Not logged in | Login

Kokthansogreta.nu - Nyhetssök / News Search ! » January 12, 2018

Feeds

1851465 items (1851465 unread) in 479 feeds

(1851465 unread)

« Expand/Collapse

(75 unread)

Skip to page: 1 2 3 ... 31

January 12, 2018
23:55
U.S. House members question Apple once more over battery slowdowns
» ‎ AppleInsider - Frontpage News

Tags: [edit]

Lawmakers have reportedly sent yet another letter to Apple leadership related to the company's announcement of battery-related slowdowns in older iPhones.

23:51
ISF - ”Minskad lönsamhet för assistansanordnare ger sämre kvalité och fördelar för oseriösa företag”
» ‎ Assistanskoll

Tags: [edit]

Assistansanordnarnas lönsamhet har successivt minskat de senaste tio åren. Detta kan försämra kvaliteten i assistansen och minska intresset hos seriösa aktörer. Det skriver Inspektionen för socialförsäkringen, ISF, i en ny rapport. Assistanskoll beskrivs också i ISF:s rapport, med en felaktig uppgift om att Assistanskoll ägs av STIL.
23:51
ISF - ”Minskad lönsamhet för assistansanordnare ger sämre kvalité och fördelar för oseriösa företag”
» ‎ Assistanskoll

Tags: [edit]

Assistansanordnarnas lönsamhet har successivt minskat de senaste tio åren. Detta kan försämra kvaliteten i assistansen och minska intresset hos seriösa aktörer. Det skriver Inspektionen för socialförsäkringen, ISF, i en ny rapport. Assistanskoll beskrivs också i ISF:s rapport, med en felaktig uppgift om att Assistanskoll ägs av STIL.
23:51
ISF - ”Minskad lönsamhet för assistansanordnare ger sämre kvalité och fördelar för oseriösa företag”
» ‎ Assistanskoll

Tags: [edit]

Assistansanordnarnas lönsamhet har successivt minskat de senaste tio åren. Detta kan försämra kvaliteten i assistansen och minska intresset hos seriösa aktörer. Det skriver Inspektionen för socialförsäkringen, ISF, i en ny rapport. Assistanskoll beskrivs också i ISF:s rapport, med en felaktig uppgift om att Assistanskoll ägs av STIL.

23:39
The Angle: Yep, Definitely Edition
» ‎ Stories from Slate

Tags: [edit]

Diagnosed: Two cases for calling our president a racist, from Will Saletan and Jamelle Bouie.

A new way: Facebook announced on Thursday that it is revamping its news feed algorithm and will be switching up its approach to flagging possible fake news. Dan Engber wonders just how the company decided to change its tactics.

Whistleblowers: There's a "WikiLeaks for religion," and it's just published its first group of documents. Ruth Graham looks through the initial offerings, which come from an internal sexual abuse investigation conducted by a congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Maybe him?: Get Out lead Daniel Kaluuya had to do something very difficult, Forrest Wickman writes, and he did it very well. He deserves an Academy Award nomination. (Today's the deadline for voters to submit ballots. Think about it!)

For fun: Good GIF.

Very sassy,

Rebecca
23:39
The Angle: Yep, Definitely Edition
» ‎ Stories from Slate

Tags: [edit]

Diagnosed: Two cases for calling our president a racist, from Will Saletan and Jamelle Bouie.

A new way: Facebook announced on Thursday that it is revamping its news feed algorithm and will be switching up its approach to flagging possible fake news. Dan Engber wonders just how the company decided to change its tactics.

Whistleblowers: There's a "WikiLeaks for religion," and it's just published its first group of documents. Ruth Graham looks through the initial offerings, which come from an internal sexual abuse investigation conducted by a congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Maybe him?: Get Out lead Daniel Kaluuya had to do something very difficult, Forrest Wickman writes, and he did it very well. He deserves an Academy Award nomination. (Today's the deadline for voters to submit ballots. Think about it!)

For fun: Good GIF.

Very sassy,

Rebecca

23:31
Apple shines 'A New Light' on iPhone X's Portrait Lighting in fresh spot
» ‎ AppleInsider - Frontpage News

Tags: [edit]

"Studio-quality portraits without the studio," Apple again promises in a new camera-focused iPhone X ad pushed to YouTube on Friday.
23:31
Apple shines 'A New Light' on iPhone X's Portrait Lighting in fresh spot
» ‎ AppleInsider - Frontpage News

Tags: [edit]

"Studio-quality portraits without the studio," Apple again promises in a new camera-focused iPhone X ad pushed to YouTube on Friday.
23:31
Apple shines 'A New Light' on iPhone X's Portrait Lighting in fresh spot
» ‎ AppleInsider - Frontpage News

Tags: [edit]

"Studio-quality portraits without the studio," Apple again promises in a new camera-focused iPhone X ad pushed to YouTube on Friday.

23:28
Venezuelan Government and Opposition Resume Resolution Talks in Dominican Republic
» ‎ WN.com - Photown News

Tags: [edit]

Representatives from Venezuela's leftist government and the opposition leaders resumed talks in the Dominican Republic on Friday in an attempt to reach an agreement to help ease the political tensions across the country amid the ongoing economic crisis, according to Reuters. The two sides left empty-handed last December when the previous round of talks fell through, citing that they made some progress but still needed more time. Expectations on both sides are set fairly low among Venezuelans. Opposition coalition Democratic Unity “is attending the meeting in good faith, to seek a way of allowing Venezuelans to build a route to the future,” tweeted party lawmaker Luis Florido on Thursday. The...

23:15
Xbox Fans Will Love Hori’s New PlayStation 4 Controller
» ‎ Geek.com

Tags: [edit]

Hori is well-known for releasing quality gaming accessories and controllers. The company will launch a brand-new, officially licensed controller for the PS4 next week dubbed the “Onyx.” No, your eyes are not deceiving […]

The post Xbox Fans Will Love Hori’s New PlayStation 4 Controller appeared first on Geek.com.
23:15
Xbox Fans Will Love Hori’s New PlayStation 4 Controller
» ‎ Geek.com

Tags: [edit]

Hori is well-known for releasing quality gaming accessories and controllers. The company will launch a brand-new, officially licensed controller for the PS4 next week dubbed the “Onyx.” No, your eyes are not deceiving […]

The post Xbox Fans Will Love Hori’s New PlayStation 4 Controller appeared first on Geek.com.

23:09
Trilobites: The Swiss Consider the Lobster. It Feels Pain, They Decide.
» ‎ NYT > Home Page

Tags: [edit]

The Swiss government has banned tossing lobsters and other crustaceans into boiling water. But what’s the science behind that decision?
23:09
Trilobites: The Swiss Consider the Lobster. It Feels Pain, They Decide.
» ‎ NYT > Home Page

Tags: [edit]

The Swiss government has banned tossing lobsters and other crustaceans into boiling water. But what’s the science behind that decision?

23:09
Trilobites: The Swiss Consider the Lobster. It Feels Pain, They Decide.
» ‎ NYT > Home Page

Tags: [edit]

The Swiss government has banned tossing lobsters and other crustaceans into boiling water. But what’s the science behind that decision?
23:09
Trilobites: The Swiss Consider the Lobster. It Feels Pain, They Decide.
» ‎ NYT > Home Page

Tags: [edit]

The Swiss government has banned tossing lobsters and other crustaceans into boiling water. But what’s the science behind that decision?
23:09
Trilobites: The Swiss Consider the Lobster. It Feels Pain, They Decide.
» ‎ NYT > Home Page

Tags: [edit]

The Swiss government has banned tossing lobsters and other crustaceans into boiling water. But what’s the science behind that decision?

23:09
Did Ryan Zinke Give Florida an Offshore Drilling Exemption Because of Mar-a-Lago?
» ‎ Stories from Slate

Tags: [edit]

The Trump administration announced plans last week to lift Obama-era prohibitions on offshore drilling, potentially opening up thousands of miles of coastline to companies interested in extracting oil and natural gas from the ocean floor. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, whose department oversees and regulates coastline leasing, called the five-year plan “a new path for energy dominance in America,” which is a strange way to refer to an investment in nonrenewable resources with a finite future.

Environmental groups, Democrats, and even some Republicans swiftly decried the move for its potential to devastate marine ecosystems and the health and safety of coastal communities. Governors from New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, California, Oregon, and Washington all oppose offshore drilling, and all requested exclusion from the plan last year.

Interestingly, Zinke decided to remove one state from the new standard—one that didn’t even originally ask for an exemption. But after the announcement, Florida Gov. Rick Scott, an ally of the Trump administration’s, released a statement saying, “I have asked to immediately meet with Secretary Zinke to discuss the concerns I have with this plan and the crucial need to remove Florida from consideration. My top priority is to ensure that Florida’s natural resources are protected.”

On Tuesday, Zinke granted him his wish, exempting Florida’s coastlines from offshore drilling. Zinke released a statement that called Scott “a straightforward leader that can be trusted,” and declared support for “the governor’s position that Florida is unique and its coasts are heavily reliant on tourism as an economic driver.”

The problem with this explanation, though, is that everything he says to justify Florida’s exemption applies to every other coastal state. Florida is certainly special in uniquely Floridian ways, but warm beaches that attract tourists and generate in-state revenue are everywhere. There’s the Jersey Shore; Rehoboth Beach in Delaware; Charleston, South Carolina; the Outer Banks in North Carolina; Virginia Beach; Los Angeles and San Diego, and on and on and on.

Now, state leaders are forcing Zinke into a corner with his own words.

Even New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another Trump ally, made it clear he wanted an exemption for his state as well.

What could be going on here? Perhaps this is a case of not-in-my-backyard exceptionalism. After all, Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, where he’s absconded to 10 times since inauguration, sits on the beach in Palm Beach, Florida. Would he want to deal with an unsightly view and accompanying cacophony of an offshore drill platform? Probably not! Not to mention the fact that offshore drilling produces a pretty disgusting slew of pollutants, including muds, brine wastes, and runoff water that threaten to decimate the pristine beauty you’d expect at a beachside home.

If Zinke can’t find a real reason Florida should be exempt and other states should not, the entire plan might be dead in the water anyway. Good riddance.
23:09
Did Ryan Zinke Give Florida an Offshore Drilling Exemption Because of Mar-a-Lago?
» ‎ Stories from Slate

Tags: [edit]

The Trump administration announced plans last week to lift Obama-era prohibitions on offshore drilling, potentially opening up thousands of miles of coastline to companies interested in extracting oil and natural gas from the ocean floor. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, whose department oversees and regulates coastline leasing, called the five-year plan “a new path for energy dominance in America,” which is a strange way to refer to an investment in nonrenewable resources with a finite future.

Environmental groups, Democrats, and even some Republicans swiftly decried the move for its potential to devastate marine ecosystems and the health and safety of coastal communities. Governors from New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, California, Oregon, and Washington all oppose offshore drilling, and all requested exclusion from the plan last year.

Interestingly, Zinke decided to remove one state from the new standard—one that didn’t even originally ask for an exemption. But after the announcement, Florida Gov. Rick Scott, an ally of the Trump administration’s, released a statement saying, “I have asked to immediately meet with Secretary Zinke to discuss the concerns I have with this plan and the crucial need to remove Florida from consideration. My top priority is to ensure that Florida’s natural resources are protected.”

On Tuesday, Zinke granted him his wish, exempting Florida’s coastlines from offshore drilling. Zinke released a statement that called Scott “a straightforward leader that can be trusted,” and declared support for “the governor’s position that Florida is unique and its coasts are heavily reliant on tourism as an economic driver.”

The problem with this explanation, though, is that everything he says to justify Florida’s exemption applies to every other coastal state. Florida is certainly special in uniquely Floridian ways, but warm beaches that attract tourists and generate in-state revenue are everywhere. There’s the Jersey Shore; Rehoboth Beach in Delaware; Charleston, South Carolina; the Outer Banks in North Carolina; Virginia Beach; Los Angeles and San Diego, and on and on and on.

Now, state leaders are forcing Zinke into a corner with his own words.

Even New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another Trump ally, made it clear he wanted an exemption for his state as well.

What could be going on here? Perhaps this is a case of not-in-my-backyard exceptionalism. After all, Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, where he’s absconded to 10 times since inauguration, sits on the beach in Palm Beach, Florida. Would he want to deal with an unsightly view and accompanying cacophony of an offshore drill platform? Probably not! Not to mention the fact that offshore drilling produces a pretty disgusting slew of pollutants, including muds, brine wastes, and runoff water that threaten to decimate the pristine beauty you’d expect at a beachside home.

If Zinke can’t find a real reason Florida should be exempt and other states should not, the entire plan might be dead in the water anyway. Good riddance.
23:07
The White House Struggled to Configure the "Listening Only" Feature on a Chaotic Conference Call
» ‎ Stories from Slate

Tags: [edit]

The White House, according to CBS, was once again hamstrung by one of the most banal workplace headaches on Thursday.

The administration’s conference call with the press concerning Iran nuclear deal sanctions reportedly descended into chaos when officials struggled for 22 minutes to configure the “listening only” feature.

CBS published a series of snippets from the dysfunctional call:

“This White House can’t even run a f—ing conference call,” a reporter on an unmuted phone line angrily exclaimed to the entire call. “They don’t know how to mute their line.”

“It’s the illegitimate media that doesn’t know how to conduct themselves. They can’t mute their f—ing phones,” an unidentified official said. “Mute your phones.”

Another White House official repeatedly attempted to quiet the noisy line “so the people in charge” could talk.

“I think if everyone had half a brain and common sense and muted their phones, this wouldn’t be a problem,” she yelled in an apparent fit of frustration.

“Hello? Hello?” one reporter interjected, some 15 minutes after the slated start of the call. “Has the call started?”

“This is Kim Jong Un calling for Donald Trump,” another reporter joked as tensions flared.

“All participants are now in listen-only mode,” the operator finally announced, much to the relief of everyone on the call. The call began at 1:07 p.m.

A State Department official told reporters at the end of the call that members of the administration were unable to take questions due technical difficulties.

CBS notes that the White House has previously been ensnared by such AV issues during calls with the press in the past. In 2016, a man interrupted a background conference call about the Obama’s Iran policy by divulging that his “inflatable doll is a lesbian.”

In May, the din of crying babies, coughing, and the melody of “Yankee Doodle Dandy” drowned out a press call with White House budget director Mick Mulvaney about the government spending bill.
23:07
The White House Struggled to Configure the "Listening Only" Feature on a Chaotic Conference Call
» ‎ Stories from Slate

Tags: [edit]

The White House, according to CBS, was once again hamstrung by one of the most banal workplace headaches on Thursday.

The administration’s conference call with the press concerning Iran nuclear deal sanctions reportedly descended into chaos when officials struggled for 22 minutes to configure the “listening only” feature.

CBS published a series of snippets from the dysfunctional call:

“This White House can’t even run a f—ing conference call,” a reporter on an unmuted phone line angrily exclaimed to the entire call. “They don’t know how to mute their line.”

“It’s the illegitimate media that doesn’t know how to conduct themselves. They can’t mute their f—ing phones,” an unidentified official said. “Mute your phones.”

Another White House official repeatedly attempted to quiet the noisy line “so the people in charge” could talk.

“I think if everyone had half a brain and common sense and muted their phones, this wouldn’t be a problem,” she yelled in an apparent fit of frustration.

“Hello? Hello?” one reporter interjected, some 15 minutes after the slated start of the call. “Has the call started?”

“This is Kim Jong Un calling for Donald Trump,” another reporter joked as tensions flared.

“All participants are now in listen-only mode,” the operator finally announced, much to the relief of everyone on the call. The call began at 1:07 p.m.

A State Department official told reporters at the end of the call that members of the administration were unable to take questions due technical difficulties.

CBS notes that the White House has previously been ensnared by such AV issues during calls with the press in the past. In 2016, a man interrupted a background conference call about the Obama’s Iran policy by divulging that his “inflatable doll is a lesbian.”

In May, the din of crying babies, coughing, and the melody of “Yankee Doodle Dandy” drowned out a press call with White House budget director Mick Mulvaney about the government spending bill.
23:07
Film Producer DeVon Franklin
» ‎ Stories from Slate

Tags: [edit]
Listen to Represent:

On this episode of Represent, Aisha Harris talks to DeVon Franklin about his latest book The Hollywood Commandments: A Spiritual Guide to Secular Success and his career as a producer of faith-based movies. But first, Aisha and producer Veralyn Williams share the highlights of their holiday cultural consumption.

Check out:
- Oprah’s acceptance speech at the 2018 Golden Globes
- Links to Aisha and Veralyn’s recommendations:
  - The Gimlet podcast Mogul: The Life and Death of Chris Lighty
  - The Good Place
  - Black Mirror Season 4
  - The Shape of Water
- NPR: “The Star Brings Christianity to Hollywood in Animated, Nativity-Themed Film”
- The New York Times’ report on how Hollywood is making an effort to appeal to religious communities
- Meagan Good says God told her that DeVon Franklin was “the one” on Oprah’s SuperSoul Conversations
Tell a friend to subscribe! Share this link: megaphone.link/represent

You can email us at represent@slate.com.

Join the conversation on Facebook at Slate Represent, and follow us on Twitter at @SlateRepresent and @craftingmystyle.

Producer: Veralyn Williams
Social media: Marissa Martinelli
23:07
Film Producer DeVon Franklin
» ‎ Stories from Slate

Tags: [edit]
Listen to Represent:

On this episode of Represent, Aisha Harris talks to DeVon Franklin about his latest book The Hollywood Commandments: A Spiritual Guide to Secular Success and his career as a producer of faith-based movies. But first, Aisha and producer Veralyn Williams share the highlights of their holiday cultural consumption.

Check out:
- Oprah’s acceptance speech at the 2018 Golden Globes
- Links to Aisha and Veralyn’s recommendations:
  - The Gimlet podcast Mogul: The Life and Death of Chris Lighty
  - The Good Place
  - Black Mirror Season 4
  - The Shape of Water
- NPR: “The Star Brings Christianity to Hollywood in Animated, Nativity-Themed Film”
- The New York Times’ report on how Hollywood is making an effort to appeal to religious communities
- Meagan Good says God told her that DeVon Franklin was “the one” on Oprah’s SuperSoul Conversations
Tell a friend to subscribe! Share this link: megaphone.link/represent

You can email us at represent@slate.com.

Join the conversation on Facebook at Slate Represent, and follow us on Twitter at @SlateRepresent and @craftingmystyle.

Producer: Veralyn Williams
Social media: Marissa Martinelli

23:06
BrandPost: Avoiding Vendor Lock-In Carries a Variety of Benefits and Challenges
» ‎ CIO

Tags: [edit]

Smart business is all about managing risk. That same principle is the guiding force behind enterprise cloud strategies, which are shifting to a multi-cloud environment as companies try to mitigate dependence on any one cloud service provider (CSP).

A recent RightScale survey found that 85% of enterprises have embraced a multi-cloud strategy in 2017—a bump of 3% over last year. On average, the survey found that companies are running applications in 1.8 public clouds and 2.3 private clouds.

While there are many reasons to bring multiple cloud service providers (CSPs) into the mix, fear of vendor lock-in can be a major driver. A StratoScale survey found that over 80% of enterprises show moderate to high levels of concern about public cloud lock-in.

To read this article in full, please click here
23:06
BrandPost: Avoiding Vendor Lock-In Carries a Variety of Benefits and Challenges
» ‎ CIO

Tags: [edit]

Smart business is all about managing risk. That same principle is the guiding force behind enterprise cloud strategies, which are shifting to a multi-cloud environment as companies try to mitigate dependence on any one cloud service provider (CSP).

A recent RightScale survey found that 85% of enterprises have embraced a multi-cloud strategy in 2017—a bump of 3% over last year. On average, the survey found that companies are running applications in 1.8 public clouds and 2.3 private clouds.

While there are many reasons to bring multiple cloud service providers (CSPs) into the mix, fear of vendor lock-in can be a major driver. A StratoScale survey found that over 80% of enterprises show moderate to high levels of concern about public cloud lock-in.

To read this article in full, please click here
23:06
BrandPost: Avoiding Vendor Lock-In Carries a Variety of Benefits and Challenges
» ‎ CIO

Tags: [edit]

Smart business is all about managing risk. That same principle is the guiding force behind enterprise cloud strategies, which are shifting to a multi-cloud environment as companies try to mitigate dependence on any one cloud service provider (CSP).

A recent RightScale survey found that 85% of enterprises have embraced a multi-cloud strategy in 2017—a bump of 3% over last year. On average, the survey found that companies are running applications in 1.8 public clouds and 2.3 private clouds.

While there are many reasons to bring multiple cloud service providers (CSPs) into the mix, fear of vendor lock-in can be a major driver. A StratoScale survey found that over 80% of enterprises show moderate to high levels of concern about public cloud lock-in.

To read this article in full, please click here

22:47
Why Academy Voters Shouldn’t Overlook Get Out’s Daniel Kaluuya
» ‎ Stories from Slate

Tags: [edit]

As Oscar voters fill out their ballots for this year’s nominations before today’s deadline, three of this year’s Best Actor nominees are considered to be virtual locks. Barring a shocking snub, Gary Oldman will be nominated for Darkest Hour, Timothée Chalamet for Call Me by Your Name, and Daniel Day-Lewis for Phantom Thread. Of the Oscar prognosticators who participated in Movie City News’ latest roundup of Oscar predictions, all 10 of them agreed on these three.

They couldn’t, however, agree on the last two slots. Nearly everyone concurred that they will they go to two of three actors: Tom Hanks for The Post, James Franco for The Disaster Artist, or Daniel Kaluuya for Get Out, but they split fairly evenly on which pair of these actors will make the cut. This means that, in all likelihood, votes of the academy members who put off submitting their choices until the final hours before the deadline will prove decisive.

These procrastinators should quit their dilly-dallying and vote for Kaluuya. Get Out is such a dazzling, thematically rich construction that it’s easy to marvel at its twists and turns and resonances while failing to fully appreciate the acting on screen—and voters have done just that this awards season, with Kaluuya being the only actor who has come away with any major nominations or prizes at all thus far.

Even Kaluuya’s performance has gone underappreciated. Get Out isn’t, as Jordan Peele pointedly joked, “a documentary,” but Kaluuya is naturalistic enough to make you forget he’s not really Chris. (This is especially apparent in Americans’ reactions when they first hear Kaluuya speak in his native British accent.) This is all by Kaluuya’s design: Before Peele cast him, he sent Kaluuya a list of horror movies to screen for research, but Kaluuya made a decision not to watch them, choosing not to be “too aware of it being a film, a fiction” and preferring to play “guys, normal dudes.”

Not only that, Get Out requires Kaluuya to get across two convincing performances simultaneously. Because Chris spends the whole movie surrounded by awkward, fetishizing, and ultimately predatory white people who he’s nonetheless forced to tolerate and even try to impress, Kaluuya has to simultaneously play both Chris, as this young black photographer really feels, and “Chris,” the front that he puts up in order to not alienate his potential in-laws and lose his seemingly woke girlfriend. For the movie to work, the audience has to both connect emotionally to Kaluuya’s performance as Chris and to find Chris’ performance as “Chris” credible. He has to play both the mask and the person trapped beneath it.

It’s revealing to compare Kaluuya’s performance to those in the literal Sunken Place. Perhaps the most memorable line reading of 2017 was Betty Gabriel’s delivery of the word no—if not the first 10 of them. We can see both Rose’s white grandmother, in control of Georgina’s body, and the black woman inside, struggling to get out. Kaluuya doesn’t get any scene that’s so fantastical, but he pulls a similar trick throughout the film, through the slyness of a smile, a slight, nearly imperceptible cocking of the head, or a flash of side-eye—gestures clear enough that the audience will pick up on them but subtle enough that the other characters wouldn’t.

Meanwhile, Peele and Kaluuya pull off another trick so subtly that we might not even notice at first: They skillfully draw attention to Chris’ defining feature, his photographer’s eyes—coaxing us to notice again and again the part of his face that becomes the object of his captors’ desire (“I want your eyes, man,” Stephen Root’s Jim tells him) and the way Chris sees what the others don’t. It’s a horror movie in which nearly all of the horror must be conveyed internally, much of it through those eyes. (Indeed, if I asked you to picture any moment from the film, chances are you’d picture Chris’ eyes, probably wide open, with a tear running down his cheek.)

Some awards groups have started to catch on. Last weekend, Kaluuya won the Best Actor award from the National Society of Film Critics. Last month, the Screen Actors Guild nominated him for Best Actor as well. And earlier this week, the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, who have had a bit longer to get to know him, recognized him with a nomination, too. The Hollywood Foreign Press isn’t best known for exceptional taste, and even they managed to nominate him for Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical. But because Get Out came out nine months before Oscar season (in fact, during last Oscar season), little has been written and said about his performance as an awards contender, leaving open the possibility that it could be overlooked.

Hanks and Franco give excellent performances as well. But while I could argue that choosing either of them would be, above all, a bad look for the Academy—in the year of #MeToo and “Time’s Up,” Franco has spent nearly the whole voting week fending off accusations of sexual misconduct, and only a couple of years after #OscarsSoWhite, the only other category in which any actors of color are expected to be nominated is Best Supporting Actress—Kaluuya simply gives the more accomplished performance. Hanks’ performance isn’t really the kind that anyone will be outraged to see overlooked, especially since Hanks already has two statuettes on his mantel at home. Hanks not only doesn’t give his movie’s best performance; he doesn’t even give the movies’ best performance as Ben Bradlee. As for Franco, anyone who’s seen The Room knows his mimicry is extraordinary, but the performance only really works on one level. Franco nails Wiseau’s accent, but Wiseau the man remains a mystery.

It’s hard to know where Kaluuya will go now that Get Out has raised his profile. There’s not much that unites Get Out with his best-known previous performance in Black Mirror, in which he played a working-class Briton who gives a Howard Beale-esque monologue on an American Idol-style competition show. Before that, he was a regular on Skins, for which he also wrote two episodes, and performed in sketch comedy and, in 2010, won theater awards for his turn in the British play Sucker Punch. (He’s been writing plays and winning awards since he was nine.) He has a versatility most Americans have only begun to notice, and as his career continues, with an appearance as the title superhero’s right-hand man in the upcoming Black Panther and a starring role in the next movie from Steve McQueen, it’ll only become more obvious how much acting it took to play Chris, and to play “Chris.” Less clear is whether Kaluuya will ever get another role as iconic as the one he gets in Get Out, the kind of zeitgeist-capturing acclaimed blockbuster that only comes along every few years. The academy would do well to think about which performance people will still be rewatching and admiring for years to come. If they don’t, well, I think Georgina has already said all there is to say about that.
22:47
Why Academy Voters Shouldn’t Overlook Get Out’s Daniel Kaluuya
» ‎ Stories from Slate

Tags: [edit]

As Oscar voters fill out their ballots for this year’s nominations before today’s deadline, three of this year’s Best Actor nominees are considered to be virtual locks. Barring a shocking snub, Gary Oldman will be nominated for Darkest Hour, Timothée Chalamet for Call Me by Your Name, and Daniel Day-Lewis for Phantom Thread. Of the Oscar prognosticators who participated in Movie City News’ latest roundup of Oscar predictions, all 10 of them agreed on these three.

They couldn’t, however, agree on the last two slots. Nearly everyone concurred that they will they go to two of three actors: Tom Hanks for The Post, James Franco for The Disaster Artist, or Daniel Kaluuya for Get Out, but they split fairly evenly on which pair of these actors will make the cut. This means that, in all likelihood, votes of the academy members who put off submitting their choices until the final hours before the deadline will prove decisive.

These procrastinators should quit their dilly-dallying and vote for Kaluuya. Get Out is such a dazzling, thematically rich construction that it’s easy to marvel at its twists and turns and resonances while failing to fully appreciate the acting on screen—and voters have done just that this awards season, with Kaluuya being the only actor who has come away with any major nominations or prizes at all thus far.

Even Kaluuya’s performance has gone underappreciated. Get Out isn’t, as Jordan Peele pointedly joked, “a documentary,” but Kaluuya is naturalistic enough to make you forget he’s not really Chris. (This is especially apparent in Americans’ reactions when they first hear Kaluuya speak in his native British accent.) This is all by Kaluuya’s design: Before Peele cast him, he sent Kaluuya a list of horror movies to screen for research, but Kaluuya made a decision not to watch them, choosing not to be “too aware of it being a film, a fiction” and preferring to play “guys, normal dudes.”

Not only that, Get Out requires Kaluuya to get across two convincing performances simultaneously. Because Chris spends the whole movie surrounded by awkward, fetishizing, and ultimately predatory white people who he’s nonetheless forced to tolerate and even try to impress, Kaluuya has to simultaneously play both Chris, as this young black photographer really feels, and “Chris,” the front that he puts up in order to not alienate his potential in-laws and lose his seemingly woke girlfriend. For the movie to work, the audience has to both connect emotionally to Kaluuya’s performance as Chris and to find Chris’ performance as “Chris” credible. He has to play both the mask and the person trapped beneath it.

It’s revealing to compare Kaluuya’s performance to those in the literal Sunken Place. Perhaps the most memorable line reading of 2017 was Betty Gabriel’s delivery of the word no—if not the first 10 of them. We can see both Rose’s white grandmother, in control of Georgina’s body, and the black woman inside, struggling to get out. Kaluuya doesn’t get any scene that’s so fantastical, but he pulls a similar trick throughout the film, through the slyness of a smile, a slight, nearly imperceptible cocking of the head, or a flash of side-eye—gestures clear enough that the audience will pick up on them but subtle enough that the other characters wouldn’t.

Meanwhile, Peele and Kaluuya pull off another trick so subtly that we might not even notice at first: They skillfully draw attention to Chris’ defining feature, his photographer’s eyes—coaxing us to notice again and again the part of his face that becomes the object of his captors’ desire (“I want your eyes, man,” Stephen Root’s Jim tells him) and the way Chris sees what the others don’t. It’s a horror movie in which nearly all of the horror must be conveyed internally, much of it through those eyes. (Indeed, if I asked you to picture any moment from the film, chances are you’d picture Chris’ eyes, probably wide open, with a tear running down his cheek.)

Some awards groups have started to catch on. Last weekend, Kaluuya won the Best Actor award from the National Society of Film Critics. Last month, the Screen Actors Guild nominated him for Best Actor as well. And earlier this week, the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, who have had a bit longer to get to know him, recognized him with a nomination, too. The Hollywood Foreign Press isn’t best known for exceptional taste, and even they managed to nominate him for Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical. But because Get Out came out nine months before Oscar season (in fact, during last Oscar season), little has been written and said about his performance as an awards contender, leaving open the possibility that it could be overlooked.

Hanks and Franco give excellent performances as well. But while I could argue that choosing either of them would be, above all, a bad look for the Academy—in the year of #MeToo and “Time’s Up,” Franco has spent nearly the whole voting week fending off accusations of sexual misconduct, and only a couple of years after #OscarsSoWhite, the only other category in which any actors of color are expected to be nominated is Best Supporting Actress—Kaluuya simply gives the more accomplished performance. Hanks’ performance isn’t really the kind that anyone will be outraged to see overlooked, especially since Hanks already has two statuettes on his mantel at home. Hanks not only doesn’t give his movie’s best performance; he doesn’t even give the movies’ best performance as Ben Bradlee. As for Franco, anyone who’s seen The Room knows his mimicry is extraordinary, but the performance only really works on one level. Franco nails Wiseau’s accent, but Wiseau the man remains a mystery.

It’s hard to know where Kaluuya will go now that Get Out has raised his profile. There’s not much that unites Get Out with his best-known previous performance in Black Mirror, in which he played a working-class Briton who gives a Howard Beale-esque monologue on an American Idol-style competition show. Before that, he was a regular on Skins, for which he also wrote two episodes, and performed in sketch comedy and, in 2010, won theater awards for his turn in the British play Sucker Punch. (He’s been writing plays and winning awards since he was nine.) He has a versatility most Americans have only begun to notice, and as his career continues, with an appearance as the title superhero’s right-hand man in the upcoming Black Panther and a starring role in the next movie from Steve McQueen, it’ll only become more obvious how much acting it took to play Chris, and to play “Chris.” Less clear is whether Kaluuya will ever get another role as iconic as the one he gets in Get Out, the kind of zeitgeist-capturing acclaimed blockbuster that only comes along every few years. The academy would do well to think about which performance people will still be rewatching and admiring for years to come. If they don’t, well, I think Georgina has already said all there is to say about that.

22:45
The Most Interesting Products We Saw at CES 2018
» ‎ MacRumors: Mac News and Rumors - All Stories

Tags: [edit]

The 2018 Consumer Electronics Show is wrapping up today, bringing an end to a week's worth of non-stop announcements about all of the new products we can expect to see over the course of the year.

For our last video, we asked MacRumors videographer Dan to spend some time on the show floor, hunting down the most interesting products he could find. Not everything we're sharing today is Apple related, but we thought MacRumors readers might want to see some of the zanier things on display at CES.

Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos.
Robots were big at CES, some of which were offering an impressive level of detail and intelligence. Jibo, a $900 "social" robot that's already for sale, was on display, as was the CLOi Robot from LG. LG's CLOi is designed to control smart home products, but it had a bit of a rough start this week when it failed to perform at an LG event.

LG's CLOi
You might have seen Jibo in person already, because the company has been showing it off at mall kiosks and other locations. Jibo has a built-in camera for both facial recognition and capturing "special moments," plus he can dance, answer questions, play music, and more.

Jibo
Other robots on display were just plain odd. Robotis had a bunch of its programmable $499 Mini Humanoid Robots set in a choreographed dance to South Korean hit song "Gangnam Style." Robotis also had a pet dog robot on hand, which was able to roll over, wag its tail, and even pretend to go to the bathroom.

Robotis Mini
Some robots were more conceptual than consumer oriented. Omron, for example, was showing off its Forpheus ping pong robot, which can play a mean game of table tennis. In the future, Omron has goals beyond ping pong or Forpheus, but for now, it's an interesting proof of concept demonstrating what robots are capable of.

Omron's ping pong robot
Beyond robots, there was some impressive TV tech being demonstrated at CES. LG created an entire tunnel filled with OLED TVs to simulate walking through a forest, while Samsung showed off its 146-inch microLED modular TV, "The Wall."

The Wall scales out to as large as 146 inches, which is the average size wall a consumer might have in a house. It's modular, though, so if your wall is smaller, it can be built smaller, too. Samsung hasn't provided pricing on The Wall, but we imagine it's going to be a lot more than most people want to spend for a TV set, even one as cool as this.

The Wall from Samsung
Though not quite as visually interesting, the latest Vivo phone was being shown off on the show floor. The Vivo is notable because it's the first phone that includes an in-display fingerprint sensor, courtesy of Synaptics. Apple was rumored to be working on this kind of technology, but the company ultimately went with Face ID.

Synaptics' Clear ID in-display fingerprint sensor
Cars and other alternative transportation methods were also a highlight of CES, with companies showing off everything from the luxurious to the futuristic. There were also plenty of electric bikes and scooters, including an FAA-approved collapsible electric scooter from Immotor. It's sleek, folds down into a tiny package, and offers a 16 mile range on one charge, but it's expensive at $1,500.

Immotor Go
Our CES coverage is at an end for 2018, but we'll be seeing more of many of these products over the course of the year. If you want to catch up on our coverage, make sure to check out our CES 2018 hub, and don't miss our roundup of some of the best Apple-related accessories we saw at the show.

Tag: CES 2018
Discuss this article in our forums
22:45
The Most Interesting Products We Saw at CES 2018
» ‎ MacRumors: Mac News and Rumors - All Stories

Tags: [edit]

The 2018 Consumer Electronics Show is wrapping up today, bringing an end to a week's worth of non-stop announcements about all of the new products we can expect to see over the course of the year.

For our last video, we asked MacRumors videographer Dan to spend some time on the show floor, hunting down the most interesting products he could find. Not everything we're sharing today is Apple related, but we thought MacRumors readers might want to see some of the zanier things on display at CES.

Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos.
Robots were big at CES, some of which were offering an impressive level of detail and intelligence. Jibo, a $900 "social" robot that's already for sale, was on display, as was the CLOi Robot from LG. LG's CLOi is designed to control smart home products, but it had a bit of a rough start this week when it failed to perform at an LG event.

LG's CLOi
You might have seen Jibo in person already, because the company has been showing it off at mall kiosks and other locations. Jibo has a built-in camera for both facial recognition and capturing "special moments," plus he can dance, answer questions, play music, and more.

Jibo
Other robots on display were just plain odd. Robotis had a bunch of its programmable $499 Mini Humanoid Robots set in a choreographed dance to South Korean hit song "Gangnam Style." Robotis also had a pet dog robot on hand, which was able to roll over, wag its tail, and even pretend to go to the bathroom.

Robotis Mini
Some robots were more conceptual than consumer oriented. Omron, for example, was showing off its Forpheus ping pong robot, which can play a mean game of table tennis. In the future, Omron has goals beyond ping pong or Forpheus, but for now, it's an interesting proof of concept demonstrating what robots are capable of.

Omron's ping pong robot
Beyond robots, there was some impressive TV tech being demonstrated at CES. LG created an entire tunnel filled with OLED TVs to simulate walking through a forest, while Samsung showed off its 146-inch microLED modular TV, "The Wall."

The Wall scales out to as large as 146 inches, which is the average size wall a consumer might have in a house. It's modular, though, so if your wall is smaller, it can be built smaller, too. Samsung hasn't provided pricing on The Wall, but we imagine it's going to be a lot more than most people want to spend for a TV set, even one as cool as this.

The Wall from Samsung
Though not quite as visually interesting, the latest Vivo phone was being shown off on the show floor. The Vivo is notable because it's the first phone that includes an in-display fingerprint sensor, courtesy of Synaptics. Apple was rumored to be working on this kind of technology, but the company ultimately went with Face ID.

Synaptics' Clear ID in-display fingerprint sensor
Cars and other alternative transportation methods were also a highlight of CES, with companies showing off everything from the luxurious to the futuristic. There were also plenty of electric bikes and scooters, including an FAA-approved collapsible electric scooter from Immotor. It's sleek, folds down into a tiny package, and offers a 16 mile range on one charge, but it's expensive at $1,500.

Immotor Go
Our CES coverage is at an end for 2018, but we'll be seeing more of many of these products over the course of the year. If you want to catch up on our coverage, make sure to check out our CES 2018 hub, and don't miss our roundup of some of the best Apple-related accessories we saw at the show.

Tag: CES 2018
Discuss this article in our forums
22:45
The Most Interesting Products We Saw at CES 2018
» ‎ MacRumors: Mac News and Rumors - All Stories

Tags: [edit]

The 2018 Consumer Electronics Show is wrapping up today, bringing an end to a week's worth of non-stop announcements about all of the new products we can expect to see over the course of the year.

For our last video, we asked MacRumors videographer Dan to spend some time on the show floor, hunting down the most interesting products he could find. Not everything we're sharing today is Apple related, but we thought MacRumors readers might want to see some of the zanier things on display at CES.

Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos.
Robots were big at CES, some of which were offering an impressive level of detail and intelligence. Jibo, a $900 "social" robot that's already for sale, was on display, as was the CLOi Robot from LG. LG's CLOi is designed to control smart home products, but it had a bit of a rough start this week when it failed to perform at an LG event.

LG's CLOi
You might have seen Jibo in person already, because the company has been showing it off at mall kiosks and other locations. Jibo has a built-in camera for both facial recognition and capturing "special moments," plus he can dance, answer questions, play music, and more.

Jibo
Other robots on display were just plain odd. Robotis had a bunch of its programmable $499 Mini Humanoid Robots set in a choreographed dance to South Korean hit song "Gangnam Style." Robotis also had a pet dog robot on hand, which was able to roll over, wag its tail, and even pretend to go to the bathroom.

Robotis Mini
Some robots were more conceptual than consumer oriented. Omron, for example, was showing off its Forpheus ping pong robot, which can play a mean game of table tennis. In the future, Omron has goals beyond ping pong or Forpheus, but for now, it's an interesting proof of concept demonstrating what robots are capable of.

Omron's ping pong robot
Beyond robots, there was some impressive TV tech being demonstrated at CES. LG created an entire tunnel filled with OLED TVs to simulate walking through a forest, while Samsung showed off its 146-inch microLED modular TV, "The Wall."

The Wall scales out to as large as 146 inches, which is the average size wall a consumer might have in a house. It's modular, though, so if your wall is smaller, it can be built smaller, too. Samsung hasn't provided pricing on The Wall, but we imagine it's going to be a lot more than most people want to spend for a TV set, even one as cool as this.

The Wall from Samsung
Though not quite as visually interesting, the latest Vivo phone was being shown off on the show floor. The Vivo is notable because it's the first phone that includes an in-display fingerprint sensor, courtesy of Synaptics. Apple was rumored to be working on this kind of technology, but the company ultimately went with Face ID.

Synaptics' Clear ID in-display fingerprint sensor
Cars and other alternative transportation methods were also a highlight of CES, with companies showing off everything from the luxurious to the futuristic. There were also plenty of electric bikes and scooters, including an FAA-approved collapsible electric scooter from Immotor. It's sleek, folds down into a tiny package, and offers a 16 mile range on one charge, but it's expensive at $1,500.

Immotor Go
Our CES coverage is at an end for 2018, but we'll be seeing more of many of these products over the course of the year. If you want to catch up on our coverage, make sure to check out our CES 2018 hub, and don't miss our roundup of some of the best Apple-related accessories we saw at the show.

Tag: CES 2018
Discuss this article in our forums

22:43
No, Not Everything Is Racist
» ‎ Stories from Slate

Tags: [edit]

I don’t like to accuse people of racism. That word is used far too often, unjustly, to smear good men and women. It has been thrown at House Speaker Paul Ryan, Sen. John McCain, former Gov. Mitt Romney, and other decent conservatives. It has been attributed to anyone who defends law enforcement or opposes a government program. When everyone on the right is a white nationalist or white supremacist, these terms lose their meaning.

But Donald Trump is a racist. He meets what Ryan himself once called the “textbook definition” of racism. Trump singles out particular ethnic, racial, and religious groups for suspicion. He holds all members of these groups responsible for the misdeeds of other members. He casts aspersions on individuals based on creed and background. And he explicitly advocates discrimination. If these behaviors don’t define bigotry, nothing does.

Let’s give Trump the benefit of the doubt in every case where his conduct could be explained, even implausibly, by something other than prejudice. Housing discrimination by his father’s company? Young Donald wasn’t directly involved. The Central Park Five? He thought they were guilty. Questioning Barack Obama’s birthplace? Trump just wanted to be thorough. His failure to denounce David Duke? Trump couldn’t hear the question. Calling the removal of Confederate statues an attack on “our culture”? He meant we should own our history. Calling Sen. Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas”? He’s being ironic. Hounding NFL players who kneel? He feels strongly about the national anthem.

Set aside all of that, and you’re still left with four patterns that can’t be explained away.

The first is Trump’s habit of associating certain ethnic or religious groups with violence. In 2013, he targeted blacks, writing on Twitter that “the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our major cities is committed by blacks and hispanics.” He also retweeted fake black-on-white crime data. In 2015, he kicked off his presidential campaign with a tirade against Mexican immigrants: “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” Later that year, Trump claimed to have seen thousands of people cheering the 9/11 attacks in northern New Jersey, “where you have large Arab populations.” In each case, Trump imagined or misrepresented the threat. He never does this to whites.

Within these groups, Trump blames the innocent for failing to control the guilty. He has held Barack Obama responsible for black crime, explicitly because Obama is black. “President Obama has absolutely no control (or respect) over the African American community” Trump wrote in 2014 during the riots in Ferguson, Missouri. A year later, Trump jeered, “Our great African American President hasn’t exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore!” In 2016, after the Orlando massacre, Trump falsely charged that “the Muslim community does not report” its extremists. He concluded that Muslims should be punished collectively for such incidents: “The Muslims are the ones that have to report them. And if they don’t report them, then there have to be consequences to them.” Trump refuses to apply this policy of collective responsibility to whites. After Charlottesville, he argued just the opposite: that “very fine people” shouldn’t be faulted for rallying with Nazis.

Trump has persistently cast aspersions on particular people based on race, ethnicity, or religion. He suggested to evangelicals that they couldn’t trust Ted Cruz because Cruz’s family came from Cuba. He suggested to Protestants that they couldn’t trust Ben Carson because Carson is a Seventh-day Adventist. He retweeted an allegation that Jeb Bush “has to like the Mexican illegals because of his wife,” who is Mexican American. At rallies and in TV interviews, Trump charged that Gonzalo Curiel, the Indiana-born federal judge presiding over the Trump University fraud case, was incorrigibly biased against him because “we’re building a wall. He’s a Mexican.”

The clearest standard of bigotry is advocating differential treatment based on race, sex, ethnicity, or religion. Trump has done that repeatedly. In 2013, he dismissed the military’s integration of women as a stupid mistake, arguing that it had led to sexual assaults. In 2015, he demanded a “complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” In 2016, he warned that Muslim migrants were too dangerous because once they were allowed into the United States, they might proselytize for Islam, and there was “no way” to “prevent the second generation from radicalizing.” In his attacks on Curiel, Trump reasoned that no judge “of Mexican heritage” could fairly preside over his fraud case, because such ancestry entailed “an inherent conflict of interest.”

This behavior has continued in office. During an Oval Office meeting last summer, according to the New York Times, Trump complained that Haitians coming to the United States “all have AIDS.” He also warned that people from Nigeria, if they were allowed into our country, would never “go back to their huts.” Six weeks ago, Trump retweeted messages from a hate group, which by their plain language (“Muslim destroys a statue of Virgin Mary!” “Muslim migrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches!”) sought to incite anger against all Muslims.

The White House denied the Times report about Haitians and Nigerians. But now there’s confirmation, from a Democratic senator, a Republican senator, and others who attended or were briefed, that Trump made similar remarks in an Oval Office meeting with lawmakers on Thursday. During a back-and-forth about migrants from Haiti, El Salvador, and Africa, Trump fumed: “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” He specifically asked, “Why do we need more Haitians?” He demanded that Congress “take them out” of a list of immigrant populations temporarily allowed to stay in the United States. Instead, he said the United States should accept more people from countries such as Norway.

Trump disputes his exact language in the meeting. But on Friday morning, in a series of tweets, he affirmed his reasoning. “USA would be forced to take large numbers of people from high crime countries which are doing badly,” he wrote. “I want a merit based system of immigration and people who will help take our country to the next level.”

What Trump is proposing, as sketched in his own tweets, is not a merit-based system. A merit-based system would accept or reject applicants based their own merits. Trump is saying that applicants should be accepted or rejected based on country of origin. He’s saying that the individual should be judged by the group. If you’re Haitian, you’re out.

That’s bigotry. It’s not some left-wing activist’s definition of bigotry. It’s the textbook definition. And while quotas by nationality are common in immigration policy, it’s hard to explain why Trump thinks and talks this way on so many other issues, not just about foreigners but about Americans. He has been doing it for years to every group with whom he doesn’t identify: blacks, Latinos, Muslims, Seventh-day Adventists, Cuban Americans, Mexican Americans, Arab Americans, Korean Americans, and women.

A president who keeps saying bigoted things and pushing bigoted ideas, despite repeated warnings, is a bigot. A party that continues to excuse him is a bigoted party. And a country that accepts him is a bigoted country. Don’t be that party. Don’t be that country.
22:43
No, Not Everything Is Racist
» ‎ Stories from Slate

Tags: [edit]

I don’t like to accuse people of racism. That word is used far too often, unjustly, to smear good men and women. It has been thrown at House Speaker Paul Ryan, Sen. John McCain, former Gov. Mitt Romney, and other decent conservatives. It has been attributed to anyone who defends law enforcement or opposes a government program. When everyone on the right is a white nationalist or white supremacist, these terms lose their meaning.

But Donald Trump is a racist. He meets what Ryan himself once called the “textbook definition” of racism. Trump singles out particular ethnic, racial, and religious groups for suspicion. He holds all members of these groups responsible for the misdeeds of other members. He casts aspersions on individuals based on creed and background. And he explicitly advocates discrimination. If these behaviors don’t define bigotry, nothing does.

Let’s give Trump the benefit of the doubt in every case where his conduct could be explained, even implausibly, by something other than prejudice. Housing discrimination by his father’s company? Young Donald wasn’t directly involved. The Central Park Five? He thought they were guilty. Questioning Barack Obama’s birthplace? Trump just wanted to be thorough. His failure to denounce David Duke? Trump couldn’t hear the question. Calling the removal of Confederate statues an attack on “our culture”? He meant we should own our history. Calling Sen. Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas”? He’s being ironic. Hounding NFL players who kneel? He feels strongly about the national anthem.

Set aside all of that, and you’re still left with four patterns that can’t be explained away.

The first is Trump’s habit of associating certain ethnic or religious groups with violence. In 2013, he targeted blacks, writing on Twitter that “the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our major cities is committed by blacks and hispanics.” He also retweeted fake black-on-white crime data. In 2015, he kicked off his presidential campaign with a tirade against Mexican immigrants: “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” Later that year, Trump claimed to have seen thousands of people cheering the 9/11 attacks in northern New Jersey, “where you have large Arab populations.” In each case, Trump imagined or misrepresented the threat. He never does this to whites.

Within these groups, Trump blames the innocent for failing to control the guilty. He has held Barack Obama responsible for black crime, explicitly because Obama is black. “President Obama has absolutely no control (or respect) over the African American community” Trump wrote in 2014 during the riots in Ferguson, Missouri. A year later, Trump jeered, “Our great African American President hasn’t exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore!” In 2016, after the Orlando massacre, Trump falsely charged that “the Muslim community does not report” its extremists. He concluded that Muslims should be punished collectively for such incidents: “The Muslims are the ones that have to report them. And if they don’t report them, then there have to be consequences to them.” Trump refuses to apply this policy of collective responsibility to whites. After Charlottesville, he argued just the opposite: that “very fine people” shouldn’t be faulted for rallying with Nazis.

Trump has persistently cast aspersions on particular people based on race, ethnicity, or religion. He suggested to evangelicals that they couldn’t trust Ted Cruz because Cruz’s family came from Cuba. He suggested to Protestants that they couldn’t trust Ben Carson because Carson is a Seventh-day Adventist. He retweeted an allegation that Jeb Bush “has to like the Mexican illegals because of his wife,” who is Mexican American. At rallies and in TV interviews, Trump charged that Gonzalo Curiel, the Indiana-born federal judge presiding over the Trump University fraud case, was incorrigibly biased against him because “we’re building a wall. He’s a Mexican.”

The clearest standard of bigotry is advocating differential treatment based on race, sex, ethnicity, or religion. Trump has done that repeatedly. In 2013, he dismissed the military’s integration of women as a stupid mistake, arguing that it had led to sexual assaults. In 2015, he demanded a “complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” In 2016, he warned that Muslim migrants were too dangerous because once they were allowed into the United States, they might proselytize for Islam, and there was “no way” to “prevent the second generation from radicalizing.” In his attacks on Curiel, Trump reasoned that no judge “of Mexican heritage” could fairly preside over his fraud case, because such ancestry entailed “an inherent conflict of interest.”

This behavior has continued in office. During an Oval Office meeting last summer, according to the New York Times, Trump complained that Haitians coming to the United States “all have AIDS.” He also warned that people from Nigeria, if they were allowed into our country, would never “go back to their huts.” Six weeks ago, Trump retweeted messages from a hate group, which by their plain language (“Muslim destroys a statue of Virgin Mary!” “Muslim migrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches!”) sought to incite anger against all Muslims.

The White House denied the Times report about Haitians and Nigerians. But now there’s confirmation, from a Democratic senator, a Republican senator, and others who attended or were briefed, that Trump made similar remarks in an Oval Office meeting with lawmakers on Thursday. During a back-and-forth about migrants from Haiti, El Salvador, and Africa, Trump fumed: “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” He specifically asked, “Why do we need more Haitians?” He demanded that Congress “take them out” of a list of immigrant populations temporarily allowed to stay in the United States. Instead, he said the United States should accept more people from countries such as Norway.

Trump disputes his exact language in the meeting. But on Friday morning, in a series of tweets, he affirmed his reasoning. “USA would be forced to take large numbers of people from high crime countries which are doing badly,” he wrote. “I want a merit based system of immigration and people who will help take our country to the next level.”

What Trump is proposing, as sketched in his own tweets, is not a merit-based system. A merit-based system would accept or reject applicants based their own merits. Trump is saying that applicants should be accepted or rejected based on country of origin. He’s saying that the individual should be judged by the group. If you’re Haitian, you’re out.

That’s bigotry. It’s not some left-wing activist’s definition of bigotry. It’s the textbook definition. And while quotas by nationality are common in immigration policy, it’s hard to explain why Trump thinks and talks this way on so many other issues, not just about foreigners but about Americans. He has been doing it for years to every group with whom he doesn’t identify: blacks, Latinos, Muslims, Seventh-day Adventists, Cuban Americans, Mexican Americans, Arab Americans, Korean Americans, and women.

A president who keeps saying bigoted things and pushing bigoted ideas, despite repeated warnings, is a bigot. A party that continues to excuse him is a bigoted party. And a country that accepts him is a bigoted country. Don’t be that party. Don’t be that country.

22:38
With CHIP Funds Running Low, Scrambling to Cover Kids’ Needs
» ‎ Medscape Medical News Headlines

Tags: [edit]

Doctors are advising patients to be sure to fill medication orders now or are giving away drugs to make sure children have enough if their insurance disappears.
Kaiser Health News

22:37
Report: Trump Lawyer Paid $130,000 in November 2016 for Silence of Porn Actress Who Alleged Affair With Trump
» ‎ Stories from Slate

Tags: [edit]

The Wall Street Journal has quite the Friday afternoon scoop:

A lawyer for President Donald Trump arranged a $130,000 payment to a former adult-film star a month before the 2016 election as part of an agreement that precluded her from publicly discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.

The lawyer in question is Michael Cohen, who has long been one of Trump’s closest associates, and the actress in question is Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. The Journal reports that Clifford has said privately that she had a “sexual encounter” (those are the Journal’s words) with Trump in July 2006; Cohen denied to the Journal that any such encounter took place.

Trump married the erstwhile Melania Knauss in January 2005, while the infamous “grab them by the pussy” Access Hollywood tape was recorded in September 2005. (Clifford is not said to allege any nonconsensual behavior on the president’s part.)

However intriguing, the revelation seems unlikely to affect Trump’s political standing given that he was elected with the public already knowing full well that he was a thrice-married womanizer who’d appeared in several soft-core porn videos. (Which might also explain why Clifford got such a relatively small settlement.) The Journal’s Friday article also notes that the paper itself reported just before the 2016 election that a Playboy model named Karen McDougal had received $150,000 from the Trump-friendly National Enquirer in order to bury her own story of an alleged 2006 affair with POTUS—a story that also mentioned Clifford’s reported allegation of an affair in an aside.
22:37
Report: Trump Lawyer Paid $130,000 in November 2016 for Silence of Porn Actress Who Alleged Affair With Trump
» ‎ Stories from Slate

Tags: [edit]

The Wall Street Journal has quite the Friday afternoon scoop:

A lawyer for President Donald Trump arranged a $130,000 payment to a former adult-film star a month before the 2016 election as part of an agreement that precluded her from publicly discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.

The lawyer in question is Michael Cohen, who has long been one of Trump’s closest associates, and the actress in question is Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. The Journal reports that Clifford has said privately that she had a “sexual encounter” (those are the Journal’s words) with Trump in July 2006; Cohen denied to the Journal that any such encounter took place.

Trump married the erstwhile Melania Knauss in January 2005, while the infamous “grab them by the pussy” Access Hollywood tape was recorded in September 2005. (Clifford is not said to allege any nonconsensual behavior on the president’s part.)

However intriguing, the revelation seems unlikely to affect Trump’s political standing given that he was elected with the public already knowing full well that he was a thrice-married womanizer who’d appeared in several soft-core porn videos. (Which might also explain why Clifford got such a relatively small settlement.) The Journal’s Friday article also notes that the paper itself reported just before the 2016 election that a Playboy model named Karen McDougal had received $150,000 from the Trump-friendly National Enquirer in order to bury her own story of an alleged 2006 affair with POTUS—a story that also mentioned Clifford’s reported allegation of an affair in an aside.
22:35
Facebook’s Revamp Includes an Effort to Fight Fake News
» ‎ Stories from Slate

Tags: [edit]

Facebook is shifting tactics in the war on fake news. A few weeks ago, in the quiet lead-up to the major revamp of its news feed announced Thursday, the company made another tweak to what users see: It said it would no longer mark bogus headlines with a red-flag warning, as had been its practice since the end of 2016. Previously, these “Disputed” tags showed up beneath any story that had been rated false by at least two independent, fact-checking organizations. Now those tags have been replaced by something less intrusive—one or more “Related Articles,” supplied by fact-checkers, that offer context for (and perhaps debunking of) the headline’s claims.

The new system should have some clear advantages: First, it gives the checkers greater flexibility and room to challenge stories that are not entirely, 100 percent made up; second, it will speed things up, because Facebook will no longer require two assessments before it starts to show corrective facts; third, it reduces the number of clicks or taps required before a user sees specific fact-check information. But taken as a whole, the change is somewhat mystifying and maybe even ill-advised. Its design appears to be based (at least in part) on the science of post-truth—and on the flashy but fishy notion that debunking myths only makes them stronger.

This idea, that addressing lies with facts may backfire, has been widely shared in both the media and social science literature over the past 10 years. Now it’s cited by the team at Facebook in explaining its approach to fake news: “Academic research on correcting misinformation has shown that putting a strong image, like a red flag, next to an article may actually entrench deeply held beliefs,” wrote product manager Tessa Lyons on Dec. 20, 2017. A concurrent Medium post, from three more Facebookers on the project, also mentioned this research. And Facebook’s CEO and founder, Mark Zuckerberg, alluded to the backfire effect in his manifesto on building an “informed community” from last February: “Research shows that some of the most obvious ideas,” he wrote, “like showing people an article from the opposite perspective, actually deepen polarization.”

The problem is, the backfire effect that so worries Facebook may not exist at all. The Medium post described the above links to a review of debunking research from 2012, published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, which indeed contains a section, titled “Making Things Worse,” on the risk of backfire. But more recent efforts to study this phenomenon more carefully—large-scale, preregistered studies using thousands of participants—have turned up little evidence in its favor. That’s not to say that backfires never, ever happen. It’s possible that a red-flag warning on Facebook could end up entrenching false beliefs for certain users under certain circumstances. But, according to the latest science (which I reviewed in detail for Slate last week), this danger has been greatly overstated.

In fact, if we’re going by the academic research literature, there’s good reason to believe that Facebook’s abandoned red-flag warnings were somewhat useful and effective. Last May, Dartmouth’s Brendan Nyhan and his students conducted a preregistered study of news feed warnings on a sample of about 3,000 adults. The researchers showed each participant a half a dozen fake-news headlines—e.g. “Trump Plagiarized the Bee Movie for Inaugural Speech”—sometimes adding a red flag of just the kind that Facebook had been using to indicate the story was disputed by independent fact-checkers. Then they asked their subjects to rate these headlines on a four-point scale from “Not at all accurate” to “Very accurate.” Nyhan and his students found a nice effect: In the absence of a warning flag, 29 percent of their subjects said the bogus headlines were either “somewhat accurate” or “very accurate,” but when the flag was shown, that proportion of fake-news believers dropped by about one-third, to 19 percent.

Another very similar study—from Yale’s David Rand and Gordon Pennycook—was posted in September 2017. In that one, researchers showed real- and fake-news headlines, with or without red-flag warnings, to more than 5,000 participants. Like Nyhan and his students, Rand and Pennycook found the warnings worked, at least a bit: Subjects described the tagged headlines as being slightly less accurate, on average, than the ones that did not have a warning. (The warnings might have been even more effective, Pennycook told me in an interview this week, if Facebook had put them just above the fake-news headlines instead of just below them.)

Rand and Pennycook’s research did have one crucial caveat. According to their study, the presence of a warning flag on one fake-news story could make other, untagged stories seem more accurate. They referred to this as an “implied truth effect.” For certain subjects—especially young adults or those who supported Donald Trump—the absence of a fact-check tag ended up seeming like a badge of credibility; it made them more believable. (Nyhan failed to find the same, but when the data from the two papers are combined, the effect appears to be there.) Given the disturbing scope of Facebook’s fake news problem, it’s hard to see how human-powered fact-checks could ever tag more than a fraction of the phony headlines on the site. And if the implied truth effect applied to all the others, the end result would be catastrophic.

But this concern must be squared with the results from Rand and Pennycook’s earlier study of the Facebook warnings, first posted last April. That one, which had a somewhat different design and about 1,000 subjects, confirmed the basic finding that red flags in the news feed lower people’s belief in fake-news headlines. It also showed that those warnings made subjects more skeptical overall—rather than more credulous—when it came to other, untagged headlines.

In a brief interview on Tuesday, I asked the members of the Facebook team whether and how their work was influenced by the academic research literature. User-experience researcher Grace Jackson said that the backfire effect is “something that we wanted to be aware of based on the academic literature,” but that “in our own research, it actually only happens extremely rarely.” She did not address the Rand and Pennycook papers but did mention that the team had been inspired by a 2015 paper from Leticia Bode and Emily Vraga, which, said Jackson, found that corrective information “worked really well” when presented in a format similar to the one that Facebook just rolled out.

For that study, Bode and Vraga showed students postings from a mocked-up Facebook news feed, including a bogus story claiming that genetically modified foods will make you sick. Students in one experimental condition saw a pair of “Related Links” below that item, showing refutations of the claim from Snopes.com and the American Medical Association. Bode and Vraga found that among the people who came into the study with the belief that GMOs are harmful, the related links helped to change their minds.

Facebook’s new approach, in which fact-check information gets presented as “Related Articles,” closely mirrors Bode and Vraga’s experimental treatment. Yet the 2015 paper is, in fact, equivocal in its results. In addition to the claims about the health effects of GMOs, Bode and Vraga also looked at fake-news headlines on a supposed link between vaccines and autism. In this latter case, they found no effect from their corrections. The “Related Links” from Snopes.com and the American Medical Association did not change believers’ attitudes.

Bode says it’s not clear why their treatment didn’t work for the myth about vaccines. It could be that the false belief is more established, so it’s harder to uproot. Or else it could be that the anti-vaxxer myth is more politicized and thus more amenable to motivated reasoning. The same ambiguity applies to Facebook’s efforts. Are the most dangerous fake-news stories in people’s news feeds like the ones about GMOs—and thus perhaps amenable to this format of debunking? Or are they like the ones about vaccines, where “Related Stories” might have no effect?

It’s also hard to know how much confidence one should have in extrapolating from the Bode and Vraga findings. Their study had about 500 subjects, but these were split across eight experimental conditions. And their positive result concerned just the subset of participants—about half, overall—who believed that GMOs will make you sick. That means they looked at subgroups of about several dozen people per condition. For the vaccines question, these sample sizes were smaller still. That’s not to say that Bode and Vraga got things wrong—only that their findings were preliminary and constrained by opportunity and cost. (In subsequent work, they’ve found similar results on the topic of GMOs.) If Facebook cared to know whether “Related Stories” really work to counter lies, the company could check the numbers for itself. Instead of citing modest research done by academics, its employees could, in theory, run something like the same experiment on 1 million Facebook users, or 10 million, or 100 million. Do “Related Articles” change behavior? Do red-flag warnings backfire? Is there an implied truth effect when not every article is tagged? If anyone will ever know the answer to those questions, it’s the team at Facebook.

In fact, they may already have those answers. In our conversation on Tuesday, I asked what they’ve found from their own analyses. Tessa Lyons, the product manager, only mentioned one result: When the team compared its new “Related Articles” format to the old red-flag warnings, they found that click-thru rates remained the same, while shares declined. In other words, users were just as likely to read the fake-news articles that appeared on their feeds but less likely to repost them for their friends. How much less likely? Lyons wouldn’t say. What about comparisons to baseline? How effective were either of these formats at reducing fake-news spread when compared to giving no fact-check information whatsoever? Again, Lyons wouldn’t say.

It’s possible Facebook has mined its vast supply of internal data and optimized its fake news–fighting tactics accordingly. As Bode points out, the company is full of very smart people, including many social science Ph.D.s. But if that were really true, then why bother with a smoke screen of citations to a wobbly academic research literature? Why not just say, “Look, we’ve crunched the numbers for ourselves, and this approach works best,” without sharing proprietary details?

Here’s another thought: It could be that the change from red-flag warnings to “Related Articles” isn’t really that important anyway. According to Lyons, the most effective way to slow these stories’ spread is to bury them on news feeds, and Facebook already does that. Once a story has been tagged as “false” in either system, it gets demoted by the Facebook algorithm and becomes much less likely to appear to users—Lyons says this intervention is the main driver in reducing a fake story’s reach by 80 percent. Links to “Related Articles” from third-party fact-checkers only come into play in those instances when the fake-news story does pop up in spite of its demotion. In other words, even if the fact-check links were quite effective, their real-world impact would be marginal.

This all raises an unnerving question: Given that both the red-flag warnings and “Related Articles” methods likely offer little more than a limp, second-line defense against fake news, why bother with them at all? If Facebook can demote these stories in its users’ feeds, such that their spread will be shrunk by 80 percent, then certainly it has the the power to eliminate them altogether. Indeed, the main takeaway from Thursday’s large announcement is that Facebook is adjusting its news feed to focus less on news overall—at least, less on news shared from publishers. (Individuals can still share whatever they want.) “We don’t want any ‘false news’ on Facebook,” said Lyons, using the company’s preferred name for the phenomenon.

The best way to accomplish this would be to pull stories from the site as soon as they’ve been identified as fakes. Instead of squeezing bogus headlines through tighter filters in the news feed algorithm, the site could just delete them. In practice, though, that would look a lot like censorship—a top-down decree about what’s true and what isn’t. (Lyons says items are removed this way only when they violate Facebook’s community standards.) So instead the company has staked out a middle ground, where fake news isn’t deleted; it’s disappeared.

That seems a little icky, too: If it isn’t censorship, then it’s certainly censorshipish. On the other hand, Facebook’s second-line approach—giving context for a bogus story, surrounding it with facts—has the benefit of seeming ethical and optimistic; it assumes that people care about the truth and that, all things being equal, they’ll tend to handle information in a responsible way. Of course, it may not work as well as disappearance at reducing shares and clicks. Of course, it may not work at all. But at least it sends a signal to the rest of us: Facebook wants to keep us as informed as possible.

Maybe this explains its making hay of a subtle shift from red-flag warnings to “Related Stories.” Whether this was based on solid social science or a careful audit of internal numbers, the story hinges on the feel-good notion that Facebook will bury lies with wholesome facts—and in a way we all can see. Here’s the ugly truth behind that curtain of transparency: If the social network wins its war against fake news, it will be driven by the secret, brutal engines of its code.
22:35
Facebook’s Revamp Includes an Effort to Fight Fake News
» ‎ Stories from Slate

Tags: [edit]

Facebook is shifting tactics in the war on fake news. A few weeks ago, in the quiet lead-up to the major revamp of its news feed announced Thursday, the company made another tweak to what users see: It said it would no longer mark bogus headlines with a red-flag warning, as had been its practice since the end of 2016. Previously, these “Disputed” tags showed up beneath any story that had been rated false by at least two independent, fact-checking organizations. Now those tags have been replaced by something less intrusive—one or more “Related Articles,” supplied by fact-checkers, that offer context for (and perhaps debunking of) the headline’s claims.

The new system should have some clear advantages: First, it gives the checkers greater flexibility and room to challenge stories that are not entirely, 100 percent made up; second, it will speed things up, because Facebook will no longer require two assessments before it starts to show corrective facts; third, it reduces the number of clicks or taps required before a user sees specific fact-check information. But taken as a whole, the change is somewhat mystifying and maybe even ill-advised. Its design appears to be based (at least in part) on the science of post-truth—and on the flashy but fishy notion that debunking myths only makes them stronger.

This idea, that addressing lies with facts may backfire, has been widely shared in both the media and social science literature over the past 10 years. Now it’s cited by the team at Facebook in explaining its approach to fake news: “Academic research on correcting misinformation has shown that putting a strong image, like a red flag, next to an article may actually entrench deeply held beliefs,” wrote product manager Tessa Lyons on Dec. 20, 2017. A concurrent Medium post, from three more Facebookers on the project, also mentioned this research. And Facebook’s CEO and founder, Mark Zuckerberg, alluded to the backfire effect in his manifesto on building an “informed community” from last February: “Research shows that some of the most obvious ideas,” he wrote, “like showing people an article from the opposite perspective, actually deepen polarization.”

The problem is, the backfire effect that so worries Facebook may not exist at all. The Medium post described the above links to a review of debunking research from 2012, published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, which indeed contains a section, titled “Making Things Worse,” on the risk of backfire. But more recent efforts to study this phenomenon more carefully—large-scale, preregistered studies using thousands of participants—have turned up little evidence in its favor. That’s not to say that backfires never, ever happen. It’s possible that a red-flag warning on Facebook could end up entrenching false beliefs for certain users under certain circumstances. But, according to the latest science (which I reviewed in detail for Slate last week), this danger has been greatly overstated.

In fact, if we’re going by the academic research literature, there’s good reason to believe that Facebook’s abandoned red-flag warnings were somewhat useful and effective. Last May, Dartmouth’s Brendan Nyhan and his students conducted a preregistered study of news feed warnings on a sample of about 3,000 adults. The researchers showed each participant a half a dozen fake-news headlines—e.g. “Trump Plagiarized the Bee Movie for Inaugural Speech”—sometimes adding a red flag of just the kind that Facebook had been using to indicate the story was disputed by independent fact-checkers. Then they asked their subjects to rate these headlines on a four-point scale from “Not at all accurate” to “Very accurate.” Nyhan and his students found a nice effect: In the absence of a warning flag, 29 percent of their subjects said the bogus headlines were either “somewhat accurate” or “very accurate,” but when the flag was shown, that proportion of fake-news believers dropped by about one-third, to 19 percent.

Another very similar study—from Yale’s David Rand and Gordon Pennycook—was posted in September 2017. In that one, researchers showed real- and fake-news headlines, with or without red-flag warnings, to more than 5,000 participants. Like Nyhan and his students, Rand and Pennycook found the warnings worked, at least a bit: Subjects described the tagged headlines as being slightly less accurate, on average, than the ones that did not have a warning. (The warnings might have been even more effective, Pennycook told me in an interview this week, if Facebook had put them just above the fake-news headlines instead of just below them.)

Rand and Pennycook’s research did have one crucial caveat. According to their study, the presence of a warning flag on one fake-news story could make other, untagged stories seem more accurate. They referred to this as an “implied truth effect.” For certain subjects—especially young adults or those who supported Donald Trump—the absence of a fact-check tag ended up seeming like a badge of credibility; it made them more believable. (Nyhan failed to find the same, but when the data from the two papers are combined, the effect appears to be there.) Given the disturbing scope of Facebook’s fake news problem, it’s hard to see how human-powered fact-checks could ever tag more than a fraction of the phony headlines on the site. And if the implied truth effect applied to all the others, the end result would be catastrophic.

But this concern must be squared with the results from Rand and Pennycook’s earlier study of the Facebook warnings, first posted last April. That one, which had a somewhat different design and about 1,000 subjects, confirmed the basic finding that red flags in the news feed lower people’s belief in fake-news headlines. It also showed that those warnings made subjects more skeptical overall—rather than more credulous—when it came to other, untagged headlines.

In a brief interview on Tuesday, I asked the members of the Facebook team whether and how their work was influenced by the academic research literature. User-experience researcher Grace Jackson said that the backfire effect is “something that we wanted to be aware of based on the academic literature,” but that “in our own research, it actually only happens extremely rarely.” She did not address the Rand and Pennycook papers but did mention that the team had been inspired by a 2015 paper from Leticia Bode and Emily Vraga, which, said Jackson, found that corrective information “worked really well” when presented in a format similar to the one that Facebook just rolled out.

For that study, Bode and Vraga showed students postings from a mocked-up Facebook news feed, including a bogus story claiming that genetically modified foods will make you sick. Students in one experimental condition saw a pair of “Related Links” below that item, showing refutations of the claim from Snopes.com and the American Medical Association. Bode and Vraga found that among the people who came into the study with the belief that GMOs are harmful, the related links helped to change their minds.

Facebook’s new approach, in which fact-check information gets presented as “Related Articles,” closely mirrors Bode and Vraga’s experimental treatment. Yet the 2015 paper is, in fact, equivocal in its results. In addition to the claims about the health effects of GMOs, Bode and Vraga also looked at fake-news headlines on a supposed link between vaccines and autism. In this latter case, they found no effect from their corrections. The “Related Links” from Snopes.com and the American Medical Association did not change believers’ attitudes.

Bode says it’s not clear why their treatment didn’t work for the myth about vaccines. It could be that the false belief is more established, so it’s harder to uproot. Or else it could be that the anti-vaxxer myth is more politicized and thus more amenable to motivated reasoning. The same ambiguity applies to Facebook’s efforts. Are the most dangerous fake-news stories in people’s news feeds like the ones about GMOs—and thus perhaps amenable to this format of debunking? Or are they like the ones about vaccines, where “Related Stories” might have no effect?

It’s also hard to know how much confidence one should have in extrapolating from the Bode and Vraga findings. Their study had about 500 subjects, but these were split across eight experimental conditions. And their positive result concerned just the subset of participants—about half, overall—who believed that GMOs will make you sick. That means they looked at subgroups of about several dozen people per condition. For the vaccines question, these sample sizes were smaller still. That’s not to say that Bode and Vraga got things wrong—only that their findings were preliminary and constrained by opportunity and cost. (In subsequent work, they’ve found similar results on the topic of GMOs.) If Facebook cared to know whether “Related Stories” really work to counter lies, the company could check the numbers for itself. Instead of citing modest research done by academics, its employees could, in theory, run something like the same experiment on 1 million Facebook users, or 10 million, or 100 million. Do “Related Articles” change behavior? Do red-flag warnings backfire? Is there an implied truth effect when not every article is tagged? If anyone will ever know the answer to those questions, it’s the team at Facebook.

In fact, they may already have those answers. In our conversation on Tuesday, I asked what they’ve found from their own analyses. Tessa Lyons, the product manager, only mentioned one result: When the team compared its new “Related Articles” format to the old red-flag warnings, they found that click-thru rates remained the same, while shares declined. In other words, users were just as likely to read the fake-news articles that appeared on their feeds but less likely to repost them for their friends. How much less likely? Lyons wouldn’t say. What about comparisons to baseline? How effective were either of these formats at reducing fake-news spread when compared to giving no fact-check information whatsoever? Again, Lyons wouldn’t say.

It’s possible Facebook has mined its vast supply of internal data and optimized its fake news–fighting tactics accordingly. As Bode points out, the company is full of very smart people, including many social science Ph.D.s. But if that were really true, then why bother with a smoke screen of citations to a wobbly academic research literature? Why not just say, “Look, we’ve crunched the numbers for ourselves, and this approach works best,” without sharing proprietary details?

Here’s another thought: It could be that the change from red-flag warnings to “Related Articles” isn’t really that important anyway. According to Lyons, the most effective way to slow these stories’ spread is to bury them on news feeds, and Facebook already does that. Once a story has been tagged as “false” in either system, it gets demoted by the Facebook algorithm and becomes much less likely to appear to users—Lyons says this intervention is the main driver in reducing a fake story’s reach by 80 percent. Links to “Related Articles” from third-party fact-checkers only come into play in those instances when the fake-news story does pop up in spite of its demotion. In other words, even if the fact-check links were quite effective, their real-world impact would be marginal.

This all raises an unnerving question: Given that both the red-flag warnings and “Related Articles” methods likely offer little more than a limp, second-line defense against fake news, why bother with them at all? If Facebook can demote these stories in its users’ feeds, such that their spread will be shrunk by 80 percent, then certainly it has the the power to eliminate them altogether. Indeed, the main takeaway from Thursday’s large announcement is that Facebook is adjusting its news feed to focus less on news overall—at least, less on news shared from publishers. (Individuals can still share whatever they want.) “We don’t want any ‘false news’ on Facebook,” said Lyons, using the company’s preferred name for the phenomenon.

The best way to accomplish this would be to pull stories from the site as soon as they’ve been identified as fakes. Instead of squeezing bogus headlines through tighter filters in the news feed algorithm, the site could just delete them. In practice, though, that would look a lot like censorship—a top-down decree about what’s true and what isn’t. (Lyons says items are removed this way only when they violate Facebook’s community standards.) So instead the company has staked out a middle ground, where fake news isn’t deleted; it’s disappeared.

That seems a little icky, too: If it isn’t censorship, then it’s certainly censorshipish. On the other hand, Facebook’s second-line approach—giving context for a bogus story, surrounding it with facts—has the benefit of seeming ethical and optimistic; it assumes that people care about the truth and that, all things being equal, they’ll tend to handle information in a responsible way. Of course, it may not work as well as disappearance at reducing shares and clicks. Of course, it may not work at all. But at least it sends a signal to the rest of us: Facebook wants to keep us as informed as possible.

Maybe this explains its making hay of a subtle shift from red-flag warnings to “Related Stories.” Whether this was based on solid social science or a careful audit of internal numbers, the story hinges on the feel-good notion that Facebook will bury lies with wholesome facts—and in a way we all can see. Here’s the ugly truth behind that curtain of transparency: If the social network wins its war against fake news, it will be driven by the secret, brutal engines of its code.

22:34
Video: How Apple's Intelligent Tracking Protection in Safari works
» ‎ AppleInsider - Frontpage News

Tags: [edit]

Have you ever shopped for something on Amazon, and then noticed that other websites and even apps like Facebook are flooded with ads concerning that product? AppleInsider explains how this happens, and how Apple's implementation of Intelligent Tracking Protection in Safari works.
22:34
Video: How Apple's Intelligent Tracking Protection in Safari works
» ‎ AppleInsider - Frontpage News

Tags: [edit]

Have you ever shopped for something on Amazon, and then noticed that other websites and even apps like Facebook are flooded with ads concerning that product? AppleInsider explains how this happens, and how Apple's implementation of Intelligent Tracking Protection in Safari works.
22:34
Video: How Apple's Intelligent Tracking Protection in Safari works
» ‎ AppleInsider - Frontpage News

Tags: [edit]

Have you ever shopped for something on Amazon, and then noticed that other websites and even apps like Facebook are flooded with ads concerning that product? AppleInsider explains how this happens, and how Apple's implementation of Intelligent Tracking Protection in Safari works.

22:30
Martian Glaciers Could Help Unlock Planet’s History
» ‎ Geek.com

Tags: [edit]

The quest to find water on Mars continues as researchers report the likely presence of ice sheets on the Red Planet. Data from two orbiting spacecraft revealed ice cliffs at least 100 meters […]

The post Martian Glaciers Could Help Unlock Planet’s History appeared first on Geek.com.
22:30
Martian Glaciers Could Help Unlock Planet’s History
» ‎ Geek.com

Tags: [edit]

The quest to find water on Mars continues as researchers report the likely presence of ice sheets on the Red Planet. Data from two orbiting spacecraft revealed ice cliffs at least 100 meters […]

The post Martian Glaciers Could Help Unlock Planet’s History appeared first on Geek.com.

22:30
MS Drug Ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) Approved in Europe
» ‎ Medscape Medical News Headlines

Tags: [edit]

The European Commission clears the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody for adults with relapsing multiple sclerosis and early primary progressive multiple sclerosis.
International Approvals

22:29
Are you a racist?' Trump questioned over 's***hole' remarks
» ‎ WN.com - Photown News

Tags: [edit]

[USA], Jan 13 (ANI): Unites States President Donald Trump faced a barrage of questions about claims that he referred to the immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as "s***holes" in an immigration meeting at the...

22:28
Office Depot and OfficeMax Offering $28 Aftermarket iPhone Battery Replacements Until February
» ‎ MacRumors: Mac News and Rumors - All Stories

Tags: [edit]

Office Depot and OfficeMax today informed us they have lowered their iPhone battery replacement fee to $27.99 at select stores across the United States through February 4, 2018, undercutting Apple's $29 price by one dollar.

The lower price, down from $49.99 regularly, is applicable to the iPhone 5c, iPhone 5s, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, and iPhone SE, subject to battery availability and while supplies last.

Office Depot and OfficeMax promise same-day battery replacements. If the order is not completed by the end of regular store hours, the customer receives a repair discount of $25, according to fine print on its website.

One very important caveat is that Office Depot and OfficeMax are not Apple Authorized Service Providers, meaning their replacement batteries are not supplied by Apple, and having an aftermarket battery installed can void your iPhone's warranty, although iFixit argues that Apple cannot do so under U.S. law.

A spokesperson for Office Depot and OfficeMax informed us that their iPhone batteries are built to Apple's specifications for each iPhone model and added that all of their batteries carry a one-year warranty against defects.

We still highly recommend only having an Apple Store or Apple Authorized Service Provider replace your iPhone's battery, but Apple is currently running low on some batteries, and Office Depot and OfficeMax may be an option worth considering for customers with an iPhone that is already past its warranty.

Office Depot and OfficeMax offer iPhone battery replacements at hundreds of locations across the United States. Those interested can enter their ZIP code on Office Depot's website to find a participating location near them.

iFixit has also discounted its iPhone battery replacement kits to $29 or less as a do-it-yourself option, but again, we recommend letting a professional at Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider complete the process.

For customers who want to keep things official, read our guide on how to get your iPhone's battery replaced with an appointment at an Apple Store or Apple Authorized Service Provider. Apple also offers a mail-in option.

Related Roundups: iPhone 6s, iPhone 7, iPhone SEBuyer's Guide: iPhone 8 (Neutral), iPhone 8 (Neutral), iPhone SE (Don't Buy)
Discuss this article in our forums
22:28
Office Depot and OfficeMax Offering $28 Aftermarket iPhone Battery Replacements Until February
» ‎ MacRumors: Mac News and Rumors - All Stories

Tags: [edit]

Office Depot and OfficeMax today informed us they have lowered their iPhone battery replacement fee to $27.99 at select stores across the United States through February 4, 2018, undercutting Apple's $29 price by one dollar.

The lower price, down from $49.99 regularly, is applicable to the iPhone 5c, iPhone 5s, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, and iPhone SE, subject to battery availability and while supplies last.

Office Depot and OfficeMax promise same-day battery replacements. If the order is not completed by the end of regular store hours, the customer receives a repair discount of $25, according to fine print on its website.

One very important caveat is that Office Depot and OfficeMax are not Apple Authorized Service Providers, meaning their replacement batteries are not supplied by Apple, and having an aftermarket battery installed can void your iPhone's warranty, although iFixit argues that Apple cannot do so under U.S. law.

A spokesperson for Office Depot and OfficeMax informed us that their iPhone batteries are built to Apple's specifications for each iPhone model and added that all of their batteries carry a one-year warranty against defects.

We still highly recommend only having an Apple Store or Apple Authorized Service Provider replace your iPhone's battery, but Apple is currently running low on some batteries, and Office Depot and OfficeMax may be an option worth considering for customers with an iPhone that is already past its warranty.

Office Depot and OfficeMax offer iPhone battery replacements at hundreds of locations across the United States. Those interested can enter their ZIP code on Office Depot's website to find a participating location near them.

iFixit has also discounted its iPhone battery replacement kits to $29 or less as a do-it-yourself option, but again, we recommend letting a professional at Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider complete the process.

For customers who want to keep things official, read our guide on how to get your iPhone's battery replaced with an appointment at an Apple Store or Apple Authorized Service Provider. Apple also offers a mail-in option.

Related Roundups: iPhone 6s, iPhone 7, iPhone SEBuyer's Guide: iPhone 8 (Neutral), iPhone 8 (Neutral), iPhone SE (Don't Buy)
Discuss this article in our forums
22:28
Office Depot and OfficeMax Offering $28 Aftermarket iPhone Battery Replacements Until February
» ‎ MacRumors: Mac News and Rumors - All Stories

Tags: [edit]

Office Depot and OfficeMax today informed us they have lowered their iPhone battery replacement fee to $27.99 at select stores across the United States through February 4, 2018, undercutting Apple's $29 price by one dollar.

The lower price, down from $49.99 regularly, is applicable to the iPhone 5c, iPhone 5s, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, and iPhone SE, subject to battery availability and while supplies last.

Office Depot and OfficeMax promise same-day battery replacements. If the order is not completed by the end of regular store hours, the customer receives a repair discount of $25, according to fine print on its website.

One very important caveat is that Office Depot and OfficeMax are not Apple Authorized Service Providers, meaning their replacement batteries are not supplied by Apple, and having an aftermarket battery installed can void your iPhone's warranty, although iFixit argues that Apple cannot do so under U.S. law.

A spokesperson for Office Depot and OfficeMax informed us that their iPhone batteries are built to Apple's specifications for each iPhone model and added that all of their batteries carry a one-year warranty against defects.

We still highly recommend only having an Apple Store or Apple Authorized Service Provider replace your iPhone's battery, but Apple is currently running low on some batteries, and Office Depot and OfficeMax may be an option worth considering for customers with an iPhone that is already past its warranty.

Office Depot and OfficeMax offer iPhone battery replacements at hundreds of locations across the United States. Those interested can enter their ZIP code on Office Depot's website to find a participating location near them.

iFixit has also discounted its iPhone battery replacement kits to $29 or less as a do-it-yourself option, but again, we recommend letting a professional at Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider complete the process.

For customers who want to keep things official, read our guide on how to get your iPhone's battery replaced with an appointment at an Apple Store or Apple Authorized Service Provider. Apple also offers a mail-in option.

Related Roundups: iPhone 6s, iPhone 7, iPhone SEBuyer's Guide: iPhone 8 (Neutral), iPhone 8 (Neutral), iPhone SE (Don't Buy)
Discuss this article in our forums
22:20
Apple Shares New Video Highlighting Portrait Lighting on iPhone X
» ‎ MacRumors: Mac News and Rumors - All Stories

Tags: [edit]

Apple this afternoon uploaded a new iPhone X video to its YouTube channel, this time showing off the new Portrait Lighting mode on the iPhone X.

In the 38-second video entitled "A New Light," Apple explains that Portrait Lighting offers studio quality lighting effects without the studio, while also showing off each of the different Portrait Lighting options.

Portrait Lighting on iPhone X creates studio-quality lighting effects. See portraits and selfies in a whole new light.

Portrait Lighting is a feature available for both the iPhone X and the iPhone 8 Plus, but the iPhone X is the only device that offers Portrait Lighting effects for both the front and rear-facing cameras thanks to its front-facing TrueDepth lens system.

Apple's Portrait Lighting feature uses sophisticated algorithms to calculate how your facial features interact with light, to create unique lighting effects. There are several Portrait mode lighting presets, including Natural Light, Studio Light (lights up your face), Contour Light (adds dramatic shadows), Stage Light (spotlights your face against a dark background), and Stage Light Mono (Stage Light, but in black and white).

Portrait Lighting is one of the new features that Apple has focused on a few times before in past videos, sharing Portrait Lighting tutorials and demonstrations of Portrait Lighting in action. Most of Apple's prior videos focused on the iPhone 8 Plus, though, while this one is specific to iPhone X.

Related Roundup: iPhone XTag: Apple adsBuyer's Guide: iPhone X (Buy Now)
Discuss this article in our forums
22:20
Apple Shares New Video Highlighting Portrait Lighting on iPhone X
» ‎ MacRumors: Mac News and Rumors - All Stories

Tags: [edit]

Apple this afternoon uploaded a new iPhone X video to its YouTube channel, this time showing off the new Portrait Lighting mode on the iPhone X.

In the 38-second video entitled "A New Light," Apple explains that Portrait Lighting offers studio quality lighting effects without the studio, while also showing off each of the different Portrait Lighting options.

Portrait Lighting on iPhone X creates studio-quality lighting effects. See portraits and selfies in a whole new light.

Portrait Lighting is a feature available for both the iPhone X and the iPhone 8 Plus, but the iPhone X is the only device that offers Portrait Lighting effects for both the front and rear-facing cameras thanks to its front-facing TrueDepth lens system.

Apple's Portrait Lighting feature uses sophisticated algorithms to calculate how your facial features interact with light, to create unique lighting effects. There are several Portrait mode lighting presets, including Natural Light, Studio Light (lights up your face), Contour Light (adds dramatic shadows), Stage Light (spotlights your face against a dark background), and Stage Light Mono (Stage Light, but in black and white).

Portrait Lighting is one of the new features that Apple has focused on a few times before in past videos, sharing Portrait Lighting tutorials and demonstrations of Portrait Lighting in action. Most of Apple's prior videos focused on the iPhone 8 Plus, though, while this one is specific to iPhone X.

Related Roundup: iPhone XTag: Apple adsBuyer's Guide: iPhone X (Buy Now)
Discuss this article in our forums
22:20
Apple Shares New Video Highlighting Portrait Lighting on iPhone X
» ‎ MacRumors: Mac News and Rumors - All Stories

Tags: [edit]

Apple this afternoon uploaded a new iPhone X video to its YouTube channel, this time showing off the new Portrait Lighting mode on the iPhone X.

In the 38-second video entitled "A New Light," Apple explains that Portrait Lighting offers studio quality lighting effects without the studio, while also showing off each of the different Portrait Lighting options.

Portrait Lighting on iPhone X creates studio-quality lighting effects. See portraits and selfies in a whole new light.

Portrait Lighting is a feature available for both the iPhone X and the iPhone 8 Plus, but the iPhone X is the only device that offers Portrait Lighting effects for both the front and rear-facing cameras thanks to its front-facing TrueDepth lens system.

Apple's Portrait Lighting feature uses sophisticated algorithms to calculate how your facial features interact with light, to create unique lighting effects. There are several Portrait mode lighting presets, including Natural Light, Studio Light (lights up your face), Contour Light (adds dramatic shadows), Stage Light (spotlights your face against a dark background), and Stage Light Mono (Stage Light, but in black and white).

Portrait Lighting is one of the new features that Apple has focused on a few times before in past videos, sharing Portrait Lighting tutorials and demonstrations of Portrait Lighting in action. Most of Apple's prior videos focused on the iPhone 8 Plus, though, while this one is specific to iPhone X.

Related Roundup: iPhone XTag: Apple adsBuyer's Guide: iPhone X (Buy Now)
Discuss this article in our forums

22:10
Humanscale M/Connect 2 updates split-level dock with 5K monitor support, USB-C charging
» ‎ AppleInsider - Frontpage News

Tags: [edit]

Ergonomic design firm Humanscale has updated one of its compact docks for the workplace, with the M/Connect 2 retaining the split docking station design while introducing USB-C charging and enabling the connection of higher-resolution monitors to the accessory.
22:10
Humanscale M/Connect 2 updates split-level dock with 5K monitor support, USB-C charging
» ‎ AppleInsider - Frontpage News

Tags: [edit]

Ergonomic design firm Humanscale has updated one of its compact docks for the workplace, with the M/Connect 2 retaining the split docking station design while introducing USB-C charging and enabling the connection of higher-resolution monitors to the accessory.
22:10
Humanscale M/Connect 2 updates split-level dock with 5K monitor support, USB-C charging
» ‎ AppleInsider - Frontpage News

Tags: [edit]

Ergonomic design firm Humanscale has updated one of its compact docks for the workplace, with the M/Connect 2 retaining the split docking station design while introducing USB-C charging and enabling the connection of higher-resolution monitors to the accessory.

22:03
Opinion: The Secret to a Happy Marriage Is Knowing How to Fight
» ‎ NYT > Home Page

Tags: [edit]

Planning for conflict is more important than planning a wedding.
22:03
Opinion: The Secret to a Happy Marriage Is Knowing How to Fight
» ‎ NYT > Home Page

Tags: [edit]

Planning for conflict is more important than planning a wedding.
22:03
Opinion: The Secret to a Happy Marriage Is Knowing How to Fight
» ‎ NYT > Home Page

Tags: [edit]

Planning for conflict is more important than planning a wedding.

22:03
Opinion: The Secret to a Happy Marriage Is Knowing How to Fight
» ‎ NYT > Home Page

Tags: [edit]

Planning for conflict is more important than planning a wedding.

22:00
Marketing Day: Google AdSense issues, social predictions for 2018 & programmatic ads
» ‎ Marketing Land - Internet Marketing News, Strategies & Tips

Tags: [edit]

Here's our recap of what happened in online marketing today, as reported on Marketing Land and other places across the web.

Please visit Marketing Land for the full article.

22:00
Marketing Day: Google AdSense issues, social predictions for 2018 & programmatic ads
» ‎ Marketing Land » Marketing Day

Tags: [edit]
Here’s our recap of what happened in online marketing today, as reported on Marketing Land and other places across the web.
From Marketing Land:
- Survey: 66% of consumers want brands to take social and political positions
  Jan 12, 2018 by Greg Sterling
  Survey from Sprout Social found liberals were more likely to reward or punish brands for taking public stands.
- For Google AdSense publishers experiencing recent ad fulfillment issues, crawler access might be the problem
  Jan 12, 2018 by Ginny Marvin
  AdSense has made some changes in the way it buys ads on the Google Display Network that are impacting monetization for some publishers.
- From breaking down walled gardens to augmented reality adoption: Five predictions for social in 2018
  Jan 12, 2018 by Laura Collins
  What’s in store for social media marketers in the new year? From Instagram’s dominance to growth in AR, columnist Laura Collins predicts the trends that will shape 2018.
- ‘Consent is unworkable’ for programmatic ads in the era of GDPR
  Jan 12, 2018 by Barry Levine
  PageFair says the current digital ecosystem is dying, and here’s how to fix it.
- Can autonomous stores catch on?
  Jan 12, 2018 by Barry Levine
  These unmanned physical stores are being tested and launched, as are technologies replacing humans. But will shoppers want them?
- Facebook moves to ‘fix’ the News Feed by de-emphasizing commercial content
  Jan 12, 2018 by Greg Sterling
  The company said it’s trying to prevent posts from “businesses, brands and media” from crowding out “the personal moments that lead us to connect more with each other.”
- Report: Google to step up reviews of YouTube premium videos
  Jan 11, 2018 by Ginny Marvin
  Sources say content posted to YouTube Channels included in the Google Preferred advertising will get added scrutiny.
Recent Headlines From MarTech Today, Our Sister Site Dedicated To Marketing Technology:
- IAB Tech Lab releases OpenDirect 2.0 and OpenData 1.0
  Jan 12, 2018 by Barry Levine
  OpenDirect is the latest spec for direct sales between publishers and advertisers, and OpenData offers unified terms for campaign analytics
- ‘Marketing doesn’t drive revenue, sales does’ (and other myths)
  Jan 12, 2018 by Sonjoy Ganguly
  Gone are the days when sales took all the glory after closing a deal. Columnist Sonjoy Ganguly believes marketing and sales need to work hand-in-hand to effectively drive ROI.
Online Marketing News From Around The Web:
- 6 Email Template Design Tips You Should Always Follow, AWeber
- Clients are ‘running before walking’: Confessions of an agency exec on Amazon’s media business, Digiday
- Facebook, Google, Amazon: Which Ad Channel Is Right for Your Brand?, Practical Ecommerce
- How Content Marketing Can Save Your Digital Marketing Strategy, Content Marketing Institute
- How to Incorporate Amazon into Your Digital Strategy, 3Q Digital
- Shopping app use jumped 54% in 2017, Mobile Marketer
- Think Twice About Automating Your Marketing, CMS Wire
- What’s the Future of Email? Questions and Answers for 2018, MarketingProfs

21:59
BrandPost: 5 technology trends affecting GRC — and how to navigate them effectively
» ‎ CIO

Tags: [edit]

Managing risk and compliance is a challenge for any large business, but the rapid changes affecting this department due to technology have raised the stakes even higher. Businesses are collecting and processing more data than ever, from more sources, and they’re sharing it more widely than ever, with partners, customers, and suppliers. With all this data moving around, internally, externally, and in the cloud, it’s clear that Governance, Risk, and Compliance (to use its official name) is at an inflection point. Today’s enterprise must reevaluate their traditional GRC practices in order to keep pace with the risks.

To read this article in full, please click here
21:59
BrandPost: 5 technology trends affecting GRC — and how to navigate them effectively
» ‎ CIO

Tags: [edit]

Managing risk and compliance is a challenge for any large business, but the rapid changes affecting this department due to technology have raised the stakes even higher. Businesses are collecting and processing more data than ever, from more sources, and they’re sharing it more widely than ever, with partners, customers, and suppliers. With all this data moving around, internally, externally, and in the cloud, it’s clear that Governance, Risk, and Compliance (to use its official name) is at an inflection point. Today’s enterprise must reevaluate their traditional GRC practices in order to keep pace with the risks.

To read this article in full, please click here
21:59
BrandPost: 5 technology trends affecting GRC — and how to navigate them effectively
» ‎ CIO

Tags: [edit]

Managing risk and compliance is a challenge for any large business, but the rapid changes affecting this department due to technology have raised the stakes even higher. Businesses are collecting and processing more data than ever, from more sources, and they’re sharing it more widely than ever, with partners, customers, and suppliers. With all this data moving around, internally, externally, and in the cloud, it’s clear that Governance, Risk, and Compliance (to use its official name) is at an inflection point. Today’s enterprise must reevaluate their traditional GRC practices in order to keep pace with the risks.

To read this article in full, please click here

21:55
Ny centrumutvecklare till Centrala Stadsrum: "Står inför en spännande period"
» ‎ Senaste nyheterna för Falun på dt.se

Tags: [edit]

Centrumföreningen Centrala Stadsrum i Falun har anställt Lasse Westin som ny centrumutvecklare. Han efterträder Patricia Wallin Granhagen som går till en heltidstjänst på parkeringsbolaget Falu P.

21:45
Detective Pikachu Gets a Western Release, Huge Amiibo
» ‎ Geek.com

Tags: [edit]

We know that a live-action Detective Pikachu movie is in the works. Perhaps it’s no surprise the game which inspired the film is finally being released in the West. This isn’t a regular […]

The post Detective Pikachu Gets a Western Release, Huge Amiibo appeared first on Geek.com.
21:45
Detective Pikachu Gets a Western Release, Huge Amiibo
» ‎ Geek.com

Tags: [edit]

We know that a live-action Detective Pikachu movie is in the works. Perhaps it’s no surprise the game which inspired the film is finally being released in the West. This isn’t a regular […]

The post Detective Pikachu Gets a Western Release, Huge Amiibo appeared first on Geek.com.

21:43
A Female Senator Figured Out One Small Way to Fight Sexual Harassment
» ‎ Stories from Slate

Tags: [edit]

Sen. Mazie Hirono, a Democrat from Hawaii, revealed this week, without fanfare or drama, a new series of questions she intends to ask every nominee who appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee: Anybody being vetted for federal judgeships will now be asked about sexual harassment and assault.

As Hirono explained, her decision is in response to the surge of sexual harassment and assault reports that started in Hollywood but have also touched those with lifetime appointments in the federal judiciary. Her intention going forward is to use some of her limited time to ask every nominee, judicial or otherwise, who appears before her in a confirmation hearing the two following questions: “Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?” and “Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?”

She got her first opportunity on Wednesday, when she posed them to Kurt Engelhardt, nominated for a seat at the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals:

Engelhardt answered, “No Senator,” to both questions. But for Hirono, this is her way of creating a record. She is laying down a public marker that this matters and must be spoken aloud.

In her statement, Sen. Hirono noted that in his year-end statement on the state of the judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly noted that “Events in recent months have illuminated the depth of the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace, and events in the past few weeks have made clear that the judicial branch is not immune.” Roberts was presumably referencing reports about Judge Alex Kozinski―a judge on the 9^th Circuit—who retired after reports of inappropriate touching and comments directed at clerks and other women surfaced in December 2017. Roberts has convened a task force, named on Friday, to examine the problem.

But this isn’t sufficient for the senator from Hawaii, who wants to be clear that the on-ramp to the federal judiciary is not free from oversight on these issues. I asked Hirono, in a phone interview Wednesday afternoon, why she was choosing this moment to take this stand, in this way, at this time. She replied:

It was one of the moments of my life when I had to think about the behavior women have had to put up with from time immemorial, and suddenly we are in this moment and I just didn’t want all of it swept under the rug again. So I asked the question of every nominee, not just the judicial nominees, although they will have lifetime appointments, but every nominee should expect to be asked in future. Today the nominee said no and it was no, and that was that. And that is how it should be. I want them to know that this is about to become normal.

When I asked the senator whether it was fair that a woman in the Senate was shouldering the burden of systematically addressing this issue (Hirono was one of the first senators to call for Al Franken to retire), she replied, “Yes. I did think to myself that if a woman didn’t ask about this it wouldn’t get asked, yes.” She told me it is her intention to ask this question of all nominees, male and female, going forward.

Finally, I asked Sen. Hirono, who is a lawyer, whether this #MeToo moment and her confirmation-hearing questions can serve as an adequate substitute for actual legal and investigative processes needed to smoke out workplace harassment. Her response:

We are still very much in a development phase, yes. We still have Title VII which prohibits workplace discrimination. We have the case law and the statutes. But in today’s hearings, those words needed to be implemented, to be asked and answered, until we have case law that really covers what is happening. This is all still evolving. And as I said, women have been putting up with this behavior since time immemorial. What I am trying to do is keep attention paid to this issue right now. I know that as we go along, we will have more effective ways to prevent and even, if need be, to punish this behavior. And of course it will all have to start with education. But we are all part of the culture. So if we say it, we become aware, and we can become more aware as we develop processes and ways to fight back.

What Hirono is trying to do, and what everyone on the Senate Judiciary Committee should be striving to do, is simple but vitally important: If, as we learned last month, there is virtually no off-ramp for lifetime-appointed judges who behave in inappropriate ways toward women, serious scrutiny on the front end becomes even more crucial. This is particularly relevant because in recent months, we’ve seen a pattern of shoddy Trump judicial nominees with shocking records stacked up in panels without time for questioning, just as bipartisan systems to assess their fitness are jettisoned. And this is happening at precisely the moment when we learn that predation in the judicial branch can occur in plain sight over decades, without systems to report, investigate, and check it. Considering all of this, the Senate should not be abandoning its constitutional duty to confirm fit judges; it should be strengthening it. And yet, the nominees sail through because judicial fitness is a norm that has all but vanished.

Mazie Hirono has no illusions that her sequence of two questions will topple any nominee. That isn’t the point. She is laying down a moral marker, putting the nominees, and her colleagues, and the country on notice that the only way to change the culture of harassment, including on the federal bench, is by asking the questions, getting on-the-record answers, and making it clear that this will not be swept back under the carpet.
21:43
A Female Senator Figured Out One Small Way to Fight Sexual Harassment
» ‎ Stories from Slate

Tags: [edit]

Sen. Mazie Hirono, a Democrat from Hawaii, revealed this week, without fanfare or drama, a new series of questions she intends to ask every nominee who appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee: Anybody being vetted for federal judgeships will now be asked about sexual harassment and assault.

As Hirono explained, her decision is in response to the surge of sexual harassment and assault reports that started in Hollywood but have also touched those with lifetime appointments in the federal judiciary. Her intention going forward is to use some of her limited time to ask every nominee, judicial or otherwise, who appears before her in a confirmation hearing the two following questions: “Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?” and “Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?”

She got her first opportunity on Wednesday, when she posed them to Kurt Engelhardt, nominated for a seat at the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals:

Engelhardt answered, “No Senator,” to both questions. But for Hirono, this is her way of creating a record. She is laying down a public marker that this matters and must be spoken aloud.

In her statement, Sen. Hirono noted that in his year-end statement on the state of the judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly noted that “Events in recent months have illuminated the depth of the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace, and events in the past few weeks have made clear that the judicial branch is not immune.” Roberts was presumably referencing reports about Judge Alex Kozinski―a judge on the 9^th Circuit—who retired after reports of inappropriate touching and comments directed at clerks and other women surfaced in December 2017. Roberts has convened a task force, named on Friday, to examine the problem.

But this isn’t sufficient for the senator from Hawaii, who wants to be clear that the on-ramp to the federal judiciary is not free from oversight on these issues. I asked Hirono, in a phone interview Wednesday afternoon, why she was choosing this moment to take this stand, in this way, at this time. She replied:

It was one of the moments of my life when I had to think about the behavior women have had to put up with from time immemorial, and suddenly we are in this moment and I just didn’t want all of it swept under the rug again. So I asked the question of every nominee, not just the judicial nominees, although they will have lifetime appointments, but every nominee should expect to be asked in future. Today the nominee said no and it was no, and that was that. And that is how it should be. I want them to know that this is about to become normal.

When I asked the senator whether it was fair that a woman in the Senate was shouldering the burden of systematically addressing this issue (Hirono was one of the first senators to call for Al Franken to retire), she replied, “Yes. I did think to myself that if a woman didn’t ask about this it wouldn’t get asked, yes.” She told me it is her intention to ask this question of all nominees, male and female, going forward.

Finally, I asked Sen. Hirono, who is a lawyer, whether this #MeToo moment and her confirmation-hearing questions can serve as an adequate substitute for actual legal and investigative processes needed to smoke out workplace harassment. Her response:

We are still very much in a development phase, yes. We still have Title VII which prohibits workplace discrimination. We have the case law and the statutes. But in today’s hearings, those words needed to be implemented, to be asked and answered, until we have case law that really covers what is happening. This is all still evolving. And as I said, women have been putting up with this behavior since time immemorial. What I am trying to do is keep attention paid to this issue right now. I know that as we go along, we will have more effective ways to prevent and even, if need be, to punish this behavior. And of course it will all have to start with education. But we are all part of the culture. So if we say it, we become aware, and we can become more aware as we develop processes and ways to fight back.

What Hirono is trying to do, and what everyone on the Senate Judiciary Committee should be striving to do, is simple but vitally important: If, as we learned last month, there is virtually no off-ramp for lifetime-appointed judges who behave in inappropriate ways toward women, serious scrutiny on the front end becomes even more crucial. This is particularly relevant because in recent months, we’ve seen a pattern of shoddy Trump judicial nominees with shocking records stacked up in panels without time for questioning, just as bipartisan systems to assess their fitness are jettisoned. And this is happening at precisely the moment when we learn that predation in the judicial branch can occur in plain sight over decades, without systems to report, investigate, and check it. Considering all of this, the Senate should not be abandoning its constitutional duty to confirm fit judges; it should be strengthening it. And yet, the nominees sail through because judicial fitness is a norm that has all but vanished.

Mazie Hirono has no illusions that her sequence of two questions will topple any nominee. That isn’t the point. She is laying down a moral marker, putting the nominees, and her colleagues, and the country on notice that the only way to change the culture of harassment, including on the federal bench, is by asking the questions, getting on-the-record answers, and making it clear that this will not be swept back under the carpet.

21:40
Brand bröt ut i bastu utanför Njutånger – väggen fick brytas upp
» ‎ Senaste nyheterna för Hudiksvall på helahalsingland.se

Tags: [edit]

Vid klockan 21.30 på fredagen larmades räddningstjänsten om en brand i en bastu utanför Njutånger.

21:38
Inside the Global Relay Race to Deliver Moly-99
» ‎ NYT > Home Page

Tags: [edit]

The isotope is a cancer-detecting necessity, but it decays within days and isn’t made in North America. A company is rushing to build a plant in Wisconsin to change that.
21:38
Inside the Global Relay Race to Deliver Moly-99
» ‎ NYT > Home Page

Tags: [edit]

The isotope is a cancer-detecting necessity, but it decays within days and isn’t made in North America. A company is rushing to build a plant in Wisconsin to change that.

21:38
Inside the Global Relay Race to Deliver Moly-99
» ‎ NYT > Home Page

Tags: [edit]

The isotope is a cancer-detecting necessity, but it decays within days and isn’t made in North America. A company is rushing to build a plant in Wisconsin to change that.
21:38
Inside the Global Relay Race to Deliver Moly-99
» ‎ NYT > Home Page

Tags: [edit]

The isotope is a cancer-detecting necessity, but it decays within days and isn’t made in North America. A company is rushing to build a plant in Wisconsin to change that.
21:38
Inside the Global Relay Race to Deliver Moly-99
» ‎ NYT > Home Page

Tags: [edit]

The isotope is a cancer-detecting necessity, but it decays within days and isn’t made in North America. A company is rushing to build a plant in Wisconsin to change that.

21:37
The Best Robots of CES 2018
» ‎ Geek.com

Tags: [edit]

Every year we get a peak at the latest and most exciting developments in tech at the Consumer Electronics Show. In many ways, it is the grand showcase for what the best software […]

The post The Best Robots of CES 2018 appeared first on Geek.com.

Skip to page: 1 2 3 ... 31

← January 11 (5646 items) January 13 (457 items) →