Wednesday, July 31, 2019

9 Legit Interesting Moments in a Very Personal Democratic Debate

Barack Obama wasn't on the debate stage Wednesday night, but he was on everyone's mind. And for what felt like the first time in this already frenzied and strange 2020 presidential campaign, it wasn't all fawning and flattery.

Before the candidates could discuss the legacy of the last Democrat to win the White House, however, they had to overcome protesters screaming at them from the audience.



Members of the crowd began chanting loudly early on, interrupting both New Jersey Senator Cory Booker—in what might have been a spillover critique for New York Mayor Bill de Blasio—and former Vice President Joe Biden. They were apparently expressing anger and sorrow at the failure of the system to punish Daniel Pantaleo, the NYPD cop who killed Eric Garner in 2014 by way of illegal chokehold and remains on the job. It wasn't the last time Tri-State policing issues got extended play in what was ostensibly a conversation about big, national ideas. But this was a more acerbic and combative affair than Tuesday's ideological slugfest. Policy often fell by the wayside in favor of the personal.

If nothing else, the palpable mutual dislike made the whole thing a lot easier to watch.

The shift from the wonkier vibe on Tuesday was partly a product of personnel—Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders were noticeably absent, and their peers struggled to talk about healthcare with even a shred of their passion or coherence. Kamala Harris, who seemed to help her campaign with a strong performance last go around, appeared unable to effectively communicate her ever-changing Medicare for All plan, and the relatively thin, nearly one-hour combative back-and-forth between the contenders on the issue did little to offer any clarity on a topic polls consistently show is near the top of the nation's collective mind.

And while much of the focus leading up to Wednesday evening was on how much and how aggressively Biden and Harris would spar on race and crime—and whether Cory Booker would get in on the action—it wasn't actually necessary for anyone to go after the vice president very hard. He once again fumbled over his words repeatedly and did little to assuage concerns over his age and mental fitness.

Others found their opportunities to shine, of course, with businessman Andrew Yang enjoying a few moments of simple policy clarity—I will give you money! is still his best selling point. Booker also seemed to realize that political debates are about vaguely corny one-liners, and delivered enough to raise hope that New Jersey's native son isn't going to go down without a fight.

Here are the moments to know about.

Biden didn't wait until the debate even started to remind people how grandpa-esque he is.

"Go easy on me, kid," he said to Harris, as he shook her hand. Though a hot mic could have been to blame, Biden certainly didn't take long to use a condescending moniker—just weeks after being critiqued for saying that a segregationist senator "never called me 'boy,' he always called me 'son,'" invoking what many, including Booker, considered to be a reference to a racist term.

Yang anointed himself the opposite of Donald Trump early on.

While his universal basic income policy plank is fairly well known at this point—or at least the thing everyone who knew him knew was central to his campaign—he keeps finding ways to be funny about it.

Protesters shouted "Fire Pantaleo" at Booker, though the demand might have made more sense had it been aimed at de Blasio.

Nonetheless, the NYC mayor suggested justice would be served in 30 days, and the mayor's campaign felt compelled to tweet about it. Whether he will actually, you know, do something five years later remains to be seen.

Julián Castro was the first to aggressively take on Biden—and Obama.

Castro tore into the Obama administration's immigration policy, setting off a surprisingly anti-Obama stretch of the evening. But not before he was interrupted by more protesters, shouting about deportations under Obama.

Biden appeared to fumble on the specifics of his proposed healthcare plan.

He seemed to confuse a $1,000 deductible cap with a $1,000 copay. Jokes were had.

Biden went after Booker over his criminal-justice record.

And though Biden had what appeared to be a dossier of opposition research at his thumb, Booker did what he does best: He uttered a hokey yet easily quotable analogy.

Harris's criminal-justice record came under fire, too.

Both Tulsi Gabbard, a military veteran and congresswoman from Hawaii, and Biden chose this route. Harris's career as a prosecutor remains a vulnerability for the surging progressive, who needs to peel off Biden support among black women in particular to break through.

Even if the planet is dying, New Jersey is alive.

Booker declared that the bar for having a good stance on climate change was remarkably low in what might have been his best TV moment so far this campaign. (He had some other solid one-liners, too.)

It wouldn't be a Democratic debate without many denunciations of Trump as racist.

But there nonetheless appeared to be at least one first:

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Alex Norcia on Twitter.



from VICE https://ift.tt/2GSblP9
via cheap web hosting

This 'Twin Peaks'-Inspired Open World Game Came Out in 1998, And Now It's Playable In English

David Lynch’s classic television show Twin Peaks has had an outsized influence on video games. Famous games such as Alan Wake, Deadly Premonition, and Silent Hill all took cues from Lynch’s surreal portrait of the American Pacific Northwest.

One game—Mizzurna Falls—has remained a relative unknown in the Lynch-inspired gaming canon until recently, however, thanks to dedicated fans.

Developer Human Entertainment released Mizzurna Falls on the PlayStation in 1998 in Japan. It never got a full English translation, but it became a cult title and fans have been working to translate it for years. On Tuesday, a mostly fully localized version of Mizzurna Falls was finally released. What that means is that English-speakers can finally play Mizzurna Falls.

Mizzurna Falls tells the story of Matthew, a kid in a small town who’s trying to solve the disappearance of classmate Emma Lowland. Matthew explores the open world of Mizzurna Falls, talking to people, investigating, and fighting against a clock that counts down from seven days. Once the time’s up, the game is over.

A freelance translator who goes by “Resident Evie” online stumbled across the game in 2015 and began translating the script and playing through it on YouTube. Evie was looking for a follow-up to Deadly Premonition, and loved Mizzurna Falls so much that she dedicated her free time to translating the game in full.

Evie tracked her progress on Tumblr and caught the attention of “Gemini,” an indie developer with a penchant for hacking old PlayStation games. Gemini took Evie’s translations and began to hack them into Mizzurna Falls. Gemini didn’t finish the job, but he did release his source code and files.

“Starplayer,” another fan, picked up the source code from Gemini’s GitHub repository and converted it into a patch for the existing Mizzurna Falls ROM . “It was a bit of a mess, with some missing dependencies and non working methods and no comments, but I managed to make it work, while avoiding a mental breakdown by an inch,” starplayer said in a FAQ about the project.

The localization isn’t perfect. The map and portions of the menu aren’t translated and starplayer warns that there might be game-breaking bugs. A translated map is included with the release to help players navigate Mizzurna Falls, however, and the game is definitely playable to completion. Just remember to save often.

The curious can download the translation patch for Mizzurna Falls here and dive into another one of the curious virtual worlds inspired by David Lynch.



from VICE https://ift.tt/31ao0oi
via cheap web hosting

RIP Woodstock 50, a Disaster of a Festival that Never Was

At long last, Woodstock 50 is finally canceled. According to reports by Variety and Pitchfork, vendors and stakeholders were notified that the scheduled event commemorating the historic festival's 50th anniversary was no longer happening. In a press release, organizers wrote, “We are saddened that a series of unforeseen setbacks has made it impossible to put on a festival we imagined with the great line-up we had booked and the social engagement we were anticipating.”

This is a relief for people who have been watching this bonkers saga unfold. The proposed event, which was scheduled for August 16-18, has been plagued by scandals, setbacks, and pure incompetence since its initial announcement but now, it’s finally done for. Just last week, the town of Vernon, NY for the fourth time denied an application to host the three day nostalgia concert at the racing track and casino Vernon Downs. While that should’ve been the end of it, organizer Michael Lang announced that it would move to Merriweather Post Pavilion in Columbia, Maryland and would be free to the public. That seemed unlikely as a whole wave of artists, who per the contract were getting paid anyway, dropped out like Jay Z, Miley Cyrus, The Raconteurs, and more. And now it's really, truly over.

Read an exhaustive play-by-play of all the Woodstock 50-related drama and take a shower thinking about how it could’ve been an even bigger disaster than Woodstock 99 had it actually went on as planned.



from VICE https://ift.tt/335RtkL
via cheap web hosting

Equifax May Not Pay You That $125 Settlement Because It Screwed Too Many People

Last week, the FTC announced that the 147 million consumers whose data was leaked as a result of the Equifax hack would be able to obtain $125 or more as part of a settlement. But after millions of consumers took them up on the offer, the agency is now backing away from the promise.

As part of the original settlement, the FTC stated that consumers would be able to net either a $125 cash payout or ten years of free credit reporting. Users were told they’d also be able to recoup up to $20,000 in compensation if they were able to prove that the leaked data (which included social security numbers) was used to steal their identity.

That was then, this is now.

A new FTC statement and blog post proclaim that because of “overwhelming” and “unexpected” public interest in the offer, users may not get the $125 they were originally promised. The agency is now strongly urging users to take the free credit monitoring instead.

“The pot of money that pays for that part of the settlement is $31 million,” the FTC said. “A large number of claims for cash instead of credit monitoring means only one thing: each person who takes the money option will wind up only getting a small amount of money. Nowhere near the $125 they could have gotten if there hadn’t been such an enormous number of claims filed.”

In short, the $125 originally promised by the agency could wind up being as little as $5, if you wind up getting anything at all.

The FTC did not respond to a request for comment as to whether this issue reflects a flaw with the settlement as designed, or why the FTC found the surge of interest “unexpected.”

In its blog post, the FTC works overtime to convince the public that free credit reporting (from an industry already shown to do a poor job protecting private consumer data) is better than cold, hard cash.

“Frankly, the free credit monitoring is worth a lot more—the market value would be hundreds of dollars a year,” the FTC claims. “And this monitoring service is probably stronger and more helpful than any you may have already, because it monitors your credit report at all three nationwide credit reporting agencies, and it comes with up to $1 million in identity theft insurance and individualized identity restoration services.”

The FTC notes that while the money set aside for the general cash payout option was capped at $31 million as part of the settlement, those who had their identity stolen may still be able to recoup their costs for time spent getting their life back in order. This segment of compensation may be capped as high as $425 million, the FTC said.

“Say you had to pay for your own credit freezes after the breach, or you hired someone to help you deal with identity theft. The settlement has a larger pool of money for just those people,” the FTC says. “If you’re one of them, use your documents to submit your claim.”

While free credit reporting and $1 million in identity theft insurance isn’t nothing, the sudden cash shortage suggests that the FTC’s original settlement didn’t go far enough in compensating consumers for one of the biggest data breaches in American history.



from VICE https://ift.tt/2YiLx9l
via cheap web hosting

Clever ‘Mario Maker’ Fan Adds Desperately Missed Feature: World Maps

When I think about old Mario games, one of the first things that comes to mind are those beautiful world maps. The hypnotic bouncing of sprites, the highly underrated musical bops. The world map, introduced in Super Mario Bros 3. and a franchise staple ever since, is a way for Nintendo to weave a connective tissue between levels, and give them a thematic framing. It’s also not something that’s in Super Mario Maker or it’s sequel—officially, anyway.

If you’re willing to jump through a few hoops, however, it is possible to create a world map, and once you’ve played with one, its absence from Mario Maker 2 is all the more frustrating.

World Map Builder comes from developer Seve Savoie Teruel, and delivers exactly what it proposes. Through a simple drag-and-drop interface, designers create their own map, stylized after Super Mario Bros. 3, and effortlessly guide players from one level to the next.

OK, maybe “effortlessly” is a little hyperbolic. Because World Map Builder has to work within the constraints Nintendo has placed on Mario Maker—it’s not like Nintendo has a public set of tools or APIs for people to play with—Teruel was forced to get creative to make this work.

Because it exists outside Mario Maker, which means “finishing” a stage won’t push you towards the next stage in the game itself, World Map Builder came up with another way to gate progress. At the end of a stage, designers place an “exit code” made up four items: donut block, note block, fire flower, key. The order of the items is important, because when a player then punches them into a map, it “unlocks” the next stage and reveals the level code.

The map is accessed via web browser, and works fine on phones, too.

Teruel told me he doesn’t have an “endgame” for World Map Builder because people keep suggesting new ideas. (For example, it’s now possible to track lives from stage-to-stage.)

World maps in Mario games are functionally similar to playlists. You can take players on a curated journey, where ideas and themes naturally, rhythmically build on one another over the course of a world. Mario Maker 2 offers neither to designers, to the game’s detriment.

You’ll also notice World Map Builder, despite including sprites that very much look like they came from Super Mario Bros 3., absolutely does not feature any sprites ripped from Super Mario Bros. 3. This is on purpose; Nintendo is notorious for shutting down public-facing fan projects, and Teruel hopes the lack of official sprites means he’ll avoid their legal wrath.

“It's a useless site without Mario Maker,” said Teruel, “so it’s a symbiotic relationship that only benefits Nintendo. But it's Nintendo.”

It is possible to add custom sprites to World Map Builder, however. So... you know.

In any case, for the moment, World Map Builder lives. In a just world, Nintendo let this quietly live, take some notes, and put something better into Mario Maker 2, but more than likely, this remains a cool, niche thing that gestures at an even better Mario Maker we’ll never play.

Follow Patrick on Twitter. If you know anything interesting happening in Mario Maker, drop an email: patrick.klepek@vice.com. He's also available privately on Signal.



from VICE https://ift.tt/332VfM0
via cheap web hosting

Marianne Williamson Isn't Just Some Joke

Marianne Williamson is not a serious candidate for president. The spiritualist and self-help icon is polling around 0 percent, and her message—a crunchy mix of New Age pronouncements and denunciations of Donald Trump—don't seem likely to appeal to anyone without one foot in the astral plane. While some observers have compared her outsider campaign to Trump's successful effort, the reality TV host had strong polling performances out of the gate starting in 2015 and gave Republican voters a version of what they had been hearing on Fox News for years. Williamson, on the other hand, seems utterly outside politics.

That's why candidates should pay attention to what she's doing.



Tuesday night's Democratic debate was marked by a lot of conflict between progressive candidates who back expansive programs like Medicare for All—chiefly Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders—and moderates who derided these plans as too expensive or not politically viable. Though the format (and aggressive moderators) made this argument sometimes difficult to untangle, there are serious questions, both political and practical, about the best way to get to a point where all Americans have health insurance.

But there's also a serious question about whether this kind of argument is even worthwhile right now. In one of the debate's most notable moments, Williamson talked about how Trump had "gutted the Clean Water Act," a move poised to disproportionately harm communities of color like Flint, Michigan. She went on: "If you think any of this wonkiness is going to deal with this dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred that this president is bringing up in this country, then I’m afraid that the Democrats are going to see some very dark days."

Many Democratic voters want to hear details about policy and what their candidates would do in the White House. But they also want a counter to Trumpism, which to left-leaning people can feel like a weight pressing down from the sky. When Williamson says, "We need more than a political-insider game and wonkiness and intellectual argument. Those things will not defeat Donald Trump. We need some radical truth-telling," she is speaking to the idea that a political campaign is much more than a collection of policies. It's a way to inspire people, to break through apathy and cynicism.

That's not to say the other Democratic candidates are uninspiring. And the critique of Democrats as soulless wonks is hardly original. But what Williamson showed was that this line of thinking powerfully connects with voters. She was clearly able to break through in a way that, for example, John Hickenlooper was not—she was the most searched-for candidate on Google after the debate. It's almost certainly because she's unafraid of embracing big, abstract ideas and using vivid language like "dark psychic force" that many mainstream politicians might be afraid of.

That’s not to say we should just blindly embrace Williamson. She has a history of saying vile things about fat people and spreading dangerous myths about antidepressants and vaccines. She's also been called out for supposedly once telling AIDS patients to skip their meds, a charge she denies. If she were a viable candidate as Trump was in 2016, Democrats would need to band together to combat her anti-science views.

But while voters probably won't ever warm to Williamson enough to make her a credible candidate, her ability to get Democrats to stand up and listen, to wake up a little bit after three years of Trump, shouldn't be dismissed. Looking and sounding "presidential" in the old sense doesn't work anymore—just ask the dozen white male elected officials in the polling basement with Williamson, or just ask Trump. Everyone understands her when she says there's a "dark psychic force" unleashed upon the country, and everyone knows that mere wonkiness won't fix it. If you won't engage in psychic warfare, get off the stage.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Harry Cheadle on Twitter.



from VICE https://ift.tt/32ZT4Zs
via cheap web hosting

It's Official: Rock Dads Stan Billie Eilish

Billie Eilish’s deserved and stratospheric rise continues with the 17-year-old pop weirdo becoming the latest Rolling Stone cover star. Save for someone like Lil Nas X, few new artists have had as rapid an ascent as Eilish, whose first album When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard charts and has already been streamed more than 2 billion times. While she’s dominated the charts, cool teens, uncool teens, and older folks who want to feel like teenagers, there’s another group of people big fans of her work: famous rock dads.

Deep into Josh Eells’ sprawling profile is a not totally surprising anecdote from Eilish’s tour manager Brian Marquis. Eells writes,

"So many Gen X icons have kids who are just the right age to be Billie Eilish fans, and they’ve come backstage to say hi and be hero dads for a night: Dave Grohl, Billie Joe Armstrong, Thom Yorke. Marquis says Grohl and Armstrong were the sweetest guys ever, but Yorke was a little tough. ‘He was just as you’d expect—curmudgeonly, perturbed.’ According to Marquis, Yorke went up to Eilish and mumbled, almost grumpily, ‘You’re the only one doing anything f*cking interesting nowadays.’

Eilish’s response: ‘…thank you?’"

Those three aren’t the only Gen X icons having a backstage moment with Eilish. Eells shares a quote from Eilish’s father, who says that Eddie Vedder took his 14-year-old daughter to see her perform in Seattle. Mr. O'Connell said, “Billie was nice to him and nice to his daughter. And then she got out of there as fast as she could.” The piece doesn’t elaborate any further, which brings up a few questions: Does Billie Eilish prefer Nirvana to Pearl Jam? Why is her father telling a journalist that Eilish “got out of there as fast as she could” after meeting an alt-rock icon?

Though this wasn’t mentioned in the Rolling Stone piece, perhaps the best rock-dad-meets-Billie Eilish moment was when Pavement’s Stephen Malkmus went to one of her meet 'n' greets before a show in Portland last December.

Read Eells’ entire piece here, which does a deep dive into Eilish’s career so far—and her mental health as an increasingly famous musician—and check out the cover below.



from VICE https://ift.tt/2Oz54Ok
via cheap web hosting

How to Radicalize Your Parents on Climate Change

This year, on Easter Sunday, Robert Possnett was arrested in London during a protest with Extinction Rebellion, a group that uses nonviolent civil disobedience to raise awareness for climate change. It wasn't the first time the 59-year-old father of three had been arrested for protesting, and it won't be the last. His trouble with the law means he can't travel outside the U.K., but he's so committed to the cause that he doesn't care. He has a court date in October and it’s likely he will go to jail.

"What else am I going to do with my life?" Possnett said. "This is the biggest fight we've ever had. It's much bigger than World War II. There's nothing else I can do with my life but to make as much noise and stink as possible."

Many of us don’t have parents that are willing to be imprisoned in the name of the climate crisis. In the United States, there's a sizable disparity between young and old attitudes about global warming. Young people care more—70 percent of Americans age 18 to 34 say they worry about climate change, compared to 56 percent of people 55 and up. If those young people want the world to take action, a major part of that project is convincing older people—who have a disproportionate amount of political power—that something needs to be done.

Last week, Nayeli Jimenez, a 29-year-old climate activist who works in publishing, tweeted: "How do I get my mom from 'I tell everyone I encounter to stop using plastic straws' kind of activism to 'let's dismantle the systems that uphold the power of the fossil fuel industry?' She's so committed, and I'm so proud, but how do we radicalize our parents is what I'm asking."

Jimenez's tweet was inspired by a wedding her mom recently attended where she asked the caterers to stop automatically putting plastic straws into the drinks. "I was genuinely proud because this was something that I wasn't used to hearing from her," Jimenez said in an interview. "But at the same time we're still stuck in: my individual actions are the only thing I think I can do."

The responses to Jimenez’s tweet were swift and overwhelming, indicating that many people feel the same way. How can we get our parents to claim a bigger stake in this fight? (Jimenez's favorite suggestion was: "No grandbabies until the system is changed.")

In the past decade, social and behavioral psychologists have also been grappling with the best strategies to get people to do more about the environment. Their findings show that whether your parents are outright climate deniers or just need an extra push, there are ways to talk to them about the climate crisis that could inspire more action.

You could be in a unique position to influence your parents on climate change

In a recent study in Nature Climate Change, Danielle Lawson, a postdoctoral student at NC State University, and her colleagues found that putting middle-school children in a class about climate change could influence their parent’s views on the subject. The effects were the strongest on conservative fathers—significant because conservative white men have been previously shown to have the lowest levels of climate concern.

Lawson called this a case of "intergenerational learning," or the transfer of behavior and knowledge from children to parents. She thinks their study was successful partially because ideology and political identity have become so conflated with the climate crisis. When the children talked to their parents, it didn't carry the same baggage as if another adult tried to talk to your parents about global warming.

"But typically when a parent is interacting with their child, they don't view their child through this lens of having an agenda," Lawson said. "It makes for a unique opportunity to open up conversation in a way that we struggle with in normal day to day life."


Asking questions is key, even when you want to just lecture them

You shouldn’t use your home-team advantage to only bombard your parents with facts, especially if they're starting out with a lot of hesitation. Lawson recommends a more natural conversation. In their study, they asked children to interview their parents without using the word “climate change” at all. Instead, they asked: "Have you seen the weather change over the last 10 years where we live? Do you see the sea level rise, or have you experienced it? How do you think that impacts our communities?"

You might even find that your parents care more than you think they do, said Janet Swim, a social psychologist at Penn State. When people don’t talk to each other about major issues, they assume that others don’t care—so start to have those conversations.

"You're walking around thinking you're all alone or just a few people do,' she said. 'Once you start talking about it, you start realizing other people share your opinion. Those conversations are kind of the groundwork for doing other things."

Figure out what's holding your parents back

In a 2011 article in American Psychologist, University of Victoria psychology professor Robert Gifford laid out seven domains of psychological barriers that stop people from reacting to climate change. Within those categories, he names 29 specific mental blocks, which he calls "dragons of inaction."

Reuven Sussman, a social and environmental psychologist at nonprofit the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, said that figuring out exactly which dragon you’re dealing with can be instrumental. "This is the number-one issue, I would say—you need to know your audience," Sussman said.

For example, one common dragon is that our brains have evolved to respond to clear and present danger, but we’re not wired well to deal with an abstract, far-off threat. If that seems to be your parent’s case, watching movies or documentaries that bring forth the emotions of urgency might get them to respond better, Sussman said. "Especially if you're asked to put yourself in the position of one of the main characters."

That could also help if your parents' dragon is ignorance, but probably not if they're worried about financial risks or feel "system justification," the desire to uphold the status quo. In that case, talking less about environmental effects of global warming, and more about the anticipated social and financial ones could be a better way to reach them. Once you figure out exactly where a parent’s hesitation lies, you can get creative with your approaches.

Use behavioral psychology tricks

There’s a social psychology theory called idiosyncratic credit theory. It says that when you’re in a group, you earn credit by conforming to the group’s norms, but then you can cash in those credits to propose new ideas or changes. This means that if you compromise and act agreeable, it can put you in a better position in your family to get them to make real change.

Then strategic framing can help—crafting an argument to make it relevant to someone’s personal beliefs. A recent study found that evangelicals were more likely to care about climate change if told that it would save "God’s creation." A more secular approach uses celebrities to deliver the message. What do your parents care about the most? Show them how climate change connects to it.

Get your parents to smart small, even if that means advocating for reusable straws, like Jimenez's mom. Changing habits is hard, and people might not want to give up the lifestyles they’ve grown accustomed to. Habit discontinuity theory suggests that a good time to make a change that sticks is when there’s other life changes going on already, Sussman said. A move, or retirement, a new marriage, a death in the family—that’s when people’s habits are temporarily unfrozen. If you can, seize those shifts to make larger changes.

Sussman said that if none of these approaches are resonating, you can also try to get parents to change their behavior for other reasons, like convincing a parent to bike to work because it’s healthier and faster than driving. "Health, comfort, and finances can be a better argument than environment depending on who the audience is," he said.

Give them something tangible to do to fight climate change

When someone does something good, it feels like they have permission to do whatever they want afterwards. (If you’ve ever eaten a bunch of junk food after a workout, you know what this feels like.) It's called moral licensing, and can be why when people recycle or take small individual actions, they don’t pay attention to the bigger issues.

But if you tell your parents that they’re not doing enough but don’t provide them with the next step, it can make them feel helpless. When people know what to do, they’re more likely to make a behavioral change, and if they feel proud about it, they could be more motivated to keep it up.

Depending on your parent's starting point, this could be voting for candidates who emphasize climate change, agreeing to alter spending habits, making changes to their diet, vacationing locally, donating to environmental initiatives, or even asking them to join you at a protest.

Do make sure you're behaving in the same ways—modeling was an effective strategy on the parents in Lawson’s study. "[Parents] would say, 'Well, my child started doing things like turning off the lights when we left the room, and I just started doing it because they were doing it,'" she said. "Or, I'd have another parent tell me that they started talking to their representatives because their child started writing their representative."

Recognize there are many ways to be radical

When people change their actions a little bit at a time, it can end up affecting their overall values and attitudes. Even if you get a negative response at first, parents might consider what’s been said privately and over time there could be a shift. "You might not see the biggest change that you're asking for, but you might see something," Sussman said. "That's very frustrating to people because you're like, 'I want change now.' But I would say, look at the bigger picture. Have you made small wins over a long period?"

Ultimately, not all parents are going to be getting arrested in the streets, but remember that there are other ways that they can support those who are. Possnett, the U.K. activist, said that he has many friends his age who aren’t willing to go to jail, but they help him out when he is. "They're the silent supporters," Possnett said. "They're not the guys you're going to see sitting in the streets of London blocking traffic, but they're still supporters."

Jimenez said the same. She thinks that parents should support youth-led movements that are doing the more radical work, that often don’t have the same resources as the corporations they’re fighting. "Our parents’ generation, they are the ones with the money," Jimenez said. “It’s as easy as donating to youth-led movements that are actually doing the heavy lifting."

Remind your parents that this involves them in the legacy of their descendants, and taps into the fact that people care about how their kids their grandkids will remember them. Let your parents know how proud you’ll be and what a difference it will make.

"I’ve raised a very powerful young female who expects me to do everything I can," said another Extinction Rebellion mother, 48-year-old Heather Luna. "I’m using my own structural power to back their leadership. I’ve never felt more useful in all my life."

Follow Shayla Love on Twitter.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.



from VICE https://ift.tt/2KdyU5H
via cheap web hosting

Machine Gun Kelly Wants to 'Cancel Swedish Fish' Until A$AP Rocky is Free

On Tuesday, 19-year-old Mustafa Jafari told a packed Swedish courtroom that he had been kicked, punched, and hit with a bottle during a fight with rapper A$AP Rocky, his bodyguard, and a member of his entourage. "We did not want to fight,” Jafari said through a translator. “I said to them I was a nice guy, not a bad guy. I did not touch any of these three.”

A$AP Rocky, whose real name is Rakim Mayers, has pleaded not guilty to assault charges. His attorney has argued that Jafari was the aggressor, and Mayers was simply acting in self-defense. Mayers has been detained in Sweden since July 3, despite the online efforts of Kim Kardashian, Post Malone, and President Donald Trump, who has not only offered to "personally vouch for his bail," but also sent US Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs Robert O'Brien to Stockholm for the trial.

That same day, a TMZ reporter followed Machine Gun Kelly, asking him to weigh in on Mayers' treatment, and suggested that perhaps a boycott would change the Swedish government's mind. "Would you boycott any of the Swedish products, like Swedish fish?" the reporter asked from off-camera. "Yeah, fuck Swedish fish," Kelly replied, laughing. "Cancel Swedish fish until A$AP's free."

That might be an OK idea if Swedish fish were, you know, actually still Swedish. According to Mental Floss, in the late 1950s, Swedish candy giant Malaco created those signature red fish as a way to get its products on supermarket shelves in the United States and Canada. Malaco already sold different gummy candies in Sweden, but the fish shape was selected specifically for those North American markets. (Why fish? Because Sweden had a pretty big fishing industry. That's literally the reason.)

Malaco currently sells 'Swedish' fish in Sweden, but they weren't available until after they were launched in the United States and, unlike our version, their fish don't have the word "Swedish" running the length of their chewy little bodies. (Malaco's fish are simply called pastellfiskar, which means pastel fish.)

Anyway, our sort-of American Swedish fish are now owned by Mondelēz International, the same Illinois-based food and beverage company that also owns Oreo, Ritz Crackers, Sour Patch Kids, and Chips Ahoy!, among others, so even if the most hardcore A$AP Rocky stans stop buying Swedish fish, it's 1) probably not gonna do a goddamn thing to affect Mondelēz and 2) it's definitely not gonna do a goddamn thing to affect Sweden.

If the President of the United States can't seem to convince Sweden to release Mayers without a trial, then we're guessing that a half-assed (or even half-serious) suggestion shouted by a TMZ reporter won't do it either. "[A]ll people in Sweden are equal before the law," Mikael Lindström, a spokesperson for Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, told CNN. "The Government is not allowed – and will not attempt – to influence the legal proceedings, which are now ongoing."

The trial is expected to resume on Thursday.



from VICE https://ift.tt/2KgVbj6
via cheap web hosting

I Should Be Allowed to Leave Men Out of My Studies

For much of scientific history, the study of women’s health has been thought to be complex and wildly unpredictable, as if men’s health issues are stable and static. Indeed, although it is well known that women have monthly hormonal cycles, men’s daily fluctuations in testosterone levels are largely ignored. These biases are baked into research—fewer than 10% of all fundamental research studies look exclusively at female subjects, even though more than 50% of our population is biologically female.

Now, as government funding agencies in North America are starting to understand the importance of including the female sex in research, there has been a movement toward acknowledging how sex differences affect drug efficacy and disease outcomes. In the U.S., the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has called for sex as a biological variable, and anyone who receives its research grants are required to include this in their studies. In Canada, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) has established sex and gender based analyses as part of its criteria.

On the face of it, this seems like progress. Before, men were treated as the default human, which put women's bodies in danger when they received high medication doses, or when their basic functions—like menstruation or ovulation—weren't factored into treatments. But the new movement has also resulted in a sort of overcorrection: women’s health researchers are being asked to add men into their studies in order to provide balance, even if it doesn’t make scientific sense. A grant application I recently submitted on a women’s health topic was rejected by the funder, citing a need to include male participants. And this hasn’t just happened to me—a colleague was asked to provide a male group when studying inflammation in the placenta.

1564591453107-YWCAgalea
Dr. Galea accepting an award. Image: University of British Columbia

Not all studies benefit from looking at both sexes. In fact, there are examples in scientific literature that point to greater success when we study one sex in a disease that only influences that one sex. We don’t use female models in studying prostate cancer, or men to study breast cancer. Yet, we have made great strides in treatment and survival rates in both prostate and breast cancer over the last 35 years. Relative five-year survival rates have increased by 33% in prostate cancer and by 16% in female-only breast cancer in the US; by contrast, the survival rates for lung, bladder or thyroid cancer have only improved by five to eight percent over the same time period.

There is also the intriguing possibility that when a body of research considers only one sex, the improvements for treatment can also improve dramatically for that one sex. For example, we do not need to compare perimenopausal women to men to understand how the menopausal transition influences Alzheimer’s disease or osteoporosis. These are physical phenomena specific to female bodies, and the research needs to focus on that.

Of course, this is not to say we should go back to what we used to do—in fact, funders should be prioritizing women’s health beyond just these basic requirements. Male is still the default in research models and clinical trial participants, and drugs and treatments are designed for them, putting women at risk. For example, women suffer very different symptoms of heart attack symptoms than men do, and as a result are more likely to die after a cardiac event. In 2014, the FDA ruled for the first time that a different dose of the sleep aid, Ambien, was required for women, who retained the drug in their systems much longer than men because of their lower average weight. If only the powers that be had paid attention to data they already had, they would have factored this in earlier.

There’s also a lax understanding of how inclusivity should work. Since 1993, the NIH has mandated that all the clinical trials it funds must include both men and women. This is technically a good thing, but there are no rules as to how many of each sex should be included, nor do researchers always analyse the data by sex. Data indicate that even now, only 26% of papers actually investigated whether sex of subject made a difference; and the rest ignored sex as a variable and mixed subjects together. When data is blended, we obscure important information about how a drug or a disease affects females and males differently.

And asking only how women are different from men does not give us the whole picture of what is contributing to women’s health issues. For example, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is three times more likely to occur in women following childbirth. In other cases, female-specific experiences such as oral contraceptive use, pregnancy, the postpartum period, and menopause have all been implicated in mental health diagnoses. There is an urgent need for more studies focussing on these critical transition periods in women to determine why women are more susceptible to depression during these times.

Our health is affected by our experiences, and men and women have different life experiences. How we are different is not the issue; it is how research addresses these differences that will make a difference in the lives and lifespans of female patients and research participants. After 26 years, we are no further than where we started. Not to mention that NIH only funds around 15% of the clinical trials in the U.S.; their requirements, noble as they are, are not altering the landscape of health research in a meaningful way.

And if this system, in their quest to be inclusive, only blocks more women’s health research, it probably isn’t working.

Dr. Liisa Galea is a Professor in the Department of Psychology and a member of the Centre for Brain Health at the University of British Columbia (UBC). The main goal of her research is to improve brain health for women and men by examining the influence of sex and sex hormones on normal and diseased brain states such as depression and Alzheimer’s disease.

Emily Wight contributed to this piece.



from VICE https://ift.tt/32ZsQ9q
via cheap web hosting

New Campaign Demands End to Amazon's Partnerships with Police

Fight for the Future, an activist group focused on promoting civil liberties in digital spaces, launched a campaign today to help people demand that their local governments and police departments to stop partnerships with Ring, Amazon’s home surveillance company.

Through the campaign, people can sign a petition calling on their local mayor and city council representatives to forbid police from entering into partnerships with Ring and other private consumer surveillance companies or end existing partnerships.

Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, told Motherboard in a phone call that the campaign aims to give people a place to put their concern about Ring partnerships into action.

“Our elected officials, our mayors, our city council members, absolutely have the authority to set limits on what types of surveillance tools and technologies law enforcement officers should have access to,” Greer said, “and absolutely to set limits on what types of corporate, for-profit partnerships law enforcement agencies should be able to enter into.”

The campaign launch comes after reporting from Motherboard showed that Ring told police that it has partnered with 200 law enforcement agencies around the country. Gizmodo confirmed Motherboard’s reporting, as Ring told a different police department that it has partnered with 225 law enforcement agencies. Ring has refused to share a complete list of its partnerships with law enforcement.

Fight for the Future identified 31 law enforcement agencies that have partnered with Ring as part of a map of facial recognition use in the U.S. The map was made for a Fight for the Future campaign to ban the use of facial recognition in the U.S. Per reporting by The Intercept and The Information, Ring is quietly developing in-house facial, object, and voice recognition systems. All Ring users are engaging in de facto beta testing for these systems, and there is no way to opt-out. Law enforcement currently doesn’t use Ring’s developing recognition systems.

Ring partnerships involve signing contracts that sometimes require police to “encourage adoption” of Ring products by buying Ring’s doorbell cameras and downloading Neighbors, Ring’s free “neighborhood watch” app, per reporting from Motherboard. These partnerships also typically involve forbidding police from making any public statements about Ring unless the statements are approved by the company.

In exchange, police get access to Ring’s “Law Enforcement Neighborhoods Portal,” which lets police see the approximate locations of all Ring products in their towns and request footage directly from camera owners. Police need permission from camera owners, but they don’t need a warrant.

“Amazon is creating this seamless flow for people to rat out their neighbors,” Greer said. “It’s deputizing everyone that has one of these doorbells to be a part of a law enforcement drag net in a way that I think is really corrosive to our culture. It really encourages people to participate in spying on their neighborhoods.”

Ring and Amazon have also collaborated with law enforcement in other capacities. For instance, the companies helped local police around the country organize several package theft “sting operations.” These operations—which have occurred in Hayward, CA; Aurora, CO; Albuquerque, NM; Green Bay, WI; and Jersey City, NJ—involve setting up dummy Amazon packages, using tape and boxes provided by Amazon, and putting these packages on doorsteps equipped with Ring doorbell cameras.

Motherboard obtained documents from these operations from Hayward, CA; Aurora, CO; Albuquerque, NM. Amazon created package loss “heat maps” and provided them to police in Albuquerque, NM in order to plan their operation.

Motherboard reported in February that racial profiling is prevalent on Neighbors, Ring’s free “neighborhood watch” app. The app allows people to share footage from Ring cameras, or write text-posts describing events in their neighborhood. It also lets users tag posts to indicate “Suspicious” people or “Strangers” in their community. Motherboard documented every post on the app for three months in a 5-mile radius from our Williamsburg office and found that posts about “Suspicious” people or “Strangers” most often targeted people of color.

Amazon acquired Ring in 2018, and since then, the company has promoted Ring products as “Amazon’s Choice” for doorbell cameras. Ring also offers indoor cameras, designed to be put inside your home. On Prime Day, the company offered 30 to 40 percent discounts on Ring products and product sets. However, Ring surveillance products put people into a system where Amazon owns your camera footage, and police are a step away from obtaining it.

“The bottom line for me is that we are not safer in a world where there’s a thousand times more cameras than we have right now,” Greer said. “That is a more dangerous world, particularly for people who already face over-policing and discrimination within the criminal justice system.”



from VICE https://ift.tt/2ysuthW
via cheap web hosting

Kanye Is Building 'Star Wars'-Inspired Domes to Stop Classism

After his musical success, the Yeezy zeitgeist, the Kardashian partnership, and his very own church, Kanye West has taken his enormous ego into real estate. Since this is Kanye we're talking about, of course it isn't just the buying and selling of mansions like most celebrities. It's a whole lot bigger—or at least, that's what Kanye says.

It started last April in an interview with Charlemagne tha God, when Kanye revealed his purchase of 300 acres of land in Calabasas, California, on which he hoped to build his "first community" made up of five properties. "I’m going to be one of the biggest real-estate developers of all time, what Howard Hughes was to aircrafts and what Henry Ford was to cars, just the relationships I have with architects, my understanding of space and sacred proportions, just this new vibe, this new energy," Kanye said. "We gonna develop cities."

The newest update came with a Forbes cover story earlier this month. Per Forbes' report, Kanye and his team are creating "prefabricated structures" inspired by the Star Wars planet of Tattooine. West hopes to develop them as "low-income housing units" or "living spaces for the homeless." Other than Forbes' visit, West's project has been fairly secretive—until now.

Earlier today, TMZ released images of 50-foot dome-like structures on West's property. (It's not the first time the rapper has fixated on domes: in January, he pulled out of this year's Coachella after the festival refused to build a giant dome just for his performance.) Construction is in an early state, but ultimately, the rapper hopes the homes will "break the barriers that separate classes," sources close to the project allegedly told TMZ, "namely, the rich, the middle class, and the poor."

To this we must say: what??? It all feels a little rich, given that the location of Kanye's idyllic development isn't far from the home he shares with Kim—a house that Kris Jenner has stated is valued at $60 million after the couple's renovations, despite Kanye's own claims that he's "tired" of mansions. It's also worth noting that Calabasas is an affluent suburb, known mostly for its celebrity residents like Miley Cyrus, the entire Kardashian crew, Jake Paul, and Drake. Its median household income is $114,143, according to the Census Bureau; Manhattan's, by comparison, is $79,781, and Detroit's, meanwhile, is $27,838.

All of this is to say that if Kanye—with an estimated net worth of $240 million—really wanted to make an impact on class divides in the United States or housing for the homeless, there are many other ways he could spend his money instead. Financial support for organizations already doing that legwork seems far more practical than a Star Wars-esque compound centered on "sacred proportions" and "vibes."



from VICE https://ift.tt/2LTK96o
via cheap web hosting

Netflix Should Have Used FaceApp to De-Age Robert De Niro in 'The Irishman'

This is the year of weird CG experiments, apparently. First we had Will Smith's terrifying genie, then that hyperreal Lion King, and then whatever fresh hell Cats is—and now, digitally de-aged Robert De Niro is here. On Wednesday, Netflix released the first trailer for The Irishman, Scorsese's upcoming gangster movie due out this fall. The movie centers around real-life hitman Frank Sheeran, played by De Niro, and spans three decades of the mobster's career—using that fancy CG technology that will soon let Will Smith fight his younger self to digitally shave the years off De Niro's face.

The streamer reportedly pulled out all the stops, pouring over $125 million into Benjamin Buttoning De Niro and his co-stars, Joe Pesci and Al Pacino back to their glory days. The new trailer gives us a few glimpses at younger De Niro and his computer-enhanced cheek, and while it isn't exactly Uncanny Valley territory, it won't trick you into thinking you accidentally stumbled back to 1989.

It looks... fine. But did Netflix really just spend millions on "fine"? Isn't there a cheaper option that might have delivered similar results? Say, a certain free iPhone app that has captured our collective imaginations lately? Couldn't the streaming service have saved a few million bucks by running the whole movie through FaceApp instead of worrying about all this fancy CG trickery?

Oh, funny you should ask. Let's find out!

Trailer Version

1564585148717-Screen-Shot-2019-07-31-at-100311-AM

Here, we have a de-aged De Niro in the trailer, wrinkles smoothened but iconic grumpy-ass frown still in tact. He looks just about the same as he did in 1988's Midnight Run, so that's good, but the scene's low-key lighting helps hide the CG.

The issues get a little more noticeable in close-up:

1564585970154-Screen-Shot-2019-07-31-at-100201-AM

There's just something off about this, isn't there? The right side of his face looks too crisp, too clean, too inhumanly smooth to look normal. It's passable, to be sure. But worth the millions? Unclear.

Let's see how the results vary when we turn to FaceApp, shall we?

FaceApp Version

Here, we have a photo of De Niro taken at the American Icon Awards last May, looking his usual 75-year-old self:

1564586555340-GettyImages-1150410814
Photo by Steve Granitz/WireImage

But when we run it through FaceApp's "Young" filter, the years just melt away. Behold:

1564586739142-IMG_9828

Wow—Travis Bickle, is that you? Stunningly realistic! And to think, all it took were a few simple clicks!

Here's De Niro at the same event, arm in arm with his Irishman co-star, Al Pacino:

1564587059206-GettyImages-1150460208
Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images

And with a little FaceApp magic...

1564587330646-Image-from-iOS

Voila! It's like we've stumbled into a prequel to Heat.

Truly amazing. And to think, Netflix spent millions and millions on CG that could've been done with one free app. What a waste! The Irishman premieres at the New York Film Festival in September and will hit Netflix and select theaters later this fall. Until then, marvel at the wonders of FaceApp technology and how youthful De Niro's mole looks in the trailer above.



from VICE https://ift.tt/2ypkKc9
via cheap web hosting

Frightened Rabbit’s New Compilation Celebrates Scott Hutchison's Life

Tiny Changes—a collection of covers of songs from the beloved Scottish band Frightened Rabbit's 2008 album The Midnight Organ Fight—wasn’t supposed to feel like a collection of funeral songs. It was supposed to be a birthday celebration for a 10-year-old record. But when the band's singer and chief songwriter Scott Hutchison died of suicide in May of 2018, the tone of the project immediately transformed, even though the music on it didn’t change. It was as if a speech written for a friend’s birthday party was instead delivered as part of his celebratory wake.

Tiny Changes was originally meant to be released in mid-2018. It was a labor of love that the band itself put together, texting or emailing musician-friends they bonded with over a decade of touring. Craig Finn of the Hold Steady, Ben Gibbard of Death Cab For Cutie, Julien Baker, Twilight Sad, Aaron Dessner of the National, Manchester Orchestra, and many others jumped at the request—so many that three songs from the album are covered twice.

“We wanted it to be from us,” Frightened Rabbit drummer—and Scott’s brother—Grant Hutchison, said over the phone from his Glasgow apartment. “Everyone was approached by someone in the band. We didn’t want to appear opportunistic by picking whoever was popular or whoever was going to sell the most. I think that’s why people were keen to do it. It didn’t go from label to label or management to management—that just wouldn’t have seemed genuine, and it wouldn’t have excited us.”

Craig Finn, during a panel discussion celebrating the tribute album’s release at Rough Trade in Brooklyn (moderated, full disclosure, by me) remembers thinking that the band had somehow tricked their label into including him. He half-joked, “I thought it would be Coldplay and Radiohead, but those guys said, ‘You gotta put our friend Craig on there, too!’”

1564587629262-Frightened-Rabbit-Courtesy-Canvasback-Music

Reverence for The Midnight Organ Fight has only grown since its 2008 release, and for good reason: It’s a harrowing yet hopeful record about a particularly brutal breakup, told with a frankness that still feels welcome but unnerving. It taught us a number of occasionally contradictory lessons: having sex with strangers won’t make you happy (“Keep Yourself Warm”), having sex with strangers might make you happy for a little while (“The Twist”), breaking up is impossible (“My Backwards Walk”), love lost can feel like death (“Poke”), and perhaps most brutally, suicide isn’t the answer (“Floating in the Forth”). Understandably, the album has been poked and prodded and microscoped anew since Scott’s death.

“Lyrically he laid himself pretty bare,” Grant said. “He didn’t hide behind metaphors or abstract lyrics. It was pretty much all there to see. That’s great, but it can also be frustrating because people might listen to our song and think they know who Scott Hutchison is. There’s the flipside to that, where I’m sitting here with 34 years of our relationship that someone can claim to understand after listening to the band for three or four years. But I have to see that as a positive thing, that people have invested time—there is something there between Scott and these people. It’s incredible that we could create that just through music and lyrics.”

After Scott’s death, both the original album and these new versions took on new meaning, but the band and the contributors never considered changing a note or canceling the release.

“The natural reaction is to be somber and still in order to be respectful,” said Katie Harkin, who collaborated on “My Backwards Walk” with actor-comedian Sarah Silverman. “But we’re actually reminiscing about this band that was so kinetic and this person who was so witty and wildly creative.”

Harkin was struck by Hutchison’s generosity both as a songwriter and a person: He encouraged her with his unusual combination of “raucousness” and “vulnerability,” something he encouraged in his audience as well. “He was with everybody in the room, and everybody had permission to feel those things along with him.”

It’s a sentiment shared by every artist on Tiny Changes, though the specifics and shading are different for each. Hutchison the man was generous, wildly funny, frequently self-deprecating. Hutchison the songwriter—and especially lyricist—was those things too, maybe slightly more serious and undoubtedly more open. He was that rare talent that people seemed to love personally and to be truly awestruck by artistically—one of the guys who also had the ability to knock you over with a word or phrase.

Death Cab for Cutie frontman Ben Gibbard was early on the Frightened Rabbit bandwagon, falling in love with Midnight Organ Fight and inviting the band to open for his. When contacted about the tribute, he jumped at it—on one condition. “I said I’d do it, but only if I got ‘Keep Yourself Warm,’” he laughed. “It’s one of the most beautiful melodies Scott ever wrote. I mean this with all the respect in the world, but I never thought of Scott as having a beautiful singing voice. His singing style was really immediate and raw. I didn’t want to try and match the bombast of the album version. I wanted to pull it back, and try to create a closure to the story in my version that felt a little more melancholic than the band’s definitive version.”

“I find that people who write that kind of music also tend to be really funny,” Gibbard continued. “He was always really funny, and a lovely person to be around. I find the whole thing to be an incredibly moving tribute.”

Finn agreed, rattling off some of his favorite Hutchison lines from “Head Rolls Off” and “The Twist” with the same ease and enthusiasm he might for Springsteen classics. “He was funny as a person and he was funny in his songs. His lyrics were also poetic and honest and frank.”

Julien Baker, who turned in a harrowingly gorgeous version of “The Modern Leper,” noted the same juxtaposition. The song’s main character—and let’s be real, it’s always Hutchison—can’t believe that his partner could love someone as emotionally crippled as him, but comes to the realization that perhaps their shortcomings are complementary. Look sideways at it, and you could call it a happy ending.

“His words summoned such exact and intense and familiar feelings,” Baker said. “He could approach a very bleak topic with this clever comedy, and it stripped the triteness or sadness away. Beneath it was nestled this tender, forthright honesty. The metaphor in ‘Modern Leper’ becomes an almost fable-like explanation of sadness or pain. The line at the end—‘You’re not ill, and I’m not dead / Doesn’t that make us the perfect pair’—is half-joking, but the seriousness under the cleverness feels very raw and honest.”

Finn tackled “Head Rolls Off” for Tiny Changes, adding some spunk—something he conceded that he might have done differently had he recorded it after May of last year. The song itself has become a rallying point for Frightened Rabbit fans since Scott died, because its lyrics allow for the notion that life isn’t pointless, and that we ought to do some good while we’re here. The brilliantly straightforward words shrug their shoulders at the very idea of death (“It’s not morbid at all / just when nature’s had enough of you”) and then offers a promise that Frightened Rabbit fans have taken to heart: “While I’m alive, I’ll make tiny changes to earth.” That line inspired both the name of the tribute album and an organization—started by Scott’s parents and brothers—that hopes to raise awareness about mental health struggles among younger people.

“We want to use the voice that Scott has allowed us to have to give people a voice, to give them a platform to let people know how they’re feeling,” Grant said. “The name is going to have Scott at its heart, but in the future I want people to know Tiny Changes the charity because of the work that it’s done and the change that it’s made.”

Scott Hutchison probably would have approved, especially the part in which good things are done and he doesn’t have to take too much credit. “It will have the message that Scott always tried to spread, of hope and community and bringing people together,” Grant continued. “That’s something that was almost effortless for him, and I don’t think he ever knew he was doing it. The outpouring after Scott died—the messages that we got from strangers, and messages that strangers were sending to each other because of the fans and the community that he built is massive. We have to try and use that for good.”

Hutchison knew and appreciated what his songs—all of them, but particularly those on Midnight Organ Fight—meant to people. He told me in an interview for Noisey shortly before his death that he was grateful to have touched so many people, and that he didn’t take it for granted: “Eighty percent of the conversations I have with members of our audience are about that record—where they were in their life when they heard it, what happened to them, how it helped them, how for some of them it saved their life, or saved a friend or family member’s life. And I don’t say that flippantly, I mean it for real.”

For Grant, the time since his brother’s death has been exhausting, as he tries to balance grief and its attendant emotions with a search for meaning and positivity in an unthinkable situation. He’s been able to compartmentalize Tiny Changes—the album and the organization—into something more celebratory. “I have the life I had with Scott before we joined the band to really contemplate,” he said. “I’ve spent the last 15 months with the ever-present image of Scott as the singer in Frightened Rabbit, and maybe haven’t taken the time to really remember Scott, my brother.”

With regard to Tiny Changes, the album, he says that overall, they wanted to keep the feeling positive. "Life has been pretty dark over that period, so having this release produce as much light as possible was important," he said. "We want the record and the songs to speak not of the tragedy of Scott’s death or awfulness of his depression. For us it’s a celebration and always will be.”



from VICE https://ift.tt/312j8Be
via cheap web hosting

We Have Just ‘Days’ to Save This Rare Endangered Porpoise From Extinction

There are likely fewer than 10 vaquita porpoises left in the world, scientists say, and the endangered marine creatures could face extinction within a year.

The vaquita porpoise has been critically endangered since the 90s, and there’s only one place in the world where you’ll find them: the Gulf of California in Mexico. Without more effective action, they may disappear from there, too, primarily due to the use of illegal fishing nets.

Scientists have been recording acoustic activity in the Gulf of California since 2011, tracking the echolocation “clicks” of the vaquitas as a way to measure population size. In a paper published on Wednesday in the Royal Society Open Science by researchers from St. Andrews in Scotland, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Mexican government, the authors describe a 99 percent population decline since 2011.

The researchers now estimate that there are likely only 9, and at most 19, vaquitas left alive.

The main cause of the vaquitas' decline is illegal fishing, researchers say. Vaquitas inadvertently get caught in large nets—called gillnets—that fishermen leave in the ocean to pick up later. In 2015, the Mexican government banned gillnet fishing in the Gulf of California, but the Mexican Navy and conservation organizations are still pulling up these illegal nets, which according to the researchers are still ensnaring vaquitas.

“The key thing is that we need action now. There are only days to do this”

Researchers continue to monitor the vaquitas, but the numbers reported in the latest study are already a year old. The area where the vaquitas live is small enough that it could be effectively patrolled, study co-author Len Thomas said, as long as there is sufficient political will. However, with so few vaquitas left, the clock is ticking on taking effective enforcement action.

“Every day wasted is making a difference. The key thing is that we need action now,” Thomas said. “There are only days to do this.”

Besides the Mexican Navy, Sea Shepherd—a marine conservation nonprofit notorious for its direct action—is helping in the fight by dredging up gillnets left in the ocean, Thomas said. With the species still rapidly declining, Thomas called this kind of immediate and aggressive enforcement "an enormous benefit."

Having only a handful of individuals left in the world may seem like a death sentence for a species, but Thomas said that he retains hope.

Since 2016, researchers have analyzed the vaquitas killed as bycatch and determined that the were otherwise completely healthy. Though these vaquitas are on the brink of extinction, there doesn't appear to be any barriers to survival or reproduction, other than fishing.

“There are many instances of other species that recover from low population numbers,” Thomas said. “If we stopped illegal fishing, they could bounce back. It’s not a reason at the moment to give up.”

The fight to ban gillnets and save the vaquitas is a source of tension between the conservationists and local fishers themselves. In January, local fishermen lobbed lead weights, dead fish, and Tabasco sauce at a Sea Shepherd vessel. However, Thomas said he believes everyone wants to see the vaquitas survive, and that a part of the long-term conservation plan must include helping fishers find work that doesn’t involve using gillnets.



from VICE https://ift.tt/2OvQDe8
via cheap web hosting