Daily Archives: February 14, 2021

This Week’s Awesome Tech Stories From Around the Web (Through February 13) – Singularity Hub

Posted: February 14, 2021 at 2:05 pm

VIRTUAL REALITY

Epic Games MetaHuman Creator Lets Developers Create Realistic Digital Humans Within MinutesDean Takahashi | VentureBeatEpic Gameshas unveiled its MetaHuman Creator, a new browser-based app that enables game developers and creators of real-time content to slash the time it takes to builddigital humansfrom weeks to less than an hour. And as you can see from the images in this story, the tools can create highly realistic human characters.

Jack Dorsey and Jay Z Invest 500 BTC to Make Bitcoin Internets CurrencyManish Singh and Tege Kene-Okafor | TechCrunchTwitter and Square CEO Jack Dorsey and rapper Jay Z have created an endowment to fund bitcoin development initially in Africa and India, Dorsey said on Friday. The duo is putting 500 bitcoin, which is currently worth $23.6 million, in the endowment called trust. The mission of the fund is to make bitcoin the internets currency, a job application describes.

Listen to an 18,000-Year-Old Instrument Sing Once MoreMatt Simon | Wiredresearchers from several universities and museums in France describe how they used CT scans and other imaging wizardry to show that a person during the Upper Paleolithic age took great care to modify the shell, the oldest such instrument ever found. They even got a musician to play it for us, revealing sounds that have not rung out for millennia.

Artificial Human Genomes Could Help Overcome Research Privacy ConcernsIsaac Schultz | GizmodoA team of geneticists and computer scientists have been using neural networks to construct novel segments of human genomes, according to a paper published in the journal PLOS Genetics. iFor most properties, they are not distinguishable from other genomes from the biobank we used to train our algorithm, except for one detail: they do not belong to any gene donor,isaid co-author Luca Pagani, a geneticistat the University of Tartu.

Mighty Buildings Nabs $40M Series B to 3D Print Your Next HouseMary Ann Azevedo | TechCrunchMighty Buildings can then 3D print elements like overhangs or ceilings without the need for additional supporting formwork. That way, its able to fully print a structure and not just the walls. Robotic arms can post-process the composite, which combined with the companys ability to automate the pouring of insulation and the 3D printing gives Mighty Buildings the ability to automate up to 80% of the construction process, the company claims.

Shell, in a Turning Point, Says Its Oil Production Has PeakedStanley Reed | The New York TimesRoyal Dutch Shell on Thursday made the boldest statement among its peers about the waning of the oil age, saying its production reached a high in 2019 and is now likely to gradually decline. Shells total oil production peaked in 2019 and will now drop 1 or 2 percent annually, the company said in a statement.

Theres a Tantalizing Sign of a Habitable-Zone Planet in Alpha CentauriNeel V. Patel | MIT Technology ReviewThe planet in question hasnt even been named yet, and its existence has not been verified. The new signal would suggest its the size of Neptune. That means were not talking about an Earth-like world but a warm gas planet five to seven times larger than Earth. If its home to life, it would probably bemicrobial life hanging out in the clouds.

How Vulnerable Is the World?Nick Bostrom and Matthew van der Merwe | AeonSooner or later a technology capable of wiping out human civilization might be invented. How far would we go to stop it? We call this the vulnerable world hypothesis. The intuitive idea is that theres some level of technology at which civilization almost certainly gets destroyed, unless quite extraordinary and historically unprecedented degrees of preventive policing and/or global governance are implemented.

OpenAI and Stanford Researchers Call for Urgent Action to Address Harms of Large Language Models Like GPT-3Kyle Wiggers | VentureBeatThe paper looks back at a meeting held in October 2020 to consider GPT-3 and two pressing questions: What are the technical capabilities and limitations of large language models? and What are the societal effects of widespread use of large language models? Coauthors of the paper described a sense of urgency to make progress sooner than later in answering these questions.i

Microsofts Big Win in Quantum Computing Was an Error After AllTom Simonite | WiredIn a 2018 paper, researchers said they found evidence of an elusive theorized particle. A closer look now suggests otherwise. Three years later, Microsofts 2018 physics fillip has fizzled. Late last month, Kouwenhoven and his 21 coauthors released a new paper including more data from their experiments. It concludes that they did not find the prized particle after all.

Image Credit: SplitShire /Pixabay

Read the rest here:

This Week's Awesome Tech Stories From Around the Web (Through February 13) - Singularity Hub

Posted in Singularity | Comments Off on This Week’s Awesome Tech Stories From Around the Web (Through February 13) – Singularity Hub

All the Coronavirus in the World Could Fit Inside a Coke Can, With Plenty of Room to Spare – Singularity Hub

Posted: at 2:05 pm

When I was asked to calculate the total volume of SARS-CoV-2 in the world for the BBC Radio 4 show More or Less, I will admit I had no idea what the answer would be. My wife suggested it would be the size of an Olympic swimming pool. Either that or a teaspoon, she said. Its usually one or the other with these sorts of questions.

So how to set about calculating an approximation of what the total volume really is? Fortunately, I have some form with these sorts of large-scale back-of-the-envelope estimations, having carried out a number of them for my book The Maths of Life and Death. Before we embark on this particular numerical journey, though, I should be clear that this is an approximation based on the most reasonable assumptions, but I will happily admit there may be places where it can be improved.

So where to start? Wed better first calculate how many SARS-CoV-2 particles there are in the world. To do that, well need to know how many people are infected. (Well assume humans rather than animals are the most significant reservoir for the virus.)

According to stats website Our World in Data, half a million people are testing positive for Covid every day. Yet we know that many people will not be included in this count because they are asymptomatic or choose not to get tested, or because widespread testing is not readily available in their country.

Using statistical and epidemiological modeling, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluations has estimated that the true number of people infected each day is more like three million.

The amount of virus that each of the people currently infected will carry around with them (their viral load) depends on how long ago they were infected. On average, viral loads are thought to rise and peak about six days after infection, after which they steadily decline.

Of all the people who are infected now, those who got infected yesterday will contribute a little to the total count. Those who were infected a couple of days ago will contribute a little more. Those infected three days ago a little more still. On average, people infected six days ago will have the highest viral load. This contribution will then decline for people who were infected seven or eight or nine days ago, and so on.

The final thing we need to know is the number of virus particles people harbor at any point during their infection. Since we know roughly how viral load changes over time, its enough to have an estimate of the peak viral load. An unpublished study took data on the number of virus particles per gram of a range of different tissues in infected monkeys and scaled up the size of tissue to be representative of humans. Their rough estimates for peak viral loads range from 1 billion to 100 billion virus particles.

Lets work with the higher end of the estimates so that we get an overestimate of the total volume at the end. When you add up all the contributions to the viral load of each of the three million people who became infected on each of the previous days (assuming this three million rate is roughly constant), then we find that there are roughly two quintillion (210 or two billion billion) virus particles in the world at any one time.

This sounds like a really big number, and it is. It is roughly the same as the number of grains of sand on the planet. But when calculating the total volume, weve got to remember that SARS-CoV-2 particles are extremely small. Estimates of the diameter range from 80 to 120 nanometers. One nanometer is a billionth of a meter. To put it in perspective, the radius of SARS-CoV-2 is roughly 1,000 times thinner than a human hair. Lets use the average value for the diameter of 100 nanometers in our subsequent calculation.

To work out the volume of a single spherical virus particle we need to use the formula for the volume of a sphere that is, no doubt, on the tip of everyones tongue:

V = 4 r/3

Assuming a 50 nanometer radius (at the center of the estimated range) of SARS-CoV-2 for the value of r, the volume of a single virus particle works out to be 523,000 nanometres.

Multiplying this very small volume by the very large number of particles we calculated earlier, and converting into meaningful units gives us a total volume of about 120 milliliters (ml). If we wanted to put all these virus particles together in one place, then wed need to remember that spheres dont pack together perfectly.

If you think about the pyramid of oranges you might see at the grocery store, youll remember that a significant portion of the space it takes up is empty. In fact, the best you can do to minimize empty space is a configuration called close sphere packing in which empty space takes up about 26 percent of the total volume. This increases the total gathered volume of SARS-CoV-2 particles to about 160ml, easily small enough to fit inside about six shot glasses. Even taking the upper end of the diameter estimate and accounting for the size of the spike proteins all the SARS-CoV-2 still wouldnt fill a Coke can.

It turns out that the total volume of SARS-CoV-2 was between my wifes rough estimates of the teaspoon and the swimming pool. Its astonishing to think that all the trouble, the disruption, the hardship, and the loss of life that has resulted over the last year could constitute just a few mouthfuls of what would undoubtedly be the worst beverage in history.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Image Credit: Pete Linforth from Pixabay

Read this article:

All the Coronavirus in the World Could Fit Inside a Coke Can, With Plenty of Room to Spare - Singularity Hub

Posted in Singularity | Comments Off on All the Coronavirus in the World Could Fit Inside a Coke Can, With Plenty of Room to Spare – Singularity Hub

New Order announce new live album and film Education Entertainment Recreation – Radio X

Posted: at 2:05 pm

11 February 2021, 16:34 | Updated: 12 February 2021, 17:27

Education Entertainment Recreation is taken from the band's show at London's Alexandra Palace, which was their only UK performance of 2018.

New Order have announced the release of a special performance, which has been made into a live album and video.

Education Entertainment Recreation (Live At Alexandra Palace) will feature the band's 2018 gig at London's Alexandra Palace, which marked their only UK show of that year.

The two hour and 20 minute spectacular includes beautifully mixed New Order classics alongside tracks from their latest album, Music Complete (2015) and iconic Joy Division songs.

READ MORE: why Joy division had to change their name to New Order

Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris, Gillian Gilbert, Phil Cunningham and Tom Chapman's 22-track set, pens with Music Complete's Singularity and ends on the iconic Ian Curtis-penned Love Will Tear Us Apart.

Education Entertainment Recreation will be released on May 7th on various formats - 2CD audio, 2CD audio plus the film on BluRay, 3LPs and a limited edition box set featuring all formats with a book and art prints.

Watch the band perform Sub-culture live at the gig:

Education Entertainment Recreation is out now.

Order it at the official New Order store.

READ MORE: What is the meaning of New Order's Blue Monday?

1. Das Rheingold: Vorspiel (introduction music)

2. Singularity

3. Regret

4. Love Vigilantes

5. Ultraviolence

6. Disorder

7. Crystal

8. Academic

9. Your Silent Face

10. Tutti Frutti

11. Sub-Culture

12. BLT

13. Vanishing Point

14. Waiting for the Sirens Call

15. Plastic

16. The Perfect Kiss

17. True Faith

18. Blue Monday

19. Temptation

20. Atmosphere

21. Decades

22. Love Will Tear Us Apart

See more here:

New Order announce new live album and film Education Entertainment Recreation - Radio X

Posted in Singularity | Comments Off on New Order announce new live album and film Education Entertainment Recreation – Radio X

More Than Just a Name – Daily Nexus

Posted: at 2:05 pm

Imagine that you are sitting in a classroom full of students and it is time for attendance to be taken. It may be dreadful for the young soul with a long name, who will always be poked at afterward because it is certainly lengthy. You might not even have to imagine this scenario at all in fact, this could be you. To all of the Antonio Esperanza Garcia Marquezs, there are many reasons why having more than one name can be beautiful.

First, it is important to acknowledge the stereotypical fact that most Hispanics are victim to having multiple names. However, there is cultural and logical reasoning to support why this is so. Dr. Manuel A. Prez-Quiones, is a professor at UNC Charlotte (an institution focused on computing and informatics), however, and his multiple names allow him to understand this concept. According to Dr. Manuel A. Prez-Quiones, also known as Dr. MAPQ, in Spanish a last name is not called a last name (ltimo nombre would be the literal translation of last name and it is meaningless in Spanish). In Spanish, the last name has a name of its own, it is called apellido.

The significance of this is that it is inevitable for Hispanic children to take on the surnames of their parents. These surnames can be technical and enable others who understand the meanings behind apellidos to identify others parents. For example, Dr. Manuel A. Prez-Quiones describes that the order of last names is telling of who ones mother and father are.

To elaborate with a personal example, my name is Kiana Monique Perez-Granados. The first surname presented is Perez, which is the surname of my father, whereas Granados belongs to my mother. In the instance that I or any other Hispanic woman with two last names get married, the first surname would be kept, and the second would be changed. For a man, everything remains the same.

However, having two last names may not always be for cultural reasons. A family article titled Why Married Women Are Using Two Last Names on Facebook from The Atlantic explains that women who use two last names on social media find it easier to be identified through search engines. For women in a professional field of work, this can be essential. Laurie Schueble, a Penn State professor with expertise in marital naming, states in the article how these are women who are more established in their career, very educated. So they do that to maintain their identity.

The Atlantic article from above also discusses how the founder of MissNowMrs.com, Danielle Tate, offers similar reasoning for why women choose to keep their original surnames along with their married surnames: including both a birth surname and a married surname boosts a womans chances of being found online by people looking for her, a concept she calls personal SEO

Aside from having two last names as a professional choice, it is common to do so in order to maintain ones identity in religious, cultural and sexual contexts. The article titled Considering a Hyphenated Last Name? Heres What You Need to Know from The Knot focuses on having a hyphenated last name and there is one statement that rings true: It allows you to retain your identity while still legally adopting your partners moniker.

Despite any conflicts regarding having more than one surname, there always seems to be a bright side, such that it can be a guarantee of uniqueness and singularity.

This statement has proven to be vital and accurate for many different people of many different backgrounds. According to a New York Times article, one woman named Katherine Yuk reflects on how she was forced to endure endless amounts of teasing as a child because of her difficult last name. However, even after marriage she kept the name Yuk. Although she has kept her last name alone, it is still outside of the standard paradigm that reflects women taking their husbands surnames.

I hadnt only survived it, but it had defined me as someone who was different yet proud of those differences, a survivor of childhood bullying, a first-generation immigrant with a funny last name who had found her own skin and found her own opportunities and identity, is a powerful statement from Yuk, offering her own wisdom for keeping her last name.

As derived from the article previously mentioned, Katherine Ruiz-Avila, a woman with a long Spanish surname, safeguards her last name because it serves to remind her of her heritage. Ruiz-Avila acknowledges this aspect by sharing how the struggle of pronouncing her name can link her to her past, whether it be from her school days, or from her ancestors who fled as refugees to a new and safer country.

Oftentimes, last names can mark ones dual heritage. Kristina Wallengren Steengaard is a Swede woman married to a Danish man. By carrying her last name, as well as her husbands, she remarks on creating a cross-cultural symbol for her children; they will always remember that they represent both Sweden and Denmark.

Of course, like everything else in this world, there can be complications. For couples where each person carries a hyphenated last name, or simply more than one last name, it can be unclear of how to go about naming their children. Do they give them all four names? How does one choose whose name(s) will be inherited? These are questions that a surprising number of couples must face in their lifetime.

Furthermore, it is a similar conflict for same-sex couples who choose to have children. Whether or not the child will carry either partners last name or both is a serious decision, especially because there is no tradition for same-sex marriages in the sense that it is a general practice for the husbands surname to be taken.

For couples like Cora Stubbs-Dame and her wife, with a surname of Jeyapalan, the two configured an inventive name of their own: Jeyadame. It seems like a creative solution for couples facing name troubles, and for those who believe they must give their child a novel as a surname, this may be a way out of that.

It is even fair game to give your child a hyphenated name as a result of two single surnames. As said in an article from the New York Times discussing the generation of children receiving double the name, author Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow gets personal. She explains, The invented names are distinctive; Ive never come across a Tuhus-Dubrow outside my immediate family. The inconveniences blank stares, egregious misspellings are outweighed by the blessing of never having to worry about a Google doppelgnger. Despite any conflicts regarding having more than one surname, there always seems to be a bright side, such that it can be a guarantee of uniqueness and singularity.

Brilliantly enough, the ever-changing world has brought with it custom surnames, hyphenated and non-hyphenated double surnames and other versions of retaining or mixing identities. Having two last names or nontraditional surnames can be a symbol of culture, love or way to success in the buzzing, networking world. Names are important, whichever kind they may be, and it is vital that we remember that.

Kiana Monique Perez-Granados believes that if pictures are worth a thousand words, names are too.

Excerpt from:

More Than Just a Name - Daily Nexus

Posted in Singularity | Comments Off on More Than Just a Name – Daily Nexus

Superman: Future State Jonathan Kent Saves the World Before Breakfast Every Day – CBR – Comic Book Resources

Posted: at 2:05 pm

As Jon Kent reveals his usual responsibilities as Future State's Superman, the hero saves the world literally every single morning.

WARNING: The following contains spoilers for Future State: Superman/Wonder Woman #2, by Dan Watters, Leila del Duca, Nick Filardi and Tom Napolitano, on sale now.

As the flagship superhero of the DC Universe, there's a lot of responsibility that comes with being Superman. Beyond being the guardian of Metropolis, the Man of Steel is a presence on Earth who not only defends the planet but inspires those he protects through his superheroism and shining example. And for Jon Kent, Clark Kent and Lois Lane's son and the new Man of Tomorrow in the alternate timeline of Future State, that's a tall order to live up to.

As Future State: Superman/Wonder Woman #2 reveals, Jon Kent saves a world every morning before his day truly begins, as his constant vigilance is the only thing keeping one planet within the DCU remainson the brink oftotal annihilation, saved only by the constant vigilance of the Man of Steel.

Throughout Jon and Yara Flor's Future State adventure, the villainous living sun Solaris menaced the entire planet and nearly killed Superman, and the new Wonder Woman noticed that Jon was running himself ragged. Even before Solaris' arrival, Jon appeared stressed out and overworked, struggling to live up to his father's legacy as the original Superman. And with Jon emerging triumphant from a contest of champions between himself, Solaris and the Brazilian sun god Kuat, the Man of Steel quietly revealed to Yara one crucial aspect of his morning routine that he has kept from the general public: The Fortress of Solitude houses a portal directly to a small singularity that threatens to consumea planet in another dimension on a daily basis.

RELATED: Swamp Thing: Why the Justice League Dark Hero Needs a Human Host

In the event that he is bested in the high stakes showdown between Solaris and Kuat, Jon gives Yara a private tour of the Fortress. Superman reveals that during his time serving with the Legion of Super-Heroes in the 31st century, hediscovered a planet named Tsercalon that was constantly being drawn into a massive black hole. With the help of Professor Ryan Choi, Superman developed a black hole gun capable of generating a pure, amplified form of atomic energy to feed the singularity with enough energy that it pushes out objects within its accretion disk, including Tsercalon. While the device is capable of saving Tsercalon from total annihilation, it's not enough to push the planet from the black hole's reach, necessitating Superman using the black hole gun every morning before 10 AM to save the faraway world.

RELATED: The Flash: DC's Future Could Be Saved by Barry Allen's... Costume?!

Having to constantly save an entire planet on top of his earthly responsibilities is clearly taking a toll on Superman, with Wonder Woman observing the Man of Steel never takes the day off with countless lives hanging in the balance thanks to his tireless efforts, but he is tired. And in the aftermath of Superman's challenge against Solaris and Kuat, Yara attempts to give Jon a break by saving Tsercalon one morning with the black hole gun herself, only for Jon to greet her with breakfast, unable to break free from old habits and responsibilities.

Superman is a character who does so much behind-the-scenes to keep the DCU safe on a regular basis that the universe owes him an unpayable debt. And while Jon has had his doubts if he was worthy enough to live up to his father's mantle as the new Superman, his constant saving of a faraway planet every morning alone is a prime example that Jonathan Kent is every inch as super as his famous father.

KEEP READING: Superman: Jon Kent Comes Face to Face With His Father's Legacy - Literally

When Was The Term 'Superhero' First Used in Comics?

Sam Stone is a 10th level pop culture guru living just outside of Washington, DC who knows an unreasonable amount about The Beatles. You can follow him on Twitter @samstoneshow and ask him about Nintendo, pop punk, and Star Trek.

Read more from the original source:

Superman: Future State Jonathan Kent Saves the World Before Breakfast Every Day - CBR - Comic Book Resources

Posted in Singularity | Comments Off on Superman: Future State Jonathan Kent Saves the World Before Breakfast Every Day – CBR – Comic Book Resources

343 Industries says a return to Halo Wars 2 isn’t going to happen – PC Gamer

Posted: at 2:05 pm

Halo Wars 2, co-developed by 343 Industries and Creative Assembly and released in 2017, is a very decent RTS: A little too console-focused and strategically thin to really distinguish itself as a serious strategy game on PC, but that's not really what it's trying to be anyway.

"It's aimed less at the hardcore crowd that eagerly checks for announcements of a new Ashes of the Singularity expansion and more at the Halo shooter fans who'd like to see that universe from a perspective besides the sights of a rifle," we said in our 65% review. "And most of the time, it does its job."

It continued to improve as 343 rolled out updates over 2017 adding new content and crossplay support, but that ground to a halt by the end of the year, and in a 2019 response to a petition calling for resumed Halo Wars 2 support, 343 said that it just wasn't possible.

"The same team that is currently working on bringing MCC to PC and Halo: Reach to MCC (the 343 Publishing Team) is also the team that helped make Halo Wars 2 a reality," the studio explained. "With the large scope and immense amount of work surrounding MCC for PC, the resources that were previously focused on Halo Wars 2 have been pulled over to help support MCC and Halo: Reach development."

"This doesnt mean the team wont revisit Halo Wars 2 in the futurewell never say neverbut it does mean that these requests are things the team is unable to commit to for the foreseeable future."

But now The Master Chief Collection is completeHalo 4, the final piece of the puzzle, dropped on November 17and that has some fans asking if maybe now 343 will turn its attention back to Halo Wars 2. Sadly, the answer remains a firm "no."

"We always strive to be open, honest, and transparent with our community and we know many of you have been waiting, asking, and hoping for news about the future of Halo Wars 2," the studio wrote. "We want to acknowledge that weve heard you and make sure you know that this feedback and these topics do indeed get brought to the right folks across the studio for further evaluation."

"In the past, weve noted the Publishing Team was fully focused on MCC and we had no current plans to return to Halo Wars 2. Now, with all the titles on PC, weve seen these questions popping up again although the 343 Publishing Team is still working on more MCC seasonal content along with a variety of features and further improvements. Its not always easy to be open and transparentparticularly when we expect its not an answer the community wants to hearbut we want to give it to you straight: 343 Industries has no current plans for further Halo Wars 2 work including content updates, balance patches, bringing the title to other platforms, or a new game in the series."

343 preemptively acknowledged its use of the word "currently," which implicitly suggests that maybe someday it could happen. And it could, in the same that I could win a million dollars or be abducted by aliens: Anything is possible, but don't hold your breath.

"If you told me back in the day that the totality of MCC would land on Steam or Halo 3 would get content updates 14 years after launch, Id never have believed it and yet here we are," 343 wrote, echoing its "never say never" statement from 2019. "We know constantly waiting and wondering is equal parts frustrating and exhausting, so we hope this clarity helps alleviate some of that and we want to set clear expectations that there is no work happening on Halo Wars."

As for why it's not going back to that particular drawing board, it's simply a question of available time and resources: Most of the studio is focused on Halo Infinite, and "given the broader impact initiatives the studio is already committed to, we unfortunately cant devote the time and attention wed need to deliver additional updates and content for the Halo Wars franchise."

See original here:

343 Industries says a return to Halo Wars 2 isn't going to happen - PC Gamer

Posted in Singularity | Comments Off on 343 Industries says a return to Halo Wars 2 isn’t going to happen – PC Gamer

Movie Review: Nomadland – The Nerd Daily

Posted: at 2:05 pm

To outsiders, the nomad lifestyle consists simply of wandering around with no goal other than some immaterial form of self-discovery. But for Frances McDormands Fern in Nomadland it is a meditation in perpetual motion, considering her mortality as she stares down her own inevitable death. She has spent her life earning a living a statement which is in itself deeply ironic, but also melancholy as she comes to realise that the idea a living must be earned is nothing more than a notion prescribed upon her at birth. A damaging one too, as it has seen her waste years of her life propping up empty corporations.

She is only forced into this realisation after the global financial crisis of 2008 strips her of everything she has been working to earn, and it becomes clear that the promised stability of the American dream isnt all that stable. As she seeks out a life beyond the boundaries of civilisation she still encounters unexpected problems, but at least there is no boss or politician giving her false reassurances.

We gradually discover that Fern is a widow, having lost her husband years ago, and so as she faces the end of her life she does so with years of preparation. Venturing forth into uninhabited terrain is a practice run for journeying into the great unknown, separating oneself entirely from the comfort of civilisation so that the separation from life becomes easier to accept. In one scene she gets lost among rock formations, and in another, a wild, choppy ocean disturbs the notion that the natural world isnt always a kind, soothing place. She faces the temptation to settle back into a home and live off a pension, but the pull of the nomad life is too strong, as equally unavoidable as her own death.

Chloe Zhaos camera shares Ferns instinctual desire to keep moving, never settling in one place. In its restlessness, movement becomes something other than a necessity to reach a different location, but rather an opportunity to keep seeing, doing, and learning more. Zhaos tracking shots float around Fern in long takes, sometimes looking ahead, other times off to the side or behind. She often greets people on these journeys, nodding and sharing exchanges with fellow nomads. As one of her friends points out later, nomads never say any permanent goodbyes, but rather just See you down the road. Every relationship Fern has or ever has had, including her marriage, is unified by their fleetingness, and thus they all meld into one singularity. Change is the only constant in her life.

Zhaos magic hour photography delivers some of the most gorgeous images of the year, often capturing the sun just above mountainous horizons as it is setting. It acts as a visual reminder that this is a period of transition for Fern, facing the end of her life without fear or worry. By removing herself from the pressures of ordinary civilisation, she discovers a purer state of being that is more in touch with her mortality, her environment, and her friends. Most significantly though, she begins to recognise that to exist is to live in a state of constant flux. Pretending that corporate Americas arbitrary life instructions will guard against that is foolish. Temporality must be embraced, not shied away from.

Like Loading...

Read more from the original source:

Movie Review: Nomadland - The Nerd Daily

Posted in Singularity | Comments Off on Movie Review: Nomadland – The Nerd Daily

Letter to the editor: Impeachment trial is exactly what is needed – The Sun Chronicle

Posted: at 2:05 pm

To the editor:

When I read a letter like that written by Bruce Wessell in Wednesdays Voice of the Public (Impeachment is a big mistake for country, Feb. 11), I have to wonder what it is that so twists the thinking of some of us.

What is it that allows someone to see something happen right before their eyes and then interpret it as something completely different?

The current impeachment trial is anything but phony. The insurrection happened.

Donald Trump brought that crowd together, gave them their orders and then did nothing to stop the violence. Of course he needs to be held accountable. As for Democrats wanting to humiliate him, hes done a great job of that all by himself ... his ego is just so inflated that he doesnt have the sense to feel any shame.

The Dems are not fixated with Trump. They are fixated with our democracy. The damage that man has done cannot be shrugged off. He simply must be held accountable. Its not vengeance, its a constitutional duty.

The fact that 74 million Americans voted for him is not something to come to terms with, but it looks to me like Trump and Wessel have not yet come to terms with the other 81 million votes.

National unity, I believe, is being misconstrued. It is not a singularity of principles or political ideology that we aspire to but rather, an understanding that we are all Americans and that we must accept the ebb and flow of prevailing political thought as the price of democracy.

Stephen Welch

Attleboro

Here is the original post:

Letter to the editor: Impeachment trial is exactly what is needed - The Sun Chronicle

Posted in Singularity | Comments Off on Letter to the editor: Impeachment trial is exactly what is needed – The Sun Chronicle

Trump Impeachment Trial And The 1st Amendment Debate : Trump Impeachment Trial: Live Updates – NPR

Posted: at 2:04 pm

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the lead House impeachment manager, speaks in the Senate on Wednesday. He argued that former President Donald Trump incited the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol and that his words are not protected by the First Amendment. Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images hide caption

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the lead House impeachment manager, speaks in the Senate on Wednesday. He argued that former President Donald Trump incited the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol and that his words are not protected by the First Amendment.

Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., opened the second day of impeachment proceedings by rejecting the defense's argument that former President Donald Trump's remarks at a rally prior to the Capitol attack are protected speech under the First Amendment.

Raskin said that Trump was not merely a private citizen walking down the street expressing his support for the overthrow of the federal government. The former constitutional law professor said if Trump were, his speech would be protected.

As president, however, Raskin argued, Trump had a sworn duty that set him apart from every other American to protect the Constitution.

"Look, if you're the president of the United States, you've chosen a side with your oath of office," Raskin said. "If you break it, we can impeach, convict, remove and disqualify you permanently from holding any office of honor, trust or profit in the United States."

Raskin likened what Trump did to a local fire chief who is paid to put out fires but instead orders a mob to descend on a crowded theater and set it ablaze.

And then when calls for help go to the fire department, Raskin continued, Trump "does nothing but sit back, encourage the mob to continue its rampage and watch the fire spread on TV."

Raskin noted that the conservative Federalist Society issued a memo before the start of the impeachment trial that said in part: "The First Amendment is no bar to the Senate convicting former President Trump and disqualifying him from holding future office."

Raskin added that not only are Trump's words not shielded by free speech protections, but what he did on the day of the Capitol attack was the act of "inciter in chief."

"When he incited insurrection on Jan. 6, he broke that oath [of office]. He violated that duty. And that's why we're here today. And that's why he has no credible constitutional defense," Raskin said.

Trump's legal team is expected to rely heavily on a First Amendment defense. Tuesday, defense attorney Bruce Castor asked the Senate, "This trial is about trading liberty for the security from the mob? Honestly, no. It can't be."

"We can't possibly be suggesting that we punish people for political speech in this country," Castor said.

As NPR's legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg reported on Tuesday, some legal scholars argue that the question is irrelevant to an impeachment trial.

"The First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech simply doesn't apply to impeachment," Peter Keisler, a former acting attorney general in George W. Bush's administration, says. "This isn't a criminal prosecution which seeks to render someone's speech illegal."

Trump is entitled to hold whatever opinions he wants and to express them, Keisler says. "But he is not entitled to assert a First Amendment defense against removal or disqualification from office ... because the Founders were in particular worried about ... the ways in which demagogues could become tyrants."

Here is the original post:
Trump Impeachment Trial And The 1st Amendment Debate : Trump Impeachment Trial: Live Updates - NPR

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Trump Impeachment Trial And The 1st Amendment Debate : Trump Impeachment Trial: Live Updates – NPR

Trumps claim impeachment violates the 1st Amendment and Brandenburg v. Ohio, explained – Vox.com

Posted: at 2:04 pm

At the impeachment trials outset, lawyers for former President Donald Trump filed a 78-page brief at arguing that he should not be convicted by the Senate. Trump is charged with inciting an insurrection through various statements that allegedly encouraged the January 6 putsch targeting the US Capitol.

The briefs primary arguments are constitutional. It claims that the Constitution does not permit an impeachment proceeding against a former official. And the brief also argues that Trump is immune from impeachment because the actions which led to that impeachment are protected by the First Amendment.

The first argument is, at least, not entirely ridiculous. While the majority view among scholars is that a former official may be impeached and convicted by the Senate, there are non-frivolous arguments that a former president is beyond the impeachment power.

But the claim that impeaching Trump violates the First Amendment is risible. There are at least three separate reasons why the First Amendment does not protect Trump.

The first is that impeachment is, essentially, a human resources matter. The Constitution provides that Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office. So, with Trump out of office, the only question in his second impeachment trial is whether he should be permanently disqualified from certain federal jobs.

As the Supreme Court explained in Connick v. Myers (1983), the States interests as an employer in regulating the speech of its employees differ significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general. Though the governments power to discipline employees (or former employees) for aberrant speech is not absolute, it is broad enough to allow Trump to be disqualified from office.

The second reason Trump cannot invoke the First Amendment is that many of the statements he made, which allegedly incited the January 6 attack on the Capitol, are lies. Trump accused Democrats of trying to steal the election, and he falsely claimed that he overwhelmingly won an election that he lost by over 7 million votes.

As the Supreme Court held in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the First Amendment does not protect individuals from defamation suits if they make a false claim with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. For the reasons explained below, a similar rule should apply to Trump.

Finally, some of Trumps statements such as a January 6 speech where he told his supporters to fight like hell and that youll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong may constitute incitement to imminent illegal action, which is not protected by the Constitution.

Although the First Amendment provides some protection to government employees, those protections are much weaker than those afforded to private citizens, at least when the government seeks to fire or otherwise take a job action against an employee.

Imagine, for example, that a public school hires someone to teach algebra, but this teacher refuses to follow the curriculum and instead spends their class time lecturing their students about 16th-century Japanese art. The First Amendment protects a private citizens right to speak about Japanese art, but the school district could discipline or even fire this teacher for failing to do their job properly even though their only offense was to engage in speech that is normally protected by the Constitution.

Moreover, while the First Amendment provides a relatively robust shield against workplace discipline to rank-and-file government employees, the Constitution offers very little protection to senior officials in political jobs. As a private citizen, for example, Secretary of State Tony Blinken is allowed to criticize President Joe Bidens foreign policy. But as one of Bidens top lieutenants, Blinken may be fired immediately if he makes a disparaging remark about Bidens policies.

As the Supreme Court explained in Branti v. Finkel (1980), if an employees private political beliefs would interfere with the discharge of his public duties, his First Amendment rights may be required to yield to the States vital interest in maintaining governmental effectiveness and efficiency.

Thus, Trumps private political belief that he, and not the lawful winner of the 2020 presidential election, should be president must yield to the States vital interest in maintaining governmental effectiveness and efficiency.

Trumps lawyers, for what its worth, primarily rely on the Supreme Courts decision in Bond v. Floyd (1966), which held that the Georgia House of Representatives violated the First Amendment when it prevented state Representative-elect Julian Bond from taking his seat ostensibly because of statements Bond made criticizing the Vietnam War. (Bond, an important civil rights leader, was one of the first Black representatives elected in Georgia after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; its fairly likely that the real reason he was excluded had less to do with his opinion of the war than the color of his skin.)

The Bond decision is more than a half-century old, and since then weve seen a whole line of cases involving First Amendment protections for government employees, including the Branti case. So its not entirely clear that Bond remains good law. To the extent that Bond is still valid, however, Trumps lawyers argue that cases like Branti only apply to appointed political officials and that Bond provides much more robust protections to elected officials.

Yet even if we accept that elected officials enjoy greater First Amendment protections than political appointees, the Bond case does not help Trump escape impeachment.

In 1960, civil rights activists ran an advertisement in the New York Times alleging that Alabama police used brutal tactics to suppress protests. In response to this ad, an Alabama police official filed a defamation suit against the Times, pointing to minor factual errors in the advertisements text. An Alabama jury handed down a $500,000 verdict against the Times.

But the Supreme Court tossed out that verdict in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), a seminal decision holding that the First Amendment provides strong protections against defamation lawsuits that threaten free speech. Yet, while these protections are quite robust, especially when a defamation suit involves statements about a public figure that regard a matter of public concern, they are not unlimited.

At the very least, someone can still successfully be sued for defamation if they make a false statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, according to the New York Times decision.

Although New York Times was a case about defamation and not about the First Amendment rights of elected officials, the Court relied heavily on New York Times when it decided Bond. In explaining why Rep. Bonds rights were violated, the Court said that the central commitment of the First Amendment, as summarized in the opinion of the Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.

Under Bond, the New York Times principle was extended to statements by a legislator.

Two years after Bond, the Court handed down its decision in Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District (1968), which established the modern framework governing First Amendment suits by government employees. Pickering involved a public school teacher, not an elected official, but it provides additional support for the view that government employees do not have a First Amendment right to lie.

In Pickering, the Court held that absent proof of false statements knowingly or recklessly made by him, a teachers exercise of his right to speak on issues of public importance may not furnish the basis for his dismissal from public employment.

New York Times, Bond, and Pickering, in other words, all suggest that a government employees First Amendment rights regardless of whether that employee is elected do not include a right to knowingly make false statements, or to make statements with reckless disregard as to whether they are true or not.

So when Trump riled up his supporters by falsely claiming that the 2020 election was stolen from him, he was not protected by the First Amendment.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court held that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

Thus, while speakers, including Trump, are protected even if they advocate illegal actions, this protection has limits. If such advocacy is made with the intent to incite imminent lawless action, and if such action is likely to result from a persons speech, then that speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

Brandenburg sets a high bar for incitement prosecutions. But Trumps statements immediately before the January 6 putsch were so egregious that they may overcome this high bar. In a speech that he gave right before his supporters attacked the Capitol, Trump told them that if you dont fight like hell, youre not going to have a country anymore, that they need to take back our country, and that they cant show weakness and have to be strong.

Writing in the Washington Post, Harvard law professor Einer Elhauge argues that these statements constitute constitutionally unprotected incitement, even under Brandenburg:

Although Trump tried to protect himself by stating that he was sure that the crowd would peacefully march to the Capitol, that does not alter the fact that he was inciting the crowd to forcibly stop Congress from counting the certified electoral votes once they got there.

Trump thus clearly incited lawless action (obstructing the operations of Congress is a crime) that was imminent (right after the speech, a short walk away). That he wanted to incite such lawless action is confirmed by reporting that for hours he watched the Capitol attack with pleasure and did not take any steps to stop it by calling out the National Guard or by urging his supporters to stand down.

Again, its far from clear that Trump could be prosecuted in a criminal court for his statements Brandenburg makes it extraordinarily difficult for prosecutors to win such cases. But thats not the issue in Trumps impeachment trial.

The issue in Trumps impeachment trial is whether, given the fact that the government has broad authority to make human resources decisions under the First Amendment, Congress may conclude that Trumps statements were so beyond the pale that he should be disqualified from holding high federal office in the future.

Setting aside these legal flaws in Trumps First Amendment argument, theres also a profound practical reason public officials should be subject to impeachment, even if theyve done nothing more than give an illiberal or anti-democratic speech.

Imagine that someday in the future, a new president is elected after campaigning on a fairly mainstream platform. Then, in the presidents inaugural address, they reveal that the entire campaign was a charade: I am a great admirer of Nazi Germany, the new president declares in their inaugural address, and I plan to use my presidency to build a Fourth Reich.

Should Congress really have to wait until this Nazi president takes some affirmative step to implement this agenda before they can be impeached and removed from office?

As George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin writes, the implication of Trumps argument that he cannot be impeached for his speech is that Congress could not impeach and remove a president who openly proclaimed his intention to turn the United States into a communist or fascist dictatorship, because speech advocating despotism is protected against criminal punishment by the First Amendment if uttered by a private citizen.

But Trump is wrong that he is protected by the First Amendment. The government has far more leeway when it makes personnel decisions than it does when it regulates speech by private citizens. And even if Trump had simply spoken as a private citizen, there is a strong argument that his conduct was so egregious that it could be prosecuted as incitement.

Read more here:
Trumps claim impeachment violates the 1st Amendment and Brandenburg v. Ohio, explained - Vox.com

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Trumps claim impeachment violates the 1st Amendment and Brandenburg v. Ohio, explained – Vox.com