provinceorstate:hawaii

  • Twitter users answer the question: “When did you become radicalized by the U.S. health care non-system?” / Boing Boing
    https://boingboing.net/2019/05/05/all-on-medicare.html

    With 2,700 replies and counting, All On Medicare’s tweet asking When did you become radicalized by the U.S. health care non-system? is now one of the most thorough (and thoroughly depressing) collections of evidence of the need for healthcare reform you’re likely to encounter.

    The title story of my new book Radicalized is about angry men whose most cherished family members are condemned to slow, painful deaths after their insurers refuse to cover lifesaving treatments by classing them as “experimental.” These men are radicalized on message boards where there’s always someone standing by to welcome people who are suicidal in their grief by urging them on, saying “Do it! And take some of those fuckers with you.”

    In the story, America is shaken by a wave of terrorist violence as angry, traumatized white dudes start to suicide-bomb health insurance companies and take shots at senators funded by them. These white guys are not classed as terrorists — not at first, anyway — because the color of their skin dictates that they be called “lone wolves” and the victims of their crimes are not the most charismatic people in America.

    Reading this thread took me back to the research I did on the story, looking through Gofundme pages for people who only wanted to die knowing that their death wouldn’t impoverish their loved ones. American health care is the most broken system in the world. I grew up with Canadian socialised medicine, then lived with the UK NHS for 13 years and now I’m in the USA and insured by Cinga (insert anguished scream here), and I’m here to tell you that Americans suffer under a system that no one else in the rich world has to tolerate.

    When did you become radicalized by the U.S. health care non-system?
    — All On Medicare (@AllOnMedicare) May 2, 2019

    “Watching my best friend’s father go from serene acceptance of his lymphoma diagnosis to shame and despair on his deathbed two years later that his treatment had permanently impoverished his wife and son. When my father received his own diagnosis, he refused all treatment instead.” (@sisyphusmyths)

    “My father killed himself so he wouldn’t bankrupt the family trying to treat his Parkinson’s. He was my best friend. We did a Go Fund Me for his medical care and ended up using it for his funeral” (@ErinDeweyLennox)

    “When my mother waited too long to go to the doctor when she found a breast lump. Being poor cost her life. If other advanced countries can do it, so can we. I’m sick of greedy fucking billionaires who’ve robbed America of a heart and soul.” (@CelloLvr)

    “My mother had a prolapsed uterus. She took to shoving it back in because her insurance wouldn’t cover any of the treatments locally, and she would have had to go to a hospital a hundred miles away to be treated. The idea of just shoving your organs back inside your body...” (@UrsulaV)

    “Early elementary school after eavesdropping on my mom while she fought with the insurance company to get my insulin to keep me alive. High school when my dad had to ask for an advance on his paycheck for my med device supplies. College when I had to ration my insulin.” (@msinsulindpndnt)

    “When I realized that Anthem was sending employees on trips to Hawaii and giving bonuses that were greater than my family’s combined yearly income and the people they were insuring were filing for bankruptcy over medical bills.” (@pgrayove)

    #USA #assurance_maladie #capitalisme

  • La plus grande opération de nettoyage de l’océan a officiellement débuté (Clubic)
    https://www.crashdebug.fr/sciencess/16112-la-plus-grande-operation-de-nettoyage-de-l-ocean-a-officiellement-d

    Une bonne nouvelle pour terminer cette journée,

    Bonne soirée,

    Amitiés,

    f.

    Est-il possible de débarrasser les océans des déchets plastiques qui forment aujourd’hui ce qu’on appelle le septième continent ?

    C’est en tout cas le pari d’un jeune néerlandais de 18 ans, Boyan Slat, et de son association à but non lucratif The Ocean Cleanup qui déploie actuellement son système de barrage flottant à mi-chemin entre Hawaii et la Californie.Un océan de plastiqueLe « Great Pacific Garbage Patch », autrement dit la « grande poubelle du Pacifique », est située à mi-chemin entre Hawaii et la Californie et constitue aujourd’hui l’une des plus grandes zones maritimes « poubelle » au monde. Avec sa surface couvrant près de 1,6 million de kilomètres carrés et contenant quelque 1 800 milliards de (...)

    #En_vedette #Actualités_scientifiques #Sciences

  • La #Tanzanie, 34e pays africain à bannir les sacs en #plastique | FRAN BLANDY | Environnement
    https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/environnement/201905/31/01-5228258-la-tanzanie-34e-pays-africain-a-bannir-les-sacs-en-plastique.php

    Des pays comme les États-Unis, le Canada ou l’Australie n’ont aucune règlementation nationale pour les sacs en plastique, même si certains États américains, dont Hawaii et la Californie, les ont bannis.

    En mars, le Parlement européen a entériné la fin des produits en plastique à usage unique dans l’Union européenne à partir de 2021.

    #Afrique

  • Suffering unseen: The dark truth behind wildlife tourism
    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/06/global-wildlife-tourism-social-media-causes-animal-suffering

    I’ve come back to check on a baby. Just after dusk I’m in a car lumbering down a muddy road in the rain, past rows of shackled elephants, their trunks swaying. I was here five hours before, when the sun was high and hot and tourists were on elephants’ backs.

    Walking now, I can barely see the path in the glow of my phone’s flashlight. When the wooden fence post of the stall stops me short, I point my light down and follow a current of rainwater across the concrete floor until it washes up against three large, gray feet. A fourth foot hovers above the surface, tethered tightly by a short chain and choked by a ring of metal spikes. When the elephant tires and puts her foot down, the spikes press deeper into her ankle.

    Meena is four years and two months old, still a toddler as elephants go. Khammon Kongkhaw, her mahout, or caretaker, told me earlier that Meena wears the spiked chain because she tends to kick. Kongkhaw has been responsible for Meena here at Maetaman Elephant Adventure, near Chiang Mai, in northern Thailand, since she was 11 months old. He said he keeps her on the spiked shackle only during the day and takes it off at night. But it’s night now.

    I ask Jin Laoshen, the Maetaman staffer accompanying me on this nighttime visit, why her chain is still on. He says he doesn’t know.

    Maetaman is one of many animal attractions in and around tourist-swarmed Chiang Mai. People spill out of tour buses and clamber onto the trunks of elephants that, at the prodding of their mahouts’ bullhooks (long poles with a sharp metal hook), hoist them in the air while cameras snap. Visitors thrust bananas toward elephants’ trunks. They watch as mahouts goad their elephants—some of the most intelligent animals on the planet—to throw darts or kick oversize soccer balls while music blares.

    Meena is one of Maetaman’s 10 show elephants. To be precise, she’s a painter. Twice a day, in front of throngs of chattering tourists, Kongkhaw puts a paintbrush in the tip of her trunk and presses a steel nail to her face to direct her brushstrokes as she drags primary colors across paper. Often he guides her to paint a wild elephant in the savanna. Her paintings are then sold to tourists.

    Meena’s life is set to follow the same trajectory as many of the roughly 3,800 captive elephants in Thailand and thousands more throughout Southeast Asia. She’ll perform in shows until she’s about 10. After that, she’ll become a riding elephant. Tourists will sit on a bench strapped to her back, and she’ll give several rides a day. When Meena is too old or sick to give rides—maybe at 55, maybe at 75—she’ll die. If she’s lucky, she’ll get a few years of retirement. She’ll spend most of her life on a chain in a stall.

    Wildlife attractions such as Maetaman lure people from around the world to be with animals like Meena, and they make up a lucrative segment of the booming global travel industry. Twice as many trips are being taken abroad as 15 years ago, a jump driven partly by Chinese tourists, who spend far more on international travel than any other nationality.

    Wildlife tourism isn’t new, but social media is setting the industry ablaze, turning encounters with exotic animals into photo-driven bucket-list toppers. Activities once publicized mostly in guidebooks now are shared instantly with multitudes of people by selfie-taking backpackers, tour-bus travelers, and social media “influencers” through a tap on their phone screens. Nearly all millennials (23- to 38-year-olds) use social media while traveling. Their selfies—of swims with dolphins, encounters with tigers, rides on elephants, and more—are viral advertising for attractions that tout up-close experiences with animals.

    For all the visibility social media provides, it doesn’t show what happens beyond the view of the camera lens. People who feel joy and exhilaration from getting close to wild animals usually are unaware that many of the animals at such attractions live a lot like Meena, or worse.

    Photographer Kirsten Luce and I set out to look behind the curtain of the thriving wildlife tourism industry, to see how animals at various attractions—including some that emphasize their humane care of animals—are treated once the selfie-taking crowds have gone.

    After leaving Maetaman, we take a five-minute car ride up a winding hill to a property announced by a wooden plaque as “Elephant EcoValley: where elephants are in good hands.” There are no elephant rides here. No paint shows or other performances. Visitors can stroll through an open-air museum and learn about Thailand’s national animal. They can make herbal treats for the elephants and paper from elephant dung. They can watch elephants in a grassy, tree-ringed field.

    EcoValley’s guest book is filled with praise from Australians, Danes, Americans—tourists who often shun elephant camps such as Maetaman because the rides and shows make them uneasy. Here, they can see unchained elephants and leave feeling good about supporting what they believe is an ethical establishment. What many don’t know is that EcoValley’s seemingly carefree elephants are brought here for the day from nearby Maetaman—and that the two attractions are actually a single business.

    Meena was brought here once, but she tried to run into the forest. Another young elephant, Mei, comes sometimes, but today she’s at Maetaman, playing the harmonica in the shows. When she’s not doing that, or spending the day at EcoValley, she’s chained near Meena in one of Maetaman’s elephant stalls.

    Meena Kalamapijit owns Maetaman as well as EcoValley, which she opened in November 2017 to cater to Westerners. She says her 56 elephants are well cared for and that giving rides and performing allow them to have necessary exercise. And, she says, Meena the elephant’s behavior has gotten better since her mahout started using the spiked chain.
    Read MoreWildlife Watch
    Why we’re shining a light on wildlife tourism
    Poaching is sending the shy, elusive pangolin to its doom
    How to do wildlife tourism right

    We sit with Kalamapijit on a balcony outside her office, and she explains that when Westerners, especially Americans, stopped coming to Maetaman, she eliminated one of the daily shows to allot time for visitors to watch elephants bathe in the river that runs through the camp.

    “Westerners enjoy bathing because it looks happy and natural,” she says. “But a Chinese tour agency called me and said, ‘Why are you cutting the show? Our customers love to see it, and they don’t care about bathing at all.’ ” Providing separate options is good for business, Kalamapijit says.

    Around the world Kirsten and I watched tourists watching captive animals. In Thailand we also saw American men bear-hug tigers in Chiang Mai and Chinese brides in wedding gowns ride young elephants in the aqua surf on the island of Phuket. We watched polar bears in wire muzzles ballroom dancing across the ice under a big top in Russia and teenage boys on the Amazon River snapping selfies with baby sloths.

    Most tourists who enjoy these encounters don’t know that the adult tigers may be declawed, drugged, or both. Or that there are always cubs for tourists to snuggle with because the cats are speed bred and the cubs are taken from their mothers just days after birth. Or that the elephants give rides and perform tricks without harming people only because they’ve been “broken” as babies and taught to fear the bullhook. Or that the Amazonian sloths taken illegally from the jungle often die within weeks of being put in captivity.

    As we traveled to performance pits and holding pens on three continents and in the Hawaiian Islands, asking questions about how animals are treated and getting answers that didn’t always add up, it became clear how methodically and systematically animal suffering is concealed.

    The wildlife tourism industry caters to people’s love of animals but often seeks to maximize profits by exploiting animals from birth to death. The industry’s economy depends largely on people believing that the animals they’re paying to watch or ride or feed are having fun too.

    It succeeds partly because tourists—in unfamiliar settings and eager to have a positive experience—typically don’t consider the possibility that they’re helping to hurt animals. Social media adds to the confusion: Oblivious endorsements from friends and trendsetters legitimize attractions before a traveler ever gets near an animal.

    There has been some recognition of social media’s role in the problem. In December 2017, after a National Geographic investigative report on harmful wildlife tourism in Amazonian Brazil and Peru, Instagram introduced a feature: Users who click or search one of dozens of hashtags, such as #slothselfie and #tigercubselfie, now get a pop-up warning that the content they’re viewing may be harmful to animals.

    Everyone finds Olga Barantseva on Instagram. “Photographer from Russia. Photographing dreams,” her bio reads. She meets clients for woodland photo shoots with captive wild animals just outside Moscow.

    For her 18th birthday, Sasha Belova treated herself to a session with Barantseva—and a pack of wolves. “It was my dream,” she says as she fidgets with her hair, which had been styled that morning. “Wolves are wild and dangerous.” The wolves are kept in small cages at a petting zoo when not participating in photo shoots.

    The Kravtsov family hired Barantseva to take their first professional family photos—all five family members, shivering and smiling in the birch forest, joined by a bear named Stepan.

    Barantseva has been photographing people and wild animals together for six years. She “woke up as a star,” she says, in 2015, when a couple of international media outlets found her online. Her audience has exploded to more than 80,000 followers worldwide. “I want to show harmony between people and animals,” she says.

    On a raw fall day, under a crown of golden birch leaves on a hill that overlooks a frigid lake, two-and-a-half-year-old Alexander Levin, dressed in a hooded bumblebee sweater, timidly holds Stepan’s paw.

    The bear’s owners, Yury and Svetlana Panteleenko, ply their star with food—tuna fish mixed with oatmeal—to get him to approach the boy. Snap: It looks like a tender friendship. The owners toss grapes to Stepan to get him to open his mouth wide. Snap: The bear looks as if he’s smiling.

    The Panteleenkos constantly move Stepan, adjusting his paws, feeding him, and positioning Alexander as Barantseva, pink-haired, bundled in jeans and a parka, captures each moment. Snap: A photo goes to her Instagram feed. A boy and a bear in golden Russian woods—a picture straight out of a fairy tale. It’s a contemporary twist on a long-standing Russian tradition of exploiting bears for entertainment.

    Another day in the same forest, Kirsten and I join 12 young women who have nearly identical Instagram accounts replete with dreamy photos of models caressing owls and wolves and foxes. Armed with fancy cameras but as yet modest numbers of followers, they all want the audience Barantseva has. Each has paid the Panteleenkos $760 to take identical shots of models with the ultimate prize: a bear in the woods.

    Stepan is 26 years old, elderly for a brown bear, and can hardly walk. The Panteleenkos say they bought him from a small zoo when he was three months old. They say the bear’s work—a constant stream of photo shoots and movies—provides money to keep him fed.

    A video on Svetlana Panteleenko’s Instagram account proclaims: “Love along with some great food can make anyone a teddy :-)”

    And just like that, social media takes a single instance of local animal tourism and broadcasts it to the world.

    When the documentary film Blackfish was released in 2013, it drew a swift and decisive reaction from the American public. Through the story of Tilikum, a distressed killer whale at SeaWorld in Orlando, Florida, the film detailed the miserable life orcas can face in captivity. Hundreds of thousands of outraged viewers signed petitions. Companies with partnership deals, such as Southwest Airlines, severed ties with SeaWorld. Attendance at SeaWorld’s water parks slipped; its stock nose-dived.

    James Regan says what he saw in Blackfish upset him. Regan, honeymooning in Hawaii with his wife, Katie, is from England, where the country’s last marine mammal park closed permanently in 1993. I meet him at Dolphin Quest Oahu, an upscale swim-with-dolphins business on the grounds of the beachfront Kahala Hotel & Resort, just east of Honolulu. The Regans paid $225 each to swim for 30 minutes in a small group with a bottlenose dolphin. One of two Dolphin Quest locations in Hawaii, the facility houses six dolphins.

    Bottlenose dolphins are the backbone of an industry that spans the globe. Swim-with-dolphins operations rely on captive-bred and wild-caught dolphins that live—and interact with tourists—in pools. The popularity of these photo-friendly attractions reflects the disconnect around dolphin experiences: People in the West increasingly shun shows that feature animals performing tricks, but many see swimming with captive dolphins as a vacation rite of passage.

    Katie Regan has wanted to swim with dolphins since she was a child. Her husband laughs and says of Dolphin Quest, “They paint a lovely picture. When you’re in America, everyone is smiling.” But he appreciates that the facility is at their hotel, so they can watch the dolphins being fed and cared for. He brings up Blackfish again.

    Katie protests: “Stop making my dream a horrible thing!”

    Rae Stone, president of Dolphin Quest and a marine mammal veterinarian, says the company donates money to conservation projects and educates visitors about perils that marine mammals face in the wild. By paying for this entertainment, she says, visitors are helping captive dolphins’ wild cousins.

    Stone notes that Dolphin Quest is certified “humane” by American Humane, an animal welfare nonprofit. (The Walt Disney Company, National Geographic’s majority owner, offers dolphin encounters on some vacation excursions and at an attraction in Epcot, one of its Orlando parks. Disney says it follows the animal welfare standards of the Association of Zoos & Aquariums, a nonprofit that accredits more than 230 facilities worldwide.)

    It’s a vigorous debate: whether even places with high standards, veterinarians on staff, and features such as pools filled with filtered ocean water can be truly humane for marine mammals.

    Dolphin Quest’s Stone says yes.

    Critics, including the Humane Society of the United States, which does not endorse keeping dolphins in captivity, say no. They argue that these animals have evolved to swim great distances and live in complex social groups—conditions that can’t be replicated in the confines of a pool. This helps explain why the National Aquarium, in Baltimore, announced in 2016 that its dolphins will be retired to a seaside sanctuary by 2020.

    Some U.S. attractions breed their own dolphins because the nation has restricted dolphin catching in the wild since 1972. But elsewhere, dolphins are still being taken from the wild and turned into performers.

    In China, which has no national laws on captive-animal welfare, dolphinariums with wild-caught animals are a booming business: There are now 78 marine mammal parks, and 26 more are under construction.

    To have the once-in-a-lifetime chance to see rare Black Sea dolphins, people in the landlocked town of Kaluga, a hundred miles from Moscow, don’t have to leave their city. In the parking lot of the Torgoviy Kvartal shopping mall, next to a hardware store, is a white inflatable pop-up aquarium: the Moscow Traveling Dolphinarium. It looks like a children’s bouncy castle that’s been drained of its color.

    Inside the puffy dome, parents buy their kids dolphin-shaped trinkets: fuzzy dolls and Mylar balloons, paper dolphin hats, and drinks in plastic dolphin tumblers. Families take their seats around a small pool. The venue is so intimate that even the cheapest seats, at nine dollars apiece, are within splashing distance.

    “My kids are jumping for joy,” says a woman named Anya, motioning toward her two giddy boys, bouncing in their seats.

    In the middle of the jubilant atmosphere, in water that seems much too shallow and much too murky, two dolphins swim listlessly in circles.

    Russia is one of only a few countries (Indonesia is another) where traveling oceanariums exist. Dolphins and beluga whales, which need to be immersed in water to stay alive, are put in tubs on trucks and carted from city to city in a loop that usually ends when they die. These traveling shows are aboveboard: Russia has no laws that regulate how marine mammals should be treated in captivity.

    The shows are the domestic arm of a brisk Russian global trade in dolphins and small whales. Black Sea bottlenose dolphins can’t be caught legally without a permit, but Russian fishermen can catch belugas and orcas under legal quotas in the name of science and education. Some belugas are sold legally to aquariums around the country. Russia now allows only a dozen or so orcas to be caught each year for scientific and educational purposes, and since April 2018, the government has cracked down on exporting them. But government investigators believe that Russian orcas—which can sell for millions—are being caught illegally for export to China.

    Captive orcas, which can grow to 20 feet long and more than 10,000 pounds, are too big for the traveling shows that typically feature dolphins and belugas. When I contacted the owners of the Moscow Traveling Dolphinarium and another operation, the White Whale Show, in separate telephone calls to ask where their dolphins and belugas come from, both men, Sergey Kuznetsov and Oleg Belesikov, hung up on me.

    Russia’s dozen or so traveling oceanariums are touted as a way to bring native wild animals to people who might never see the ocean.

    “Who else if not us?” says Mikhail Olyoshin, a staffer at one traveling oceanarium. And on this day in Kaluga, as the dolphins perform tricks to American pop songs and lie on platforms for several minutes for photo ops, parents and children express the same sentiment: Imagine, dolphins, up close, in my hometown. The ocean on delivery.

    Owners and operators of wildlife tourism attractions, from high-end facilities such as Dolphin Quest in Hawaii to low-end monkey shows in Thailand, say their animals live longer in captivity than wild counterparts because they’re safe from predators and environmental hazards. Show operators proudly emphasize that the animals under their care are with them for life. They’re family.

    Alla Azovtseva, a longtime dolphin trainer in Russia, shakes her head.

    “I don’t see any sense in this work. My conscience bites me. I look at my animals and want to cry,” says Azovtseva, who drives a red van with dolphins airbrushed on the side. At the moment, she’s training pilot whales to perform tricks at Moscow’s Moskvarium, one of Europe’s largest aquariums (not connected to the traveling dolphin shows). On her day off, we meet at a café near Red Square.

    She says she fell in love with dolphins in the late 1980s when she read a book by John Lilly, the American neuroscientist who broke open our understanding of the animals’ intelligence. She has spent 30 years training marine mammals to do tricks. But along the way she’s grown heartsick from forcing highly intelligent, social creatures to live isolated, barren lives in small tanks.

    “I would compare the dolphin situation with making a physicist sweep the street,” she says. “When they’re not engaged in performance or training, they just hang in the water facing down. It’s the deepest depression.”

    What people don’t know about many aquarium shows in Russia, Azovtseva says, is that the animals often die soon after being put in captivity, especially those in traveling shows. And Azovtseva—making clear she’s referring to the industry at large in Russia and not the Moskvarium—says she knows many aquariums quietly and illegally replace their animals with new ones.

    It’s been illegal to catch Black Sea dolphins in the wild for entertainment purposes since 2003, but according to Azovtseva, aquarium owners who want to increase their dolphin numbers quickly and cheaply buy dolphins poached there. Because these dolphins are acquired illegally, they’re missing the microchips that captive cetaceans in Russia are usually tagged with as a form of required identification.

    Some aquariums get around that, she says, by cutting out dead dolphins’ microchips and implanting them into replacement dolphins.

    “People are people,” Azovtseva says. “Once they see an opportunity, they exploit.” She says she can’t go on doing her work in the industry and that she’s decided to speak out because she wants people to know the truth about the origins and treatment of many of the marine mammals they love watching. We exchange a look—we both know what her words likely mean for her livelihood.

    “I don’t care if I’m fired,” she says defiantly. “When a person has nothing to lose, she becomes really brave.”

    I’m sitting on the edge of an infinity pool on the hilly Thai side of Thailand’s border with Myanmar, at a resort where rooms average more than a thousand dollars a night.

    Out past the pool, elephants roam in a lush valley. Sitting next to me is 20-year-old Stephanie van Houten. She’s Dutch and French, Tokyo born and raised, and a student at the University of Michigan. Her cosmopolitan background and pretty face make for a perfect cocktail of aspiration—she’s exactly the kind of Instagrammer who makes it as an influencer. That is, someone who has a large enough following to attract sponsors to underwrite posts and, in turn, travel, wardrobes, and bank accounts. In 2018, brands—fashion, travel, tech, and more—spent an estimated $1.6 billion on social media advertising by influencers.

    Van Houten has been here, at the Anantara Golden Triangle Elephant Camp & Resort, before. This time, in a fairly standard influencer-brand arrangement, she’ll have a picnic with elephants and post about it to her growing legion of more than 25,000 Instagram followers. In exchange, she gets hundreds of dollars off the nightly rate.

    At Anantara the fields are green, and during the day at least, many of the resort’s 22 elephants are tethered on ropes more than a hundred feet long so they can move around and socialize. Nevertheless, they’re expected to let guests touch them and do yoga beside them.

    After van Houten’s elephant picnic, I watch her edit the day’s hundreds of photos. She selects an image with her favorite elephant, Bo. She likes it, she says, because she felt a connection with Bo and thinks that will come across. She posts it at 9:30 p.m.—the time she estimates the largest number of her followers will be online. She includes a long caption, summing it up as “my love story with this incredible creature,” and the hashtag #stopelephantriding. Immediately, likes from followers stream in—more than a thousand, as well as comments with heart-eyed emoji.

    Anantara is out of reach for anyone but the wealthy—or prominent influencers. Anyone else seeking a similar experience might do a Google search for, say, “Thailand elephant sanctuary.”

    As tourist demand for ethical experiences with animals has grown, affordable establishments, often calling themselves “sanctuaries,” have cropped up purporting to offer humane, up-close elephant encounters. Bathing with elephants—tourists give them a mud bath, splash them in a river, or both—has become very popular. Many facilities portray baths as a benign alternative to elephant riding and performances. But elephants getting baths, like those that give rides and do tricks, will have been broken to some extent to make them obedient. And as long as bathing remains popular, places that offer it will need obedient elephants to keep their businesses going. 


    In Ban Ta Klang, a tiny town in eastern Thailand, modest homes dot the crimson earth. In front of each is a wide, bamboo platform for sitting, sleeping, and watching television.

    But the first thing I notice is the elephants. Some homes have one, others as many as five. Elephants stand under tarps or sheet metal roofs or trees. Some are together, mothers and babies, but most are alone. Nearly all the elephants wear ankle chains or hobbles—cuffs binding their front legs together. Dogs and chickens weave among the elephants’ legs, sending up puffs of red dust.

    Ban Ta Klang—known as Elephant Village—is ground zero in Thailand for training and trading captive elephants.

    “House elephants,” Sri Somboon says, gesturing as he turns down his TV. Next to his outdoor platform, a two-month-old baby elephant runs around his mother. Somboon points across the road to the third elephant in his charge, a three-year-old male tethered to a tree. He’s wrenching his head back and forth and thrashing his trunk around. It looks as if he’s going out of his mind.

    He’s in the middle of his training, Somboon says, and is getting good at painting. He’s already been sold, and when his training is finished, he’ll start working at a tourist camp down south.

    Ban Ta Klang and the surrounding area, part of Surin Province, claim to be the source of more than half of Thailand’s 3,800 captive elephants. Long before the flood of tourists, it was the center of the elephant trade; the animals were caught in the wild and tamed for use transporting logs. Now, every November, hundreds of elephants from here are displayed, bought, and sold in the province’s main town, Surin.

    One evening I sit with Jakkrawan Homhual and Wanchai Sala-ngam. Both 33, they’ve been best friends since childhood. About half the people in Ban Ta Klang who care for elephants, including Homhual, don’t own them. They’re paid a modest salary by a rich owner to breed and train baby elephants for entertainment. As night falls, thousands of termites swarm us, attracted to the single bulb hanging above the bamboo platform. Our conversation turns to elephant training.

    Phajaan is the traditional—and brutal—days- or weeks-long process of breaking a young elephant’s spirit. It has long been used in Thailand and throughout Southeast Asia to tame wild elephants, which still account for many of the country’s captives. Under phajaan, elephants are bound with ropes, confined in tight wooden structures, starved, and beaten repeatedly with bullhooks, nails, and hammers until their will is crushed. The extent to which phajaan persists in its harshest form is unclear. Since 2012, the government has been cracking down on the illegal import of elephants taken from the forests of neighboring Myanmar, Thailand’s main source of wild-caught animals.

    I ask the men how baby elephants born in captivity are broken and trained.

    When a baby is about two years old, they say, mahouts tie its mother to a tree and slowly drag the baby away. Once separated, the baby is confined. Using a bullhook on its ear, they teach the baby to move: left, right, turn, stop. To teach an elephant to sit, Sala-ngam says, “we tie up the front legs. One mahout will use a bullhook at the back. The other will pull a rope on the front legs.” He adds: “To train the elephant, you need to use the bullhook so the elephant will know.”

    Humans identify suffering in other humans by universal signs: People sob, wince, cry out, put voice to their hurt. Animals have no universal language for pain. Many animals don’t have tear ducts. More creatures still—prey animals, for example—instinctively mask symptoms of pain, lest they appear weak to predators. Recognizing that a nonhuman animal is in pain is difficult, often impossible.

    But we know that animals feel pain. All mammals have a similar neuroanatomy. Birds, reptiles, and amphibians all have pain receptors. As recently as a decade ago, scientists had collected more evidence that fish feel pain than they had for neonatal infants. A four-year-old human child with spikes pressing into his flesh would express pain by screaming. A four-year-old elephant just stands there in the rain, her leg jerking in the air.

    Of all the silently suffering animals I saw in pools and pens around the world, two in particular haunt me: an elephant and a tiger.

    They lived in the same facility, Samut Prakan Crocodile Farm and Zoo, about 15 miles south of Bangkok. The elephant, Gluay Hom, four years old, was kept under a stadium. The aging tiger, Khai Khem, 22, spent his days on a short chain in a photo studio. Both had irrefutable signs of suffering: The emaciated elephant had a bent, swollen leg hanging in the air and a large, bleeding sore at his temple. His eyes were rolled back in his head. The tiger had a dental abscess so severe that the infection was eating through the bottom of his jaw.

    When I contacted the owner of the facility, Uthen Youngprapakorn, to ask about these animals, he said the fact that they hadn’t died proved that the facility was caring for them properly. He then threatened a lawsuit.

    Six months after Kirsten and I returned from Thailand, we asked Ryn Jirenuwat, our Bangkok-based Thai interpreter, to check on Gluay Hom and Khai Khem. She went to Samut Prakan and watched them for hours, sending photos and video. Gluay Hom was still alive, still standing in the same stall, leg still bent at an unnatural angle. The elephants next to him were skin and bones. Khai Khem was still chained by his neck to a hook in the floor. He just stays in his dark corner, Jirenuwat texted, and when he hears people coming, he twists on his chain and turns his back to them.

    “Like he just wants to be swallowed by the wall.”

    #tourisme #nos_ennemis_les_bêtes

  • Report from the February 2019 ISO C++ meeting (Core Language working group)—Jason Merrill
    http://isocpp.org/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&feed=All+Posts&seed=http%3A%2F%2Fisocpp.org%2Fblog%2F2

    Short and sweet.

    Report from the February 2019 ISO C++ meeting (Core Language working group) by Jason Merrill

    From the article:

    The February 2019 ISO C++ meeting was held in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. As usual, Red Hat sent three developers to the meeting: I attended in the Core Language working group, Jonathan Wakely in Library, and Thomas Rodgers in SG1 (parallelism and concurrency). The meeting went smoothly, although there was significant uncertainty at the beginning where we would end up. In the end, Modules and Coroutines were accepted into the C++20 draft, so now we have our work cut out for us nailing down the remaining loose corners. Here ar highlights from the (...)

    #News,Articles&_Books,_Standardization,

  • Trip Report: C++ Standards Meeting in Kona, February 2019—Botond Ballo
    http://isocpp.org/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&feed=All+Posts&seed=http%3A%2F%2Fisocpp.org%2Fblog%2F2

    Everything you need to know.

    Trip Report: C++ Standards Meeting in Kona, February 2019 by Botond Ballo

    From the article:

    A few weeks ago I attended a meeting of the ISO C++ Standards Committee (also known as WG21) in Kona, Hawaii. This was the first committee meeting in 2019; you can find my reports on 2018’s meetings here (November 2018, San Diego), here (June 2018, Rapperswil), and here (March 2018, Jacksonville). These reports, particularly the San Diego one, provide useful context for this post...

    #News,Articles&_Books,_Standardization,

  • Informatique, astronomie ou chimie : toutes ces inventions de femmes attribuées à des hommes - Politique - Numerama
    https://www.numerama.com/politique/469570-informatique-astronomie-ou-chimie-toutes-ces-inventions-de-femmes-a

    Le Wi-Fi, la fission nucléaire ou le pulsar : quel est le point commun entre ces inventions ? Elles ont toutes été créées par des inventrices, éclipsées dans l’ombre de leurs confrères masculins. Nous rappelons leur histoire ce 8 mars 2019.

    Où sont les femmes dans les technologies et les sciences ? Dans l’ombre de leurs homologues masculins, pour nombre d’entre elles. À l’occasion de la journée internationale des droits des femmes, le 8 mars 2019, nous avons décidé de revenir sur le parcours d’inventrices éclipsées par l’Histoire, dont les exploits ont été notamment attribués à des hommes.

    On parle d’effet Matilda pour désigner la manière dont la contribution de nombreuses femmes scientifiques a été minimisée, voir attribuée à des confrères masculins.

    Son manuscrit en atteste encore aujourd’hui : Ada Lovelace, née en 1815 et décédée à 37 ans, a réalisé le premier programme informatique. Entre 1842 et 1843, la comtesse traduit en anglais un article du mathématicien Federico Luigi, qui décrit la machine analytique de Babbage. Sur les conseils de ce dernier, elle va enrichir cette traduction avec ses propres notes, dont le volume est plus imposant que le texte de départ.

    Dans la note G, elle présente un algorithme particulièrement détaillé. Ce travail est considéré comme le premier programme informatique du monde, rédigé dans un langage exécutable par une machine. Charles Babbage, qui a consacré sa vie à la construction de cette fameuse machine analytique, a bien bénéficié du travail sur l’algorithme mené par Ada Lovelace.
    Ada Lovelace. // Source : Wikimedia/CC/Science Museum Group (photo recadrée)
    Hedy Lamarr et le Wi-Fi

    On ne doit pas seulement à Hedy Lamarr, actrice autrichienne naturalisée américaine, une trentaine de films. L’inventrice, née en 1914 et décédée en 2000, a aussi joué un autre rôle important dans l’histoire de nos télécommunications. Le brevet qu’elle a déposé en 1941 (enregistré l’année suivante) en atteste encore : Hedy Lamarr avait inventé un « système secret de communication » pour des engins radio-guidés, comme des torpilles. La découverte, à l’origine du GPS et du Wi-Fi, était le fruit d’une collaboration avec George Antheil, un pianiste américain.

    Le brevet ainsi déposé permettait à l’Armée des États-Unis de l’utiliser librement. La technologie n’a pourtant pas été mobilisée avant 1962, lors de la crise des missiles de Cuba. La « technique Lamarr » a valu à l’actrice un prix en de l’Electronic Frontier Foundation… en 1997.
    Hedy Lamarr en 1944. // Source : Wikimedia/CC/MGM (photo recadrée)
    Alice Ball et le traitement contre la lèpre

    Pendant 90 ans, l’université d’Hawaï n’a pas reconnu son travail. Pourtant, Alice Ball a contribué au développement d’un traitement efficace contre la lèpre au cours du 20e siècle. Cette chimiste, née en 1892 et morte en 1916 à l’âge seulement de 24 ans, est devenue la première afro-américaine diplômée de cet établissement. Plus tard, elle y est devenue la première femme à enseigner la chimie.

    Alice Ball s’est penchée sur une huile naturelle produite par les arbres de l’espèce « Chaulmoogra », réputée pour soigner la lèpre. En isolant des composants de l’huile, elle est parvenue à conserver ses propriétés thérapeutiques tout en la rendant injectable dans le cops humain. Décédée avant d’avoir eu le temps de publier ses travaux, Alice Ball est tombée dans l’oubli tandis qu’Arthur L. Dean, le président de l’université d’Hawaï, s’est attribué son travail.
    Alice Ball (1915). // Source : Wikimedia/CC/University of Hawaii System
    Grace Hopper et le premier compilateur

    En 1951, Grace Hopper a conçu le premier compilateur, c’est-à-dire un programme capable de traduire un code source (écrit dans un langage de programmation) en code objet (comme le langage machine). Née en 1906 et décédée en 1992, cette informaticienne américaine a fait partie de la marine américaine où elle s’est hissée au grade d’officière générale.

    Pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, elle a travaillé sur le Harvard Mark I, le premier grand calculateur numérique construit aux États-Unis. Le mathématicien John von Neumann est présenté comme celui qui a initié l’un des premiers programmes exécutés par la machine. Grace Hopper faisait pourtant partie de l’équipe des premiers programmateurs du Mark I.
    Grace Hopper (1984). // Source : Wikimedia/CC/James S. Davis (photo recadrée)
    Esther Lederberg et la génétique bactérienne

    Cette spécialiste de microbiologie était une pionnière de la génétique microbienne, une discipline croisant la microbiologie (l’étude des micro-organismes) et le génie génétique (l’ajout et la suppression de l’ADN dans un organisme). La génétique microbienne consiste à étudier les gènes des micro-organismes.

    Esther Lederberg est née en 1922 et décédée en 2006. Elle a découvert ce qu’on appelle le « phage lambda », un virus qui infecte notamment la bactérie E.coli. Le phage lambda est très étudié en biologie et il est utilisé pour permettre le clonage de l’ADN. Esther Lederberg l’a identifié en 1950. Elle collaborait régulièrement avec son mari Joshua Ledeberg : c’est lui qui a obtenu le prix Nobel de médecine en 1958, récompensant ces travaux sur la manière dont les bactéries échangent des gènes sans se reproduire.
    Esther Lederberg. // Source : Wikimedia/CC/Esther M. Zimmer Lederberg
    Jocelyn Bell et le pulsar

    En 1974, le prix Nobel de physique est remis à l’astronome britannique Antony Hewish. Pourtant, ce n’est pas lui qui a découvert le pulsar, un objet astronomique qui pourrait être une étoile à neutrons tournant sur elle-même. Antony Hewish était le directeur de thèse de Jocelyn Bell : il s’est contenté de construire le télescope nécessaire à ces observations. C’est bien l’astrophysicienne, née en 1943, qui a identifié la première le pulsar.

    En 2018, elle a finalement reçu le Prix de physique fondamentale. Elle a choisi d’utiliser les 3 millions de dollars qui lui ont été offerts pour encourager les étudiants sous-représentés dans le domaine de la physique.
    Jocelyn Bell (2015). // Source : Wikimedia/CC/Conor McCabe Photography (photo recadrée)
    Chien-Shiung Wu et la physique nucléaire

    Chien-Shiung Wu, née en 1912 et décédée en 1997, était une spécialiste de la physique nucléaire. En 1956, elle démontre par l’expérience la « non conservation de la parité dans les interactions faibles », au cours de ses travaux sur les interactions électromagnétiques. C’est une contribution importante à la physique des particules.

    Deux physiciens théoriciens chinois, Tsung-Dao Lee et Chen Ning Yang, avaient mené des travaux théoriques sur cette question. Tous deux ont reçu le prix Nobel de physique en 1957. Il faut attendre 1978 pour que la découverte expérimentale de Chien-Shiung Wu soit récompensée par l’obtention du prix Wolf de physique.
    Chien-Shiung Wu en 1963. // Source : Wikimedia/CC/Smithsonian Institution (photo recadrée)
    Rosalind Franklin et la structure de l’ADN

    La physico-chimiste Rosalind Franklin, née en 1920 et décédée en 1958, a joué un rôle important dans la découverte de la structure de l’ADN, notamment sa structure à double hélice. Grâce à la diffraction des rayons X, elle prend des clichés d’ADN qui permettent de faire cette découverte. Elle présente ses résultats en 1951 au King’s College.

    Un certain James Dewey Watson assiste à cette présentation. Ce généticien et biochimiste informe le biologiste Francis Crick de la découverte de Rosalind Franklin. En utilisant les photos de la physico-chimiste, ils publient ce qui semble être leur découverte de la structure de l’ADN. En 1953, ils publient ces travaux dans la revue Nature. Ils obtiennent un prix Nobel en 1962, sans mentionner le travail pionnier de Rosalind Franklin.
    Rosalind Franklin. // Source : Flickr/CC/retusj (photo recadrée)
    Lise Meitner et la fission nucléaire

    Nommée trois fois pour recevoir un prix Nobel, cette physicienne autrichienne n’a jamais reçu la précieuse distinction. C’est pourtant une collaboration entre Elise Meitner et Otto Frisch, son neveu, qui permis d’apporter la première explication théorique de la fusion, en 1939.

    La scientifique, née en 1878 et décédée en 1968, n’a jamais reçu du comité remettant la distinction la même estime que celle que lui portaient ses collègues. En 1944, le prix Nobel de chimie fut donné à Otto Hahn, chimiste considéré à tort comme le découvreur de la fission nucléaire.
    Lise Meitner (1906). // Source : Wikimedia/CC (photo recadrée)
    Katherine Johnson et la navigation astronomique

    L’action déterminante de Katherine Johnson dans les programmes aéronautiques et spatiaux de la Nasa a fait l’objet d’un film, Les Figures de l’ombre. Née en 1918, cette physicienne et mathématicienne a calculé de nombreuses trajectoires et travaillé sur les fenêtres de lancement de nombreuses missions. Véritable « calculatrice humaine », elle a vérifié à la main des trajectoires de la mission Mercury-Atlas 6, qui a envoyé un homme en orbite autour de la Terre.

    En 1969, elle calcule des trajectoires essentielles lors de la mission Apollo 11. C’est à cette occasion que des humains — des hommes — se sont posés pour la première fois sur la Lune. En 2015, elle est récompensée et reçoit la médaille présidentielle de la Liberté.
    Katherine Johnson en 1966. // Source : Wikimedia/CC/Nasa (photo recadrée)

    #femmes #historicisation #effet_Matilda #sexisme #discrimination #invisibilisation #science

  • China Military Threat: Seeking New Islands to Conquer - James Stavridis - Bloomberg
    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-21/china-military-threat-seeking-new-islands-to-conquer

    The constant refrain was simple: The West is becoming a less reliable partner. These allies are dismayed by a U.S. administration that has repeatedly criticized its closest partners and accused them of freeloading on defense. They are also worried about weakness and distraction of a Europe facing Brexit. This is compounded as they watch China increase pressure on Taiwan to accept a “one nation, two systems” deal a la Hong Kong and militarize the #South_China_Sea by constructing artificial islands.
    […]
    There is also a less-noticed but extremely worrisome aspect to China’s increasing boldness: It seems to be building its naval capability to dominate farther into the Pacific — as far as what Western analysts call the “second island chain.

    When thinking in a geo-strategic sense about China, the island-chain formulation is helpful. Since the 1950s, U.S. planners have delineated a first island chain, running from the Japanese islands through the Philippines, and down to the tip of Southeast Asia. Dominating inside that line has been the goal of China’s recent buildup in naval and missile capabilities. But U.S. officials warn that Chinese strategists are becoming more ambitious, set on gaining influence running to the second island chain — running from Japan through the Micronesian islands to the tip of Indonesia. As with its initial forays into the South China Sea, Beijing is using “scientific” missions and hydrographic surveying ships as the tip of the spear.

    Japan and Singapore are essentially anchors at the north and south ends the island chains. They have been integrating their defense capabilities with the U.S. through training, exercises and arms purchases. They are exploring better relations with India as the Pacific and Indian Oceans are increasingly viewed as a single strategic entity. This is a crucial element in the U.S. strategy for the region. But there are changes coming.

    First, there are expectations that China will eye the third island chain, encompassing Hawaii and the Alaskan coast before dropping south down to New Zealand. This has long been regarded as the final line of strategic demarcation between the U.S. and China. Second, some analysts are beginning to talk about a fourth and even fifth island chain, both in the Indian Ocean, an increasingly crucial zone of competition between the U.S. and China.

    Two obvious Indian Ocean chains exist. The first would run from southern Pakistan (where China has created a deep-water port at Gwador) down past Diego Garcia, the lonely atoll controlled by the U.K. from which the U.S. runs enormous logistical movements into Central Asia. As a junior officer on a Navy cruiser in the 1980s, I visited Diego Garcia when it was essentially a fuel stop with a quaint palm-thatched bar. The base has expanded enormously, becoming critical to supporting U.S. and British combat efforts in the Horn of Africa and Middle East.

    The fifth and final island chain could be considered to run from the Horn of Africa – where the U.S. and China now maintain significant military bases – down to the coast of South Africa. Little wonder the U.S. military has renamed its former Pacific Command as the Indo-Pacific Command.

    #Mer_de_Chine_méridionale

  • How Native Hawaiians Are Decolonizing Tourism

    Native Hawaiians living in the “vacation paradise” are caught between the state’s two major industries, the U.S. military and tourism. Through DeTours, they challenge both by showing tourists Hawaii from their perspective.


    https://www.fodors.com/world/north-america/usa/hawaii/experiences/news/how-native-hawaiians-are-decolonizing-tourism
    #tourisme #Hawaï #industrie_touristique #peuples_autochtones #militarisation #résistance #Aloha #décolonisation #décolonialité #colonialisme #DeTours

    • DeTours: Mapping Decolonial Genealogies in Hawai’i

      This essay examines an alternative tour conducted on O’ahu, Hawai’i by DMZ Hawai’i/Aloha ‘Aina, a network of organizations confronting the U.S. military’s negative cultural, social, and environmental impacts on the islands and elsewhere in the Pacific. Informed by a commitment to Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiian) self-determination and the principle of aloha ‘aina (love for the land), DMZ Hawai’i offers “DeTours” to visitors and locals that highlight the geography and history of military occupation. The tours focus on the role of the U.S. military in the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, its current effects on life on the island, and the ongoing struggles against militarism. These DeTours remap Hawai’i to convey the contestations and collisions that have defined the islands for well over a century, generating a model of Kanaka Maoli sovereignty rooted in familial relations to land while drawing from vast networks of kinship and affinity. In this endeavor, we engage three overlapping practices and concepts of genealogy: a critical historical understanding of the present and its conditions of emergence, the instantiation of Indigenous claims that have consistently confronted Western imperialism, and a spatiotemporal mapping of alliance and coalition. Our essay addresses the politics of U.S. empire in the Pacific, as Hawai’i stands as both the command center for U.S. military operations across half the Earth’s surface and is also one of the world’s preeminent tourist destinations. It also highlights possibilities for coalition predicated on Oceanic ties and shared histories of dispossession, illuminating strategies for survival and resistance in spaces of empire.

      https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/jcritethnstud.3.2.0173?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
      #alternatives

  • Notes on the Hawaii false alarm, one year later | Restricted Data
    http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2019/01/13/notes-on-the-hawaii-false-alarm-one-year-later

    When you are in Hawaii, everyone has a story about their experience of the false alarm. And they’re all different, and they’re all fascinating. On “the mainland,” as they call us, we got only a very small sampling of experiences from those here in Hawaii (…). Out here, though, every taxi or Lyft driver has their own experience, along with everyone else.

    #nucléaire #warning #hawaii #fausse_alerte

  • Gabbard-2020 ? “D.C.-la-folle” devient fou !
    http://www.dedefensa.org/article/gabbard-2020-dc-la-folle-devient-fou

    Gabbard-2020 ? “D.C.-la-folle” devient fou !

    Nos lecteurs imagineront sans peine la joie qui me transporte à cette simple nouvelle que Tulsi Gabbard va pose sa candidature à la désignation démocrate pour la présidentielle de 2020. (Elle l’a annoncé hier soir à CNN et posera sa candidature officielle la semaine prochaine.) La question n’est pas ici de savoir si elle sera élue, ni si elle a une chance d’être élue, ni ce qu’elle fera éventuellement contre Trump, et bla bla bla, mais bien de voir l’extraordinaire explosion de folie, de haine, de confusion, de désarroi qui a enflammé “D.C.-la-folle” à cette nouvelle.

    (RT-USA, qui n’a pas manqué l’occasion de sauter sur cette nouvelle, développe un articleessentiellement à partir d’une collection de tweet exprimant l’horreur et la confusion absolues qui se sont (...)

    • ‘Putin puppet’ vs ‘Assad shill’: Dems & Reps unite in panic over Gabbard challenging Trump in 2020 — RT USA News
      https://www.rt.com/usa/448632-tulsi-gabbard-negative-reactions

      With Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) entering the 2020 presidential fray, establishment figures on both Right and Left are scrambling to smear the anti-war congresswoman with impeccable identity-politics bona fides.

      Ever since her 2017 visit to Syria, Gabbard has been condemned for daring to seek firsthand accounts rather than blindly trusting the MSM narrative, so on Friday the pundits were again off to the races, with fresh accusations of Assad-sympathizing.

  • Le porte container Yantian Express (Hapag-Lloyd ) en feu avec ses 7500 containers à 1000 Km de la cote est du Canada

    https://gcaptain.com/hapag-lloyd-containership-yantian-express-on-fire-off-east-coast-of-canada
    https://www.hapag-lloyd.com/en/press/releases/2019/01/containers-caught-fire-on-board-the-yantian-express.html

    A fire has broke out aboard a Hapag-Lloyd containership in the North Atlantic off the east coast of Canada.

    In a statement posted to its website, Hapag-Lloyd said the fire started January 3 in one container on the deck of the Yantian Express and has spread to additional containers.

    Efforts to extinguish the fire were launched immediately but were suspended due to a significant deterioration of weather conditions.

    At the time of the update, the ship was located approximately 650 nautical miles off the coast of Canada.

    The crew of 8 officers and 15 seafarers are unharmed, Hapag-Lloyd said.

    The ship was sailing from Colombo, Sri Lanka to Halifax, via the Suez Canal, where it was expected to arrive on January 4, according to AIS ship tracking data. 

    The U.S. Coast Guard said Friday afternoon that it is coordinating the response efforts to ensure the safety of the crew.

    Another commercial vessel, Happy Ranger, was just 20 miles from the position of the Yantian Express and has diverted to provide assistance. A commercial tugboat is also en route.

    The Coast Guard said it is monitoring the situation. 

    The 7,510 TEU vessel 320-meters-long and is flagged in German flag. The ship operates in the East Coast Loop 5 (EC5) service. It was built in 2002.

    “It is still too early to make a precise estimate of any damage to the vessel or its cargo. Hapag-Lloyd is closely cooperating with all relevant authorities,” Hapag-Lloyd said.

    Both the Yantian Express and Happy Ranger are participating in the Automated Mutual-Assistance Vessel Rescue System (AMVER) program. 

    “Thanks to the participation of mariners in the AMVER system, we were able to coordinate a quick response,” said Petty Officer 1st Class Kelly Badal, operations unit watchstander at the Fifth District command center. “This system is crucial to coordinating nearby vessels to provide assistance when an emergency arises far from Coast Guard assets.”

    No pollution or injuries have been reported. 

  • AIS Animation Shows Commercial Response to Sincerity Ace Incident in Pacific Ocean – gCaptain
    https://gcaptain.com/ais-animation-shows-commercial-response-to-sincerity-ace-incident-in-pacif
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRZkXfl1Q4c

    We have obtained satellite AIS data showing the car carrier Sincerity Ace and the commercial response that followed after the vessel suffered a major fire during a voyage across the Pacific Ocean on New Year’s Eve.

    The satellite data is provided by exactEarth with the animation by Genscape Vesseltracker

    As we have reported, the fire broke out onboard the Panamanian-flagged MV Sincerity Ace on New Year’s Eve as it was approximately half way between Japan and Hawaii.

    Due to the remoteness of the location, about 2,000 miles northwest of Hawaii, crews of commercial vessels participating in the Automated Mutual-Assistance Vessel Rescue System (AMVER) we first to respond to the scene and helped rescue 16 of the 21 crew members on board.

    As of Wednesday, the search was continuing for two missing crew members. Three crew members were located in the water but could not be recovered as they were unresponsive.
    […]
    The Automated Mutual-Assistance Vessel Rescue System, or #AMVER, is a worldwide voluntary reporting system sponsored by the United States Coast Guard. It is a computer-based global ship reporting system used worldwide by search and rescue authorities to arrange for assistance to persons in distress at sea.

  • Top 10 #hawaii Apps — Plan your Best Trip to Hawaii
    https://hackernoon.com/top-10-hawaii-apps-plan-your-best-trip-to-hawaii-c46d0f055718?source=rss

    Top 10 Hawaii Apps: Plan Your Best Trip to HawaiiHawaii Travel AppsThere’s a lot to know before visiting paradise. Where you should eat, what activities you should do, what the weather will be like, how bad the traffic and crowds will be, and how to get around on the island can make packing for your trip a confusing ordeal.But the one thing you’ll never forget to pack: your phone. That’s why you should equip your phone with apps that make it easy to explore everything Hawaii has to offer.Here are the apps you need to plan a trip to Hawaii that will leave no lava rock unturned.1. Hawaii Revealed AppHawaii RevealedPretty much everything you need to plan out your vacation beforehand is in this app. It’s from the author of the best-selling Maui Revealed, Big Island Revealed, Kauai Revealed and (...)

    #plan-hawaii-trip #hawaii-app #hawaii-guidebooks #hawaii-apps

  • Black Friday" : le numérique, un colossal gouffre énergétique Nina SCHRETR -23 Novembre 2018 - Sciences et Avenir
    https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/high-tech/reseaux-et-telecoms/black-friday-le-numerique-un-gouffre-energetique_129653

    Le numérique compte désormais pour 3,5 % des émissions de gaz à effet de serre (contre 2,5 % en 2013), alerte l’association française The Shift Project. Dans un nouveau rapport, ce think tank de la transition carbone estime que l’inflation énergétique s’élève de 9 % chaque année. Si rien ne change, la consommation en énergie doublera d’ici à 2025. Les responsables ? Les pays développés, qui multiplient les appareils numériques et recourent massivement à la vidéo, qui compte pour 81 % des données échangées en 2017. Ainsi un Américain possède-t-il en moyenne 10 périphériques connectés (téléphone, tablette, montres…), contre un seul pour un Indien. La production d’ordinateurs, l’utilisation des data centers et celle des terminaux informatiques représentent plus de la moitié de la facture énergétique du numérique.


    © Bruno Bourgeois pour Sciences et Avenir

    Par ailleurs, des scientifiques de l’université d’Hawaii (États-Unis) ont établi que si le bitcoin, cette monnaie virtuelle, venait à être aussi vite adopté que d’autres innovations telles que les ordinateurs ou les cartes de crédit, il engendrerait à lui seul une hausse de 2 °C de la température du globe en seulement vingt ans.

    #énergie #climat #électricité #environnement #changement_climatique #économie #black_friday #bitcoin #data_centers #numérique

  • De la difficulté d’être “la pute de l’Arabie...”
    http://www.dedefensa.org/article/de-la-difficulte-detre-la-pute-de-larabie

    De la difficulté d’être “la pute de l’Arabie...”

    Effectivement si l’on veut traduire le tweetd’hier à l’adresse du président, de la part de la députée d’Hawaii à la Chambre des Représentants du Congrès, notre chère et fameuse Tulsi Gabbard, on est bien obligé de parler à propos de ce président de “pute de l’Arabie Saoudite” : « Hey @realdonaldtrump : being Saudi Arabia’s bitch is not “America First.” »

    RT-USA en faisait même un de ses gros titres dans la matinée, ce matin, rapportant que ce tweet de Gabbard avait suscité bien des réactions à Washington. Il y a bien entendu l’habituelle cohorte des zombies-Système qui en sont restées à la narrativefaçon Fabius-2012 sur Assad et al-Nosra (qui fait “du bon boulot”), et qui reprochent à Gabbard, qui a visité la Syrie et en a rapporté quelques vérités-de-situation assez mal (...)

  • All the president’s men: what to make of Trump’s bizarre new painting | Hannah Jane Parkinson | Opinion | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/15/president-trump-new-painting-white-house-republican

    They say a picture is worth a thousand words, unless it’s a shredded Banksy, obviously, which is worth around £1m. But how to put a value on the majestic artwork Donald Trump was revealed to have gracing the wall outside the Oval Office, as eagle-eyed viewers of 60 Minutes spotted?

    So far, we know of two other “artworks” that Trump has: that Photoshopped picture of his inauguration crowd (dude, let it go), and the electoral college map. It is no wonder Trump wanted to spruce the place up in his own way, given that he referred to the White House as “a dump”. I still cackle at this, given its sheer, disparaging rudeness – like how when Location, Location, Location’s Phil shows a couple around a three-bedroom semi with a north-facing garden, Kirstie mugs to the camera and draws an imaginary knife across her throat.

    #on_est_en_2018 #allégorie #images #propagande #représentation

  • Some plants nurture soil bacteria that keep them healthy - Probiotics for vegetables
    https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/10/11/some-plants-nurture-soil-bacteria-that-keep-them-healthy

    These findings suggest to Dr Lee and Dr Kim that the roots of [a variety of tomato called] Hawaii 7996 are releasing compounds which encourage the growth of TRM1. What those compounds are has yet to be determined. But the two researchers’ work suggests at least three ways in which bacterial wilt might be tackled. One is to apply TRM1 itself to the soil, if it can be cultured in sufficient quantities. The second is to apply the stimulating chemicals to soil, once they have been identified. The third is to tweak the DNA of vulnerable crops to produce the stimulating chemicals directly.

    #probiotiques #végétaux

  • Maps Mania: Unboxing the Shetlands
    http://googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/2018/10/unboxing-shetlands.html

    Yesterday the Scottish government passed a law which makes it illegal to place the Shetlands Islands in an inset box on a map of Scotland.

    Just as Hawaii is often shown in an inset box on maps of the United States the Shetland Islands are often placed in an inset box on maps of Scotland. By making it illegal to place the Shetland Islands inside an inset box the politicians have created a huge problem for cartographers.

    Or have they?

    My solution to this problem is simply Unboxing the Shetlands and placing the rest of Scotland in an inset box instead. This simple and elegant solution to the new law will hopefully satisfy everybody.

    Obviously my solution does not quite fit the letter of the new law which requires that the islands be “displayed in a manner that accurately and proportionately represents their geographical location in relation to the rest of Scotland”. However I think it does fit the spirit of the law in that it more accurately reflects the huge cultural and historical significance of the islands. My map obviously has the additional benefit of putting Scotland back in the box where it belongs.

    #cartographie #Écosse #Shetlands #LOL

    • À quand une loi du même genre pour la Corse ?

      Note : ça me rappelle mes débuts sur le module de cartographie de SAS, il y a vraiment longtemps. Les fonds de carte fournis par SAS Institute plaçait la Corse en encart dans le Golfe de Gascogne. Ça n’avait pas duré très longtemps.

      C’est vrai qu’il y a de la place à utiliser ; d’ailleurs, c’est souvent là que sont placés les encarts pour les DOM.

  • Can Mark Zuckerberg Fix Facebook Before It Breaks Democracy? | The New Yorker
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/17/can-mark-zuckerberg-fix-facebook-before-it-breaks-democracy

    Since 2011, Zuckerberg has lived in a century-old white clapboard Craftsman in the Crescent Park neighborhood, an enclave of giant oaks and historic homes not far from Stanford University. The house, which cost seven million dollars, affords him a sense of sanctuary. It’s set back from the road, shielded by hedges, a wall, and mature trees. Guests enter through an arched wooden gate and follow a long gravel path to a front lawn with a saltwater pool in the center. The year after Zuckerberg bought the house, he and his longtime girlfriend, Priscilla Chan, held their wedding in the back yard, which encompasses gardens, a pond, and a shaded pavilion. Since then, they have had two children, and acquired a seven-hundred-acre estate in Hawaii, a ski retreat in Montana, and a four-story town house on Liberty Hill, in San Francisco. But the family’s full-time residence is here, a ten-minute drive from Facebook’s headquarters.

    Occasionally, Zuckerberg records a Facebook video from the back yard or the dinner table, as is expected of a man who built his fortune exhorting employees to keep “pushing the world in the direction of making it a more open and transparent place.” But his appetite for personal openness is limited. Although Zuckerberg is the most famous entrepreneur of his generation, he remains elusive to everyone but a small circle of family and friends, and his efforts to protect his privacy inevitably attract attention. The local press has chronicled his feud with a developer who announced plans to build a mansion that would look into Zuckerberg’s master bedroom. After a legal fight, the developer gave up, and Zuckerberg spent forty-four million dollars to buy the houses surrounding his. Over the years, he has come to believe that he will always be the subject of criticism. “We’re not—pick your noncontroversial business—selling dog food, although I think that people who do that probably say there is controversy in that, too, but this is an inherently cultural thing,” he told me, of his business. “It’s at the intersection of technology and psychology, and it’s very personal.”

    At the same time, former Facebook executives, echoing a growing body of research, began to voice misgivings about the company’s role in exacerbating isolation, outrage, and addictive behaviors. One of the largest studies, published last year in the American Journal of Epidemiology, followed the Facebook use of more than five thousand people over three years and found that higher use correlated with self-reported declines in physical health, mental health, and life satisfaction. At an event in November, 2017, Sean Parker, Facebook’s first president, called himself a “conscientious objector” to social media, saying, “God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains.” A few days later, Chamath Palihapitiya, the former vice-president of user growth, told an audience at Stanford, “The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works—no civil discourse, no coöperation, misinformation, mistruth.” Palihapitiya, a prominent Silicon Valley figure who worked at Facebook from 2007 to 2011, said, “I feel tremendous guilt. I think we all knew in the back of our minds.” Of his children, he added, “They’re not allowed to use this shit.” (Facebook replied to the remarks in a statement, noting that Palihapitiya had left six years earlier, and adding, “Facebook was a very different company back then.”)

    In March, Facebook was confronted with an even larger scandal: the Times and the British newspaper the Observer reported that a researcher had gained access to the personal information of Facebook users and sold it to Cambridge Analytica, a consultancy hired by Trump and other Republicans which advertised using “psychographic” techniques to manipulate voter behavior. In all, the personal data of eighty-seven million people had been harvested. Moreover, Facebook had known of the problem since December of 2015 but had said nothing to users or regulators. The company acknowledged the breach only after the press discovered it.

    We spoke at his home, at his office, and by phone. I also interviewed four dozen people inside and outside the company about its culture, his performance, and his decision-making. I found Zuckerberg straining, not always coherently, to grasp problems for which he was plainly unprepared. These are not technical puzzles to be cracked in the middle of the night but some of the subtlest aspects of human affairs, including the meaning of truth, the limits of free speech, and the origins of violence.

    Zuckerberg is now at the center of a full-fledged debate about the moral character of Silicon Valley and the conscience of its leaders. Leslie Berlin, a historian of technology at Stanford, told me, “For a long time, Silicon Valley enjoyed an unencumbered embrace in America. And now everyone says, Is this a trick? And the question Mark Zuckerberg is dealing with is: Should my company be the arbiter of truth and decency for two billion people? Nobody in the history of technology has dealt with that.”

    In 2002, Zuckerberg went to Harvard, where he embraced the hacker mystique, which celebrates brilliance in pursuit of disruption. “The ‘fuck you’ to those in power was very strong,” the longtime friend said. In 2004, as a sophomore, he embarked on the project whose origin story is now well known: the founding of Thefacebook.com with four fellow-students (“the” was dropped the following year); the legal battles over ownership, including a suit filed by twin brothers, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, accusing Zuckerberg of stealing their idea; the disclosure of embarrassing messages in which Zuckerberg mocked users for giving him so much data (“they ‘trust me.’ dumb fucks,” he wrote); his regrets about those remarks, and his efforts, in the years afterward, to convince the world that he has left that mind-set behind.

    New hires learned that a crucial measure of the company’s performance was how many people had logged in to Facebook on six of the previous seven days, a measurement known as L6/7. “You could say it’s how many people love this service so much they use it six out of seven days,” Parakilas, who left the company in 2012, said. “But, if your job is to get that number up, at some point you run out of good, purely positive ways. You start thinking about ‘Well, what are the dark patterns that I can use to get people to log back in?’ ”

    Facebook engineers became a new breed of behaviorists, tweaking levers of vanity and passion and susceptibility. The real-world effects were striking. In 2012, when Chan was in medical school, she and Zuckerberg discussed a critical shortage of organs for transplant, inspiring Zuckerberg to add a small, powerful nudge on Facebook: if people indicated that they were organ donors, it triggered a notification to friends, and, in turn, a cascade of social pressure. Researchers later found that, on the first day the feature appeared, it increased official organ-donor enrollment more than twentyfold nationwide.

    Sean Parker later described the company’s expertise as “exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.” The goal: “How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?” Facebook engineers discovered that people find it nearly impossible not to log in after receiving an e-mail saying that someone has uploaded a picture of them. Facebook also discovered its power to affect people’s political behavior. Researchers found that, during the 2010 midterm elections, Facebook was able to prod users to vote simply by feeding them pictures of friends who had already voted, and by giving them the option to click on an “I Voted” button. The technique boosted turnout by three hundred and forty thousand people—more than four times the number of votes separating Trump and Clinton in key states in the 2016 race. It became a running joke among employees that Facebook could tilt an election just by choosing where to deploy its “I Voted” button.

    These powers of social engineering could be put to dubious purposes. In 2012, Facebook data scientists used nearly seven hundred thousand people as guinea pigs, feeding them happy or sad posts to test whether emotion is contagious on social media. (They concluded that it is.) When the findings were published, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they caused an uproar among users, many of whom were horrified that their emotions may have been surreptitiously manipulated. In an apology, one of the scientists wrote, “In hindsight, the research benefits of the paper may not have justified all of this anxiety.”

    Facebook was, in the words of Tristan Harris, a former design ethicist at Google, becoming a pioneer in “ persuasive technology.

    Facebook had adopted a buccaneering motto, “Move fast and break things,” which celebrated the idea that it was better to be flawed and first than careful and perfect. Andrew Bosworth, a former Harvard teaching assistant who is now one of Zuckerberg’s longest-serving lieutenants and a member of his inner circle, explained, “A failure can be a form of success. It’s not the form you want, but it can be a useful thing to how you learn.” In Zuckerberg’s view, skeptics were often just fogies and scolds. “There’s always someone who wants to slow you down,” he said in a commencement address at Harvard last year. “In our society, we often don’t do big things because we’re so afraid of making mistakes that we ignore all the things wrong today if we do nothing. The reality is, anything we do will have issues in the future. But that can’t keep us from starting.”

    In contrast to a traditional foundation, an L.L.C. can lobby and give money to politicians, without as strict a legal requirement to disclose activities. In other words, rather than trying to win over politicians and citizens in places like Newark, Zuckerberg and Chan could help elect politicians who agree with them, and rally the public directly by running ads and supporting advocacy groups. (A spokesperson for C.Z.I. said that it has given no money to candidates; it has supported ballot initiatives through a 501(c)(4) social-welfare organization.) “The whole point of the L.L.C. structure is to allow a coördinated attack,” Rob Reich, a co-director of Stanford’s Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, told me. The structure has gained popularity in Silicon Valley but has been criticized for allowing wealthy individuals to orchestrate large-scale social agendas behind closed doors. Reich said, “There should be much greater transparency, so that it’s not dark. That’s not a criticism of Mark Zuckerberg. It’s a criticism of the law.”

    La question des langues est fondamentale quand il s’agit de réseaux sociaux

    Beginning in 2013, a series of experts on Myanmar met with Facebook officials to warn them that it was fuelling attacks on the Rohingya. David Madden, an entrepreneur based in Myanmar, delivered a presentation to officials at the Menlo Park headquarters, pointing out that the company was playing a role akin to that of the radio broadcasts that spread hatred during the Rwandan genocide. In 2016, C4ADS, a Washington-based nonprofit, published a detailed analysis of Facebook usage in Myanmar, and described a “campaign of hate speech that actively dehumanizes Muslims.” Facebook officials said that they were hiring more Burmese-language reviewers to take down dangerous content, but the company repeatedly declined to say how many had actually been hired. By last March, the situation had become dire: almost a million Rohingya had fled the country, and more than a hundred thousand were confined to internal camps. The United Nations investigator in charge of examining the crisis, which the U.N. has deemed a genocide, said, “I’m afraid that Facebook has now turned into a beast, and not what it was originally intended.” Afterward, when pressed, Zuckerberg repeated the claim that Facebook was “hiring dozens” of additional Burmese-language content reviewers.

    More than three months later, I asked Jes Kaliebe Petersen, the C.E.O. of Phandeeyar, a tech hub in Myanmar, if there had been any progress. “We haven’t seen any tangible change from Facebook,” he told me. “We don’t know how much content is being reported. We don’t know how many people at Facebook speak Burmese. The situation is getting worse and worse here.”

    I saw Zuckerberg the following morning, and asked him what was taking so long. He replied, “I think, fundamentally, we’ve been slow at the same thing in a number of areas, because it’s actually the same problem. But, yeah, I think the situation in Myanmar is terrible.” It was a frustrating and evasive reply. I asked him to specify the problem. He said, “Across the board, the solution to this is we need to move from what is fundamentally a reactive model to a model where we are using technical systems to flag things to a much larger number of people who speak all the native languages around the world and who can just capture much more of the content.”

    Lecture des journaux ou des aggrégateurs ?

    once asked Zuckerberg what he reads to get the news. “I probably mostly read aggregators,” he said. “I definitely follow Techmeme”—a roundup of headlines about his industry—“and the media and political equivalents of that, just for awareness.” He went on, “There’s really no newspaper that I pick up and read front to back. Well, that might be true of most people these days—most people don’t read the physical paper—but there aren’t many news Web sites where I go to browse.”

    A couple of days later, he called me and asked to revisit the subject. “I felt like my answers were kind of vague, because I didn’t necessarily feel like it was appropriate for me to get into which specific organizations or reporters I read and follow,” he said. “I guess what I tried to convey, although I’m not sure if this came across clearly, is that the job of uncovering new facts and doing it in a trusted way is just an absolutely critical function for society.”

    Zuckerberg and Sandberg have attributed their mistakes to excessive optimism, a blindness to the darker applications of their service. But that explanation ignores their fixation on growth, and their unwillingness to heed warnings. Zuckerberg resisted calls to reorganize the company around a new understanding of privacy, or to reconsider the depth of data it collects for advertisers.

    Antitrust

    In barely two years, the mood in Washington had shifted. Internet companies and entrepreneurs, formerly valorized as the vanguard of American ingenuity and the astronauts of our time, were being compared to Standard Oil and other monopolists of the Gilded Age. This spring, the Wall Street Journal published an article that began, “Imagine a not-too-distant future in which trustbusters force Facebook to sell off Instagram and WhatsApp.” It was accompanied by a sepia-toned illustration in which portraits of Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, and other tech C.E.O.s had been grafted onto overstuffed torsos meant to evoke the robber barons. In 1915, Louis Brandeis, the reformer and future Supreme Court Justice, testified before a congressional committee about the dangers of corporations large enough that they could achieve a level of near-sovereignty “so powerful that the ordinary social and industrial forces existing are insufficient to cope with it.” He called this the “curse of bigness.” Tim Wu, a Columbia law-school professor and the author of a forthcoming book inspired by Brandeis’s phrase, told me, “Today, no sector exemplifies more clearly the threat of bigness to democracy than Big Tech.” He added, “When a concentrated private power has such control over what we see and hear, it has a power that rivals or exceeds that of elected government.”

    When I asked Zuckerberg whether policymakers might try to break up Facebook, he replied, adamantly, that such a move would be a mistake. The field is “extremely competitive,” he told me. “I think sometimes people get into this mode of ‘Well, there’s not, like, an exact replacement for Facebook.’ Well, actually, that makes it more competitive, because what we really are is a system of different things: we compete with Twitter as a broadcast medium; we compete with Snapchat as a broadcast medium; we do messaging, and iMessage is default-installed on every iPhone.” He acknowledged the deeper concern. “There’s this other question, which is just, laws aside, how do we feel about these tech companies being big?” he said. But he argued that efforts to “curtail” the growth of Facebook or other Silicon Valley heavyweights would cede the field to China. “I think that anything that we’re doing to constrain them will, first, have an impact on how successful we can be in other places,” he said. “I wouldn’t worry in the near term about Chinese companies or anyone else winning in the U.S., for the most part. But there are all these places where there are day-to-day more competitive situations—in Southeast Asia, across Europe, Latin America, lots of different places.”

    The rough consensus in Washington is that regulators are unlikely to try to break up Facebook. The F.T.C. will almost certainly fine the company for violations, and may consider blocking it from buying big potential competitors, but, as a former F.T.C. commissioner told me, “in the United States you’re allowed to have a monopoly position, as long as you achieve it and maintain it without doing illegal things.”

    Facebook is encountering tougher treatment in Europe, where antitrust laws are stronger and the history of fascism makes people especially wary of intrusions on privacy. One of the most formidable critics of Silicon Valley is the European Union’s top antitrust regulator, Margrethe Vestager.

    In Vestager’s view, a healthy market should produce competitors to Facebook that position themselves as ethical alternatives, collecting less data and seeking a smaller share of user attention. “We need social media that will allow us to have a nonaddictive, advertising-free space,” she said. “You’re more than welcome to be successful and to dramatically outgrow your competitors if customers like your product. But, if you grow to be dominant, you have a special responsibility not to misuse your dominant position to make it very difficult for others to compete against you and to attract potential customers. Of course, we keep an eye on it. If we get worried, we will start looking.”

    Modération

    As hard as it is to curb election propaganda, Zuckerberg’s most intractable problem may lie elsewhere—in the struggle over which opinions can appear on Facebook, which cannot, and who gets to decide. As an engineer, Zuckerberg never wanted to wade into the realm of content. Initially, Facebook tried blocking certain kinds of material, such as posts featuring nudity, but it was forced to create long lists of exceptions, including images of breast-feeding, “acts of protest,” and works of art. Once Facebook became a venue for political debate, the problem exploded. In April, in a call with investment analysts, Zuckerberg said glumly that it was proving “easier to build an A.I. system to detect a nipple than what is hate speech.”

    The cult of growth leads to the curse of bigness: every day, a billion things were being posted to Facebook. At any given moment, a Facebook “content moderator” was deciding whether a post in, say, Sri Lanka met the standard of hate speech or whether a dispute over Korean politics had crossed the line into bullying. Zuckerberg sought to avoid banning users, preferring to be a “platform for all ideas.” But he needed to prevent Facebook from becoming a swamp of hoaxes and abuse. His solution was to ban “hate speech” and impose lesser punishments for “misinformation,” a broad category that ranged from crude deceptions to simple mistakes. Facebook tried to develop rules about how the punishments would be applied, but each idiosyncratic scenario prompted more rules, and over time they became byzantine. According to Facebook training slides published by the Guardian last year, moderators were told that it was permissible to say “You are such a Jew” but not permissible to say “Irish are the best, but really French sucks,” because the latter was defining another people as “inferiors.” Users could not write “Migrants are scum,” because it is dehumanizing, but they could write “Keep the horny migrant teen-agers away from our daughters.” The distinctions were explained to trainees in arcane formulas such as “Not Protected + Quasi protected = not protected.”

    It will hardly be the last quandary of this sort. Facebook’s free-speech dilemmas have no simple answers—you don’t have to be a fan of Alex Jones to be unnerved by the company’s extraordinary power to silence a voice when it chooses, or, for that matter, to amplify others, to pull the levers of what we see, hear, and experience. Zuckerberg is hoping to erect a scalable system, an orderly decision tree that accounts for every eventuality and exception, but the boundaries of speech are a bedevilling problem that defies mechanistic fixes. The Supreme Court, defining obscenity, landed on “I know it when I see it.” For now, Facebook is making do with a Rube Goldberg machine of policies and improvisations, and opportunists are relishing it. Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, seized on the ban of Jones as a fascist assault on conservatives. In a moment that was rich even by Cruz’s standards, he quoted Martin Niemöller’s famous lines about the Holocaust, saying, “As the poem goes, you know, ‘First they came for Alex Jones.’ ”

    #Facebook #Histoire_numérique

  • ’We Need Healthcare Champions, Not Puppets’: Documents Expose Big Pharma’s Scheme to Turn Democratic Candidates Against Medicare for All | Alternet
    https://www.alternet.org/we-need-healthcare-champions-not-puppets-documents-expose-big-pharmas-sche

    At least three of the six candidates running to represent the “reliably” Democratic district in Hawaii “took time out from their schedules to talk to a consultant dispatched by the Healthcare Leadership Council, a lobbying group that seeks to advance the goals of the largest players in the private healthcare industry,” according to a new report by The Intercept.

    Although much of the report focuses on the Hawaii race, as The Intercept notes, the Healthcare Leadership Council—which is funded by Big Pharma companies such as Pfizer and Novartis—spends more than $5 million a year representing the interests of “insurers, hospitals, drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, pharmacies, health product distributors, and information technology companies” across the nation.

    #Big_Pharma #Corruption

  • “I saw things children shouldn’t see” – surviving a troubled childhood | Mosaic
    https://mosaicscience.com/story/surviving-troubled-childhood-resilience-neglect-adversity

    Why are some people able to become happy, well-adjusted adults even after growing up with violence or neglect? Their life stories – from 1950s Hawaii to the orphanages of Romania – could provide answers that will help more children to thrive. By Lucy Maddox.

    #surpassement #traumatismes #enfance

  • Net neutrality will be repealed Monday unless Congress takes action | Ars Technica
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/net-neutrality-will-be-repealed-monday-unless-congress-takes-action

    With net neutrality rules scheduled to be repealed on Monday, Senate Democrats are calling on House Speaker Paul Ryan to schedule a vote that could preserve the broadband regulations.

    The US Senate voted on May 16 to reverse the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of net neutrality rules, but a House vote—and President Trump’s signature—is still needed. Today, the entire Senate Democratic Caucus wrote a letter to Ryan urging him to allow a vote on the House floor.
    Further Reading
    Senate votes to overturn Ajit Pai’s net neutrality repeal

    “The rules that this resolution would restore were enacted by the FCC in 2015 to prevent broadband providers from blocking, slowing down, prioritizing, or otherwise unfairly discriminating against Internet traffic that flows across their networks,” the letter said. “Without these protections, broadband providers can decide what content gets through to consumers at what speeds and could use this power to discriminate against their competitors or other content.” The letter was spearheaded by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).

    FCC Chairman Ajit Pai led a commission vote to repeal the rules in December 2017, but the rules remain on the books because the repeal was contingent on US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of modified information-collection requirements. The OMB approval came last month, allowing Pai to schedule the repeal for Monday, June 11.

    #Neutralité_Internet