pallas's recent activity
-
Comment on Not every student needs Algebra 2. UC should be flexible on math requirement. in ~science
-
Comment on Not every student needs Algebra 2. UC should be flexible on math requirement. in ~science
pallas (edited )Link ParentWhile I'd agree, that's not even necessarily the question here. California has a multi-tier public university system. This editorial is arguing that the University of California system, the first...I mean, I agree many people don't need to take Algebra II, but many people also don't need to go to college.
While I'd agree, that's not even necessarily the question here. California has a multi-tier public university system. This editorial is arguing that the University of California system, the first tier, should not require Algebra 2. Yet not going to a UC does not mean not going to college in California, or even not going to a university. There is an entire second tier system of full, public universities, the California State University system. And then there is a third tier, at a community college level, the California Community College system.
Of those three, the UC system is the smallest: the CSU system is the largest public university system in the US, and the CCC system is the largest higher education system in the US and third largest in the world. The UC system is meant to be a system of research universities for the top students in the state, not as a system for every student: under the original 1960 California Master Plan for Higher Education, before Prop 13 forced a change in the way tuition and admittance worked in the state, the UC system was meant to guarantee places for the top one-eighth of graduating high school students in the state, the CSU the top one-third, and the CCC for everyone.
The UCs have their visibility because many are top research universities at an international level, but it is the CSU system, not the UC system, that is meant to provide the most of the undergraduate education in the state.
-
Comment on "The university campus is rapidly becoming a locus of infantilizing social control that any independent-minded student should seek to escape" in ~life
pallas Link ParentUnless things have significantly changed, the guiding principle of policy around relationships is generally don't sleep with your students. So graduate students should not be allowed to have...While sexual relationships between faculty and students are generally prohibited (for good reason), I've never heard of a policy banning relationships between grad students and undergrads.
Unless things have significantly changed, the guiding principle of policy around relationships is generally don't sleep with your students. So graduate students should not be allowed to have sexual relationships with undergraduates in classes where they are teaching or a TA. It's reasonable to expect this to apply to undergraduates acting as TAs as well. In both cases there are complexities around preexisting relationships, especially in cases where a particular required course might only have one section, but the general idea is to prevent the same sorts of problems of abuse around classes and power.
It may be the author is treating policies aimed at those circumstances as being generally applicable.
-
Comment on Donald Trump's lawyers say it is impossible for him to post bond covering $454 million US civil fraud judgment in ~news
pallas (edited )Link ParentThis can be done with non-partisan races, and arguably, there, has even less regulation. Alex Villanueva , for example, ran a campaign for LA Sheriff, a non-party position, in part by stating that...Its already happening now. Kristen Sinema used the Democrat brand to get elected and did a U-Turn as soon as she got the job.
This can be done with non-partisan races, and arguably, there, has even less regulation. Alex Villanueva , for example, ran a campaign for LA Sheriff, a non-party position, in part by stating that he was "a Democrat", and his opponents were not. As the position was not partisan, reputable candidates did not give or campaign on party affiliations, and as what he actually meant was that he was a registered Democratic Party member, he was technically not lying. In a non-partisan race, there was no primary process, and the fact that most Democratic politicians endorsed his opponent was lost on low-research voters. There was no label next to his name, or anyone else's, on the ballot, but he prominently campaigned on the affiliation, and there was no way for the party to prevent him from doing so. Despite being essentially a political outlier not dissimilar to Trump (essentially, pro-police-violence, anti-oversight, anti-mask, interested in helping his friends), he was able to unseat a moderate reformist and make a mess of the department, likely in large part owing to voters who knew only that he was "a Democrat" from the campaign material with that next to his name.
-
Comment on Idaho needs doctors: But many don't want to come in ~health
pallas (edited )Link ParentTo highlight this: an anti-abortion argument about the death of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland, the case that became a cause célèbre for legalization, was that an abortion was legal in her case...When medical necessity is structured as an affirmative defense within laws about prosecution for providing abortion, that becomes a huge headache and risk for the doctors.
To highlight this: an anti-abortion argument about the death of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland, the case that became a cause célèbre for legalization, was that an abortion was legal in her case and the doctors were at fault for failing to perform one: the law was not what prevented it. And, considered directly, that was true. But the law also meant that their decision could be second guessed, and came with the potential risk of life imprisonment. And that heavily influenced calculations of risk: the doctors needed to balance the risks to the life of the mother with the risks, in some sense, to their lives.
Ireland did actually reform its abortion ban, before legalization, into what might be seen as a model for how to ban abortion in a medically well-considered way, if one insists on banning it: it involved a panel to consider non-urgent cases where a termination might be medically advisable, and made it so that a doctor's decision that a termination was urgently needed could not be called into question. But current bans in the US seem to be taking to opposite approach, of being as cruel and unsafe as possible.
-
Comment on The Completely Made-Up Adventures of Dick Turpin | Official trailer in ~tv
pallas (edited )Link ParentTo give different review, of someone who was rather disappointed: Ultimately, I feel like this really just isn't to my taste in comedy. And that's fine: I'm sure it is to other people. I often...To give different review, of someone who was rather disappointed:
Ultimately, I feel like this really just isn't to my taste in comedy. And that's fine: I'm sure it is to other people. I often enjoy absurd comedy, but here the absurdism seems rather trite, and the extreme presentism heavy-handed.
But, beyond that, the portrayal of Turpin, and the entire Essex Gang—real historical characters—as being kind-hearted, mostly non-violent do-gooders who chanced into highway robbery but generally rob only unsympathetic, rich characters, and are trying to be different and nice, is unsettling. Ultimately, the Essex Gang were robbers, and Turpin was first a robber and then, after the breakup of the gang, a highwayman. They were violent, and were not robbing aristocrats. Here's Wikipedia's description of one of their robberies:
On 4 February 1735 he [Turpin] met John Fielder, Samuel Gregory, Joseph Rose, and John Wheeler, at an inn along The Broadway in London. They planned to rob the house of Joseph Lawrence, a farmer at Earlsbury Farm in Edgware. Late that afternoon, after stopping twice along the way for food and drink, they captured a shepherd boy and burst into the house, armed with pistols. They bound the two maidservants, and brutally attacked the 70-year-old farmer. They pulled his breeches around his ankles, and dragged him around the house, but Lawrence refused to reveal the whereabouts of his money. Turpin beat Lawrence's bare buttocks with his pistols, badly bruising him, and other members of the gang beat him around the head with their pistols. They emptied a kettle of water over his head, forced him to sit bare-buttocked on the fire, and pulled him around the house by his nose, and hair. Gregory took one of the maidservants upstairs and raped her. For their trouble, the gang escaped with a haul of less than £30 (equivalent to £5,015 in 2021).
The portrayal of an out-of-place, kind-hearted person in a violent world worked, arguably, with Our Flag Means Death because the historical Stede Bonnet was an unusual, out-of-place figure. And there, the contrast between his naivety and the brutality of those around him, his romantic view of a violent profession and the actual violence of the profession, is a significant theme.
I had thought that the 'completely made up' portion of the title might be involved in that aspect, either with Turpin the unreliable narrator clearly coming up with stories that make him seem far better and kinder than he was, or with Turpin arguing against what he saw as unfair depictions of him. Or even something contrasting a bumbling Turpin with the romantic depictions of him in 19th century gothic literature. I also initially thought the narrative would be framed around tales Turpin told while waiting to be hanged, in the way the initial episode started. Instead, the show is simply an uncomplicated portrayal of Turpin as a kind-hearted, non-violent, good person with entirely contemporary, progressive views. The unreliable narrator aspect largely seems to have been dropped after the first episode, and even there, seems to suggest a reality where Turpin is even nicer and less violent than he claims.
Not all comedy needs to be complicated, and there is a place for the saccharine and absurd. But there's something that just feels off about making an uncomplicated, saccharine comedy about real, violent criminals who beat, raped, and murdered people. Yes, there was rampant systemic inequality and poverty to consider, and a need to survive. But still: these were real, violent criminals who beat, raped, and murdered people, and this show is presenting them as contemporary progressive paragons, seemingly without any acknowledgement of the reality. At least coming up with entirely fictional characters would avoid these problematic links to specific people.
-
Comment on WhatsApp announces messaging interoperability in response to Europe's Digital Markets Act (DMA) in ~tech
pallas Link ParentIt appears so: the standard agreement has a number of terms relating to the encryption protocol and implementation.It appears so: the standard agreement has a number of terms relating to the encryption protocol and implementation.
-
Comment on What's the matter with men? They’re floundering at school and in the workplace. Some conservatives blame a crisis of masculinity, but the problems—and their solutions—are far more complex. in ~life.men
pallas Link ParentWhile I'm also not entirely sure, if I'm interpreting it correctly, then an older example would be Blackwaterside / Roud 312 and 564?While I'm also not entirely sure, if I'm interpreting it correctly, then an older example would be Blackwaterside / Roud 312 and 564?
-
Comment on Abolishing inheritance tax sent Stockholm's startup ecosystem soaring – tax cut could revive Britain's flagging economy in ~finance
pallas Link ParentThat's also the case in the US, with the $12m exemption, so for a couple, the exemption is closer to $24m. It's very much a thing in the US that people in even the upper middle class don't have to...In the UK the inheritance tax allowance transfers to your spouse in the event of your death.
That's also the case in the US, with the $12m exemption, so for a couple, the exemption is closer to $24m.
It's very much a thing in the US that people in even the upper middle class don't have to even think about.
-
Comment on Abolishing inheritance tax sent Stockholm's startup ecosystem soaring – tax cut could revive Britain's flagging economy in ~finance
pallas (edited )Link ParentIt depends on what you consider a high threshold. The US threshold is around $12m at the moment. The UK thresholds applied, for example, to California, would mean that many people who owned even a...Inheritance tax is already pretty reasonable in the UK. It's 40% on anything above £325k. If a house is part of the estate then it's 40% above £500k.
It depends on what you consider a high threshold. The US threshold is around $12m at the moment. The UK thresholds applied, for example, to California, would mean that many people who owned even a small home would be significantly over even the house-included threshold.
With that said, the US threshold also includes all lifetime gifts of over ~$18k/recipient/year, so it is a somewhat different arrangement, but the idea for the US, at least now, is that inheritance taxes should only apply to people who are actually, unquestionably, rich, not most of the middle class.
Unquestionably high thresholds can also help reduce filing burdens on many people, as preparing estate taxes can involve considerable expenses, eg, appraisals of everything in the estate. Recently being involved in a US estate that was small enough to be well under the threshold but large enough to need to file for practical reasons, the process probably took over $10k.
-
Comment on Coming to terms with “cozy” fiction in ~books
pallas (edited )Link ParentI've never seen the term 'cozy' used to describe works, and am unfamiliar with most of the works being discussed, but that definition also sounds bizarre. Would that mean many of Ray Bradbury's...Well, no, the point of cozy fiction is precisely this: You're reading about one person's stakes, or maybe a small group of friends. If the scope of "who is impacted if things go wrong" is bigger than a couple people, it's probably not cozy fiction.
I've never seen the term 'cozy' used to describe works, and am unfamiliar with most of the works being discussed, but that definition also sounds bizarre. Would that mean many of Ray Bradbury's stories are cozy? 'The Veldt', to give a widely known example, only involves the domestic life of a single family over a short time, yet I think 'cozy' doesn't exactly fit.
The big scale exists, we know it's out there, but we're standing in defiance of the rest of the world. Find a story worth telling about the smallest of events and tell it.
Is Solaris cozy? There's a completely incomprehensible, planet-sized entity they're orbiting around, but, when the text isn't the narrator describing the movement of clouds, or the ocean, the story is just a few people on an old space station dealing with their flaws and memories. That there are no stakes beyond those people, nothing in the story really matters, and the human element of it will always remain distinctly small-scale, is a major theme of the novel. Yet I don't think it is anyone's idea of a 'cozy' novel. If anything, it's the sort of heavy classic that is perhaps more discussed than it is read.
Meanwhile, I feel like many of Lem's more humorous short stories (like in The Cyberiad) are rather cozy in some intuitive sense by comparison, despite often having vast, if absurd, stakes. Yes, a typical story might have a title like 'How the World was Saved', and involve the protagonists saving all of existence from destruction, but... it's really just the light-hearted antics of two people, not an exploration of the impossibility of comprehending the truly alien and the limitations of human exploration.
Extend this beyond science fiction, and it seems even more problematic of a definition. Is Ulysses cozy?
For me there's way too much social commentary in Monk & Robot, and way too much depressing shit in Wayfarers
This distinction seems important to the idea of 'cozy' stories, but seems like it's outside of the idea of defining it by stakes or people or events, and is instead about themes.
-
Comment on Why you should consider a smaller keyboard in ~comp
pallas LinkI think I would argue that the best keyboard arrangements are significantly dependent on individual factors, and may differ from person to person. I don't think it makes sense to argue that one's...I think I would argue that the best keyboard arrangements are significantly dependent on individual factors, and may differ from person to person. I don't think it makes sense to argue that one's own preferences are universally better for everyone, or that preferring something else is simply a matter of not having practised enough.
I've tried small, heavily-layered keyboards, but find that I prefer keyboards with more dedicated keys. I've always played keyboard instruments, and typed extensively: by my age and peculiarities of my upbringing, I have had a computer with a keyboard since I was too young to remember. I am used to moving my fingers quickly and precisely over longer distances without needing to look at where I am typing. I am able to touch type numbers on a number row, and precisely hit individual function keys. Moving further away from the home row largely does not slow me down. I also primarily use Dvorak, which perhaps more stably positions my fingers around the home row such that it is easier for me to make departures from it more precisely.
With that ability to precisely move around the keyboard, I find that having dedicated semi-frequently-used keys is faster and easier than chorded or switched layering and high-use multi-function keys. Chorded layering means that characters take up fingers on both hands, and restrict my off-hand from as easily preemptively moving to the next key. And while allowing less motion per hand, they require more complex motion, by both hands in coordination, for the same key. For layers that are likely to have multiple characters used in succession, they are even more restrictive, not allowing effective use of all of both hands. Switched layering adds additional keypresses and context-switching. A press/hold distinction on a key means that keypresses can only be registered on key-up, which means that some keys give different feedback than other keys, or all keys have significantly higher latency. I'm not even sure about number pads layouts: they cut down on the number of fingers I can simultaneously use to type numbers (with Dvorak, ',' and '.' are close to the number row), and switch the context of how the typing is done. And, of course, I do have layers for less-frequently-used characters, as do many international users: I have an AltGr for 3rd and 4th level chorded layers, and Compose for key sequences, in addition to switching to different layouts for different character sets.
I'm not so sure about Space: I somewhat suspect that, were my use of it mapped out, having a wide spacebar allows me to more casually position my thumbs and slide them across the key as my fingers extend and contract. I do completely agree that Caps Lock is nonsensical for most users: I do switch mine to Left Control, and Left Control to Hyper.
Yes, my fingers perhaps move more than they would on a more chorded, minimal keyboard, but I actually find continually holding them over the home row and making smaller, more repeated movements within layers to be more straining. But these are my preferences, that in part come from my wider practice moving my fingers longer distances, perhaps the shape of my hands and fingers, and possibly my use of Dvorak. I would not argue that they make sense for other people. Even for Caps Lock: many people use several computers that they might not have control over, and I know that when switching to a keyboard without the remapping, I will almost inevitably end up having trouble hitting Caps Lock a few times inadvertently.
I'd note my preferences aren't a matter of lack of trying different arrangements: I've used everything from a full, PS/2 Model M to a 36-key, heavily layered GergoPlex, though admittedly the GergoPlex is all but unusable to me for a different matter of personal differences, in that even though my fingers are relatively light for pianos, the extremely low activation force that other people might find wonderful is actually horrible for me.
There is a certain frustrating tendency toward a problematic universalism in keyboards (and also more generally within free software circles, where it seems even worse). It isn't always a matter of lack of practice, or lack of trying. There are real differences between people. And in terms of practice, there is the difficulty that practising an arrangement you prefer in turn makes that particular arrangement seem better for you, whereas someone who prefers, and practices, with a different arrangement will find theirs better. For that matter, something that requires extensive practice to perform the same function as something that requires less practice can itself be a disadvantage.
-
Comment on Why you should consider a smaller keyboard in ~comp
pallas (edited )Link ParentDespite being a very proficient typist, who most often types with Dvorak on a Qwerty-labelled keyboard, but will type in a variety of other contexts, including Qwerty and Qwerty-derived Greek...Despite being a very proficient typist, who most often types with Dvorak on a Qwerty-labelled keyboard, but will type in a variety of other contexts, including Qwerty and Qwerty-derived Greek layouts, and on other keyboards, I will say that, regardless of practice, labels do seem to help in context switching. If I suddenly switch to Qwerty, having labels there to help guide my fingers seems helpful, at least in a certain confidence; I'm not even sure if it is so much that I am looking at the key labels of letters I want to type, rather than that glancing at the key labels generally, even ones I'm not using at the moment, helps to push my fingers away from the directions that some part of my muscle memory is directly trying to push them toward.¹ They are also useful when switching between keyboard types: I find switching between staggered and ortholinear keyboards to be considerably more challenging when they have no, or incorrect, labels, particularly if the configuration of non-letter keys changes. And I find switching to a new context particularly challenging when typing passwords that don't consist of words, or typing something that doesn't fit the normal context of what I type frequently. It feels like the memory used is very different: for passwords I type frequently, I seem to remember the shape of them, and trying to type them while needing to think about where each key is on a different layout is actually quite a bit slower without labels. I'm not so sure this is resolvable past a certain point with practice: there is just a certain sense that switching involves at least a minute or two to get up to accurate speed. Interestingly this is not so much the case for layouts involving entirely different glyphs: switching between Dvorak and Greek is easier for me than switching between Dvorak and Qwerty, without so much of the pulling sensation.
This somewhat oddly ends up with Qwerty labels on my most frequently used keyboards perhaps being the most useful, even though they are all wrong most of the time, because it is the layout that I use the least. It's also helpful to ensure that my keyboard is usable for other people...
¹ I am writing this in Qwerty, and there is a palpable sensation for at least a few minutes as I type that my fingers are being pulled in different directions, even though the keys for which the sensation seems to be the highest are not the keys that I have the most trouble with, which instead seem to be keys that are slightly moved, like 'y'.
-
Comment on Christian Super Bowl commercial outrages US conservatives in ~humanities
pallas Link ParentI think we have to take the motivation of the ad as at least not being entirely contrary to its apparent message, as being outrage bait would be. And looking at it, it does seem to be critical of...I think we have to take the motivation of the ad as at least not being entirely contrary to its apparent message, as being outrage bait would be. And looking at it, it does seem to be critical of current conservative Christian actions, with the anti-abortion protestors in the background of the abortion clinic being depicted as the hateful contrast to the foregrounded foot-washer, who is not depicted as being part of them.
Christianity has, of course, had rather significant divisions for a very long time. I'm not sure to what extent the traditional political divisions in the US remain the same. Catholicism in the US, at least devout rather than cultural Catholicism, seems to have moved in a distinctly conservative direction, with an obsessive focus on sexuality, gender, and abortion; it seems to be moving in this direction in opposition to the Pope, and to Catholicism elsewhere, though even Catholicism outside the US remains relatively conservative on these points. It may be there is a distinction to be made here between Latino and non-Latino Catholics, but there were good reasons for the Republican political strategy of trying to have the party focus on Latin-American social conservatives, the strategy that Trump opposed and destroyed.
Significant parts of Mainstream Protestantism seems to be either fighting wars to move toward more social liberalism or progressivism. After a messy schism with social conservatives departing, that ended up largely with court victories for the Church, Episcopal churches are at this point either strongly anti-Republican or very careful about what they say, and some of the more vocal churches are almost problematically partisan in their progressivism. The United Methodist Church is having a schism right now in its move toward LGBT acceptance. But then, Mainstream Protestantism hasn't made up a major portion of American Protestants for some time, particularly devout ones.
The (non-Episcopal) evangelicals and fundamentalists are, of course, very socially conservative, and seem to be the real driving force behind much of the conversation around Christianity in the US. But my understanding is that their focus on politics is actually rather recent, and can be dated perhaps to the 1970s and Falwell's decision to become politically involved against Baptist tradition.
-
Comment on Christian Super Bowl commercial outrages US conservatives in ~humanities
pallas (edited )LinkAs the article doesn't seem to link to the ad in question, here is the organization's youtube video of the ad. The video in the article they link to is actually an ad from last year, which is why...As the article doesn't seem to link to the ad in question, here is the organization's youtube video of the ad. The video in the article they link to is actually an ad from last year, which is why it's confusing.
It's both odd and not odd. It has somewhat tacky (AI-esque?) Norman-Rockwell-style still images of various pairs of people who might usually be seen as opposing in American cultural politics, and feet washing. It's a bit hard for me to identify all of them. In some sense, it's a familiar Christian message against a certain form of hate. It is somewhat refreshing, if coming from a culture very different than mine. It's not the confusing evangelical "have you heard about Jesus?" message that seem targeted to a first-century audience, and it's not a variety of openly hateful or judgemental things it could be.
However, the organizations behind the ads seem much more confusing. The "He Gets Us" ad campaign was, in prior years, paid for by the Servant Foundation. But the Servant Foundation is a donor-advised fund, which makes the motivations and discussions behind the ads murkier, and also perhaps makes seeing it as a single entity potentially misleading. It does appear that the Green family, behind Hobby Lobby, are major donors. The Servant Foundation is also a major donor to anti-LGBT and anti-abortion groups, some of whom are seen as outright hate groups, and is the group described in some of the linked articles.
However... the Servant Foundation isn't behind the ads this year. Instead, it's a different organization, 'Come Near'. Also very corporate-tied: the CEO is a former Wendy's and Domino's Pizza executive.
So I have to wonder whether this ad, which is very different than last year's ad, has either had different people win out in debates over messaging, or is the result of the evangelicals behind it starting to see what modern political partisanship, and the alliance of far-right populists and Christian conservatives, has wrought, and starting to worry. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Even without views on women, abortion and LGBT matters necessarily changing, I think there is a question of priorities, judgment, hate, and the views and character of the people they're associating with that conservative evangelicals in the US really need to think about.
One other thing I would note, however. Since I can't identify all the scenes, I can't say this with certainty, but I get the impression that the feet-washer in each scene is the person on one 'side' of this societal divide. That might suggest that the messaging here is not inclusive or conciliatory toward progressive Christianity. The priest is a man (and presumably not gay). It seems implied that it is the person having the abortion having their feet washed, and that the person washing the feet is not someone who sees abortion as acceptable in Christianity.On watching this again, I actually think I may be at least somewhat wrong here. The first scene is definitely supposed to be the other way around, and several others are not so clear. There still don't appear to be any people who are both overtly Christian and overtly on the other side, however. This isn't saying that Episcopalians are Christians too... -
Comment on Gen Z and millennials proudly wear ‘lab-grown’ diamonds, oblivious to the fact they’re made from burning coal in China and India in ~enviro
pallas (edited )Link ParentWhile rather ridiculously phrased and overdramatized, that language, for gold, is at least based on exaggerations of reasonably honest claims. Gold is not a completely unreasonable investment...While rather ridiculously phrased and overdramatized, that language, for gold, is at least based on exaggerations of reasonably honest claims. Gold is not a completely unreasonable investment commodity. Gold jewellery, outside its value as jewellery, will almost never be worth less than the scrap value of the gold, and that value is well defined. Gold has true scarcity, and has been a store of value for thousands of years. There's no reason to think any of that will change, and as any vast change to scarcity would involve society-changing technological advances (mining in space would be the less outlandish possibility), a vast loss of value would need to involve a complete change in society's valuation of gold. Yes, it might be overpriced, and yes, it might lose value, but almost certainly not all its value.
The language around diamonds is trying to make the same arguments around a simple crystalline phase of a common element. It's trying to argue that you can tell the difference between it being formed by geological processes vs lab processes, that that difference matters, and that you'll continue to be able to tell the difference in the future as existing technology advances. It is based on an entire system of trying to distinguish between essentially identical crystals, and a battle to preserve scarcity that is being lost now. It is entirely plausible that mined diamonds could lose essentially all of their value, for technological reasons, on the scale of decades or even faster.
If you buy something that has €1,000 of gold in it, it would not be implausible to think that adjusted for inflation, it might only be worth €250 in twenty years. It would be implausible to think there was a chance of it only being worth €10. It is not entirely implausible to think that a €25,000 diamond might be worth €250 in twenty years.
-
Comment on Gen Z and millennials proudly wear ‘lab-grown’ diamonds, oblivious to the fact they’re made from burning coal in China and India in ~enviro
pallas (edited )Link ParentI'd actually disagree here. The article does not make a good point, and is not appropriate. Under reasonable journalistic standards I think there may be an argument that it should be retracted...- Exemplary
I'd actually disagree here. The article does not make a good point, and is not appropriate. Under reasonable journalistic standards I think there may be an argument that it should be retracted over its failure to disclose conflicts of interest, and the author censured. Yes, greenwashing exists more generally, but this article is not making any effective claims about greenwashing. The article is largely built around 'malinformation', presenting potentially technically valid information (that diamond manufacturing uses electricity, and some electricity is generated with coal) in a misleading context, in a manner designed to make the reader believe something that is wrong (that lab-grown diamonds are not more environmentally sustainable than mined diamonds).
The article does not provide any evidence that the electricity usage of diamond manufacturing is significant or unsustainable in a way that is different from any other industry. It does not provide any numbers about electricity usage whatsoever, and does not make any claims outside of electricity usage. It appears to dismiss without comment the claim of one manufacturer that the power used is a small fraction of that used in mining. The claims being made appear to be very similar to the petroleum industry claims that electric vehicles are environmentally unfriendly, compared to ICEs, because the electricity might be generated from unsustainable sources. Those claims are widely derided, and I think the claims here should be as well.
Worse, instead of providing any evidence or comparisons, the article simply quotes, without any disclosure, a board member of Lipari Diamond Mines, and investor in several other mining companies, who claims that the diamond manufacturing companies aren't environmentally friendly. It also appears to largely rely on him for many of its claims regarding energy usage and environmental impact. At no point does it disclose that he is a diamond mining company board member.
Even if the one-tenth the power usage claims of one company are exaggerated, it is almost certain that manufacturing is far more environmentally friendly, lower power, and more sustainable, than mining, even if some electricity comes from coal right now. It is reasonable for companies to claim that they are environmentally friendly compared to mining. It does not seem 'dubious' or 'not green at all' to make such claims. I would also argue more generally that processes that significantly reduce emissions compared to other processes are beneficial, especially when, as in this case, they move emissions from the process to electricity generation, a single target that can be focused on.
I apologize if I'm rather incensed in this reply. I'm just astonished by the AP allowing this level of undisclosed conflict of interest in such an egregiously biased article.
-
Comment on Gen Z and millennials proudly wear ‘lab-grown’ diamonds, oblivious to the fact they’re made from burning coal in China and India in ~enviro
pallas (edited )LinkThis article is a travesty of diamond mining industry talking points and undisclosed conflicts of interest. The central premise is essentially that companies manufacturing diamonds use...- Exemplary
This article is a travesty of diamond mining industry talking points and undisclosed conflicts of interest. The central premise is essentially that companies manufacturing diamonds use electricity, and some of that electricity may come from coal and other heavy-emissions generation sources. For these claims, it relies extensively on Paul Zimnisky, a 'diamonds analytics' consultant who has to disclose numerous investments, and a board seat, in diamond mining companies on his website¹, and Edahn Golan, an analyst who once interviewed the De Beers CEO about how diamond mining benefits local communities (but does, it appears, admit that lab-grown diamonds are the future of the industry). It notably does not appear to seek any information from environmental, climate change, or energy generation sources about energy generation or the environmental impact of a small-production, electricity-using industrial process.
The response of one diamond manufacturing company, claiming out that their power usage is much lower than mining, is not only left completely uninvestigated, but is responded to with unrelated attacks from the mining investor noted above. Realistically, I have to assume that even if the 10-to-1 claim of the manufacturing company is an overestimate, mining operations almost certainly do involve significantly more emissions than manufacturing. But the claim isn't even considered by the author.
Much of the rest of the article the goes into the usual mined-diamond talking points claiming that mined diamonds have a beautiful story, manufactured diamonds will rapidly become worthless, and mined diamonds are good investments. It quickly goes from presenting these as a 'marketing battle' and 'analysts warn' to presenting them as facts, like lab-grown diamonds being 'something that drops most of its value in just a few years', and 'natural diamonds' having 'value over the long term'. I'd note that hammer prices from the jewellery auctions of many auction houses are readily available online; keep in mind the seller may only be getting 50 to 70% of that price. But that's not particularly the point here: these arguments themselves make no sense to include in an article ostensibly about climate and emissions.
That the article so extensively relies on a diamond mine investor and board member for much of its content, without disclosing the same information he feels it's necessary for him to disclose in his own writing, seems like a significant failure of journalistic integrity. Quite apart from the AP's vague disclosure about receiving funding from some private foundations, with its link to their generic 'support us' page, the failure to disclose very relevant information about its interviewees seems like a much larger problem. As a scientist, doing this sort of thing in a journal article without conflict of interest disclosures, were it found out, would potentially involve journal retractions and disciplinary proceedings. I'm astonished it's considered appropriate by the AP or O'Malley. The article seems akin to articles, in another era, quoting 'doctors' about how smoking is good for your health, not mentioning the doctors were working for or being paid by tobacco companies.
I'd suggest at least tagging this as problematic; it's certainly enough to make me not trust any articles by Isabella O'Malley, and significantly damages my faith in the AP. But the article is actually interesting as a specimen of how climate change can be weaponized to promote unrelated special interests.
¹ As of January 2024, Paul Zimnisky held a long equity position in Lucara Diamond Corp, Brilliant Earth Group, Star Diamond Corp and Newmont Corp. Paul is an independent board member of Lipari Diamond Mines, a privately-held Canadian company with an operating diamond mine in Brazil and a development-stage asset in Angola.
-
Comment on Why does the letter 'S' look like an 'F' in old manuscripts? in ~humanities.languages
pallas LinkI recall an interesting point of the manuscript of Benjamin Franklin's autobiography being that, written over a number of years during eras when the popularity of the medial s changed, the use of...I recall an interesting point of the manuscript of Benjamin Franklin's autobiography being that, written over a number of years during eras when the popularity of the medial s changed, the use of ſ seems different in different sections.
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~science
pallas Link ParentAn important point here is that melting ice actually takes a large amount of heat. Melting 1 kg of ice, a process which does not change its temperature, takes about four times as much heat as...An important point here is that melting ice actually takes a large amount of heat. Melting 1 kg of ice, a process which does not change its temperature, takes about four times as much heat as heating 1 kg of water from 0°C to 20°C, ie, from freezing to almost room temperature.
This is why ice is so much more effective at cooling than cold water. It is also why ice only really cools things as it melts: it is the melting itself that is useful for cooling, more than the temperature of the ice.
A potential problem with this approach is that it risks dividing students early on, potentially of the basis of factors other than ability. One traditional way of enforcing class and other divisions, for example, has been to choose topics and courses at different schools, or for different types of students, such that some groups will be significantly less likely, without considerable outside work, to continue on certain lines. My partner, a humanities professor, once pointed out that, while she does love her field, that she did not go into science or mathematics is at least in part because, in school, she tested well for math and enjoyed it, but was placed in 'not math people' courses for various reasons including keeping her with her friends, encouraging other students, and, probably the real reason, being at a conservative school and the wrong gender. So she was taught math with 'experiences she might better understand' rather than as something actually intellectually interesting, and while she had no trouble with the classes, tended to see the humanities as far more intellectually rewarding.
Additionally, as adding different courses increases workload compared to teaching multiple sections of the same course, without sufficient staff and light enough course loads, splitting courses doesn't necessarily make the classes better. I was in a 'math for math people' class in California. It didn't give us the attention and curriculum we needed. It just brutalized us by letting us skip to a higher year's curriculum as a result of our own independent study, then trying to keep us from causing further problems by teaching that curriculum at the same pace, just with far more assigned, repetitive work, arguably to keep us from studying at a faster pace at home. Our teacher certainly didn't have time to care about us or give us a different curriculum.