-to-focus-on-your-weaknesses-is-a-vestigial-remain-of-an-outm

    Nir’s Note: This guest post is by Auren Hoffman, the CEO of LiveRamp in San Francisco. This essay is a bit different from the normal…Continue reading on Hacker Noon »

    #life-lessons #business #marketing #tech #entrepreneurship

  • Bayer, propriétaire de Monsanto, le fabricant du Roundup, a été jugé, mercredi, responsable du cancer d’un retraité américain et condamné à verser 80 millions de dollars au plaignant
    https://www.crashdebug.fr/international/15840-bayer-proprietaire-de-monsanto-le-fabricant-du-roundup-a-ete-juge-m

    Le groupe Bayer a racheté Monsanto. Patrik Stollarz, AFP

    Bayer, propriétaire de Monsanto, le fabricant du Roundup, a été jugé, mercredi, responsable du cancer d’un retraité américain et condamné à verser 80 millions de dollars au plaignant. Le groupe chimique allemand a annoncé qu’il ferait appel.

    C’est une nouvelle défaite pour Monsanto. Les jurés du tribunal fédéral de San Francisco ont accordé, mercredi 27 mars, 80 millions de dollars (72 millions d’euros environ) de dommages et intérêts à un plaignant qui affirmait que le Roundup, l’herbicide à base de glyphosate de Monsanto, filiale de Bayer, était la cause de son cancer.

    Pour le jury californien, le groupe chimique allemand est responsable du lymphome non hodgkinien d’Edwin Hardeman. Il juge que le Roundup est un produit (...)

  • Lawrence Ferlinghetti is still revolutionary at age 100 – Alternet.org
    https://www.alternet.org/2019/03/lawrence-ferlinghetti-is-still-revolutionary-at-age-100

    Poet, retail entrepreneur, social critic, publisher, combat veteran, pacifist, poor boy, privileged boy, outspoken socialist and successful capitalist, with roots in the East Coast and the West Coast (as well as Paris), Ferlinghetti has not just survived for a century: He epitomizes the American culture of that century.

    Specifically, he has been a unique protagonist in a national drama: the American struggle to imagine a democratic culture. How does the ideal of social mobility affect notions of high and low, Europe and the New World, tradition and progress? That struggle of imagination underlies the art of Walt Whitman and Duke Ellington, Emily Dickinson and Buster Keaton. It also underlies a range of American issues, from the segregation of public schools to the reality of human-caused climate change. Those political issues involve our interbreeding of the highbrow and the vulgarian in a supercharged process whose complexities defy simplifying terms like “culture wars.”

    The founder of the San Francisco landmark City Lights bookshop rang in the turn of his very own century as his adopted city—he’s originally from New York—celebrated “Lawrence Ferlinghetti Day,” one of many centennial celebrations held throughout March in his honor.

    Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer, who once worked at City Lights and has been a lifelong friend of Ferlinghetti, writes about the city’s festivities, “Lawrence turns 100 today and poetry owns the Barbary Coast in a wild romp of readings at bars, galleries, and other watering holes in North Beach around Broadway and Columbus where City Lights Bookstore still stands as the best rebuke to the slick mindlessness of capitalist culture that now overwhelms Ferlinghetti’s once beloved bohemian San Francisco.”

    #Lawrence_Ferlinghetti #Belle_personne #City_lights

  • Kelly Finnigan, de San Francisco, avec The Sure Fire Soul Ensemble, un groupe de San Diego, reprend à l’ère de Trump une chanson écrite par The Honey Drippers pour Nixon en 1973... Impeach The President :
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwQZWjZaSKw

    L’originale :
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqbEsS5kFb8

    Et sur un thème proche, encore un nouveau disque, on ne l’arrête plus, Mavis Staples, produite par Ben Harper... Change :
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZHJRMOPJHk

    Compilation de chansons anti-Trump
    https://seenthis.net/messages/727919

    #Musique #Musique_et_politique #Donald_Trump #Kelly_Finnigan #Mavis_Staples

  • Un jury américain fait de nouveau le lien entre le Roundup de Monsanto et le cancer
    https://www.crashdebug.fr/international/15814-un-jury-americain-fait-de-nouveau-le-lien-entre-le-roundup-de-monsa

    Rappellez vous que Bayer finance LREM aux Européennes...

    Le désherbant Roundup, à base de glyphosate, est le produit phare du groupe Bayer (qui a racheté Monsanto).

    Charles Platiau, Reuters

    Les jurés du tribunal fédéral de San Francisco ont déclaré mardi que le Roundup, l’herbicide à base de glyphosate de Bayer-Monsanto, était un "facteur significatif" dans le déclenchement du cancer d’un plaignant californien.

    Nouveau revers judiciaire de taille pour le géant agrochimique Bayer (qui a racheté Monsanto l’an dernier) : son produit phare, le désherbant Roundup, à base de glyphosate, a été jugé cancérogène pour la seconde fois, par un jury californien mardi 19 mars lors d’un procès considéré comme "test". Alors que le Roundup fait l’objet de milliers d’actions en justice aux (...)

  • #Glyphosate. #Roundup : le désherbant à nouveau jugé cancérigène par un jury californien

    Les jurés du tribunal fédéral de San Francisco ont déclaré mardi que l’#herbicide le plus vendu au monde était un “facteur significatif” dans le déclenchement du cancer d’un retraité, qui l’utilisait dans son jardin. La deuxième phase du procès, mercredi, devra évaluer la #responsabilité de #Monsanto.

    https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/glyphosate-roundup-le-desherbant-nouveau-juge-cancerigene-par
    #industrie_agro-alimentaire #cancer #santé #justice #Californie #USA #Etats-Unis #agriculture #Edwin_Hardeman

  • A Resolution for 2019: Finding the Inner You
    https://hackernoon.com/a-resolution-for-2019-finding-the-inner-you-5253bde19bab?source=rss----3

    A Resolution for 2019: Finding the Inner You — Event by Advancing Women in ProductCredits: #awip Team, Hanh Bui (Program Lead for December), Esha Joshi (Post-event Blogger)Advancing Women in Product (AWIP) finished on a high note in 2018: in addition to adding three national and international chapters (San Francisco, Seattle, and Paris) and growing by 4,000 members worldwide, they held an end of year party centered around empowering a group of beautiful and bold ladies to bring their most confident selves to work, and life. Members of the AWIP community came together at Ted Baker San Francisco on December 6th, 2018 and welcomed two fierce ladies who wholeheartedly support AWIP’s mission of empowering more women in tech leadership roles: Betty Hsu, professional presence coach, and Elisa (...)

    #2019-resolution #women-in-product #awip-partnership #confidence

  • If Palestinians have 22 states, Israeli Jews have 200

    The notion that the Palestinians have 22 states to go to is a blend of malice and ignorance: The Palestinians are the stepchildren of the Arab world, no country wants them and no Arab country hasn’t betrayed them
    Gideon Levy
    Mar 16, 2019 1

    https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-if-palestinians-have-22-states-israeli-jews-have-200-1.7023647

    Here we go again: The Palestinians have 22 states and, poor us, we have only one. Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t the first to use this warped argument; it has been a cornerstone of Zionist propaganda that we’ve imbibed with our mothers’ milk. But he returned to it last week. “The Arab citizens have 22 states. They don’t need another one,” he said on Likud TV.

    If the Arab citizens of Israel have 22 countries, the state’s Jewish citizens have almost 200. If the prime minister meant that Arab citizens could move to Arab countries, it’s obvious that Jews are invited to return to their country of origin: Palestinians to Saudi Arabia and Jews to Germany.

    Netanyahu belongs in the United States much more than Ayman Odeh belongs in Yemen. Naftali Bennett will also find his feet in San Francisco much more easily than Ahmad Tibi in Mogadishu. Avigdor Lieberman belongs in Russia much more than Jamal Zahalka belongs in Libya. Aida Touma-Sliman is no more connected to Iraq than Ayelet Shaked, whose father was born there. David Bitan belongs to Morocco, his birthplace, much more than Mohammad Barakeh does.

    To really understand Israel and the Palestinians - subscribe to Haaretz

    The notion that the Palestinians have 22 states to go to is a blend of malice and ignorance. Underlying it are the right wing’s claims that there is no Palestinian people, that the Palestinians aren’t attached to their land and that all Arabs are alike. There are no greater lies than these. The simple truth is that the Jews have a state and the Palestinians don’t.

    The Palestinians are the stepchildren of the Arab world. No country wants them and no Arab country hasn’t betrayed them. Try being a Palestinian in Egypt or Lebanon. An Israeli settler from Itamar is more welcome in Morocco than a Palestinian from Nablus.

    There are Arab states where Israeli Arabs, the Palestinians of 1948, are considered bigger traitors than their own Jews. A common language, religion and a few cultural commonalities don’t constitute a common national identity. When a Palestinian meets a Berber they switch to English, and even then they have very little in common.
    Stay up to date: Sign up to our newsletter
    Email*

    The suggestion that Israel’s Arab citizens move to those 22 states is despicable and mean, well beyond its reference to a common language. It portrays them as temporary guests here, casting doubt on the depth of their attachment to their land, “inviting” them to get out. The amazing thing is that the ones making such proposals are immigrants and sons of immigrants whose roots in this country still need to withstand the test of time.

    Palestinians are attached to this country no less than Jews are, possibly more so. It’s doubtful whether the hysterical clamoring for foreign passports would seize the Arab community as it did the Jewish one; everybody was suddenly of Portuguese descent. We can assume that there are more people in Tel Aviv dreaming of foreign lands than there are in Jenin. Los Angeles certainly has more Israelis than Palestinians.

    Hundreds of years of living here have consolidated a Palestinian love of the land, with traditions and a heritage – no settler can match this. Palestinians have za’atar (hyssop) and we have schnitzel. In any case, you don’t have to downplay the intensity of the Jewish connection to this country to recognize the depth of the Palestinian attachment to it.

    They have nowhere to go to and they don’t want to leave, which is more than can be said for some of the Jews living here. If, despite all their woes, defeats and humiliations they haven’t left, they never will. Too bad you can’t say the same thing about the country’s Jews. The Palestinians won’t leave unless they’re forcibly removed. Is this what the prime minister was alluding to?

    When American journalist Helen Thomas suggested that Jews return to Poland she was forced to resign. When Israel’s prime minister proposes the same thing for Arabs, he’s reflecting the opinion of the majority.

    From its inception, the Zionist movement dreamed of expelling the Palestinians from this country. At times it fought to achieve this. The people who survived the ethnic cleansing of 1948, the expulsions of 1967, the occupation and the devil’s work in general have remained here and won’t go anywhere. Not to the 22 states and not to any one of them. Only a Nakba II will get them out of here.

  • " Nellie Bly, voyageuse de génie et pionnière du journalisme d’investigation " par Olivier Favier
    http://enuncombatdouteux.blogspot.com/2019/03/nellie-bly-voyageuse-de-genie-et.html

    « Seul un homme peut le faire », répète la direction du New York World à Nellie Bly alors qu’elle s’est mise en tête de faire le tour du monde en moins de 80 jours. « Très bien, répond-elle en colère. Trouvez votre homme et je commencerai le même jour pour un autre journal et je le battrai. »


     D’allure fragile, celle qu’on surnommait Pinkie dans son enfance pour son goût immodéré du rose, cache en fait une combattante et une innovatrice invétérée.

    Nellie veut désormais battre le record fictif de Phileas Fogg, et faire le tour du monde en moins de 80 jours. Elle n’emporte qu’une seule robe, un manteau, une valise et la somme nécessaire pour payer son voyage. Elle part le 14 novembre 1889. Jules Verne, qu’elle visite à Amiens, lui prédit un succès en 79 jours.

    Lorsqu’elle atteint San Francisco le 21 janvier, Nellie Bly a deux jours de retard sur le calendrier prévu. Mais Pulitzer loue un train privé et Nellie Bly atteint New York après un voyage de 72 jours, 6 heures, 11 minutes et 14 secondes. Sa rivale, dont elle n’a appris l’existence qu’à Hong Kong, est battue d’une journée. De l’autre côté de l’Atlantique, Jules Verne pousse des hourras. Elle est la première femme à avoir accompli un tour du monde en solitaire.

  • Airbnb joue la carte de « l’amazonisation »
    https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/03/08/airbnb-joue-la-carte-de-l-amazonisation_5433193_3234.html

    En rachetant HotelTonight, la plate-forme américaine de location de logement adopte la même stratégie que le champion du e-commerce : l’extension sans limite de ses activités autour de son cœur de métier, observe Philippe Escande, éditorialiste économique du « Monde », dans sa chronique. Brian Chesky est un garçon consciencieux. Il a passé le mois dernier à changer régulièrement d’hôtel à San Francisco, ville où se trouve son entreprise. Le cofondateur d’Airbnb ne s’est pas disputé avec sa femme, mais il (...)

    #Airbnb #Amazon #domination #HotelTonight

  • How the Disposable Straw Explains Modern Capitalism - The Atlantic
    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/06/disposable-america/563204

    Alexis C. Madrigal - Jun 21, 2018

    A straw is a simple thing. It’s a tube, a conveyance mechanism for liquid. The defining characteristic of the straw is the emptiness inside it. This is the stuff of tragedy, and America.

    Over the last several months, plastic straws have come under fire from environmental activists who rightly point out that disposable plastics have created a swirling, centuries-long ecological disaster that is brutally difficult to clean up. Bags were first against the wall, but municipalities from Oakland, California, (yup) to Surfside, Florida, (huh!) have started to restrict the use of plastic straws. Of course, now there is a movement afoot among conservatives to keep those plastics flowing for freedom. Meanwhile, disability advocates have pointed out that plastic straws, in particular, are important for people with physical limitations. “To me, it’s just lame liberal activism that in the end is nothing,” one activist told The Toronto Star. “We’re really kind of vilifying people who need straws.” Other environmentalists aren’t sure that banning straws is gonna do much, and point out that banning straws is not an entirely rigorous approach to global systems change, considering that a widely cited estimate for the magnitude of the problem was, umm, created by a smart 9-year-old.

    All this to say: The straw is officially part of the culture wars, and you might be thinking, “Gah, these contentious times we live in!” But the straw has always been dragged along by the currents of history, soaking up the era, shaping not its direction, but its texture.

    The invention of American industrialism, the creation of urban life, changing gender relations, public-health reform, suburbia and its hamburger-loving teens, better living through plastics, and the financialization of the economy: The straw was there for all these things—rolled out of extrusion machines, dispensed, pushed through lids, bent, dropped into the abyss.

    You can learn a lot about this country, and the dilemmas of contemporary capitalism, by taking a straw-eyed view.

    People have probably been drinking things through cylindrical tubes for as long as Homo sapiens has been around, and maybe before. Scientists observed orangutans demonstrating a preference for a straw-like tool over similar, less functional things. Ancient versions existed, too.

    But in 19th-century America, straws were straw, rye stalks, cut and dried. An alternative did not present itself widely until 1888. That year, Marvin Stone, a Washington, D.C., gentleman, was awarded a patent for an “artificial straw”—“a cheap, durable, and unobjectionable” substitute for natural straws, Stone wrote, “commonly used for the administration of medicines, beverages, etc.”

    Workmen created these early artificial straws by winding paper around a thin cylindrical form, then covering them in paraffin. Often, they were “colored in imitation of the natural straw.” Within a decade, these straws appeared often in newspaper items and advertisements across the country.
    A typical Stone straw ad from a newspaper in 1899 (Google Books)

    Advertising for the Stone straw describes its virtues and emphasizes the faults of the natural straw. Stone’s straws were free from TASTE and ODOR (natural straws were not). Stone’s straws were SWEET, CLEAN, and PERFECT (natural straws could be cracked or musty). You only had to use one Stone straw per drink (not always the case with natural straws).

    They worked. They were cheap. They were very popular and spawned many imitators because once an artificial straw had been conceived, it just wasn’t that hard to make them, tinkering with the process just enough to route around Stone’s patent. This could be read as a story of individual genius. America likes this kind of story.

    But in 1850, long before Stone, Abijah Fessenden patented a drinking tube with a filter attached to a vessel shaped like a spyglass. Disabled people were using drinking tubes in the mid-19th century, as attested to by a patent from 1870. These were artificial, high-value straws; rye was natural and disposable. But it wasn’t until the late 1880s that someone thought to create the disposable, artificial straw.

    Why?

    Americans were primarily a rural people in the early 19th century. Cities had few restaurants until the 1830s and 1840s. Most that did exist were for very rich people. It took the emergence of a new urban life to spark the creation of the kind of eating and drinking establishment that would enshrine the straw in American culture: the soda fountain.

    Carbon dioxide had been isolated decades before, and soda water created with predictably palate-pleasing results, but the equipment to make it was expensive and unwieldy. It wasn’t until the the gas was readily available and cheap that the soda fountain became prevalent. In the 1870s, their technical refinement met a growing market of people who wanted a cold, sweet treat in the city.

    At the same time, the Civil War had intensified American industrialization. More and more people lived in cities and worked outside the home. Cities had saloons, but they were gendered spaces. As urban women fought for greater independence, they, too, wanted places to go. Soda fountains provided a key alternative. Given the female leadership of the late-19th-century temperance movement, soda fountains were drafted onto the side. Sodas were safe and clean. They were soft drinks.

    By 1911, an industry book proclaimed the soda fountain the very height of democratic propriety. “Today everybody, men, women and children, natives and foreigners, patronize the fountain” said The Practical Soda Fountain Guide.

    Temperance and public health grew up together in the disease-ridden cities of America, where despite the modern conveniences and excitements, mortality rates were higher than in the countryside. Straws became a key part of maintaining good hygiene and public health. They became, specifically, part of the answer to the scourge of unclean drinking glasses. Cities begin requiring the use of straws in the late 1890s. A Wisconsin paper noted in 1896 that already in many cities “ordinances have been issued making the use of wrapped drinking straws essential in public eating places.”

    But the laws that regulated health went further. A Kansas doctor campaigned against the widespread use of the “common cup,” which was ... a cup, that many people drank from. Bans began in Kansas and spread.
    The Cup Campaigner

    In many cases, this cup was eventually replaced by the water fountain (or paper cups). Some factories kept the common cup, but purchased straw dispensers that allowed all to partake individually. “The spectacle of groups of able-bodied men standing around drinking water through straws and out of a common, ordinary drinking cup, prompted no end of facetious comment,” read an item in the Shelbina Democrat of October 11, 1911.

    Cup and straw both had to be clean to assure no germs would assail the children (or the able-bodied men). So even the method by which straws were dispensed became an important hygienic indicator. “In some stores, customers are permitted to choose their own straws, and this system would work very well if customers would not finger the straws,” The Practical Soda Fountain Guide lamented.

    That led to the development of the straw dispenser, which has a deep lineage. Already, in 1911, the thing existed where you individually pop a straw into reach. That’s it, right below, with the rationale written in: “Protects straws from flies, dust, and microbes.”
    The Practical Soda Fountain Guide

    To people living through the early 20th century, the straw was a creation of the new public-health regime. “Due to the ‘Yankee mania for sanitation,’ the [American] output of artificial straws has increased from 165 million in 1901 to 4 billion a year at present,” the Battle Creek Enquirer wrote in May 1924. “A manufacturer pointed out yesterday that, laid end to end, these straws would build an ant’s subway 16 times around the world at the equator.”

    Four billion straws! There were only 114 million Americans at the time, so that’s 35 straws per capita (though some were exported).

    Of course, straw making was improving through all these decades—mechanizing, scaling up—but the straw itself basically stayed the same. According to Sidney Graham—who founded the National Soda Straw Company in 1931, and who competed against Stone and other early straw manufacturers—in a 1988 history of the straw:

    Straws were uniform up until the 1930s ... They were tan in color, thin, and exactly 8.5 inches long. Then someone in the soda-bottling business started marketing eight-ounce bottles, and straws grew to 10.5 inches. Various soda fountains began mixing malted milks, and the old straws were too thin. So we started making them thicker. Still, they were all tan in color, like the original straws.

    In the interwar years, however, major changes came to straws. In 1937, for example, Joseph Friedman invented the bendy straw at his brother’s soda shop in San Francisco, leading to the design that’s prevalent today.

    But what happened to the straw industry is far more interesting than its (limited) technical advances. Three of the biggest names in the industry—Friedman’s Flexi-Straw Company; the Lily-Tulip Cup Corporation, which made popular white straws; and Maryland Cup Corporation—have bumped around the last 80 years like corporate Forrest Gumps.

    As it turns out, all three companies’ histories intersect with each other, as well as with structural changes to the American economy. But first, we have to talk about McDonald’s.

    Let’s start with Ray Kroc, who built the McDonald’s empire. For about 16 years, beginning in 1922, he sold cups for the Lily-Tulip Cup Corporation, rising to lead sales across the Midwest. “I don’t know what appealed to me so much about paper cups. Perhaps it was mostly because they were so innovative and upbeat,” Kroc recalled in his memoir, Grinding It Out. “But I sensed from the outset that paper cups were part of the way America was headed.”

    At first, selling cups was a tough job. Straws were cheap—you could get 100 for nine cents in the 1930s—but cups were many times more expensive. And besides, people could just wash glasses. Why would they need a paper cup? But America was tilting toward speed and disposability. And throwaway products were the future (“innovative and upbeat”). Soda fountains and their fast-food descendants were continuing to grow, spurring more sales of cups and straws. In the end, Kroc called the years between 1927 and 1937 “a decade of destiny for the paper-cup industry.”

    Selling all those cups brought Kroc into contact with soda fountains, and eventually he went into business selling milkshake mixers. This led him to Southern California, where he saw the first McDonald’s in operation. He bought his way into the small company and deposed the original owners. With Kroc growing the brand, McDonald’s added 90 franchises between 1955 and 1959. By 1961, Kroc was fully in control of the company, and by 1968, there were 1,000 McDonald’s restaurants.
    The first McDonald’s that Ray Kroc opened in Des Plaines, Illinois, is now a museum dedicated to the burger chain. (Reuters/Frank Polich)

    The restaurant chain became a key customer for Maryland Cup, which began as an ice-cream-cone bakery in Boston. Its first nonfood product launched under a brand that became nationally famous, Sweetheart. That product? The straw. The name derived from the original packaging, which showed “two children sharing a milkshake, each drinking from a straw and their heads forming the two curved arcs of a heart.”

    After the war, the company went into cups, and later other kinds of packaging for the growing fast-food industry. It developed new products for McDonald’s, like those old foam clamshell packages that hamburgers used to come in. It also snatched up the Flexi-Straw Company—along with all its patents and rights—in 1969. Things were going great. The founder’s son-in-law was president of the company in Baltimore; one nephew of the founder ran the McDonald’s relationship; the other ran the plastics division.

    Because the future, at that point, had become plastics! In 1950, the world produced 1.5 million tons of plastic. By the late 1960s, that production had grown more than tenfold. Every product was being tried as a plastic thing, and so naturally, the straw became a plastic thing, too. It didn’t happen overnight. It took years for paper straws to lose their cultural salience.

    While functionally, paper and plastic straws might have seemed the same, to the keen observer who is the narrator of Nicholson Baker’s dazzling 1988 novel, The Mezzanine, the plastic and paper straw were not interchangeable. Paper did not float. Plastic did: “How could the straw engineers have made so elementary a mistake, designing a straw that weighed less than the sugar-water in which it was intended to stand? Madness!”

    Baker’s narrator wonders why the big fast-food chains like McDonald’s didn’t pressure the straw engineers into fixing this weighting mistake. “[The chains] must have had whole departments dedicated to exacting concessions from Sweetheart and Marcal,” Baker writes.

    But there was a problem: lids, which had come into vogue. Plastic straws could push through the little + slits in the cap. Paper ones could not. The restaurant chains committed fully to plastic straws.

    Baker goes on to imagine the ramifications, painting a miniature portrait of the process of path-dependent technological choice, which has helped shape everything from the width of railroad tracks to the layout of your keyboard. The power players went plastic, so everyone had to go plastic. “Suddenly the paper-goods distributor was offering the small restaurants floating plastic straws and only floating plastic straws, and was saying that this was the way all the big chains were going,” Baker writes. Sometimes it all works. Other times, a small pleasure is lost, or a tiny headache is created: “In this way the quality of life, through nobody’s fault, went down an eighth of a notch.”

    I can’t prove that this was the precise series of events that took hold among straw engineers, cup distributors, and McDonald’s. Most corporate decision-making of this kind simply doesn’t stick in the nets of history. Yet these differences influence the texture of life every single day, and ever more so, as the owners of corporations become ever further removed from the products they sell. Let’s just say that the logic Baker describes, the way he imagines the development and consequences of these forgettable technologies, squares with the histories that we do know. The very straw engineers that Baker describes might well have been working in the plastics division of the Maryland Cup Corporation, owners of the Sweetheart brand.

    Baker was writing in the 1980s, when straws of all kinds had begun to proliferate, and the American economic system entered a period of intense consolidation and financialization. A key component of this new form of capitalism was the “leveraged buyout,” in which private-equity firms descended on old companies, sliced them up, took out huge amounts of debt, and sold off the various components, “unlocking value” for their investors. You might remember this was how Mitt Romney made his fortune. Matt Taibbi described the model in acerbic but not inaccurate terms: “A man makes a $250 million fortune loading up companies with debt and then extracting million-dollar fees from those same companies, in exchange for the generous service of telling them who needs to be fired in order to finance the debt payments he saddled them with in the first place.”

    Global competition and offshoring enabled by containerized trade was responsible for some of the trouble American manufacturing encountered in the 1970s and 1980s. But the wholesale restructuring of the economy by private-equity firms to narrow the beneficiaries of business operations contributed mightily to the resentments still resounding through the country today. The straw, like everything else, was swept along for the ride.

    In the early 1980s, Maryland Cup’s family-linked executives were on the glide path to retirement. Eighty family members held about half the company’s stock. In 1983, the company had $656 million in revenue, $32 million in profits, and 10,000 employees. It was the biggest disposable-food-product manufacturer in the nation, an empire built on cups, straws, and plastic silverware. The family was ready to cash out.

    The big paper and food companies circled Maryland Cup, but it was eventually sold for $534 million to Fort Howard, a paper company that had gone public in the early ’70s, and began to aggressively expand beyond its Wisconsin base.

    The sale was a boon for Maryland Cup’s shareholders, but the company did not fare well under the new management. Following the transaction, the Baltimore Sun relates, Maryland Cup executives flew to dinner with Fort Howard’s hard-charging CEO, Paul Schierl. He brought out a flip chart, on which he’d written the company’s “old” values—“service, quality, responding to customers.” He turned the page to show the company’s “new” values—“profits, profits, profits.” It’s like a scene out of Tommy Boy, or a socialist’s fever dream.

    Fort Howard forced deep cuts on the company. Some longtime managers quit. The trappings of the family company went out the window. No more executives dressing up as Santa Claus or local charitable contributions. And while Fort Howard was cutting people, it invested in expanding the company’s factories. This was just business. Schierl literally appeared at a sales meeting in a devil’s mask.

    Maryland Cup’s struggles intensified after the wave of departures that followed the acquisition. It needed customer volume to keep its new, bigger plants running, so Fort Howard snatched up the Lily-Tulip Cup Corporation in 1986 for another $332 million. Surely there would be synergies. More layoffs came.

    Two years later, the private-equity guys struck. Morgan Stanley, which had helped broker Fort Howard’s deals, swept in and snatched the company for $3.9 billion in one of those famed leveraged buyouts. The whole enterprise was swept off the public markets and into their hands.

    One of their moves was to spin out the cup business as Sweetheart Holdings—along with a boatload of debt jettisoned out of Fort Howard. Just eight years inside Fort Howard and a turn through the private-equity wringer had turned a profitable company into one that still made money on operations in 1991, but was $95 million in the red because it was so loaded up with debt.

    The company made layoffs across the country. Retirement health-care benefits were cut, leaving older employees so livid they filed a class-action lawsuit. A huge Wilmington factory closed after McDonald’s got rid of its plastic clamshell packaging for hamburgers, citing environmental concerns over plastic.

    In 1993, the company was sold again to a different investment group, American Industrial Partners. Eventually, it was sold yet again to the Solo Cup Company, makers of one-third of the materials necessary for beer pong. And finally, in 2012, Solo was itself sold to Dart Container, a family-owned packaging company that sells a vast array of straws under the Solo brand.

    Fort Howard continued on, going back public in 1995, then merging with another paper company, James River, in 1997, to become Fort James. Just three years later, an even bigger paper company, Georgia Pacific, snatched up the combined entity. In 2005, Koch Industries bought the shares of all the companies, taking the company back private. They still make straws.

    While bulk capitalism pushes hundreds of millions of plain plastic straws through the American food system, there are also thousands of variations on the straw now, from the “krazy” whirling neon kind to a new natural straw made from rye stalks advertised on Kickstarter (the entrepreneur calls them “Straw Straws”). There are old-school paper straws and newfangled compostable plastic straws. Stone Straw, founded by the inventor of the artificial straw, even survives in some form as the straw-distributing subsidiary of a Canadian manufacturing concern. Basically, there’s never been a better time to be a straw consumer.

    Meanwhile, the country has shed manufacturing jobs for decades, straws contribute their share to a dire global environmental disaster, the economy continues to concentrate wealth among the very richest, and the sodas that pass through the nation’s straws are contributing to an obesity epidemic that threatens to erase many of the public health gains that were won in the 20th century. Local governments may legislate the use of the plastic straw, but they can’t do a thing about the vast system that’s attached to the straw, which created first disposable products, then companies, and finally people.

    The straw is the opposite of special. History has flowed around and through it, like thousands of other bits of material culture. What’s happened to the straw might not even be worth comment, and certainly not essay. But if it’s not clear by now, straws, in this story, are us, inevitable vessels of the times in which we live.

    #USA #histoire #capitalisme #alimentation #plastique

  • Is co-living the new Airbnb for millennial nomads? | Money | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/mar/02/is-co-living-the-new-airbnb-for-millennial-nomads

    My housemates don’t hang around for long in the seven-bedroom loft I’m sharing in Brooklyn, New York. Matthew MacIntosh, a 44-year-old digital copywriter from San Francisco, leaves three days after I arrive on a miserable wet Saturday afternoon in November. Two twentysomething Americans who work in marketing and social media respectively wheel out their suitcases just 48 hours later. There’s no mouse problem, or squalid living conditions and, on this occasion at least, it has nothing to do with my washing-up skills. Instead, this revolving door of housemates is the norm at Outsite, a co-living company aimed at remote workers, freelancers and entrepreneurs – or to use the more frequently used but slightly nauseating term – “digital nomads” – those who aren’t restricted to a physical location and can stay just for two nights or for as long as three months.

  • #Jon_Leidecker (Thurston Moore Ensemble, #Negativland, #Wobbly,...)
    http://www.radiopanik.org/emissions/moacrealsloa/jon-leidecker-thurston-moore-ensemble-negativland-wobbly-

    Jon Leidecker aka Wobbly is a San Francisco–based musician/composer of experimental electronic music. Member of the multimedia collective Negativland. Jon has just joined the #Thurston_Moore Ensemble and recorded with them a new album in Brussels.

    Jon Leidecker has been engaged with the medium of electronic music since the mid-1980s, performing in collaboration with others and appearing solo under the unchosen pseudonym Wobbly with an emphasis on live performance and improvisation. His early works utilized sonic collage and musical appropriation, growing out of a series of appearances on Negativland’s live-mix radio program Over the Edge, which involved improvising with recorded sounds to produce music that inherently resists the act of being recorded. Recent work includes (...)

    #Thurston_Moore,Negativland,Jon_Leidecker,Wobbly
    http://www.radiopanik.org/media/sounds/moacrealsloa/jon-leidecker-thurston-moore-ensemble-negativland-wobbly-_06262__1.mp3