Category Archives: Progress

LANSING (WXYZ) Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer will deliver her second State of the State address Wednesday, and she'll be outlining her priorities for the next year.

RELATED: Roads, infrastructure top Whitmer's agenda in State of the State Address

Ahead of the speech, 7 Action News is highlighting the promises made in her first State of the State address one year ago. We're looking at the successes, the failures and the ones still in progress.

Let's take a look back at those promises.

On Those "Damn Roads"Lets get it done and lets fix the damn roads, said Gov. Whitmer on the house floor in Lansing on Feb. 12.

This promise received an enthusiastic applause. However, a year later, Michigans roads are still the prominent priority where progress has eluded the Whitmer administration. The partisan fight to find funding to fix the roads poisoned much of the governors paramount priorities promised in her first State of the State speech, including when the budget would be completed.

7 Action News has been looking at road issues across counties in our Getting Around Metro Detroit coverage. The reports, can can be found here, outlining what's working and what isn't when it comes to Michigan roads.

The governor's office responded saying, "The governor is still the only person who's put a real solution on the table to actually fix the roads. She's ready to work with anyone to solve this problem, but Republicans have offered nothing but a half-baked idea to raid teacher pensions and letting our roads return to gravel. That's it. In 2020, Republicans can either choose to work with the governor to get the job done, or they can choose to run on a dirt road agenda heading into November. The people of Michigan are demanding action and we can't afford to wait."

On the Budget"I give kudos to Gov. Snyder," Whitmer said. "Budgets got done before a break happened. We are going to stick to that."

However, that didn't happen.

David Dulio, Oakland University Political Science professor and co-author of the book "Michigan Government, Politics and Policy," explains why that expectation may have been too lofty.

"Gov. Snyder was working with a friendly legislature," Dulio said. "Gov. Whitmer, again, has got divided government."

The divided government dichotomy derailed many proposals offered in that first address.

"Gov. Whitmer was the only one to put forward a real budget with solutions," a spokesperson for the governor said in an email to 7 Action News. "She introduced her budget recommendation in March and didnt receive Republican bills until September. The budget was not done by break because the legislature went on vacation BUT we got a law passed that said they need it done by July 1."

On FOIA"Let's expand FOIA to my office and to yours," Whitmer said while addressing the legislature, which is still exempt from Freedom of Information requests.

"We need to expand the Elliot-Larson Civil Rights Act to include protections for the LGBTQ community," she added

The governor's office responded saying, "The Governor has promised to sign legislation that extends FOIA to her office and the legislature, and that treats them the same in relevant respects. She remains committed to that promise. This too takes legislative action. The website http://www.michigan.gov/sunshine [michigan.gov] voluntarily discloses public calendars for the Governor and Lt. Governor, along with the governors federal income tax returns and personal financial information."

Watch Gov. Whitmer's first State of the State address below.

On LGBTQ ProtectionsWhitmer's administration has strengthened protections for LGBTQ state employees. However, LGBTQ Michiganders can still be fired or kicked out of an apartment for their sexual orientation, though a push to bring Elliot-Larson expansion to voters via a ballot initiative is currently under way by a committee called Fair and Equal Michigan.

The governor's office says to make further changes, it will require legislative action.

On Hands-Free DrivingIt is time for Michigan to join the 16 states that have passed hands-free laws to keep our roads and our kids safe," said Whitmer in 2019.

The state is yet to pass a hands-free law.

"You cant help but look at some of these and say 'Really? You cant get together and do that?,'" Dulio said.

The governor's office responded saying, "This passed one chamber. It required legislative action to get this done after Governor Whitmer made her call to action."

On SuccessesWhitmer has found success in the form of criminal justice and car insurance reform.

"Just because they weren't part of the State of the State priorities from 2019 doesn't mean that they shouldn't be applauded in 2020," Dulio said.

On EducationAnother State of the State priority is yet to be determined.

"I am announcing a new statewide goal of increasing the number of Michiganders between the ages of 16 and 64 with a post-secondary credential to 60 percent by 2030," Whitmer said.The most recent data available sets Michigan at 45 percent, according to the nonpartisan Lumina Foundation.

This is still a priority, according to Gov. Whitmer's office, and Michiganders can expect to hear more about this in the future.

Sarah Stark is a 22-year type 1 diabetic, whose insulin cost have skyrocketed. (One of Slotkins marquee policy initiatives is prescription drug cost.) pic.twitter.com/kt0gXYieoX

Brian Abel (@BrianAbelTV) January 28, 2020

On Bipartisanship Lastly, on bipartisanship, Gov. Whitmer's office says that she has been and remains committed to working across the aisle.

"Governor Whitmer has been and remains committed to working with anyone who wants to work with her on finding real solutions to address issues facing Michigan residents," according to a spokesperson for Whitmer. "She remains ready to work with the legislature when they want to get things done that will benefit the people of Michigan.

It's been proven they can work together."

The spokesperson also outlined what has worked under bipartisanship in the state since Whitmer was elected. After six straight years of having the highest auto insurance rates in the nation, historic bipartisan auto insurance reform legislation was passed.

7 Action News will be livestreaming Gov. Whitmer's second State of the State address at 7 p.m. online and in the wxyz.com app.

More:

Gov. Whitmer's progress a year after her first State of the State address - WXYZ

[This story contains spoilers from the season one finale of Showtime's Work in Progress.]

On Sunday, Showtime's Work in Progress Chicago-based comedian Abby McEnany's semi-autobiographical comedy wrapped its marvelous debut season. Created by McEnany and Tim Mason and co-written by executive producer Lilly Wachowski, the series starts with an offbeat and decidedly dark premise: The fictional Abby resolves to kill herself if her life doesn't improve in six months (with each of the 180 days represented by an almond, a quiet "fuck you" to the nosy, micro-aggressive co-worker who suggested Abby eat more of the nuts to lose weight). But on the same day she sets that countdown for herself, she meets a love interest, Chris (Theo Germaine), who doesn't exactly weaken Abby's resolve, but certainly gives her more to live for.

Featuring a kind of protagonist we still see too rarely queer, fat, middle-aged, mentally ill, unglamorous, uncharmingly neurotic, even gray-haired and four-eyed Work in Progress arrived fully realized and brutally funny. Below, Hollywood Reporter critics Inkoo Kang and Robyn Bahr discuss what makes the Showtime series so excellent and distinct. There will be spoilers, but details of the finale only appear at the end of the story.

Inkoo Kang: It's only January, but I already feel like Work in Progress has a healthy shot at making my top 10 list for 2020. A lot of that, I think, is due to the show's unobtrusive but clever advancements in representation. I love how Abby, whose circle of friends are fellow 40-something lesbians, is destabilized by her first relationship with a trans man. I love that she works as a temp instead of as a comedian, the case with so many semi-autobiographical shows by and about comedians. And while I think Crazy Ex-Girlfriend's Rebecca Bunch is a genius creation, I love that Abbys depression, anxiety, OCD and all-around low self-esteem don't make her some sort of hyper-focused savant, as in so many Hollywood productions. In contrast to Harvard-educated lawyer Rebecca, Abby is a vulnerable contractor whose mental-health symptoms, like her excessive hand-washing, are noticed by her co-workers and rudely commented on. And because worrying about her mental illnesses takes up so much of her cognitive load, Abby frequently comes across as narcissistic, since she has to think about herself a lot more than she does about anyone else. And of course, that's alienating! So few shows feel so honest about the everyday isolation of mental illness, as opposed to the stylized disenchantment of, say, Joker.

Robyn Bahr: One hundred percentagree. Work in Progress already feels like one of the great surprises of 2020, despite the fact that it technically debuted in 2019. Like Abby's signature primal screams we need more women screaming on TV that has nothing to do with them being murdered! the comedy at first comes off as a novelty. The tiny, funny, quirky half-hour could merely have been a queer Curb Your Enthusiasm for a therapy-seeking audience: "Look! Abby put her foot in her mouth again!"Instead, the narrative caramelizes over eight episodes, its flavor deepening beyond the ultra-ironic tone of the series cold open, where Abby discusses her suicide plan only to look up and notice her therapist slack-jawed and extremely dead. Soon, her frustrated scream isn't just a wacky or cloying TV idiosyncrasy but an intrinsically empathizable coping mechanism, a guttural"Fuck this shit." We're meant to love Abby and relate to her flaws. We're also meant to be alienated by her spiraling anxieties and intrinsic self-involvement. I, too, adore the choice to make her a perma-temp and not a professional comedian, which wisely pushes back against the ableist, inspiration-porny "mental illness as genius" trope we see all over entertainment.

Notice how Abby is the only character we truly get to know over eight episodes: Her sister, her boyfriend and her best friend all orbit her, but we ultimately know very little about them. For example, the show has hinted at Chris' trauma a trans man who comes from a rural home life and is so pained by his dead name that he inadvertently baits Abby's obsessiveness when he tells her it's the one thing she can never ask about yet we get none of what makes him tick, only what triggers Abby. She's practically the definition of "vulnerable narcissism," which is why I particularly loved the fourth episode, one of the best of the season, which centers on bathrooms. For Abby, bathrooms are fraught places, sites of social anguish where her gender nonconformity intersects with her disability. The episode sets you up for a bathroom confrontation where Abby will finally get to tell someone off for denigrating her gender presentation and ritualistic hand-washing. Instead, she's confronted by her own victim mentality. At a Dolly Parton concert (probably the only place in the world that draws eager pilgrims from across the sociopolitical spectrum, from nuns to dude bros to trans folx), Abby monologues to a bitchy cis lady who demands she leave the public restroom. Her years of pent-up frustration come pouring out as she unleashes a torrent of cruelties ... that immediately bounce right back at her when she reveals her more-oppressed-than-thou self-pity.

Kang: One of the things that makes Work in Progress feel so fresh is that Abby's pet obsessions are so idiosyncratic. Some of that specificity has to do with the show's larger project of queer world-building, like Abby's possibly-in-love-with-her-best-friend Campbell (Celeste Pechous), and Abby's lifelong hatred of the otherwise long-forgotten Saturday Night Live character Pat. (Amazingly, Julia Sweeney, the actress who played Pat, not only apologizes for Pat while appearing as a version of herself here, but her fictional character is married to "Weird" Al Yankovic, who, like all cis straight men in Work in Progress, is dreadfully dull.) But other character specificities, like Abby's "conversations" with the picture of her dead therapist on her phone background, her crush on Vincent D'Onofrio (the bug guy from Men in Black!), and her inability to call a Lyft without ordering a shared car (big difference!) make the show's universe feel wonderfully lived-in.

Can we talk about how sexy Work in Progress can be? Robyn, you mentioned Chris' one absolute no-go, but in that same episode, the couple, in a series of Lyft shares, reveal their preferences to one another several hours before their first time together, ratcheting up the anticipation for the big night. Chris wants Abby to avoid his chest, since he hasn't been able to afford top surgery yet, Abby shares that she has herpes, and we find out later that even the red glow from the alarm clock is too much light for the ultra-self-conscious neurotic. We listen, in the dark, as they fumble and rustle and moan, and I appreciate the fact that we hear both of them orgasm. Conservatives tend to mock straw-men college students for suggesting everyone play a game of 20 Questions before sex to ensure consent, but this episode is such an urgent and necessary and scintillating illustration of how much better sex can be with open and honest communication.

And yet, if I'm being honest with myself, I don't quite know if Abby deserves Chris. Do you root for them as a couple? And do you have a sense of what Chris sees in her, since I can't say I entirely do?

Bahr: Sigh. I'm a giant mush, so yes, I root for them. Here's to fellow fat chicks bagging conventionally hot guys! But I'm not sure how to measure the idea of "deserving" versus "undeserving" here. Chris is a fantasy: a fit, supportive, emotionally intelligent guy with a welcoming group of friends, and only a suggestion of personal baggage. Abby is full-frontal with her faults, but Chris doesn't seem quite real enough, because we don't get to see any of his. (Another way the show brilliantly angles us completely toward Abby's perspective and her rose-colored glasses when it comes to him.) As a lifelong TV shipper, I can't help but love the idea of seeing a hurt person transformed by a relationship, and I ached to find out what Chris would do when he learned of Abby's "OCD closet," where she hoards decades' worth of diaries like a survivalist stocking up on ammo. Still, I knew in the back of my heart that Abby couldn't and shouldn't rely on another person to "save" her. And I suspect Chris was looking for someone to save him, too. But we don't really have a sense of his arc because Abby is such a vortex of emotion.

The cold-open where Abby "kills" her therapist during a session in which she confesses her suicidal ideation at first seemed like galaxy-brain gallows humor. But in hindsight, it really sets the stage for the entire season: Abby is looking for an anchor that will keep her tethered to life and believes Chris is it, regardless of whatever shit he's probably dealing with on his own. And I appreciate that when Abby has dinner with her longtime ex in the finale, ostensibly to ask what's wrong with her so she can fix herself for Chris, Melanie (Echaka Agba) immediately calls Abby out on her selfishness.

Admittedly, I am not sure what Chris sought in Abby without diving into Freudian depths of psychoanalysis, which feels seems unfair (and possibly transphobic, as I don't want to assume transition always equals familial trauma). Although we've spent a lot of time picking Abby's imperfections apart (because we both value seeing a truly three-dimensional female protagonist!), let's not forget she's also quite witty and radiant, which is how she's attracted such loyal friends to begin with. I think Chris smiles a lot with her because she's making him laugh all the time. And honestly, isnt it kinda fun to be around bitchy sass-mouths?

The closing scene of the finale gut-punched me because I wasn't ready for Chris to break up with her on the street, especially without a verbal autopsy of their relationship. I'd gotten so used to his unwavering flexibility that to see him stick to his one impermeable boundary was both empowering and heartbreaking. He rejects being her savior. I wanted him to forgive her for her indiscretion, but I wasn't sure if I was ready to forgive her for how she handled seeing his dead name. She should have told him right away that she not-so-accidentally glimpsed his legal name on a prescription bottle, but her fear and panic instead led her to seek the same answer over and over from friends who smartly reminded her that the lying was the problem, not her moment of curiosity and weakness.

So when she decides to stick the knife right back into him and shout his bleeped-out dead name as he walks away, I thought, "This is why he's breaking up with you." Mental illness may explain some behaviors, but it doesn't excuse abusive ones.

Kang: You've laid out pretty much all my thoughts on that heartbreaking yet wholly satisfying breakup, so I'll just note the hilarious scene in which Julia Sweeney dresses up as Woke Pat in an attempt to take back a character whose problematic qualities she feels bad about but hardly grasps. Julia going on stage in a fat suit, curly black wig, and the world's most hideous khakis over Abby's protests is a tragic betrayal and a reminder that, as maddeningly oblivious as our protagonist can be, she lives in a world where precious few truly understand her. Work in Progress shines because it knows Abby so well.

More:

Critics' Conversation: The Brilliant Messiness of Showtime's 'Work in Progress' - Hollywood Reporter

A World Health Organization (WHO) senior leadership team, led by Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, met President Xi Jinping of the Peoples Republic of China in Beijing.

They shared the latest information on the outbreak as of January 28, 2020, and reiterated their mutual commitment to bring the 2019-nCoV outbreak under control.

The discussions focused on continued collaboration to improve containment measures in Wuhan, China, to strengthen public health measures in other cities and provinces, to conduct further studies and transmissibility of the virus, to continue to share data, and for China to share biological material with WHO.

These measures will advance scientific understanding of the virus and contribute to the development of vaccines and treatments.

Patients with 2019-nCoV infection, are presenting with a wide range of symptoms. Most seem to have mild disease, and about 20 percent appear to progress to severe disease, including pneumonia, respiratory failure and in some cases death.

Clinical care of suspected patients with 2019-nCoV infections should focus on early recognition, immediate isolation (separation), implementation of appropriate infection prevention and control (IPC) measures and provision of optimized supportive care.

Additionally, the WHO announced it is launching a Global 2019-nCoV Clinical Data Platform to enable WHO Member States to contribute anonymized clinical data in order to inform the public health clinical response.

Furthermore, the WHO is continually monitoring the outbreak developments and the Director-General can reconvene the Emergency Committee on very short notice as needed.

As of January 29, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved any preventive or therapeutic vaccine for the 2019-nCoVfor use in the USA.

In response to the current 2019-nCoV virus outbreak, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the NIAID said during an HHS press conference on January 28, 2020, "A phase 1 clinical trial does not mean you have a (coronavirus) vaccine thats ready for deployment. It could take a year or more before a vaccine is ready for sale to the public."

Coronaviruses (CoV) are a large family of viruses that cause illness ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases, says the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Coronaviruses that infect animals can also evolve and become a human coronavirus.

The best-known human coronaviruses are Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS-CoV).

Outbreaks of a Novel Coronavirus (nCoV), now known as 2019-nCoV, are causing pneumonia-related infections in various counties in 2020.

The WHO said it is convening a bi-weekly call with clinical experts around the globe, to better understand, in real-time, the clinical presentation and treatment interventions.

International news related to the 2019-nCoV outbreak is published by Vax-Before-Travel.

View original post here:

20% of 2019-nCoV Patients May Progress to Severe Disease - Vax Before Travel

DENTON Representatives from Harper and Sons, Inc., contractors of the new Caroline County Sheriffs Office, met with the Caroline County Commissioners during their work session on Tuesday, Jan. 21, to provide an update on the new facility.

Ron Markey of Harper and Sons, Inc. stated that the building is about 50% complete. After early delays with some ground water issues and specific building materials, the facility is taking shape at the predicted pace.

Markey anticipates shingles will soon be added to the roof and all the windows have been temporarily closed in to allow workers to continue with interior wiring, plumbing and HVAC installation throughout the winter months.

The architectural firm Crosby and Associates have met with county leaders and representatives of Harper and Sons for a progress report every two weeks since the groundbreaking was held April 9, 2019. The building is scheduled to be complete by Sept. 30.

The new facility is going to have a great impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Sheriffs Office operation, Sheriff Randy Bounds said.

The Sheriffs Office is currently working out of eight offices in the basement of the Detention Center that occupies 3,823 square feet, and the new building will encompass nearly 13,000 square feet, including a 2-lane sally-port for the secure handling of detainees," Bounds said.

"The new building will also house the patrol and criminal investigation divisions, as well as the sex offender enforcement unit, records division and administration," Bounds said. "A large conference and training room will serve as host to the ever-increasing demands of new laws and procedures that law enforcement personnel are required to stay abreast of.

According to Bounds, the new facility will enhance every aspect of the Sheriffs Office operation.

The current facility simply has not kept pace with the increase in the roles and responsibilities of the Sheriffs Office over the years, Bounds said. While the move will be bitter-sweet for some of the employees who have spent their entire careers in the current facility, all agree that it is a step forward that is long overdue.

Bounds credits the Caroline County Commissioners for their vision and resolve in securing funding to make the new facility possible.

We are blessed to have elected officials who recognize the importance of public safety and have a proven track record of sustaining it as a priority, he said.

Bounds said he is most impressed with the response from the public.

From the beginning, our citizens have taken ownership of the new sheriffs office, Bounds said. Hardly a day goes by without a citizen approaching us with positive comments or questions about the new building, and it is obvious that our citizens are as excited to see its progress as we are.

When all is said and done, this facility is about becoming even better at serving our citizens, Bounds said. Throughout the planning process, we put those that we serve at the forefront. From the convenient well-lit parking to the customer-friendly lobby and private interview rooms, our goal is to have the building centered around great service to our citizens.

Read more:

New sheriffs office making progress, on schedule to open by Sept. - MyEasternShoreMD

There's no denying that the 62nd Grammy Awards made history with performances by more talented women of different genres, generations and walks of life than any award ceremony in recent memory.

Minutes into the show, Lizzo performed a virtuosic flute solo as part of a medley with orchestral accompaniment, and hit the high notes of "Cuz I Love You" with panache. Later, with her bourbon-soaked, husky voice, Tanya Tucker claimed her place as country music royalty with a rendition of "Bring Me My Flowers Now" with Brandi Carlile on piano.

Billie Eilish's whisper-sung "When the Party's Over" and Demi Lovato's gut-wrenching "Anyone" drew tears. Sheila E. rocked out on the timbales during a tribute to Prince. And jaws fell to the floor as H.E.R. nimbly switched from dexterous piano playing to a wailing guitar solo that would've made any Rock & Roll Hall of Famer proud.

Yet hovering over these top-tier displays of talent were the recent allegations of sexism and corruption within the Recording Academy, which presents the Grammy Awards, from Deborah Dugan, the organization's first female CEO.

After being put on administrative leave for allegedly fostering an abusive work environment, Dugan responded with her own accusations. She said she was ousted for speaking out against sexual harassment from the Academy's general counsel, Joel Katz. She also said that the Academy's previous CEO, Neil Portnowthe one who infamously said women need to "step up" in response to questions about sexism in the music industryhad been accused of rape, and that the Academy had covered it up. (Portnow denies the allegations.)

The rest is here:

At the Grammys, Sexism and Scandal Undermine Onstage Progress - KQED

An 85-80 win over the University of Denver at Scheels Center at Sanford Health Athletic Complex was a turnabout from a loss to the Pioneers in late December and the fact the Bison finally won an overtime game erased another demon. NDSU was 0 for 2 in OT games this season.

The program is on the up.

Huge, everything, said Bison junior Emily Dietz, when asked about the improvement in her time at NDSU. You can tell by the way we play. So many people talk to us about how much harder were playing and how much more efficient looking we are. Smarter. Stronger. Yeah, its really exciting.

NDSU lost its Summit League opener 91-82 at Denver. There were times this year, especially before Christmas, when head coach Jory Collins questioned his teams toughness.

Now?

We showed some today, for sure, Collins said. Were a lot more mentally tough. Earlier in the year we wouldnt have bounced back. I know for us six weeks ago we would have had no chance of winning that game with all the turnovers and miscommunication but we found a way in the third and fourth quarter to make some timely plays.

NDSU won despite committing 32 turnovers. In the last week, NDSU has beaten the University of North Dakota and took South Dakota State to the wire on the road. Losses in overtime earlier this year were to Northern Illinois and Western Illinois.

We came out on the short end of the spectrum in those, said Bison forward Rylee Nudell. This felt good. Rewarding.

The Bison were rewarded for their rally to force overtime. Dietzs rebound bucket with 1:11 left ended a Bison cold spell and brought them within 69-65. One possession later, Nudells layup off a feed from Dietz cut the margin to two at 33 seconds.

We did a good job of executing and listening to what Jory had to say, Nudell said. The whole game we wanted to get it into the post and when we fed the post good things happened.

That was true at the end of regulation. A DU turnover on an out-of-bounds pass gave NDSU a last chance and Dietz converted inside with 6.8 seconds remaining. The second half ended with another Pioneer turnover.

It took until the fourth quarter before NDSU found a workable lineup solution. Seven straight points by the Pioneers late in the third quarter and, later, a layup off a Bison turnover in the final seconds gave DU a 51-45 advantage heading to the final 10 minutes.

We probably played as poorly as weve played in a month in the first quarters, Collins said. That was unlike how weve been playing lately.

The Bison didnt fold. Nudells three-point play gave NDSU its first lead of the half at 58-56 with 6:27 remaining and the fight was on to the finish. Moreover, the Bison steadied the ship after the rash of turnovers.

That was pretty ugly, Dietz said. But that shows you how weve continued to improve and we pulled out the win. Its something we talk about. Like I said, even with 32 turnovers we ended up getting the win. Whats it going to look like when we keep (the turnovers) under 15?

Denver was without head coach Jim Turgeon, who was placed on administrative leave last week according to a school spokesperson. The team was led by assistant Kayla Ard, who was one of four finalists for the Bison head coaching position last spring.

The Pioneers beat the University of North Dakota 91-81 on Friday.

Denver 19 33 51 69 80

NDSU 11 33 45 69 85

DENVER (9-12, 3-5 Summit): Nelson 12-25 2-2 26, Ezeudu 2-10 3-4 8, Johnson 1-6 0-0 3, Loven 5-13 1-2 13, Gritt 0-0 1-2 1, Boyd 5-14 7-8 19, Malonga 1-4 0-0 2, Jackson 4-8 0-0 8, Foster 0-0 0-0 0, Zulich 0-0 0-0 0, Deem 0-0 0-0 0. Totals: 30-80 14-18.

NDSU (5-14, 2-5 Summit): Nudell 6-7 5-5 18, Dietz 10-16 1-6 21, Zivaljevic 3-6 0-0 8, Cobbins 5-9 3-3 14, Rimdal 0-1 2-2 2, Gaislerova 2-8 0-0 5, Scales 3-7 4-6 11, Terrer van Gool 1-1 0-0 2, Voegeli 2-4 0-0 4, Skibiel 0-0 0-0 0. Totals: 32-59 17-24. Total fouls: DU 19, NDSU 24. Fouled out: Gritt. Rebounds: DU 33 (Nelson 10); NDSU 46 (Dietz 13). 3-point goals: DU 6-27 (Nelson 0-3, Ezeudu 1-4, Loven 1-2, Boyd 2-7, Malonga 0-1, Jackson 0-3); NDSU 4-18 (Nudell 1-2, Zivaljevic 0-3, Cobbins 1-3, Rimdal 0-1, Gaislerova 1-4, Scales 1-5). Assists: DU 13 (Boyd 4); NDSU 17 (Cobbins 5). Turnovers: DU 17 (Johnson 4); NDSU 32 (Zivaljevic 8). A-537.

Read the original here:

Bison women showing progress, rally to defeat Denver - INFORUM

343 Industries have released their January development update for the Halo: Master Chief Collection and its a chunky one. The update goes over progress made on all of the Halo games that 343 are bringing to PC as part of the collection, from test flight plans to matchmaking playlists, and Halo Forge. Ill stick to the last one and let you read the rest of the novel if you so choose.

343 say they are currently making progress iterating on the design for Forge on PC and working through bugs. The furthest along, it looks, are Forge and Theater for Halo: Reach, as you might imagine given that its the first of the collection to land on PC.Maps created in Forge can be shared across all platforms, so 343 are working to ensure that PC players have access to all its features.

We arent ready to go into full detail on our PC implementation of this feature just yet. However, weve been experimenting with early versions of that implementation internally. The screenshot below is something we threw together with the new PC controls and object additions.

They also call out the Forge budget shown in the development screenshot below which is currently based on the legacy version of Reach. The build budget in Forge will be increased for the Forge World and Tempest maps.

We are now beginning to touch some of the universal systems that will support other titles on PC for their implementations of these features, they say. Here are the other PC compatibility concerns that 343 say they are working on for Forge and Theater across all the MCC games:

For Halo 2: Anniversary and Halo 3, they simply say that Forge support work has begun.

You can read the rest of the hefty January development update for the whole Master Chief Collection where 343 discuss changes to Reachs matchmaking playlist updates, community-reported issues, and general matchmaking updates across the collection.

You can grab Reach over onon Steamand theMicrosoft Storeas a standalonefor 7/10/$10or with the whole Collection for 30/40/$40. Its also included with a subscription totheXbox Game Pass for PC, which you can still get your first month of for 1. The rest of the collection will be rolling out throughout this year.

See the article here:

343 Industries share progress on Forge for Halo: Reach, Halo 3, and Halo 2 Anniversary - Rock Paper Shotgun

Photo: Brendan Smialowski/2009 Getty Images

The present is female. And the future will be as well. This past week, as hands were wrung over whether a female president is possible, we learned that there are now slightly more women in the workplace than men. It happened before briefly in 2009, when the Great Recession destroyed industries where men were disproportionately represented. But the new stats, in a period of low unemployment, represent something like the new normal. Other recent stats have found ever-more female triumph: As of 2017, there were 2.2 million more women than men in college, and the Department of Education predicts that by 2026, women will make up 57 percent of college students, leaving men far behind.

Women now dominate the service sector, especially in health and education, where most new jobs will be found. In December 2019, a full 95 percent of net jobs added went to women a stunning statistic. To give some perspective on this, in 1970, almost 30 million women accounted for 29 percent of the workforce; nearly 50 years later, in 2019, 74.6 million women accounted for 50.3 percent of the non-farm labor force. If that isnt a massive victory for feminism, what would be?

Yes, the gender pay gap persists but in attenuated form. The number most commonly cited 81 cents to the dollar is just the raw annual total of all male annual wages compared with all female wages. It doesnt tell us if women are paid less than men in the same job; it doesnt account for choice of profession, or working hours, or use of parental leave. When you adjust for all that, women now earn 93 to 95 percent of male hourly earnings: not good enough, but still at record highs. In the past decade, parental leave has expanded, as has working from home, both hugely beneficial to tens of millions of working women. And as the economy shifts toward the sectors where women dominate, and as women get more education than men, this trend looks highly likely to continue and even intensify. NPR notes: Women hold 77 percent of the jobs in health care and education fast-growing fields that eclipse the entire goods-producing sector of the economy.

Yes, there are still notable exceptions at the very top: Most C-suite executives (four out of five) are male, even though womens presence there has grown 25 percent in the past five years. First-level managerial positions are still disproportionately held by men, which affects the rest of the pipeline. But all the stats point upward, and, for much of corporate America, a more diverse workforce is increasingly valued. In 1970, there were no women in the Senate; now there are 26 more than half the entire number of female senators in U.S. history. In the House, as recently as 1980, women accounted for only 3.2 percent of the members; now its 23.7 percent, and the Speaker is a woman. Theres work to be done. But this rise in womens earnings and power seems real and inexorable.

Im not dismissing the resilience of sexual harassment, although great journalism and the Me Too movement have undoubtedly helped raise the costs for abusive men. Nor am I dismissing all the myriad ways women meet obstacles where men dont. I see a lot more now than I used to, and Im grateful for having my blind spots pointed out. Im just noting that comparing the condition of women today with women in an era that, say, denied them suffrage, education, careers outside the home, or treated them as properties of their husbands, its a whole universe of advance.

And yet feminist rhetoric has intensified as all this remarkable progress has been made. A raft of recent books have been full of the need for renewed rage against the oppression of women. The demonization of white men has intensified just as many working-class white men face a bleak economic future and as men are disappearing from the workforce. It is as if the less gender discrimination there is, the angrier you should become.

This is not just in feminism. You see it in the gay-rights movement too. I get fundraising emails all the time reminding me how we live in a uniquely perilous moment for LGBTQ Americans and that this era, in the words of Human Rights Campaign spokesperson Charlotte Clymer, is one that has seen unprecedented attacks on LGBTQ people. Unprecedented? Might I suggest some actual precedents: when all gay sex was criminal, when many were left by their government to die of AIDS, when no gay relationships were recognized in the law, when gay service members were hounded out of their mission, when the federal government pursued a purge of anyone suspected of being gay. All but the last one occurred in my adult lifetime. But today were under unprecedented assault?

The right is not immune to the same syndrome. Donald Trump talks about crime as if we are still living in the 1980s. Heres a great tweet from the acting DHS secretary, Chad Wolf, this week: There has been a complete breakdown of law and order in NYC. Really? Last year, there were 295 murders in New York City; as recently as 1990, there were 2,295. Trump himself speaks of a surge in illegal immigration overwhelming the country. And its true that we are close to a record percentage of foreign-born Americans, and that last year there was a surge of asylum seekers from Guatemala (many fraudulent). But in 2018, to provide some perspective, there were 400,000 people caught trying to enter the U.S. illegally on the southwestern border; under Reagan and George W. Bush, those numbers peaked at over 1.6 million. It was only when such apprehensions were back down at levels not seen since the early 1970s that an insurgent anti-immigration candidate won the presidency. Go figure.

Why this sudden ratcheting up of rhetoric? On the right, its fueled by the kind of absurd hyperbole that Trump uses all the time. On the left, its Trump himself. His extremism, misogyny, transphobia, and racism have all provoked a sharp turn to the left among Democrats. But, as you can see from the workforce numbers for women, theres little he can actually do to prevent the future from being female. He could tip the Court, which could, in turn, repeal Roe, but that would be a highly unpopular ruling and likely provoke a backlash that could lead to more moderate federal legislation in its place. Marriage equality is settled law, according to the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Gay visibility is ubiquitous. Black unemployment is at record lows; black women are seeing real improvement in their careers and earnings; crime in urban neighborhoods is a fraction of what it was in the 1980s and 1990s. Yes, we have a bigot in the Oval Office but his ability to influence these broader cultural tides is quite limited.

Some of the rhetorical excess is also about money. Interest groups for various subpopulations have a financial interest in emphasizing oppression in order to keep donations flowing.

But a recent psychological study suggests a simpler explanation. Its core idea is what you might call oppression creep or, more neutrally, prevalence-induced concept change. The more progress we observe, the greater the remaining injustices appear. We seem incapable of keeping a concept stable over time when the prevalence of that concept declines. In a fascinating experiment, participants were provided with a chart containing a thousand dots that ranged along a spectrum from very blue to very purple and were asked to go through and identify all the blue dots. The study group was then broken in two. One subgroup was shown a new chart with the same balance of purple and blue dots as the first one and asked to repeat the task. Not surprisingly, they generally found the same number of blue dots as they did on the first chart. A second subgroup was shown a new chart with fewer blue dots and more purple dots. In this group, participants started marking dots as blue that they had marked as purple on the first chart. In other words, when the prevalence of blue dots decreased, participants concept of blue expanded to include dots that it had previously excluded.

We see relatively, not absolutely. We change our standards all the time, depending on context. As part of the study, the psychologists ran another experiment showing participants a range of threatening and nonthreatening faces and asking them to identify which was which. Next, participants were split into two groups and asked to repeat the exercise. The first subgroup was shown the same ratio of threatening and nonthreatening faces as in the initial round; subgroup two was shown many fewer threatening faces. Sure enough, the second group adjusted by seeing faces they once thought of as nonthreatening as threatening. The conclusion:

When blue dots became rare, purple dots began to look blue; when threatening faces became rare, neutral faces began to appear threatening This happened even when the change in the prevalence of instances was abrupt, even when participants were explicitly told that the prevalence of instances would change, and even when participants were instructed and paid to ignore these changes.

We seem to be wired to assume a given threat remains just as menacing even when its actual prevalence has declined:

Our studies suggest that even well-meaning agents may sometimes fail to recognize the success of their own efforts, simply because they view each new instance in the decreasingly problematic context that they themselves have brought about. Although modern societies have made extraordinary progress in solving a wide range of social problems, from poverty and illiteracy to violence and infant mortality, the majority of people believe that the world is getting worse. The fact that concepts grow larger when their instances grow smaller may be one source of that pessimism.

This study may help explain why, in the midst of tremendous gains for gays, women, and racial minorities, we still insist more than ever that we live in a patriarchal, misogynist, white supremacist, homophobic era. We constantly adjust our view of our fast-changing world to ensure we dont believe it has changed at all! Maybe this is simply another way of describing each generations shifting of the goalposts. Or maybe its because weve made so much progress that the injustice that remains appears more intolerable, rather than less. Or maybe, as these psychologists suggest, holding concepts constant may be an evolutionarily recent requirement that the brains standard computational mechanisms are ill equipped to meet.

But whatever the cause, the result is that we steadfastly refuse to accept the fact of progress, in a cycle of eternal frustration at what injustices will always remain. We never seem to be able to say: Okay, were done now, weve got this, politics has done all it reasonably could, now lets move on with our lives. We can only ever say: Its worse than ever! And feel it in our bones.

I watched the Democratic debate in Iowa with only one objective: to figure out who could best beat Trump. At this point, I dont care about their policies, although Im sympathetic to many and hostile to a few. All I care about is their capacity to end this emergency in liberal democracy. And, even with that prism firmly set, it wasnt that easy.

The Democrat I think is most likely to lose to Trump is Elizabeth Warren.I admire her ambition and grit and aggression, but nominating a woke, preachy Harvard professor plays directly into Trumps hands. And picking someone who has bent the truth so often about so many things her ancestry, her commitment to serving a full term as senator, the schools her kids went to, the job her father had (according to her brother), or the time she was fired for being pregnant is an unnecessary burden. The video she produced insisting that she was partly Native American, using genetic markers, should have been a disqualifier by itself. The lack of judgment was staggering.

And, to be honest, Pete Buttigiegs appeal has waned for me. Yes, technically, hes still the best debater of the bunch. And I dont take anything back that I wrote here. But, over time, the combination of his perfect rsum, his actorly ability to change register as he unpacks a sentence, and his smoothness and self-love have begun to worry me. My fear is that his appeal will fade. Klobuchar, to my mind, is the better midwestern option. She is an engaging and successful politician. But theres a reason she seemingly cant get more traction. She just doesnt command a room, let alone a stage. Setting aside everything else, Warren is presidential in a way that Klobuchar is not.

And I so want Biden to be ten years younger. I cant help but be very fond of the man, and he does have a mix of qualities that appeal to both African-Americans and white working-class midwesterners. What I worry about is his constant stumbling in his speech, his muddling of words, those many moments when his eyes close, and his face twitches, as he tries to finish a sentence. Perhaps these are ways to cope with a stutter, as John Hendrickson posits but they definitely seem more pronounced than I remember. He looks like a man past his prime. I worry whether Biden could stand up to Trumps psychotic energy and lies.

Which leaves us with Bernie. I have to say hes grown on me as a potential Trump-beater. He seems more in command of facts than Biden, more commanding in general than Buttigieg or Klobuchar, and far warmer than Elizabeth Warren. Hes a broken clock, but the message he has already stuck with for decades might be finding its moment. Theres something clarifying about having someone with a consistent perspective on inequality take on a president who has only exacerbated it. He could expose, in a gruff Brooklyn accent, the phony populism, and naked elitism of Trump. He could appeal to the working-class voters the Democrats have lost. He could sincerely point out how Trump has given massive sums of public money to the banks, leaving crumbs for the middle class. And people might believe him.

Is he an American Corbyn? I worry about that a lot. Sanders has been on the far left all his life, and the oppo research the GOP throws at him could be brutal. Hes a man, after all, who sided with a Marxist-Leninist party that supported Ayatollah Khomeini during the hostage crisis in 1979. He loved the monstrous dictator Fidel Castro and took his 1988 honeymoon in the Soviet Union, no less, where he openly and publicly criticized his own country and praised many aspects of the Soviet system. He saw the USSR and the USA this way: Lets take the strengths of both systems. Lets learn from each other. As he was saying this, the Soviet Union was already collapsing. And he paid no visits to dissidents. I think its fair to say that he has never met a leftist dictator he hasnt admired.

But Corbyn? The British Labour leader had a net favorability rating as low as negative 40. Bernie, with huge name recognition, is only at negative 6. After the GOP has nailed him as an ayatollah-supporting commie whos going to take your health insurance away and crash the economy, his negatives will rise. But its worth noting that Trumps favorable rating is negative 10. It was striking to me, too, that some leading conservatives rallied to Bernie in his spat with Warren this week. Some are actually quite fond of the old coot.

On two key issues, immigration and identity politics, Bernie has sensibilities and instincts that could neutralize these two strong points for Trump. Sanders has always loathed the idea of open borders and the effect they have on domestic wages, and he doesnt fit well with the entire woke industry. He still believes in class struggle, not the culture war. But he doesnt seem to be trying to capitalize on any of that. Take a look at his immigration proposals. They are the most radical Ive seen: essentially an end to any control of illegal immigration, with enforcement of the law at the border solely for human traffickers and gun smugglers; a moratorium on all deportations; an end to any detention of illegal immigrants; an open-ended amnesty for basically anyone who has gotten here. How you distinguish these policies from the open borders Sanders used to oppose is beyond my understanding. I believe that immigration control will matter in this election. The Democrats dont. Thats their gamble, and Sanders is doubling down on it.

So where am I? Not thrilled, I have to say. Bernie has the edge on energy and populism, but hes so far to the left the Democrats could end up where the British Labour Party just found itself: gutted. Biden has an advantage because of Obama, his appeal to the midwestern voters (if he wins back Pennsylvania, that would work wonders), and his rapport with African-Americans. But he also seems pretty out of it. The others are longer shots. Bloomberg? The ads are good, but a billionaire who helicopters into a race late isnt the right messenger in these times.

I should point out that Ill vote for whichever of these candidates wins the nomination. I regard a criminal, corrupt, impeached, delusional, and clinically sociopathic president as by far the greater threat to liberal democracy, or what remains of it, than any potential Democrat in the office. But between the front-runners, Biden and Bernie? Bernie, maybe, but by a smidgen.

I wonder if Meghan Markle has ever carefully watched an episode of The Crown. The entire story of the British monarchy for the past half-century has been the extreme difficulty for the queen or any member of her family to be a fully realized human being in public and private. And thats why the series has only magnified respect for Elizabeth II. Her resilience in performing public duties without ever revealing any political or cultural views is pretty remarkable. She showed grace even when her family was coming apart when her sister, Margaret, acted out in public, her daughter-in-law Diana tried to escape the inhuman scrutiny of royalty, or when her favorite son, Andrew, was credibly accused of raping children. She has had amazing staying power in her measured restraint and commitment to duty.

You can feel a great deal of sympathy for those human beings consigned by genes to this constricted if luxurious life. Harry had no choice to be prince or not and a spare heir as well. But for those who willingly join this family, and become a princess or prince through marriage? Im less forgiving. The fantasy of being a princess depends on its being rare. For a young American woman to become an official princess to have a wedding with a carriage, global adoration, and national applause must have seemed like a fantasy. And, of course, it was. The bargain the modern monarchy has made with the British people is that, in return for the glamour, the royals have to do some kind of public service, stay uncontroversial, and not rock the boat. Harry paid his dues: a ten-year stint in the armed forces, including fighting in Afghanistan, and the usual patronage of various charities. He was a bit of a rogue at times, but that was fine. We liked that.

But Meghan? She has been in the royal family for less than two years and now wants out. Her husband, who has hinted before at his discomfort with his princely duties, will leave with her. She has had all the perks of a princess but didnt want to be treated by the press the way it usually treats royals: with aggressive tabloid coverage of various levels of truth. There have been spells when the tabloid press adored her and others when it seemed to hound her. Last fall, Harry wrote a letter describing the toll this takes: My wife has become one of the latest victims of a British tabloid press that wages campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences a ruthless campaign that has escalated over the past year, throughout her pregnancy and while raising our newborn son. There is a human cost to this relentless propaganda, specifically when it is knowingly false and malicious, and though we have continued to put on a brave face as so many of you can relate to I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been.

Some are claiming that Markle is being treated differently because of her mixed ancestry. But she is certainly not being treated any worse than Diana, that whitest of princesses, whom the press effectively murdered. Or Margaret, who was always in the tabloids, to everyones great embarrassment. There are definitely some unfair tropes aired in the shifting contrasts between Kate Middleton and Meghan, but its hard to disentangle this from everything else princes and princesses are subjected to.

Its also very understandable, given what happened to his mother, that Harry would be intensely aware of the damage the press can do. But deciding to quit the royal family, move to Canada part time (if theyll have him), and make money through the celebrity industry is quite a leap from royal duty and stiff upper lips. The Sussexes already had their new house, Frogmore Cottage, renovated at a cost to taxpayers of $3 million, after finding Kensington Palace unsuitable to their needs. They fly free and have all their security provided by public funds. But all of this was too much for Meghan, who described royal life as toxic: She felt she had to escape because living within the royal confines was soul-crushing, a friend told the Daily Mail. She told her inner circle of friends that her soul was being crushed and that the decision to leave was a matter of life or death meaning the death of her spirit.

Sorry, but if you choose to marry into royalty, you have to take the rough with the smooth: The fame and luxury of being a princess comes packaged with bad press, intrusive photographers, and constant public duty. If Meghan didnt expect this, its hard to understand how not. The press coverage she will now get will be even worse: According to one poll, 72 percent of the Brits want them gone, 71 percent think posting the news on Instagram before telling the queen was shoddy, 60 percent want them out of their renovated cottage and forced to pay back the renovation, and 76 percent want them stripped of their royal security. In the same poll, the public supports their decision to adopt a new role and to pursue their own happiness but outside any connection to the royal family.

Its quite simple: You cant eat your royal cake and have it too. And Meghan and Harry now have no cake at all.

See you next Friday.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Read more:

Is There a Way to Acknowledge Americas Progress? - New York Magazine

DENISON, Tex. (KXII) - "We've come a long way - there's been a huge evolution since the first time landlords have heard about this." said Ashton Smith.

Last May, Denison announced plans for a new rental registration and inspection program. They cited a slew of complaints and inspections that revealed issues on rental properties, like clogged plumbing, holes in walls and floors, and faulty electrical outlets.

In June, landlords responded by saying the plan the city proposed would force landlords to raise rent so they could cover the repairs they'd have to make to pass inspection - leaving some low-income tenants without a place they could afford.

"The city actually does care, not just about tenants that are living in sub-standard conditions but also about landlords and about the things that we deal with." Smith said.

Ashton Smith owns over 30 properties in Denison, he stood in opposition of the council in June, but has since worked with them to find a plan that suits more people.

That one is what will be presented on Tuesday. Smith said the city is calling their new solution the VIP program.

"And it's not going up for vote, and it's not an action item right now, but I think this is gonna be a place where the city is gonna give the big overview on how everything has shaken out." Smith said.

The Volunteer Inspection Program will be optional so it won't necessarily raise rent prices. Smith said he hopes what started as a contentious debate this summer, will be something that helps tenants feel safer and landlords feel like the city is on their side.

Continue reading here:

City plans on revealing latest progress in Denison rental registration and inspection program - KXII-TV

Jan 16th 2020

SINCE THE ancient Greeks, at least, people have recognised that civilisational progress tends to create havoc as well as opportunity. Economists have had little time for such concerns. To them, technological progress is the wellspring of long-run growth, and the only interesting question is how best to coax more innovation out of the system. But in the face of looming social challenges, from climate change to inequality, some are now asking whether, when it comes to innovation, what sort is as relevant as how much.

Early models of growth did not explain technological progress at all, treating it rather like manna from heaven. In the 1980s some economists worked to build endogenous-growth models that said where innovation came from. They explained it as the consequence of investment in research and development, increases in the stock of human capital, or the (temporary) extra profits that can be reaped by firms with new technologies. Other economists have focused more on data than on theory. Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation, a paper published in 2018 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, identifies factors that seem to encourage young people to become innovators. Children who grow up where innovation rates are high, for instance, are more likely to become inventors themselves.

Research has also made clear, however, that technological discovery is not linear, but veers about depending on economic conditions. Some economic historians reckon that early industrialisation was motivated by a desire to replace scarce resources, such as skilled labour, with abundant ones, such as unskilled labour and coal. Early inventors were not simply discovering natures truths one by one, in other words, but trying to solve specific problems. Work on such technological bias blossomed in the 1990s as economists sought to explain why the wage premium earned by college graduates kept rising even as the supply of graduates increased. The answer, some reckoned, was that technological change in the 20th century was skill-biased, boosting the productivity of workers with degrees, but not of others.

In a paper published in 2001, Daron Acemoglu of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology collected these strands in a model of directed technical change. Technological progress, he suggested, is influenced by the relative scarcity of factors such as labour and capital; by how easily one factor can be substituted for another; and by the path of past innovation. Research on a particular technology may reduce the cost of developing complementary innovations in future. Directed technical change is fascinating to contemplate because it allows for alternative technological futures: worlds in which firms wring every efficiency from Zeppelins and pneumatic tubes, rather than from internal-combustion engines and Twitter. If the direction of progress is not set in stone, policy choices could lead an economy down one technological path rather than another. That raises an immediate question: if innovation can be steered, should it be, and if so, how?

Since 2000, published work on directed technical change has focused largely on environmental challenges. Path dependence means that research on fossil-fuel technologies can often be more fertile than research on cleaner alternatives. There are more experts in the relevant disciplines, better-funded research labs and an established complementary economic infrastructure. Efficient decarbonisation might thus require subsidies for clean-energy research, as well as a carbon price. Indeed, efforts to slow global warming represent a massive attempt to realise one technological futurea zero-carbon versionrather than another.

Why stop there? Some futurists, and a few economists, worry that rapid progress in artificial intelligence could lead to mass displacement of labour and social crisis. But in a recent paper Anton Korinek of the University of Virginia notes that not all uses of AI are alike. Clever machines could indeed replace human workersor might instead be engineered to assist human labour: to help people navigate complicated processes or take difficult decisions. Private firms, focused on their bottom lines rather than the potential knock-on effects of their investment decisions, might be indifferent between the two approaches in the absence of a government nudge, just as polluting firms tend not to worry about the social costs of environmental harm unless made to do so by governments. In a working paper co-written with Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, Mr Korinek concludes that directing technical change to favour labour-assisting rather than labour-displacing forms of AI could be a second-best way to manage progress, if governments cannot sufficiently redistribute the gains from automation from winners to losers. This may sound far-fetched, but policy proposals such as Bill Gatess suggestion that robots should be taxed to slow the pace of automation represent steps toward a more micromanaged technological future.

Environmental policies aside, such steps seem premature. A more sophisticated view of technological progress is to be welcomed. But economics lacks the tools, at least for now, to judge which technological path is preferable. The world is too complex to allow economists to compare hypothetical technological futures: to know whether a Zeppelin-based society would operate more efficiently overall than a car-based one. Economists cannot know what surprises lie down one innovation path rather than another.

And questions of technology are not solely, or even mostly, about efficiency. Many are ethical. Innovations with overwhelming productivity advantages could prove devastating to social trust or equity. In the face of radical technological changein AI, robotics and genetic engineeringsocieties will inevitably argue over which technological paths should be explored. Economists views belong in these conversationsprovided they are crafted with humility and care.

This article appeared in the Finance and economics section of the print edition under the headline "Economists explore the consequences of steering technological progress"

Original post:

Economists explore the consequences of steering technological progress - The Economist