#Pulse Publishing Administration

[dandelionsresilience]

Good News - May 1-7

Like these weekly compilations? Support me on Ko-fi! Also, if you tip me on Ko-fi, at the end of the month I'll send you a link to all of the articles I found but didn't use each week - almost double the content!

1. New study says conservation works, providing hope for biodiversity efforts

“A new study published in Science reveals that conservation works, with conservation actions improving or slowing the decline of biodiversity in two-thirds of the cases analyzed.”

2. Monk Seal Pup Debuts in Waikīkī on Lei Day

“Endangered Hawaiian monk seal RK96 (Kaiwi) gave birth to her sixth pup on popular Kaimana Beach in Waikīkī, Oʻahu! […] Hawaiian monk seals are one of the most endangered seal species in the world, so each pup represents hope for the species’ recovery.”

3. West Coast Indigenous-led marine conservation area gets global spotlight

“A coastal First Nation is celebrating global recognition of its marine protected area after recently snagging a “blue park” designation that highlights exemplary ocean conservation efforts around the world. […] Kitasu Bay supports one of the last abundant herring spawns along the central coast, vital to the nation’s communal herring roe on kelp (ROK) fishery - which harvests the protein-rich eggs but leaves the fish alive to flourish and spawn again.”

4. The number of fish on US overfishing list reaches an all-time low. Mackerel and snapper recover

“The report states that 94% of fish stocks are not subject to overfishing, which is slightly better than a year ago. The U.S. was able to remove several important fish stocks from the overfishing list, NOAA said in a statement. […] The removal of species from the overfishing list shows the U.S. is making progress, said Rick Spinrad, NOAA’s administrator.”

5. Researchers Collaborate with the Shipping Industry to Cut Costs, Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Shipping

“Through coordinated ship scheduling and an optimisation of ship operations and port services, the objective is to achieve a substantial increase in energy efficiency and a 10-20% reduction in fuel consumption, consequently resulting in lowered greenhouse gas emissions [and] leading to substantial economic benefits for shipping and environmental advantages for society[….]”

6. The city flower farm that is changing lives

“Heart of BS13 Flowers in Hartcliffe is part of the wider Heart of BS13 charity which tackles food insecurity in south Bristol. Profits from the flower sales to run workshops, offer volunteer and trainee placements, and create education opportunities for people from Hartcliffe.”

7. Four falcon chicks hatch in Glasgow university tower

“Members of the [Glasgow Peregrine] project hope to […] fit [the chicks] with electronic tags that will enable monitoring of their movements. Mr Simpson added: "With the identification tags we can see where they have gone, how high they fly and other information that would be really useful." In recent years the group have held peregrine watches at the university, allowing people to see the birds in their nest.”

8. 'Banana pingers' are saving whales and dolphins around the world

“[T]he Kibel brothers, Pete (a fisheries biologist) and Ben (an engineer) […] have been utilising light to protect turtles, sound to protect porpoises and electro pulses to protect sharks. [… Trials] showed reduced average catch rates of blue shark by 91%, and catch rates of pelagic stingray by 71% […as well as] a fall in the number of sea turtles being trapped by 42%.”

9. New vaccine effective against coronaviruses that haven't even emerged yet

“Researchers have developed a new vaccine technology that has been shown in mice to provide protection against a broad range of coronaviruses with potential for future disease outbreaks -- including ones we don't even know about. […] The new vaccine works by training the body's immune system to recognise specific regions of eight different coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-1, SARS-CoV-2, and several that are currently circulating in bats and have potential to jump to humans and cause a pandemic.”

10. Grassland birds, Forest birds and Other Migratory Birds to Benefit from More Than $22 Million in Funding Throughout the Americas

“This year, more than $4.87 million in federal funds will be matched by more than $17 million in partner contributions going to 30 collaborative conservation projects in 19 countries across the Americas. “These investments will [… protect] millions of acres of diverse habitats needed by grassland birds, forest birds and shorebirds for wintering, breeding and migration,” said Service Director Martha Williams.”

April 22-28 news here | (all credit for images and written material can be found at the source linked; I don’t claim credit for anything but curating.)

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Hannah Ray Lambert

Published: Sep 10, 2024

For the second year in a row, Harvard University's "abysmal" free speech climate earned it the lowest ranking among 251 colleges and universities scored by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).

“This year, however, Harvard has company. Columbia University ranks 250, also with an overall score of 0.00,” reads the report released Thursday.

New York University, University of Pennsylvania and Barnard College rounded out the bottom-five colleges, according to the report.

FIRE, a pro-First Amendment nonprofit, worked with College Pulse to survey tens of thousands of students about the free speech environments on their college campuses for its annual College Free Speech Rankings.

“We’re trying to provide an indication of where students can get the best experience in college in terms of being exposed to a diverse set of views,” FIRE’s chief research adviser Sean Stevens told Fox News Digital.

A Barnard spokesperson told Fox News Digital the college is “committed to protecting academic freedom and freedom of expression, and to fostering environments where students, faculty, and staff can engage in open and respectful dialogue.”

Barnard has adopted the Chicago Principles, a free speech policy previously endorsed by FIRE, and this school year a faculty committee will develop “a Barnard-specific framework,” the spokesperson continued.

Harvard, Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

The universities that ranked poorly all experienced incidents in which speech was censored, suppressed or shouted down, Stevens said.

Since FIRE started ranking schools in 2020, the bottom-five colleges and universities have been “consistently bad performers,” he added.

“They rarely stand up for speech,” Stevens said.

“When a controversy arises, the speech typically gets punished. A speaker gets disinvited. A faculty member gets sanctioned in some way, or a student or student organization does.”

The poor performers share another notable trait, according to FIRE’s analysis.

“Most of the students are very upset with how the administration has responded to protests over the past year,” Stevens said.

Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel and the war that followed “sent shockwaves through American college and university campuses,” according to the FIRE report. Protesters occupied the South Lawn at Columbia for about two weeks in April before police broke up the encampment.

After the start of the encampments, researchers noticed a large increase in the percentage of Columbia students who said they self-censor in classroom discussions or in conversations with professors or other students.

At the other end of the free speech spectrum, the University of Virginia earned the top ranking. Michigan Technological University, Florida State University, Eastern Kentucky University and Georgia Institute of Technology rounded out the top five.

The full rankings can be viewed here.

Stevens noted that the schools that performed well tended to have fewer controversies overall and, when controversies did arise, administrators typically defended speech rights.

He said he hopes parents and prospective students use FIRE’s ranking tool to make better-informed choices. The tool also provides a look at the liberal-conservative ratio on campuses, and a deeper look at student attitudes toward free expression.

“Experiencing open inquiry and that process, having to grapple and have their views challenged” sets students up to be better “adult citizens in our country, once they graduate,” Stevens said.

FIRE and College Pulse surveyed students at 257 schools in total, but excluded six from the main rankings and gave them “warning” ratings.

The private colleges, which include Pepperdine University, Hillsdale College, and Brigham Young University, all “have policies that clearly and consistently state” that they prioritize “other values over a commitment to freedom of speech,” according to the FIRE report.

--

Executive Summary

For the fifth year in a row, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonprofit organization committed to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought, and College Pulse surveyed college undergraduates about their perceptions and experiences regarding free speech on their campuses.

This year’s survey includes 58,807 student respondents from 257 colleges and universities. Students who were enrolled in four-year degree programs were surveyed via the College Pulse mobile app and web portal from January 25 through June 17, 2024. 

The College Free Speech Rankings are available online and are presented in an interactive dashboard (rankings.thefire.org) that allows for easy comparison between institutions. 

Key findings:

The University of Virginia is this year’s top ranked school for free speech. Michigan Technological University, Florida State University, Eastern Kentucky University, and Georgia Tech round out the top five.

Harvard University is this year’s bottom ranked school for free speech for the second year in a row. Joining it in the bottom three are Columbia University and New York University. All three of these schools have an “Abysmal” speech climate. The University of Pennsylvania and Barnard College round out the bottom five and each has a “Very Poor” speech climate.

All of the bottom five schools experienced a number of controversies involving the suppression of free expression. They also received significantly lower scores than the top five schools on “Administrative Support,” “Comfort Expressing Ideas,” and “Tolerance Difference,” which measures the strength of students’ favoritism when it comes to allowing liberal or conservative speakers on campus.

Since 2020, UVA, Michigan Tech, FSU, North Carolina State University, Oregon State University, Mississippi State University, Auburn University, George Mason University, Kansas State University, the University of Mississippi, the University of Chicago, and Claremont McKenna College have all consistently performed well in FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings.

A majority of students (55%) said that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is difficult to “have an open and honest conversation about on campus,” a record high for a topic on this question in the five years we have asked it. At least 75% of students on 17 of the campuses surveyed responded this way to this question.

The percentages of students who said shouting down a speaker, blocking other students from entering an event, and using violence to stop a campus speech is at least “rarely” acceptable all increased since last year. 

A majority of students said that six of eight hypothetical controversial campus speakers should “probably” or “definitely” not be allowed on campus.

Student concerns about self-censorship have declined. This year, 17% of students said they feel like they cannot express their opinion on a subject at least a couple of times a week because of how students, a professor, or the administration would respond. Last year, this percentage was 20%, and in 2022 it was 22%.

[furrbbyx]

I had time today, because I caught a life threatening virus in Biden's America where precautions and tracking have been at Trump levels and I'm in quarantine. Yes, I'm saying the virus has spread further because of Biden's conservative Trumpian way of dealing with this. So anyway. I had time.

And speaking of viruses Biden's support of social issues is something that's been pushed around this app kind of irresponsibly.

Speaking of Biden as if he is an individual and not an administration, and confusing what is policy and what is just talk.

This image was my prompt. I'm not going to address every point, but I will give you the resources to look into the others.

Some definitions

Policy is a law, regulation, procedure, administrative action, incentive, or voluntary practice of governments and other institutions. (CDC, 2015)

An executive order is a signed, written, and published directive from the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government. Executive orders are not legislation; they require no approval from Congress, and Congress cannot simply overturn them. (American Bar Association, 2021)

Law can be said to be the body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system. But there are other similar definitions.

A regulation has the force of a law, but may only be a governmental order. Such as during quarantine.

An executive order is not a policy. A policy is a law.

TLDR: This is supposed to be the people's administration. If the government doesn't live up to the peoples' standards of creating laws to protect the human rights they believe should be protected then it's not supporting the things the people support. Full stop. Biden administration is weak on many levels in terms of keeping promises, and pushing change. They can't even forgive all the student loans. Read critically and don't trust tumblr images about important topics because MAGA, red or blue, is invested in creating a less critical electorate that trusts their messaging as gospel. Is the US your gospel? Or is liberation your gospel?

There is no formal Biden administration policy supporting a ceasefire, an end to aggressions on civillians in Palestine, or a withdraw of military and opening of humanitarian corridors. That is literally malinformation. Members of his administration have signed letters and resigned over his policy on that issue. For months the US has vetoed ceasefire resolutions in international lawmaking. Yes he has said a bunch of things and proposed a deal without any backing or conviction imo, but where is the policy? Only on the right of misrael to exist. He did release a statement welcoming a ceasefire in 2022 but the words support were used in reference to the right to defense (Biden, 2022)

Trans Rights: The Biden administration has chosen to reinstate guidance on Title IX extending to protecting gender orientation. The Law is the Title IX, and the guidance is a legal interpretation of the law from the Obama administration. Other than that there's just an executive order, no law or national policy. There is a law making the Pulse Memorial a national one… Biden called for the Equality Act (an amendment to the Civil Rights Act) to be passed two yeas ago, and since then has not tried to stop states infringing on human rights, and they've taken down rainbow flags internationally at embassies.

The Environment: Biden wrote in executive order 13990 that it is the policy of his administration "to protect the environment; to ensure access to clean air and water; to limit exposure to dangerous chemicals and pesticides; to hold polluters accountable, including those who disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities; to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; to bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change; to restore and expand our national treasures and monuments; and to prioritize environmental justice"

However there aren't many POLICIES from his administration to back that up. In most instances they have updated bits of policies that are already in effect. Any law from this administration involving the environment is about allocating money to invest in "climate reform". The administration's solution has not been to create more polices to protect the environment, instead it signed an order reading

"… this order directs all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to immediately review and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, take action to address the promulgation of Federal regulations and other actions during the last 4 years that conflict with these important national objectives, and to immediately commence work to confront the climate crisis." (Biden, 2021)

This order does minimal work basically asking agencies to look into the regulations and actions that conflict with the policy or "national objectives" of his administration (during Trump era only), to ask themselves is changes are needed, and they do not have to finish the review process during his term.

Removing the requirement that states meet the federal government's fuel economy requirements. This was to let California set higher standards, however it allows states to set any standard of emissions for motor vehicles. Or none.

Improving safety and reporting standards for gas pipline operators through rulemaking (regulations) under an existing policy (Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations). The standards improvement was only done in January 2024 (USDOT, 2024).

New renewable fuel targets under the 2007 Energy Policy requires a minimum of fuels to come from "renewable" sources. In this case renewable means biofuels which have been criticized because they require corn and soybeans, promoting land degradation, increased fertilizer use and bio-waste.

Mercury pollution standards re-strengthened because of executive order 13990.

This order also stopped leasing of oil rich land in North Alaska while the review process is going on. This doesn't mean it was stopped to save a natural habitat, or that the Biden administration is going to stop leasing gas rich fields in preserves. In fact nothing the Biden administration has done signals a willingness to protect federal preserves from environmental injustice.

The Biden administration has proposed strengthening NEPA but has not yet done so. NEPA is the Act that set the nations environmental policies. To me this is what belies the statement that the administration wants to protect the environment. According to Pulido (2017) less than 2 percent of litigation brought under these types of laws have been successful at applying those policies to address environmental injustice. This means it is already weak.

The claim about vaccines and public health and health care reform is downright malinformation. Firstly there is only a mandate for federal employees and vaccines for COVID-19, and none for masking. So far the only things that Biden and his administration have been able to put together for public health are executive orders, vaccine mandates, stimulus checks, cap on prescriptions prices for medicaid only. Oh and tons of money to police wrapped up in a public health act, which doesn't specifically say that police departments must improve public health, nor does it mandate the reporting of those murdered in police custody which is a public health issue, so I think that answers the claim of "criminal justice reform".

Biden said during his debate that "we defeated medicaid" he meant that shit. Biden has not address the fact that private equity has been gobbling up the public health system (a symptom of fascism). If you read or the COVID-19 Preparedness Plan you will get the sense that the administration thinks they saved us.

"And the U.S. government has successfully put equity at the heart of a nationwide public health response. Hispanic, Black, and Asian adults are now vaccinated at the same rates as White adults."

and

"The path forward in the fight against COVID-19 is clear: schools, workers, and workplaces have resources and guidance to prevent shutdowns."

and if you read the reactionary executive order 14076 which came out after "Roe" was overturned you might think that protections for birthing people are really important to the administration. But reading deeper reveals that similar to the vaccine mandate, it mainly effects federal employees, that it can only be applied to the extent of the law (no Roe, so it's states' laws) and that even the federal Health and Human Services department cannot enforce the PRECEDENCE of federal laws about medical treatment against the Texas Abortion law. (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2024).

For abortions the administration did reinstate Title X funding for clinics, but that's beside the point now. Biden has also been heard saying that he is "not big on abortion" (TIME, 2022) and previously supported the Hyde amendment which prevented public funds supporting abortion procedures. Articles online criticize Biden especially in his first 100 days for sending more money to Planned Parenthood and paint him as staunchly pro-choice, but why wasn't Roe enshrined in law (like he said he'd do), if he supports it so hard.

But don't forget this at the end of each order is a nice little

"This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."

So, since this is already a million years long let me end by pointing out that environmental reform is not environmental justice, immigration reform isn't mentioned (because he's put more kids in cages than Trump) and he still has no plan for the student loans beyond a repayment plan or the future with COVID-19.

Biden administration is already folding, meaning they are not fighting against Trump. They are less invested in the outcome of the election than their electorate. People are defending a fuckass administration with zero plans on how to push them left, and zero action steps if they don't deliver. They could win today. If they stopped funding misrael and stopped the siege. If they wanted to win this election cycle they could, and if you people pushing this disinformation and malinformation would read critically you might realize why no one wants to hear your fearmongering, "lesser evil" fake arguments. The proof is in the (lack of) policy. People don't want to choose between fascists imo, they want to be free and have their rights enshrined in law.

sources

What is an Executive Order? American Bar Association, January 25, 2021, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/what-is-an-executive-order-/ Bennett, B. (2022, May 13). Biden’s Abortion Views, Faith at Odds Like Never Before. TIME. https://time.com/6176375/bidens-abortion-catholic-democrats/ Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge | Bureau of Land Management. (n.d.). Retrieved July 18, 2024, from https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-and-gas/about/alaska/coastal-plain-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge Definition of Policy | Policy, Performance, and Evaluation | CDC. (2023, May 9). https://www.cdc.gov/policy/paeo/process/definition.html Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) | CMS. (n.d.). Retrieved July 18, 2024, from https://www.cms.gov/medicare/regulations-guidance/legislation/emergency-medical-treatment-labor-act Fueling America’s Economy: Legislation to Improve Safety and Expand U.S. Pipeline Infrastructure | US Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Retrieved July 18, 2024, from https://www.transportation.gov/fueling-americas-economy-legislation-improve-safety-and-expand-us-pipeline-infrastructure House, T. W. (2021, January 21). Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/ House, T. W. (2022a, July 8). FACT SHEET: President Biden to Sign Executive Order Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Care Services. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/07/08/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-sign-executive-order-protecting-access-to-reproductive-health-care-services/ House, T. W. (2022b, August 8). Statement by President Biden on the Ceasefire in Gaza. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/07/statement-by-president-biden-on-the-ceasefire-in-gaza/ National COVID-19 Preparedness Plan. (n.d.). The White House. Retrieved July 18, 2024, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/covidplan/ Pulido, L. (2017). Geographies of race and ethnicity II: Environmental racism, racial capitalism and state-sanctioned violence. Progress in Human Geography, 41(4), 524–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132516646495 Quinn, M. (2023, June 28). Biden says he’s “not big on abortion” because of Catholic faith, but Roe “got it right” - CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-abortion-catholic-faith-roe-v-wade-got-it-right/ Tracking regulatory changes in the Biden era. (n.d.). Brookings. Retrieved July 18, 2024, from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tracking-regulatory-changes-in-the-biden-era/ U.S. Detention of Child Migrants | Council on Foreign Relations. (n.d.). Retrieved July 18, 2024, from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-detention-child-migrants US EPA, O. (2013, July 31). National Environmental Policy Act Review Process [Overviews and Factsheets]. https://www.epa.gov/nepa/national-environmental-policy-act-review-process Klein, M. V., Kate Sullivan,Betsy. (2022, January 20). 5 significant bills and 5 executive orders Biden signed in his first year – and his 5 biggest priorities for 2022 | CNN Politics. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics/biden-laws-passed-priorities-to-get-done-executive-orders/index.html President Biden Calls for Passage of Equality Act to Advance LGBTQ Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved July 18, 2024, from https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/inclusion-diversity/president-biden-calls-passage-equality-act-to-advance-lgbtq-rights

[holisticwellnessus]

Ketamine or TMS: Which Mental Health Treatment is Right for You?

Have you been battling depression or anxiety for what feels like forever? You have tried the usual medications, therapy sessions, lifestyle changes, and everything- but nothing seems to work out. If this is the scene, you are not alone because many people face this exact situation. However, fortunately, now there are new-age treatments like Ketamine and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to help you reclaim your mental well-being. But, before you consult a therapist, how do you know which is the best treatment for you? Here’s a guide to help you get started!

Ketamine Therapy Overview

Originally developed as an anesthetic, Ketamine has become a proven treatment for mental conditions. Unlike typical antidepressants, which take weeks to work, Ketamine has fast-acting effects, and it can provide relief within hours or days for some patients. How? Ketamine targets glutamate, a neurotransmitter that helps to regulate mood. By increasing glutamate production, ketamine can encourage the brain to form new neural pathways, which helps to rewire the brain’s response to stress and depression. However, you need to consider the administration of this drug as it is typically given intravenously or as a nasal spray under supervision, so it requires regular visits to a clinic.

Exploring TMS Therapy

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) offers a non-invasive alternative. Unlike medications or Ketamine, TMS doesn’t rely on chemicals but uses electromagnetic pulses to stimulate areas of the brain involved in mood regulation. This therapy targets specific brain regions with low-frequency magnetic pulses so normal brain activity can be restored, and it can improve mood over time. The sessions are short, and they usually last for about 30-40 minutes without requiring any anesthesia. Also, TMS is an FDA-approved treatment, and it has shown significant improvement in patients with treatment-resistant depression.

However, TMS usually requires several sessions a week over 4-6 weeks for optimal results, and people with certain types of brain implants or metal in the head are not ideal candidates for TMS.

Ketamine vs. TMS: How to Choose?

Deciding between Ketamine and TMS depends on your specific needs, medical history, and lifestyle. You can consider the following factors before selecting a treatment option:

Need Immediate Relief? If you are looking for a quick turnaround, Ketamine’s fast-acting effects might be more appealing.

Prefer a Drug-Free Approach? TMS offers a non-invasive, drug-free option with minimal side effects.

Concerned About Time Commitment? While Ketamine requires fewer sessions, TMS demands a longer, more consistent treatment schedule but without the need for medication.

Conclusion

Selecting between Ketamine and TMS ultimately comes down to what aligns best with your personal preferences and treatment goals. Before you choose a treatment or think about the side effects, consult professionals for integrative holistic psychiatry and find out what suits your needs best. Both treatments offer hope to those struggling with mental health conditions and may pave the way to better mental wellness, and the best part is these treatments can also be used together. So, what do you want?

This content was originally published on: Holistic Wellness & Psychiatry PLLC

This has been republished with permission.

Original Source: https://holisticwellness.clinic/ketamine-or-tms-which-mental-health-treatment-is-right-for-you/

[travel5445]

Unleashing Creativity: Los Angeles Video Production Companies

Epicenter of Video Production Excellence Los Angeles stands because the epicenter of video production excellence, boasting a vibrant network of global-class video production agencies. From small boutique studios to large-scale manufacturing houses, the town’s panorama is teeming with creativity and innovation. Los Angeles video production companies leverage the metropolis’s various landscapes, state-of-the-art facilities, and pinnacle-tier talent to produce fascinating content across numerous genres, including advertisements, track films, documentaries, and characteristic films.

Collaborative Spirit and Expertise What units Los Angeles video production companies apart is their collaborative spirit and know-how. With get admission to to a massive community of industry specialists, together with administrators, manufacturers, writers, cinematographers, and editors, these corporations thrive on collaboration and creativity. Whether it is brainstorming thoughts, growing scripts, or bringing ideas to life on display screen, Los Angeles video production businesses excel in fostering an environment where innovation flourishes and boundaries are pushed.

Cutting-Edge Technology and Resources Los Angeles video production companies have get right of entry to to modern generation and assets, enabling them to supply great content material that captivates audiences worldwide. From cutting-edge cameras and gadget to among the finest publish-manufacturing centers, these groups leverage the cutting-edge tools and techniques to create visually lovely and emotionally engaging videos. With a finger on the pulse of industry traits and advancements, Los Angeles video production companies hold to push the boundaries of storytelling and visual aesthetics, solidifying their popularity as leaders inside the discipline.

[kathiegreear]

Understanding Automated External Defibrillators

Heart problems are a major health concern. In the US, for example, approximately half a million individuals experience cardiac arrest every year; 60 to 80 percent die. However, the survival rate may increase two- or threefold with immediate action utilizing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillators or AEDs.

Simple to operate, the AED device uses clear verbal and visual cues to help rescuers without special knowledge safely implement defibrillation (shock delivery to restore normal heart rhythm). Some AEDs prompt the rescuer to assess the patient’s breathing and pulse first and, if there is no pulse, initiate chest compressions and summon emergency services immediately.

AEDs are either semi-automated or fully automated. Semi-automated AEDs necessitate user involvement during shock delivery, while fully automated ones execute the process independently. With semi-automated models, the user applies adhesive pads to the patient’s bare chest, and the device analyzes the cardiac rhythm, providing voice prompts if a shock is advisable to restore normal function. Upon delivering the shock, users immediately administer CPR until the device reanalyzes the rhythm as it counts down.

Designed to be used by lay responders, trained emergency personnel such as police, firefighters, and flight attendants frequently operate AEDs. Basic CPR and AED certification training, offered by organizations such as the American Heart Association or the Red Cross, can boost user confidence. Public-access AED programs help disseminate devices and first-aid education in local communities. However, AEDs are highly accurate in rhythm assessment and will only prompt shock delivery when medically warranted.

AEDs are not only deployed in first-responder vehicles such as ambulances and fire trucks but also strategically placed in high-traffic areas by health departments, local governments, and emergency response teams. These areas include sports arenas, airports, public transportation hubs, schools, and other venues. The widespread availability of AEDs in these settings offers significant benefits, such as increasing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival rates by up to 40 percent compared to scenarios where AEDs are unavailable. Every minute without defibrillation reduces the chance of survival by as much as 10 percent for those experiencing cardiac arrest.

To ensure quality and reliability in cardiac emergencies, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandates that all AED manufacturers obtain premarket approval for their devices and accessories through rigorous testing and evaluation. The agency maintains and publishes lists of approved AEDs and accessories. Ongoing monitoring and product recalls (where necessary) help maintain confidence in the approved AEDs' intended functionality during critical incidents.

While proper AED use can be life-saving, minor transient side effects exist. Patients typically experience brief discomfort, akin to a bee sting or static-electricity zap, at the electrode placement sites. However, these sensations rarely result in long-term health issues. Patients may also experience brief fatigue and confusion immediately after treatment due to the physiological stress of cardiac arrest, which typically resolves rapidly.

Adhering to specific precautions is crucial to ensure safe AED operation. First responders should look for hazards, such as wet or damp conditions, that could cause unintended electrical conduction. Nearby metal objects or individuals in contact with the patient could result in unwanted shocks. Most importantly, users should precisely follow on-screen and voice prompts to ensure safe and effective AED use. Regular equipment maintenance, including timely replacement of electrode pads and battery per manufacturer guidelines, is equally vital to maintaining optimal device functionality.

[jcmarchi]

Tests Begin on Sensitive Neutrino Detector for Nonproliferation, Physics - Technology Org

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/tests-begin-on-sensitive-neutrino-detector-for-nonproliferation-physics-technology-org/

Tests Begin on Sensitive Neutrino Detector for Nonproliferation, Physics - Technology Org

Neutrinos and antineutrinos are nearly massless particles produced in many nuclear reactions, including the fission of uranium in nuclear power plants on Earth and the fusion reactions at the sun’s core.

An array of photomultiplier tubes, used to detect faint sources of light, mounted inside the steel tank of the Eos detector. The photomultiplier tubes will eventually be submerged in water admixed with a novel scintillator that serve as targets for particles such as neutrinos passing through. The particle interactions produce bursts of light that will be captured by the photomultiplier tubes. Image credit: Thor Swift/Berkeley Lab

But they are devilishly hard to detect — most pass through Earth without stopping — making it difficult to study the nuclear reactions taking place at the core of stars or in stellar explosions or to monitor nuclear power plants for illicit production of bomb material.

A new type of neutrino detector is now being tested in a vast underground lab at the University of California, Berkeley, and is designed to leverage the latest technologies to enhance the sensitivity and capabilities of antineutrino detectors. Such improved detectors would not only help detect, localize and characterize undeclared special nuclear material being used contrary to federal or international regulations but also help scientists explore the fundamental physics of particles and their interactions deep in the atom’s nucleus.

Called Eos, for the Titan goddess of dawn, the apparatus signals “the dawn of a new era of neutrino detection technology,” according to Gabriel Orebi Gann, a UC Berkeley associate professor of physics, faculty scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the leader of the Eos collaboration.

The prototype detector is funded by the National Nuclear Security Administration, which funds research and development at Department of Energy (DOE) labs to further the nation’s ability to detect, prevent, counter and respond to nuclear security threats — in the case of this research, to detect and characterize nuclear activities and materials remotely, that is, at distances greater than about 100 meters. While radioactivity from nuclear material can be shielded from detection, antineutrinos produced in fission reactions cannot. Because billions of dollars are produced in a reactor in each nanosecond, Eos should be able to detect enough antineutrinos to identify clandestine production of bomb-grade material.

“The idea of neutrino detection is you can’t spoof it, you can’t shield it, you can’t fake it. Neutrinos travel at almost the speed of light, so they provide near-instantaneous detection, even at distance. They offer a unique signature of nuclear activity,” said Orebi Gann. “If you’re either a long way away or you’ve got a very weak signature, then you need a big detector. And for a big detector, you need liquid.”

Gabriel Orebi Gann and Berkeley Lab engineer Joe Saba inspected the Eos detector — 242 photomultiplier tubes surrounding an acrylic tank — as it was lowered into a steel tank on Jan. 26. During testing, the inner acrylic tank will be filled with water and eventually a scintillator that will generate pulses of light when neutrinos or antineutrinos pass through. The photomultiplier tubes detect the light and help determine the energies of the particles and the direction from which they arrived. Image credit: Zara Bagdasarian/UC Berkeley

Eos is a 10-meter-tall, 5-meter-wide cylinder filled with water and an organic scintillator and surrounded by light detectors three times more sensitive than those used in physics experiments today. Eos’s improved sensitivity and higher resolution come from combining two of today’s best techniques for detecting neutrinos: scintillation and Cherenkov emission.

The improvements could be a game-changer for future neutrino physics projects, such as the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) now being constructed in an abandoned gold mine in Lead, South Dakota, to detect neutrinos emitted by a particle accelerator at Fermi National Laboratory, 500 miles away in Illinois. UC Berkeley and Berkeley Lab are members of the DUNE collaboration.

“What we would ultimately like to build is a much bigger detector called Theia,” she said. “Theia is the Titan goddess of light and Eos’s mother in the pantheon of gods. The ideal location for Theia is in that mine in South Dakota, seeing those neutrinos from Fermilab.”

It remains to be seen whether Theia — which would employ a tank large enough to nearly swallow the Statue of Liberty — will replace one of DUNE’s four planned liquid argon “far” detectors. Orebi Gann argues that a hybrid detector like Theia, while providing comparable sensitivity for studying the high-energy beam of neutrinos that is the primary target of DUNE, would add new capabilities beyond an argon detector, including the ability to detect antineutrinos. Theia also would have a 2-degree pointing accuracy for the location of a supernova via the neutrino burst and would have the capacity to search for low-energy solar neutrinos and Majorana neutrinos.

A hybrid neutrino detector

Eos is unique in being a hybrid of the two main types of liquid neutrino detectors, both of which start with a tank of liquid.

The detector employs several types of photomultiplier tubes. Some, like the one at left front, are encircled by dichroic filters arranged in the shape of a cone — a “dichroicon” — that reflect some wavelengths of light into a photomultiplier tube at the cone’s aperture but allow other wavelengths to pass through to tubes below and behind. This helps to distinguish Cherenkov light from scintillator light. Image credit: Thor Swift/Berkeley Lab

One technique is based on a scintillator — in this case, linear alkylbenzene — that emits light in response to the charged particles produced during interactions with a neutrino or antineutrino.

Neutrinos and antineutrinos can also interact with other materials, such as water, to produce an electron, which then emits its own light, though much fainter than scintillation light. The latter is called Cherenkov radiation and is emitted when the electron plows through the liquid faster than the speed of light in the liquid, akin to the acoustic energy of a sonic boom produced by a plane traveling faster than the speed of sound.

In both techniques, sensitive light detectors called photomultiplier tubes are arrayed around the tank to record the intensity of the faint light. The intensity of the scintillation provides information about the energy of the neutrino or antineutrino. Cherenkov radiation, however, is emitted in a cone, so it can provide information on the direction from which the neutrino came, a critical piece of information for studying nuclear reactor sources as well as cosmic neutrino sources.

“Photomultiplier tubes are sensitive to single photon levels of light,” Orebi Gann said. “But a liquid scintillator gives you a lot more light: If you’ve got an electron at the same energy, you’ll get 50 times more light, depending on the scintillator, than from Cherenkov emission. That means you get better precision for understanding where the energy was deposited and how much energy there was.”

[embedded content]

“We said, OK, we don’t want to pick and choose. We don’t like compromise. We want both. And that’s the goal here. We want the topology of Cherenkov light, but the resolution of scintillation,” she said.

The problem is that light from scintillation is so bright it overwhelms the Cherenkov light.

Luckily, Cherenkov light comes out in a picosecond burst, whereas scintillation light lingers for nanoseconds.

“If you have very fast photon detectors, you can use the time difference to help separate those two signatures,” she said. Eos will surround the liquid tank with 242 photomultiplier tubes made by the Japanese firm Hamamatsu that are three times faster than current photomultipliers.

The visible region of Cherenkov light has a redder color spectrum than scintillation light, which is mostly blue. The team takes advantage of this by surrounding the front row of photomultipliers with a “dichroic” filter that reflects red Cherenkov light into the photomultiplier but lets blue scintillation light pass through to photomultipliers in the back.

“You’re basically sorting your photons by wavelength and directing them to different photon detectors based on the wavelength,” she said.

Orebi Gann and her team began assembling Eos in September, delayed for six weeks by the destruction of the first steel tank when the truck carrying it collided with an overpass. The tanks are so large that the researchers had to house the experiment in a large basement lab — formerly occupied by a nuclear reactor — operated by UC Berkeley’s Department of Nuclear Engineering.

They surrounded the acrylic tank with the photomultiplier tubes, then lifted the whole assembly into a cylindrical steel tank. The internal acrylic tank and the gap between the acrylic and steel tanks were then filled with pure water, submerging the photomultiplier tubes in the gap. Once the team tests the ability of Eos to detect Cherenkov light from artificial radioactive sources and natural, cosmic muons, they will gradually add scintillator material to test the experiment’s ability to discriminate between the two types of light emissions.

“We have also designed our detector so we can deploy pure liquid scintillator,” Orebi Gann said. “This would be the ultimate test: if we can still see the Cherenkov signature even with the maximal scintillation component.”

Plans call for exploring how well Eos can monitor small modular reactors and nuclear-powered maritime vessels and check test site transparency.

Orebi Gann is eager also to employ the Eos design in general neutrino physics studies, such as measuring the flux of neutrinos from the core of the sun to verify the predicted nuclear reactions powering it; investigations of terrestrial sources of neutrinos; mapping the diffuse supernova neutrino background in the Milky Way and beyond; and the ongoing search for neutrinoless double beta decay, which would indicate that a neutrino is its own antiparticle.

All of these questions are already being explored with either the scintillator or Cherenkov detectors, but Orebi Gann is hoping that a hybrid detector will speed progress.

“The same kind of physics that each of those detectors has done in the past, we could do better,” she said. “That’s the goal. It’s R&D for the next generation.”

Source: UC Berkeley

You can offer your link to a page which is relevant to the topic of this post.

[hansilw]

NEW: The White House's Office of Management and Budget remains "on track" to publish by summer 2024 revised standards for how the 2030 census and federal surveys ask about race and ethnicity, U.S. Chief Statistician Karin Orvis said at a Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics meeting. The results of recent research on a combined race and ethnicity question that was conducted through the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey will be included with the final set of recommendations of the Federal Interagency Technical Working Group on Race and Ethnicity Standards, which will be released through a Federal Register notice, Orvis confirmed.

Catch up here👇

[ventesb2b]

Exploring Content Syndication Platforms: Boost Your Content's Reach and Engagement

Introduction:

In today's digital age, producing valuable content is just the first step. To truly maximize your content's impact and reach, you need to venture beyond your own platforms and tap into the vast potential of content syndication. Content syndication platforms offer a gateway to connect with new audiences, enhance your brand's authority, and drive engagement. In this blog post, we'll take a deep dive into the world of content syndication platforms, exploring their benefits, popular options, and tips for making the most of them.

Understanding Content Syndication Platforms

Content syndication platforms are third-party websites, networks, or services that enable you to republish and distribute your content to a broader audience. These platforms act as intermediaries between content creators and publishers, allowing your content to be featured on websites with established audiences, often within your niche or industry.

Benefits of Using Content Syndication Platforms

1. Extended Reach: Syndication platforms expose your content to a wider audience, helping you reach individuals who might not have come across your content otherwise.

2. Enhanced Authority: When your content appears on reputable platforms, it bolsters your credibility and positions you as an expert in your field.

3. SEO Boost: Backlinks from high-authority websites can improve your website's search engine rankings, driving organic traffic and visibility.

4. Diversified Traffic Sources: Relying solely on your website limits your audience. Syndication diversifies your traffic sources, reducing dependency on a single channel.

5. Increased Engagement: Your content's exposure on multiple platforms increases the likelihood of engagement, including shares, comments, and discussions.

lets connect for more insight:  https://ventesb2b.com/contact-2/

Top Content Syndication Platforms

1. Outbrain: Known for its native advertising approach, Outbrain recommends your content as related articles on various websites, driving engaged audiences to your content.

2. Taboola: Similar to Outbrain, Taboola helps you reach new readers by placing your content as recommendations on websites with compatible audiences.

3. Medium: This platform offers the option to republish your content to a wider audience, potentially exposing it to Medium's extensive readership.

4. LinkedIn Pulse: Ideal for B2B content, LinkedIn Pulse allows you to syndicate articles to a professional audience, expanding your reach within your industry.

5. Flipboard: A social news aggregator, Flipboard lets you curate and share content, attracting readers interested in your niche.

Tips for Successful Content Syndication

1. Adapt Content: Tailor your content for each platform while maintaining its core message. Consider the platform's style, audience, and guidelines.

2. Proper Attribution: Ensure that your content includes proper attribution to the original source and relevant backlinks.

3. Build Relationships: Establish connections with editors or administrators on syndication platforms for potential collaboration.

4. Monitor Performance: Keep track of metrics such as engagement, traffic, and conversions to assess the effectiveness of each syndication platform.

5. Regular Updates: Continuously update and refresh your syndicated content to ensure its relevance and maintain audience interest. Learn More

In conclusion, content syndication platforms hold immense potential for expanding your content's reach, authority, and engagement. By strategically utilizing these platforms and adhering to best practices, you can tap into new audiences and establish your brand as a thought leader within your industry.

Aniket Deshpanade

Sr.Digital Marketink Associate

adeshpande185@gmail.com

www.ventesb2b.com/

New York, USA

[priyanshisingh]

Insulin Delivery Devices Market Rising Trends and Research Outlook 2022-2030

The latest market report published by Credence Research, Inc. “Global Insulin Delivery Devices Market: Growth, Future Prospects, and Competitive Analysis, 2016 – 2028. The global Insulin delivery devices market has witnessed steady growth in recent years and is expected to continue growing at a CAGR of 7.80% between 2023 and 2030. The market was valued at USD 13.8 billion in 2022 and is expected to reach USD 23.34588879 billion in 2030.

Insulin delivery devices play a crucial role in the management of diabetes, with insulin pens being the most popular product segment. Other significant segments include insulin syringes and insulin pumps. Homecare is the primary end-use segment, with Europe leading the market growth.

The global insulin delivery devices market faces challenges such as high costs hindering access to these devices and limited availability in underserved areas. However, the market also offers significant growth opportunities, including the integration of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and the emergence of wearable devices and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems.

The market is highly competitive, with key players including Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Biocon Ltd., and more. These companies focus on product innovation, expanding their applications, and strategic partnerships to stay ahead in the market.

Insulin Delivery Devices Market Top Trends showcase the fascinating advancements in technology that are revolutionizing the world of diabetes management. With a growing number of individuals diagnosed with diabetes, there is an increasing demand for efficient and user-friendly insulin delivery devices. One prominent trend is the development of smart insulin pens equipped with Bluetooth connectivity, allowing real-time tracking and monitoring of blood glucose levels through mobile applications. These innovative devices not only simplify the process of administering insulin but also provide valuable insights into a patient's overall health status. Another notable trend is the emergence of wearable insulin pumps that offer discreet and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion without the need for multiple injections throughout the day. These pumps come in sleek designs, making them comfortable to wear while ensuring precise dosage delivery based on individual needs.

Why to Buy This Report-

The report provides a qualitative as well as quantitative analysis of the global Insulin Delivery Devices Market by segments, current trends, drivers, restraints, opportunities, challenges, and market dynamics with the historical period from 2016-2020, the base year- 2021, and the projection period 2022-2028.

The report includes information on the competitive landscape, such as how the market's top competitors operate at the global, regional, and country levels.

In-depth analysis of the global market segmentation on the Route of Administration and  Application

Major nations in each region with their import/export statistics

The global Insulin Delivery Devices Market report also includes the analysis of the market at a global, regional, and country-level along with key market trends, major players analysis, market growth strategies, and key application areas.

Browse Full Report: https://www.credenceresearch.com/report/insulin-delivery-devices-market

Visit: https://www.credenceresearch.com/

Related Report: https://www.credenceresearch.com/report/orthopaedic-trauma-devices-market

Related Report: https://www.credenceresearch.com/report/uv-irradiation-cabins-market

Browse Our Blog: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/north-america-insulin-delivery-devices-market-size-worth-singh

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Nate Silver

Published: Nov 2, 2023

“What Harvard students think” is a topic that invariably receives too much attention. But I don’t think that’s true for evaluating opinion among young people or college students in general — who, after all, will make up the next generation of journalists, business leaders, politicians and pretty much every other white-collar profession. And after seeing the latest polling on what college students think about free speech, I don’t concern over “cancel culture” or the erosion of free speech norms is just some moral panic. In fact, I think people are neglecting how quick and broad the shifts have been, especially on the left.

College Pulse and FIRE — the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a pro-free speech advocacy group — recently published the latest edition of their annual survey. Although I don’t love using data from political groups — even ones I generally agree with — the good in this survey outweighs the bad. The methodology is detailed and transparent. And in surveying more than 55,000 undergraduates, the poll provides a look at student opinion across all sorts of colleges and universities — not just from the loudest or most privileged students at elite institutions.

Although I’ve seen a lot of media coverage about the FIRE survey, I’d never really dug into the details. I’m not sure exactly what I was expecting to see. But given my own political philosophy, I can tell you what I was hoping for: robust student support for free speech — perhaps in contrast to the often lukewarm support it receives among university administrators. Unfortunately, that’s not what the survey found. Here’s what it says instead:

College students aren’t very enthusiastic about free speech. In particular, that’s true for liberal or left-wing students, who are at best inconsistent in their support of free speech and have very little tolerance for controversial speech they disagree with.

Moreover, this attitude is broad-based — not just at elite schools. I was frankly surprised at how tepid student support was. A significant minority of students don’t even have much tolerance for controversial speech on positions they presumably agree with. There are partial exceptions at some schools — including my alma mater, the University of Chicago — suggesting the attitudes of professors and administrators play some role in trickling down to students. But this looks like a major generational shift from when college campuses were hotbeds of advocacy for free speech, particularly on the left.

[ A protest in favor of free speech as part of the Free Speech Movement at UC Berkeley. ]

Students have low tolerance for even mildly controversial speakers

The College Pulse/FIRE survey asks a long battery of questions, but many of them are focused on student perceptions about university administrators and not what they think about free speech themselves. Other questions ask about efforts to disrupt controversial speech — for instance, by shouting down a speaker. In these cases, there can be competing interpretations of what constitutes free speech — i.e. the students might say they are exercising free speech by disrupting the speaker — so these aren’t straightforward to interpret.

However, another set of questions directly asks students about their tolerance for controversial speech with no competing speech interest — specifically, whether a student group should be allowed to invite a speaker on campus. The exact wording of these questions is this:

Student groups often invite speakers to campus to express their views on a range of topics. Regardless of your own views of the topic, should your school ALLOW or NOT ALLOW a speaker on campus who previously expressed the following idea: ______________

Then, the survey presents students with a set of six examples — three pertaining to controversial ideas held by conservative speakers, and three about controversial ideas from liberal speakers. The order in which the students are presented with the examples is randomized in the survey — but here I’ll list them here with the conservative ideas first (which I’ve labeled as C1, C2 and C3) and the liberal ones (L1, L2, L3) second.

C1. Transgender people have a mental disorder. C2. Abortion should be completely illegal. C3. Black Lives Matter is a hate group. L1. The Second Amendment should be repealed so that guns can be confiscated. L2. Religious liberty is used as an excuse to discriminate against gays and lesbians. L3. Structural racism maintains inequality by protecting White privilege.

Let me pause for an annoying little disclaimer. In today’s newsletter, I’m going to use the term “liberal” as synonymous with “progressive” or “left-wing”, even though I generally try to avoid that. Indeed, free speech is a bedrock principle of liberalism as classically defined. But since the FIRE survey uses “liberal” as a stand-in for left1, I’m going to do so as well.

OK, with that throat-clearing out of the way, let me show you the numbers, broken down by students’ self-described political orientation. The figures in the table reflect the percentage of students who would allow the speaker.

If you want to critique the examples FIRE chose, I’m sympathetic up to a point — the conservative statements seem slightly spicier than the liberal ones, although maybe that reflects my personal biases. I figured that the students would have a strong dislike for speakers C1 (“transgender people have a mental disorder”) or C3 (“Black Lives Matter is a hate group”) because they could be seen as promoting hate speech or misinformation. I don’t personally think “hate speech” and “misinformation” are terribly coherent categories, but leave that aside for now. This is a survey of college students, including some as young as 18. So I was just hoping to find general, directional support for free speech — even if not necessarily in every instance from first principles.

But I was much more surprised by responses to speaker C2 (“abortion should be completely illegal”). People obviously have strong feelings about abortion, and a complete abortion ban is unpopular. Still, this is a commonly-articulated, garden-variety unpopular political opinion that doesn’t make any sort of factual claim and can’t reasonably be construed as hateful. You’d think even students with a tentative, half-baked belief in free speech principles would tolerate it. And yet, 57 percent of students — including 68 percent of liberals — thought a speaker expressing this anti-abortion viewpoint shouldn’t be allowed on campus. That number kind of shocked me.

For that matter, tolerance for some of the liberal viewpoints isn’t all that high either. Only 57 precent of students think L2 — the speaker who says religious liberty is used as an excuse to discriminate against gays and lesbians — should be allowed, even though that sort of claim has been common in American political discourse for decades now

Still, to be clear, there’s a big gap between the liberal students and the conservative students. The conservatives are actually quite consistent, with roughly 60 percent support for both liberal and conservative speakers. The liberal students have a relatively high tolerance for liberal speakers, but little tolerance for conservative ones.

This isn’t just a Harvard problem

Harvard and other elite schools often rate poorly in FIRE’s overall free speech rankings — Harvard is dead last in the latest edition, in fact. But the survey data I’ve been describing is just one component of those rankings. When it comes to controversial speakers, students at non-elite colleges are just as intolerant as their Ivy League counterparts. Here are the average numbers across various college typologies:

You can look at this data in a couple of different ways. On the one hand, the Ivy League schools are slightly more tolerant of controversial speakers overall. On the other hand, they have a particularly wide gap between tolerance for liberal speakers and conservative ones. Students at elite small colleges — the so-called Little Ivy group — have an even bigger gap and stand out as being particularly inconsistent. Still, the numbers don’t differ that much from one type of institution to the next. As I’ve said, student support for controversial speech is low across the board.

What about at individual universities? I don’t want to make too much of these rankings because there are potential sample size issues — the survey polled a couple hundred students per school on average. So let me just list the top 5 and bottom 5 schools, which differ from the average enough to be comfortably outside the margin of error.

Hillsdale College, an expressly conservative university, unsurprisingly has off-the-charts tolerance for conservative speakers. To their credit, though, students there also have above-average tolerance for liberal speakers. Meanwhile, the University of Chicago, which has a long history of support for free speech — reiterated in 2014 in the form of something called the Chicago Principles — ranks third. Washington and Lee University, which adopted the Chicago Principles, ranks second.

Why did the campus left turn against free speech?

Rather than provide a comprehensive analysis of the reasons for this shift — perhaps we can go into more detail in future editions of this newsletter — let me just inventory a few hypotheses. By no means are these mutually exclusive — I suspect they all play a role.

Reason #1: Woke ideas are popular on campus and are considerably less tolerant of free speech than traditional liberalism

I’m at the point where I’m tired of putting the term “woke” in scare quotes. Although the word is sometimes abused by conservative politicians, there exists a distinctive and influential set of ideological commitments that differ from traditional liberalism or leftism. And wokeness — or whatever you want to call it — particularly differs from liberalism when it comes fo free speech, as James O’Malley writes:

The ideological shift that has surprised me the most is witnessing “free speech” become coded as a right-wing value, and something that when the phrase is uttered makes people sympathetic to “woke” ideas suspicious. The argument is that unrestricted speech harms people. There isn’t an equal platform to speak in the first place, so racists and other unpleasant people are able to use the norm of free speech to terrorise groups who are oppressed. I think the strangest example of this new norm in action was the response to Elon Musk buying Twitter. Traditionally, liberal ideology is fearful of overreach by powerful figures like billionaires, and is in favour of more permissive speech rules and norms as a hedge against their power. But the “woke” complaint about the new owner is that under Musk’s leadership, Twitter will not be censorious enough, and will be too permissive over what speech is allowed on the platform.

Reason #2: Normie Democrats are turning against free speech because of concerns over misinformation

However, wokeism isn’t the only left-of-center movement that has raised concerns about free speech. Rank-and-file Democrats have shifted on the question too and now strongly prioritize restricting false information over protecting freedom of information:

Note that this shift is fairly recent — it came between 2018 and 2021, so it can’t just be attributed to the election of Donald Trump. (Maybe it had something to do with COVID?) And it’s a big shift — Democrats went from 57/40 in favor of free speech over misinformation in 2018 to 28/70 against it in 2023. A change that large will inevitably trickle down into universities with their mostly liberal students, professors and parents.

Reason #3: The younger generation is risk-averse in general

Teens and young adults in the U.S. increasingly defy the stereotype of younger people taking more risks. Instead, they show increasing rates of depression and neuroticism, and decreasing rates of risky behavior such as drug use and sex. This is particularly true among young people who identify as liberal. If you think controversial speech can cause harm — from psychological trauma to actual, literal violence — you might conclude that it’s not worth the risk.

Reason #4: The United States may be reverting to the mean

The U.S. has historically been an outlier in public support for free speech, and our laws are more protective of it than in many other Western democracies. Britain, for example, has significant curbs on speech, as does Germany. If America is becoming less distinct from the rest of the world — not something I regard as a hard-and-fast fact but a plausible theory, especially in the multicultural environment of universities — we might expect support for free speech to decline.

Reason #5: The adults in the room are often hypocrites

I don’t think it’s always true that people are hypocritical about free speech. Some partisans literally can’t seem to understand that some of us at least strive for a more high-minded, principled approach, even if we don’t always live up to it. Thinking that everyone else is a hypocrite is a convenient belief to hold if you yourself are a hypocrite.

But is there a lot of hypocrisy around free speech? Of course there is. Republicans who rail against wokeness put significant limits of their own on academic freedom. Supposed “free speech absolutist” Elon Musk has often taken a censorious approach toward content he doesn’t like while tolerating censorship by foreign governments.

While I’ve somehow made it this far without using the words “Israel” or “Palestine”, recent international events have uncovered instances of hypocrisy too. I have no interest in refereeing every incident, but cases like this — in which editor-in-chief Michael Eisen was fired from the life sciences journal eLife for retweeting an Onion article that expressed sympathy with Palestinians — fall under any definition of “cancel culture”.

Meanwhile, major donors are reconsidering their contributions to universities whose administrations they say weren’t sufficiently critical of Hamas and the October 7 terrorist attacks. Personally, I think donating to an already-rich, elite private university is one of the least effective possible ways to spend your money, so I’m happy whenever donors find an excuse to pull back. But leaving that aside, I don’t think these donors have really thought through their strategy.

True, a lot of university presidents have expressed a conveniently-timed, newfound commitment to free expression that didn’t match their previous behavior. Still, if I were one of those donors, I’d say “great, and now we’re going to hold you to it. The next time you stray from your commitment to free speech — particularly when it comes to students or faculty who express conservative or centrist viewpoints — we’re going nuclear, permanently ending all contributions to the university and telling all our rich friends to do the same.”

And although I’m not sure I have any business talking to college students — although I have delivered a number of guest lectures and commencement addresses — if I were, I’d use this as a teaching moment, telling students that now that they’ve found out what it’s like to stand up for a controversial, unpopular position, I’d hope they’d be more respectful of the rights of others to do the same.

Because unless someone is willing to do that — to defend free speech in a principled, non-hypocritical way — the game theory says it’s just going to be a race to the bottom. And given the increasingly tenuous commitment to it in many corners of American society, free speech is going to lose out.

--

1 This is an understandable decision, given that it’s a survey of popular (student) opinion. In conducting a poll, you want to use language the respondents will understand and use themselves.

==

Reminder: Harvard received a 0.00 score out of a possible maximum of 100.0 in FIRE's College Free Speech Rankings.

In 2020, Harvard ranked 46 out of 55 schools. In 2021, it ranked 130 out of 154 schools. Last year, it ranked 170 out of 203 schools. And this year, Harvard completed its downward spiral in dramatic fashion, coming in dead last with the worst score ever: 0.00 out of a possible 100.00. This earns it the notorious distinction of being the only school ranked this year with an “Abysmal” speech climate.

What’s more, granting Harvard a score of 0.00 is generous. Its actual score is -10.69, more than six standard deviations below the average and more than two standard deviations below the second-to-last school in the rankings, its Ivy League counterpart, the University of Pennsylvania.

[ias-next-lucknow]

Narco and Polygraph Test

About Narco Test and Polygraph Test

The Narco test is also known as the narcoanalysis test. During the test, sodium pentothal is injected into the person’s body. Also known as the ‘truth serum’, this injection transports the accused to a hypnotic state.

In this state, it is believed, the accused is incapable of lying. But in India, the Narco analysis report is not admissible as primary evidence in the court.

A polygraph test is another form of physiological examination, but in this test, no substances are injected into the person’s body. Instead, instruments to measure blood pressure, pulse rate, breathing, sweat glands and blood flow is attached to the person. After this, he/she would have to answer some questions.

A numerical value is assigned to each response to calculate if the person is lying or telling the truth.

Terminology:

The term narco-analysis is derived from the Greek word narko (meaning anaesthesia or Torpor). It is used to describe a diagnostic and psychotherapeutic technique that uses psychotropic drugs, particularly barbiturates.

What is the constitutionality in India?

In 2010, a Supreme Court ruling said that the use of narco analysis, brain mapping and polygraph tests on the accused, suspected and witnesses to a crime, without their consent, was unconstitutional and violated their right against self-incrimination.

It also said the ‘Guidelines for the Administration of Polygraph Test on an Accused’ published by the National Human Rights Commission in 2000, must be strictly followed.

The court took into consideration international norms on human rights, the right to a fair trial, and the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

These rulings were given in the case of Selvi & Ors vs State of Karnataka & Anr (2010).

The present situation of Narco test and Polygraph Test is unconstitutional and not a valid as a evidence. If the consent was not taken by accuse.

It also said that such test results could not be admitted in evidence; however any information/material subsequently discovered with the help of tests undertaken voluntarily could be admitted.

Despite the ruling however, these tests continue to be used, to date.

Read more: https://iasnext.com/narco-test-and-polygraph-test-upsc-current-affairs/

[leam1983]

On Sessler

I don't get the guy.

So G4's rebirth failed spectacularly, as you all know. It wasn't needed, it worked off of an outdated format and I, a lifelong Progressive, will freely admit that they pulled the most basic-ass, predictable cards in the deck. Frosk's rant wasn't wrong in its context, but it felt like the last twenty years' worth of discourse hadn't happened and Olivia Munn was still clutching a mic in front of a camera.

Welp, Sess went on another Twitter meltdown and more or less expectorated on what he feels is an audience that's betrayed him. He wants to come across as the martyrized high-brow analyst of the art form that's beset with thuggish rubes from the trenches of the Doritos-and-Mountain-Dew Corps, but it just doesn't click.

Seeing him screech online, I was reminded of all the frustrated wannabe Postgrad alumni I've worked with whose features constricted at the slightest provocation, and who'd then find supposedly advanced, but actually entirely sophomoric ways of landing put-downs. You know the type: they take Dark Academia far too seriously, wonder why they're the only ones with expensive Moleskine notebooks and attend Pop Culture Studies lectures at the Postgrad level because they're a requirement of the Master's Degree program. They really rather we went anal over the latest hot-button counter-cultural theorist when the name of the class more or less translates as "Get out your Potter books and your Weyland-Yutani-issued pulse rifles, 'cause shit's gonna get nerdy."

Picture one of these guys going from disinterest to blatant disgust over a little over six weeks, because some girl who's still stuck on Anamanaguchi decided to use The Walking Dead as a vector for her long years of literary observation. Picture them having the nerve to stand up and start a diatribe in the middle of the one class on campus where the closest other guy to the type of student they are's actually overdosed on Alighieri because he played the EA-published video game on PS3.

That's basically Adam Sessler, as of recently. Frothing at the mouth, jabbering away at all the CoD-bros he's never hung out with, likely reliving the halcyon days of his likening BioShock Infinite to Samuel Beckett's output.

I don't get that.

Yes, there's cultureless hacks in the medium. Yes, some people look like their K/D ratio eventually came to become the one dominant facet of their personality. Yes, there's former potentates of twitch reflexes and vaunted quickscoping heroes who haven't caught on to the fact that aging slows you down. The sick shots you landed in your teens get insanely hard to put out in your twenties, unless you relentlessly train for it. Yes, these people tend to mask a sense of inadequacy with toxicity.

The thing is, they don't matter. I game in Single Player, or on closed servers my friends and I administrate. We catastrophically fail and simultaneously laugh it up, then pick ourselves back up and go back to fragging. Whenever shooters get involved, pot usually enters the picture. Try quickscoping when half of your brain is busy coming up with a constant parade of brain farts.

I also don't let my past define my hobbies. I don't need to analyze everything I like. Not everything needs to have narrative value. There's days where all I fucking want is to skip the tutorial and campaign cinematics and build the worst Goldfinger lair ever in Evil Genius 2. There's days where all I want is One Finger Death Punch on Survival mode.

There's days where all I want is Mortal Kombat. As in, the shitty one on SNES. I am under no obligation to be high-brow.

It would help if some journalists remembered that.

Oh - and yes. I do still call myself a gamer. The label fits, as I don't simply pick up a controller when I'm at someone-or-other's house. That's it. It's the same reason why someone who's serious about Lego builds could consider themselves a model maker, or why the term maker came to define anyone who has a valid excuse to go for Prusa's top-shelf extruder, if not two or three more 3D printers.

[antoine-roquentin]

Last week, 30 chief executives of America’s top 100 largest companies hastily came together in an online dawn meeting to discuss President Donald Trump’s unsupported claims that the US election had been “stolen” from him. The executives were trying to figure out how to best leverage their personal and organisational influence to ensure a peaceful transition of power, a hallmark of the US political system. Some participants felt that worries of a potential coup were overblown. Others thought they weren’t. Most just wanted an end to election turmoil.

Within days, other groups, like the US Chamber of Commerce, were calling for Mr Trump to stop delaying the transition. Business, as always, hates uncertainty. Reading the news, I had conflicting feelings. On the one hand, I was glad that business leaders were thinking about the importance of liberal democracy in America and how to defend it.

I also couldn’t help but feel that some of the corporate concern was a bit “too little, too late”. Most big business trade groups had been supportive of the Trump administration when it was getting ready to pass what turned out to be the largest corporate tax cuts since the George W Bush era. I also worried that, even if people like me were glad that business elites were finally taking seriously the disruption to the election process and, moreover, were thinking about how to ensure a smooth transition, there were still over 72m people who voted for Mr Trump and some of them might not agree. I suspect that when those people read about a bunch of multinational CEOs getting together to throw around their political weight, a good chunk of them would likely think something along the lines of: “It’s true! There is a cabal of wealthy and powerful people running the country and they have influence that I don’t. They are the ones thwarting democracy.” Sadly, they wouldn’t be delusional to think so.

Anyone with a pulse knows that in the US today the system is rigged in favour of the wealthy and powerful. One particularly illuminating paper published this month by the Institute for New Economic Thinking quantifies the problem. Building on a persuasive 2014 data set, it shows that when opinion shifts among the wealthiest top 10 per cent of the US population, changes in policy become far more likely. Using AI and machine learning, INET academics Shawn McGuire and Charles Delahunt delved deep into the data. They found that considering the opinions of anyone outside that top 10 per cent was a far less accurate predictor of what happened to government policy.

The numbers showed that: “not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all”. This, of course, is how we ended up with Mr Trump as president. He wasn’t the cause but the symptom of a pendulum that had swung too far towards corporate concentration, and corruption in both politics and business. We have had decades of legislative tweaks to everything from tax policy to corporate governance and accounting standards that have favoured capital over labour.

Supreme Court decisions such as the Citizens United case have also dramatically increased the amount of money funnelled into political campaigning. This has left the nature of America’s political economy perilously close to an oligopoly. Look no further than the way in which Uber, Instacart, Lyft and other digital groups this month got their way with Californian labour law. Together they spent $200m to push through Proposition 22, a ballot initiative that exempts many gig workers from benefits. These companies may well now take their efforts to other US states.

As Karl Marx observed, it is only under threat from the masses that the owners of the means of production recognise their common interests. Corporate America got what it wanted from Mr Trump, namely tax cuts and deregulation. Big business in America now knows that there’s nothing more to be got from him. So they are eager for him to go, taking with him those disruptive tweets of which they were sometimes the target.

if you’re wondering, it was less than 24 hours between when the new york times reported that these CEOs were thinking of sending a letter to trump asking him to stop the chicanery or else they’d withdraw donations and when the GSA suddenly initiated a formal transition process. the media loves to blow up every stupid tribal political game for their viewers’ entertainment, but when business says jump, politics stops and says “how high?”