Linkage

In response to their electoral losses, the “Left” in both countries began adopting New Labour and New Democrat policies, which sought to blend conservative language with their own agendas to win elections. This approach — referred to as “triangulation” — essentially sugarcoated neoliberalism.

I would argue that [Bill] Clinton and [Tony] Blair did more to consolidate and make neoliberalism seem inevitable than Thatcher and Reagan ever did. In fact, when Thatcher was asked what her greatest accomplishment was, she said it was Tony Blair. She had gotten Labour to buy into her views. Blair himself said he saw his role as building on Thatcher, not undoing her work.

The biggest privatizer in American history was Clinton; he did more to privatize than Reagan. The biggest cuts to welfare spending were Clinton’s, as was the launch of the war against crime, which led to mass incarceration, creating an underclass without actually contributing to public safety.

What you saw was neoliberalism transforming the Left, which lost the connection between inclusion and equality, between privilege and power. The Left lost its way. It treated fragmentation — social fragmentation — as inevitable. It gave up on the idea of society, the idea of a larger common good — in other words, it gave up on the idea of solidarity. We just accepted the idea that globalization and technology were immutable.

In essence, the Left adopted two key messages from Thatcher’s era: first, that “there is no alternative” to the current economic and technological realities; and second, that “there is no society” — obligations only extend to individuals and their immediate circles or “little platoons.” These ideas became central to the Third Way left.

JD Vance brought all of that pathological hatred of Haitians to bear when he accused Haitian immigrants, whom he considers a threat, of eating cats (the same cats he also considers a threat to white birth rates). The racists who participate in the anti-immigrant online mobs do the same. Not everybody who is piling on is aware of the deep and disgusting history of racism toward Haitians: After all, many online MAGAs have an aversion to knowing things about the other peoples of the world. But they know enough (that Haitians are Black and vulnerable in this country) to derive glee from participating in cruelty.

It hurts, of course. It always hurts when you are reminded of just how many white folks hate your people. It always stings to see a few other Black people or other supposed allies join in the denigration. I think the insult that Haitians are eating pets is doubled for me because I know for a fact that white Americans care more about their family pets than they do about Haitian immigrants being threatened and harassed right now. If all of Haiti were a nature preserve for cats and dogs, it would be protected at all costs. Since it is a home for free Black folks, its people are treated like dogs.

But being hurt and being defeated are two different things. White folks have been trying to strangle Haiti and Haitians into submission for over 200 years, and yet we are still here. What I can laugh about is this: The white supremacist forces multicultural America is trying to defeat in this election are forces little ol’ Haitians defeated literal centuries ago. America is still trying to get at our level.

What we can see from this example of Nazi Germany, and from studying other instances of fascist movements around the world, is that there are five major themes of fascist education:

1. National greatness
2. National purity
3. National innocence
4. Strict gender roles
5. Vilification of the left

These themes are essentially different ways that fascist movements stoke grievances among the dominant group they serve in order to further their aims. In the process, they are careful to eliminate any contradiction of their narrative. This would include, for example, any scholarly research revealing flaws in national myths, any form of education that clearly reveals national guilt, any suggestion that diversity and plurality might be beneficial to society, or that more equitable gender relations might be beneficial, or that the political left is significantly less of a threat than they imagine.

The time it took me to go from "Oh, this is so much better than Alta Vista!" to "OMG! This is the Web's single point of failure!" was much longer than it should have been.

The short summary is that for nearly a year, Google was hiding Proton Mail from search results for queries such as ‘secure email’ and ‘encrypted email’. This was highly suspicious because Proton Mail has long been the world’s largest encrypted email provider.

[…]

In November 2015, we became aware of the problem and consulted a number of well known SEO experts. None of them could explain the issue, especially since Proton Mail has never used any blackhat SEO tactics, nor did we observe any used against us. Mysteriously, the issue was entirely limited to Google, as this anomaly was not seen on any other search engine. Below are the search rankings for Proton Mail for ‘secure email’ and ‘encrypted email’ taken at the beginning of August 2016 across all major search engines. We rank on either page 1 or 2 everywhere except Google where we are not ranked at all.

[…]

All throughout Spring 2016, we worked in earnest to get in touch with Google. We created two tickets on their web spam report form explaining the situation. We even contacted Google’s President EMEA Strategic Relationships, but received no response nor improvement. Around this time, we also heard about the anti-trust action brought forward by the European Commission against Google(new window), accusing Google of abusing its search monopoly to lower the search rankings of Google competitors(new window). This was worrying news, because as an email service that puts user privacy first, we are the leading alternative to Gmail for those looking for better data privacy.

In August, with no other options, we turned to Twitter to press our case. This time though, we finally got a response(new window), thanks in large part to the hundreds of Proton Mail users who drew attention to the issue and made it impossible to ignore. After a few days, Google informed us that they had “fixed something” without providing further details. The results could be immediately seen.

A comprehensive roundup of the LLM hype dumpster fire.

We observe a recent trend toward applying large language models (LLMs) in search and positioning them as effective information access systems. While the interfaces may look appealing and the apparent breadth of applicability is exciting, we are concerned that the field is rushing ahead with a technology without sufficient study of the uses it is meant to serve, how it would be used, and what its use would mean. We argue that it is important to reassert the central research focus of the field of information retrieval, because information access is not merely an application to be solved by the so-called ‘AI’ techniques du jour. Rather, it is a key human activity, with impacts on both individuals and society. As information scientists, we should be asking what do people and society want and need from information access systems and how do we design and build systems to meet those needs? With that goal, in this conceptual article we investigate fundamental questions concerning information access from user and societal viewpoints. We revisit foundational work related to information behavior, information seeking, information retrieval, information filtering, and information access to resurface what we know about these fundamental questions and what may be missing. We then provide our conceptual framing about how we could fill this gap, focusing on methods as well as experimental and evaluation frameworks. We consider the Web as an information ecosystem and explore the ways in which synthetic media, produced by LLMs and otherwise, endangers that ecosystem. The primary goal of this conceptual article is to shed light on what we still do not know about the potential impacts of LLM-based information access systems, how to advance our understanding of user behaviors, and where the next generations of students, scholars, and developers could fruitfully invest their energies.

Although there is scant empirical research examining bullying by professional educators, anecdotal evidence abounds. Teachers who bully students often have a reputation within the school system. Colleagues who are bystanders often are aware of problematic conduct, but little is known about exactly what these bystanders observe, how often they observe it, how the school administrators respond, or how bullying behaviors by teachers affect school climate.

With the assistance of Teaching Tolerance, we at Northern Michigan University conducted an online survey of 1,067 educators during July 2017. To our knowledge, this is the first significant survey of its kind.

[…]

The survey data do not offer a full understanding of the process of “target selection” by teachers. The data suggest, however, that students who pose behavioral challenges, lack motivation or possess immutable characteristics that are not valued by the school are more likely to be targets of bullying. One respondent stated that the teacher bullies at their private, religious, suburban high school “want to maintain control of the classroom, but do not know how with challenging students, esp[ecially] those who are not high achievers in this age of high stakes tests that teachers get judged on.”

Teachers who bully can justify to themselves and to others that their conduct is appropriate because, after all, the student needed to be “disciplined” or “motivated” to perform. In fact, offending teachers may claim they are obligated to use aggressive tactics with “difficult” students. A teacher who works at a public urban elementary school explained, “I think they are scared of being seen as less powerful or authoritarian, and so they overreact to minor infractions.”

At the 2022 launch of her book, aptly titled “The Climate Book” the then 19-year-old activist had some words for the entire system we live under today:

 “We are never going back to normal again because ‘normal’ was already a crisis. What we refer to as normal is an extreme system built on the exploitation of people and the planet. It is a system defined by colonialism, imperialism, oppression and genocide by the so-called global North to accumulate wealth that still shapes our current world order. If economic growth is our only priority, then what we are experiencing now should be exactly what we should be expecting.”

That was two years ago, and it’s no surprise she hasn’t been given the spotlight nearly as often since. In fact, in the wake of that book launch she’s been the subject of countless hit pieces, and her Palestine solidairty activism has been denegrated as well. Greta went from a cute kid saying that climate change is bad to a young adult rightly charging global systems with not only fueling the climate crisis but also being oppressive and grossly harmful to life in numerous other ways. And, perhaps most importantly, she sees these systems as interconnected and knows that radical change is necessary for the future of life on this planet.

We looked at the latest research from around the world to understand what knowledge was being used to inform the care of children and young people with gender dysphoria by looking for research published in the scientific literature between 2019 and 2023. This work builds on a previous report we provided to NSW Health summarising the research published between 2000 and 2019.

We found 82 research studies published since 2019. This represents a rapid growth in research in this field. Various methods of varying quality were used to gather information in these studies. While we found that there hasn’t been a significant increase in the use of gold-standard methods (such as, randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) in this emerging field of research, we were still able to draw out meaningful insights into the effectiveness and risks of gender dysphoria treatments. The research we found provides a good starting point for discussing critical issues with patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers, including deciding where to invest in future research.

NSW Health will use this review’s findings to guide various projects designed to gather more information from experts and people with lived experiences, with the aim of providing safe and effective psychological and medical treatment services for young people with gender dysphoria.

The so-called ‘miracle cure’ solution gives people homes when they need them without conditions attached, and has brought down homelessness by 70 per cent in Finland and eradicated poverty-based homelessness completely.

Burnham has worked tirelessly to bring homeless numbers down since he was first elected in 2017, and has even been donating 15 per cent of his salary to a homeless charity every month he’s been in the job.

Now, after a successful pilot of a similar housing first scheme in Greater Manchester, which has supported 430 people with complex experiences of homelessness, Burnham is bidding for government funding to extend it beyond the current deadline of March 2025.

“I kept hearing people talking about Finland and housing first, so I just thought, well, I better get over there and have a look. So I went, and it was sort of life-changing, actually”, the Manchester Mayor said when he was first elected.

He has since worked hard to PR the initiatives to the public, saying it financially makes sense.

“It actually saves public money to do this,” he said. “It’s not as if we’re just asking for something, and it’s another pressure. The bigger you do housing first, the more you’ll save.”

In countless conversations about everything from municipal budget priorities to the design of interstate bridge replacement projects, I hear engineers and planners emphasize how they plan to “prioritize all modes.”

Widening a highway and adding sidewalks and a bike lane? That’s “Prioritizing All Modes.” Adding “intelligent signals” that will try to maximize vehicle throughput and reduce delays (for drivers): “Prioritizing All Modes.” Building a pedestrian bridge over a highway and adding benches and art? Definitely “Prioritizing All Modes.”

It is not possible to prioritize everyone.

Every decision has tradeoffs, and it’s clear who those choices prioritize when you consider the comfort, ease and safety of different users. When it’s faster, easier, safer and more comfortable to get somewhere by driving, it’s driving that we are prioritizing.

Very few elected leaders are willing to say they want to slow down car travel and make transit more convenient than driving. Yet unless we have leaders who are willing to do this, cars will continue to kill too many.

[…]

We need to be building communities where it’s possible for more people to travel by car less far, less fast, less often. When it is necessary to travel farther, we need to make driving a less convenient option than riding transit.

This approach is very explicitly not “Prioritizing All Modes.” It is prioritizing the movement of people outside of vehicles over the movement of people in vehicles. It is prioritizing the movement of transit over the movement of cars.