Daily Archives: November 27, 2022

Herbert Spencer and Social Darwinism – SciHi BlogSciHi Blog

Posted: November 27, 2022 at 2:17 pm

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)

On April 27, 1820, English philosopher, biologist, anthropologist, sociologist, and prominent classical liberal political theorist of the Victorian era Herbert Spencer was born. Spencer is best known for the expression survival of the fittest, which he coined in Principles of Biology (1864), after reading Charles Darwins On the Origin of Species.[4] This term strongly suggests natural selection, yet as Spencer extended evolution into realms of sociology and ethics, he also made use of Lamarckism.[5] Spencer developed an all-embracing conception of evolution as the progressive development of the physical world, biological organisms, the human mind, and human culture and societies. During his lifetime he achieved tremendous authority, mainly in English-speaking academia.

The truth is, that those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded. Herbert Spencer, Lectures on Education delivered at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, London, 1855

Spencer was born in Derby, England, the son of William George Spencer (generally called George), a religious dissenter. Herbert Spencer was educated partly by his father and partly by members of the Derby Philosophical Society who introduced him to pre-Darwinian concepts of biological evolution. Reverend Thomas Spencer, Herbert Spencers uncle, then completed Spencers limited formal education by teaching him some mathematics and physics, and enough Latin to enable him to translate some easy texts.

Spencer was known to work quite interdisciplinary, being occupied as a civil engineer during the 1830s as well as writing for provincial journals. About a decade later, Spencer served as sub-editor on the free-trade journal The Economist, during which time he published his first book, Social Statics (1851), which predicted that humanity would eventually become completely adapted to the requirements of living in society with the consequential withering away of the state. Spencer met influential characters including John Stuart Mill, Harriet Martineau, George Henry Lewes and Mary Ann Evans. His friendship with Evans and Lewes resulted in his second book, Principles of Psychology. It was founded on the assumption that the human mind was subject to natural laws and that these could be discovered within the framework of general biology.[6]

All evil results from the non-adaptation of constitution to conditions. This is true of everything that lives. Herbert Spencer, Social Statistics (1851)

In 1858, Herbert Spencer produced an outline of what was to become the System of Synthetic Philosophy. He intended to demonstrate that the principle of evolution applied in biology, psychology, sociology and morality.Around 1860 Spencer began his lifes work: the synthesis of all human knowledge, related to an omnipresent principle that works in all living things: evolution. According to Spencer, only the laws of evolution allow the structuring and integration of empirical data from all physical, social and psychological fields of science under one principle; therefore evolutionism represents the first scientifically founded world view. As an enthusiastic supporter of Darwinism, he believed he could apply the principle of evolution in all sciences and thus unite them into a system of synthetic philosophy. Spencer was convinced that she had found an important key to her understanding in the self-organizing genesis of things. The starting point that things in the world develop without divine (or other) control and that something more complex or higher emerges from simplicity was revolutionary for his time.

If a single cell, under appropriate conditions, becomes a man in the space of a few years, there can surely be no difficulty in understanding how, under appropriate conditions, a cell may, in the course of untold millions of years, give origin to the human race. Herbert Spencer, Principles of Biology (1864)

Many people know Herbert Spencer best for his theory on Social Darwinism. It applies the law of survival of the fittest to society. This means that humanitarian impulses had to be resisted as nothing should be allowed to interfere with natures laws, including the social struggle for existence. In biology, the competition of various organisms can result in the death of a species or organism. Spencer advocated this kind of competition to be closer to the one used by economists, where competing individuals or firms improve the well being of the rest of society.According to Spencer, social development is similar to that of a biological organism. Controlled by the invisible hand of evolution, that which best contributes to the survival of the organism prevails in the long term. In this process, the unadapted, i.e. the socially weaker, stands in the way of societys progress.

Finally, Spencer developed a general philosophy in his further principles, based on the various previously developed theories of evolution: the entire universe functions like a gigantic organism, which leads with time to an increasingly harmonious coordination of the individual components. Like Comte before, Spencer found the same development not only for the whole, but within each component.

In 1902, shortly before his death, Spencer was nominated for the Nobel Prize for literature. Politically, Spencer was firmly rooted in classical liberalism, which was reflected above all in his late work. Spencer tried to unite all the knowledge of his time in a system of synthetic philosophy. Unlike later Social Darwinists, Spencer was firmly rooted in liberalism. Based on his Protestant ethics, he postulated the Law of Equal Freedom (LEF) that a person has all freedom as long as he does not interfere with the freedom of another. Both for these ethical reasons and because they contradicted the logic of evolution, Spencer rejected any intervention of the state in human society. In his most political work, The Man Versus the State, he consistently went so far as to demand the right of every individual to secession from the state. He continued writing all his life, in later years often by dictation, until he succumbed to poor health in 1903 at the age of 83.

Ethical Theory of Herbert Spencer, [12]

References and Further Reading:

Read more:

Herbert Spencer and Social Darwinism - SciHi BlogSciHi Blog

Posted in Darwinism | Comments Off on Herbert Spencer and Social Darwinism – SciHi BlogSciHi Blog

NATO Secretary General at Grain from Ukraine Summit: Russia must stop the war, end global food crisis – NATO HQ

Posted: at 2:14 pm

  1. NATO Secretary General at Grain from Ukraine Summit: Russia must stop the war, end global food crisis  NATO HQ
  2. U.S. and NATO scramble to arm Ukraine and refill their own arsenals  The Japan Times
  3. NATO vows to aid Ukraine 'for as long as it takes'  The Associated Press - en Espaol
  4. Nato to step up aid to Ukraine, Stoltenberg says  Financial Times
  5. NATO will not back down but continue supporting Ukraine - Stoltenberg  Reuters
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Here is the original post:
NATO Secretary General at Grain from Ukraine Summit: Russia must stop the war, end global food crisis - NATO HQ

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on NATO Secretary General at Grain from Ukraine Summit: Russia must stop the war, end global food crisis – NATO HQ

Back in time: How a mural at Freedom of Espresso in Fayetteville captured the history of the village (photos) – syracuse.com

Posted: at 2:12 pm

Back in time: How a mural at Freedom of Espresso in Fayetteville captured the history of the village (photos)  syracuse.com

Go here to see the original:

Back in time: How a mural at Freedom of Espresso in Fayetteville captured the history of the village (photos) - syracuse.com

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off on Back in time: How a mural at Freedom of Espresso in Fayetteville captured the history of the village (photos) – syracuse.com

Proud Boys memo reveals meticulous planning for street-level violence …

Posted: at 2:11 pm

The document is so dowdy and formal it resembles the annual minutes of a society of tax accountants. Its index lists sections on objectives and rules of engagement and carries an addendum that provides recommendations for hotels and parking.

On the cover, two words give a clue to the notoriety of the group that produced it: MAGA and WARNING. That and the date: 5 January 2021, the day before the US Capitol attack.

What goes unsaid on the cover and is barely mentioned throughout the 23 pages is that this is the work of one of the most violent political gangs in America, the far-right street fighters told by Donald Trump to stand back and stand by: the Proud Boys.

The document, published by the Guardian for the first time, gives a very rare insight into the meticulous planning that goes into events staged by the far-right club.

The document was obtained from a Proud Boys member by the extremism reporter Andy Campbell as he researched his new book, We Are Proud Boys: How a Right-Wing Street Gang Ushered in a New Era of American Extremism. The book will be published on Tuesday. Campbell shared the document with the Guardian.

The Proud Boys have been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and are alleged to have acted as key organizers of the violent assault on the Capitol.

In the wake of January 6, which has been linked to the deaths of nine people, the New York march featured in the document was called off and the strategy so fastidiously laid out was never implemented. But the document remains sharply revealing.

It shows the lengths to which the Proud Boys go to prepare for potentially violent encounters and then to cover their tracks something prosecutors have stressed but that has never been seen in the groups own words. It exposes the militaristic structure and language the Proud Boys have adopted, and their aspiration to become the frontline vigilante force in a Trump-led America.

It also provides clues as to how the group continues to spread its tentacles throughout the US despite the fact that many of its top leaders, including its national chairman, Enrique Tarrio, are behind bars awaiting trial on charges of seditious conspiracy.

The purpose of the document is to provide a strategic security plan and call to action, summoning Proud Boys members to a pro-Trump Maga march that was scheduled for New York City on 10 January 2021. That was four days after Congress was to certify Joe Bidens victory in the 2020 presidential election the occasion that would be targeted by the fatal insurrection.

The author of the document is Randy Ireland, who as president of the groups New York branch, the Hells Gate Bridge Chapter, is one of the most prominent Proud Boys in the US north-east. The paper was circulated through Telegram, the encrypted chat app widely used by the Proud Boys as an organizing tool, to at least nine other chapters in New York and beyond.

Campbell told the Guardian the decentralized structure of the group, into what it claims are 157 active chapters in all but three states, is one of the Proud Boys greatest strengths, as reflected in the autonomous nature of the New York planning.

Chapter leaders like Randy can create their own events, run independently of each other, Campbell said. Enrique Tarrio and other leaders are in prison, but these guys are going to continue what they are doing.

The language in the planning paper is overtly militaristic. Ireland designates himself General of Security Detail, while his underlings in the chain of command are VPs of Recruiting, Scout Security and Team Leads.

The plan is for 60 or so Proud Boys at the 10 January event in Manhattan to be corralled into seven tactical teams of five to eight men each (they are all men, as one of the overriding values of the group is misogyny). Members are told to bring protective gear, including knife/stab protection, helmets, gloves, boots etc and to make use of radio channels, walkie-talkies or Telegram to communicate with each other.

They are to stick together in groups and under no circumstances allow Normies ordinary Trump supporters who are not Proud Boys or Females into their ranks.

Their presence will jeopardise the health and safety of all those involved with Security, and simply cannot be allowed to happen! Ireland writes.

Maps reproduced at the back of the document show positions scouts and tactical teams should adopt at key points along the route of the march, which was planned to start at Columbus Circle and pass Trump Tower.

That spot is understood in a very public way to hold special meaning for us, the paper says, referring to Trumps home on Fifth Avenue. WE WILL NOT DISAPPOINT!

Campbell, who has been reporting on the Proud Boys since they started turning up at Trump rallies in early 2017, describes them as Americas most notorious political fight club. In the planning paper, he sees equal parts fantasy and danger.

These guys see themselves as super soldiers, like some sort of military outfit, he said. On one level its funny, as nothing is in fact going to pan out the way they say it will. But on another level, its alarming because it shows how much thought they put into this stuff.

In We Are Proud Boys, Campbell traces the group from its birth in 2015-16 through to its central role on January 6 when a member, Dominic Pezzola, became the first person to breach the US Capitol. At least 30 Proud Boys have been charged in relation to the insurrection, including Tarrio and four others accused of seditious conspiracy among the most serious indictments yet handed down.

The group was invented by the British-born founder of Vice magazine, Gavin McInnes, who branded himself a western chauvinist and peddled in bigotry. McInnes floated the Proud Boys name on his online chatshow in May 2016, introducing them as a gang and inventing a uniform, a black Fred Perry polo shirt with yellow trim.

McInnes was careful to brand his creation as harmless fun, a satirical male-only patriotic drinking club that later attached itself to all things Trump. But Campbell argues that from the outset political violence was baked in.

A Proud Boy was an organizer of the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, during which an anti-fascist protester was murdered. The group has held violent gatherings in Portland, Oregon. Outside a Republican event in New York in 2018, several members were arrested and charged with felonious assault.

Proud Boys membership is structured into four ranks, known as degrees, the fourth granted once you get arrested or get in a serious violent fight for the cause, as McInnes himself explained. In an interview with Campbell for the book, McInnes denied promoting violence and insisted the Proud Boys were never proactively aggressive, only reacting to leftwing attacks.

That official line is reiterated in the document published by the Guardian. Ireland is careful to portray the Proud Boys as a defensive group.

He writes: If any violence does spout off, all Proud Boys are expected to respond immediately only so far as to eliminate and end that threat to them or others. VERY IMPORTANT: Once the threat has been neutralized, WE STOP!

But there is a glaring contradiction: Ireland presents his chapter as a non-violent organization yet it goes out seeking violence. He assigns the group, uninvited, the role of a vigilante police force.

We are there as the first line of defense for all event attendees, he writes, then contradicts himself by saying the only role of the Proud Boys is to play a back-up role to law enforcement and to force them to do their jobs.

That speaks volumes. It carries the implication that if the police will not assail anti-fascist protesters, Proud Boys will.

Ive reported at Proud Boys events where they stood back and relaxed as police lobbed teargas and other munitions into the crowd of counter-protesters, Campbell said. Then the Proud Boys didnt have to do what Randy Ireland is hinting at here step in and do the fighting themselves.

For Campbell, the most disturbing aspect of the document is that, with its soft-lensed double-talk and contradictory meanings, it falls into arguably the main ambition of the Proud Boys: the normalization of political violence. Despite having so many leaders behind bars, the group is prospering.

As new chapters pop up, Americans are increasingly inured to the idea of heavily armed gangs in public settings. Proud Boys have posed as security details at anti-abortion rallies, anti-vaccination demonstrations, pro-gun protests and of course Trump rallies.

The street-level violence the Proud Boys helped to create is now being carried out by regular people, Campbell said. You saw it on January 6, you see it at Planned Parenthood and LGBTQ+ events where people are harassed and attacked by everyday Americans.

See the original post here:

Proud Boys memo reveals meticulous planning for street-level violence ...

Posted in Proud Boys | Comments Off on Proud Boys memo reveals meticulous planning for street-level violence …

F.B.I. Had Informants in Proud Boys, Court Papers Suggest

Posted: at 2:11 pm

The F.B.I. had as many as eight informants inside the far-right Proud Boys in the months surrounding the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, recent court papers indicate, raising questions about how much federal investigators were able to learn from them about the violent mob attack both before and after it took place.

The existence of the informants came to light over the past few days in a flurry of veiled court filings by defense lawyers for five members of the Proud Boys who are set to go on trial next month on seditious conspiracy charges connected to the Capitol attack.

In the papers, some of which were heavily redacted, the lawyers claimed that some of the information the confidential sources had provided to the government was favorable to their efforts to defend their clients against sedition charges and was improperly withheld by prosecutors until several days ago.

In a sealed filing quoted by the defense, prosecutors argued that hundreds of pages of documents related to the F.B.I. informants were neither suppressed by the government nor directly relevant to the case of the Proud Boys facing sedition charges: Enrique Tarrio, the groups former leader; Joseph Biggs; Ethan Nordean; Zachary Rehl; and Dominic Pezzola.

Because all of the material remains under a highly restrictive protective order, it is not possible to know what the informants told the government about the Proud Boys role in the Capitol attack or how that information might affect the outcome of the trial.

A closed court hearing was held on Monday to discuss the informants in Federal District Court in Washington. Lawyers for the Proud Boys have asked Judge Timothy J. Kelly, who is overseeing the case, to dismiss the indictment or at least delay the trial to give them more time to investigate the newly revealed informants.

Judge Kelly made no decision at the hearing, according to a notice placed on the docket after the proceeding ended. Because it was sealed, journalists were not allowed in the courtroom.

The dispute about the informants in the Proud Boys came on the heels of revelations that the F.B.I. also had a well-placed source in the inner circle of Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers militia, another far-right group that took part in the Capitol attack.

Last week, lawyers for Mr. Rhodes and four other Oath Keepers who are being tried on sedition charges planned to call the informant Greg McWhirter, the groups former vice president as a defense witness, believing that his testimony would bolster their case. But on the eve of his planned appearance, Mr. McWhirter suffered a heart attack and the defense put other witnesses in his place.

Questions about informants reporting to the government from inside extremist groups have been raised repeatedly throughout the Justice Departments sprawling investigation of the Capitol attack. They have included concerns about why the informants were not able to give the government advanced warning about plans to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6 or seemingly to corroborate accusations after the fact that the groups conspired in plotting the attack.

Former F.B.I. officials say there might have been gaps in what bureau intelligence analysts had told agents to ask their informants. Analysts at the bureau are supposed to help agents connect the intelligence dots to provide a clearer picture of threat activity. The F.B.I.s intelligence directorate was created after Sept. 11 to help thwart terrorism and other threats.

It remains unclear what sorts of questions the F.B.I. was asking its informants in the Proud Boys and how focused the bureau was on the groups activities to undermine the results of the elections as Jan. 6 drew near. Previous court papers have suggested that some Proud Boys including Mr. Biggs were recruited by the F.B.I. before the election to provide information about their adversaries in the leftist movement known as antifa.

Last year, The New York Times revealed the existence of an informant in the Kansas City chapter of the Proud Boys who took part in the storming of the Capitol with a group of his compatriots. After the attack, the informant told his handlers in interviews that he was not aware of a premeditated plan to break into the building on Jan. 6, although as a relatively low-level member of the group it is possible that he was simply not privy to the making of such plans.

Right-wing media figures and Republican politicians have often sought to use the issue of F.B.I. informants in extremist groups to suggest that the bureau had a hand in guiding or encouraging the attack on the Capitol in a way that entrapped other rioters. No evidence has surfaced suggesting that the F.B.I. played any role in the attack.

But the lawyers for the Proud Boys have made entirely different claims, arguing that the information the confidential sources provided to prosecutors appears to be exculpatory and could contradict the governments chief allegation in the case: that their clients went to Washington on Jan. 6 with a plan in place to storm the Capitol and disrupt the transfer of power from President Donald J. Trump to Joseph R. Biden Jr.

The newly disclosed material called into question whether a Proud Boy conspiracy plan to obstruct the Biden-Harris vote certification or to commit sedition ever existed or could have existed, J. Daniel Hull, Mr. Biggss lawyer, wrote in papers filed on Monday.

The notion of whether there was a predetermined plan to attack the Capitol or whether the violence that erupted there on Jan. 6 was more spontaneous will be one of the key disputes when the Proud Boys trial now scheduled to start on Dec. 12 goes in front of a jury. To prove seditious conspiracy, prosecutors will have to show that the defendants knowingly entered into an agreement to use force to stop the lawful transfer of power after the 2020 election.

If the information provided by the informants is indeed exculpatory, the lawyers for the Proud Boys could in theory call some of them to testify at the trial and rebut the governments charges.

A similar dynamic has been playing out in recent days in the Oath Keepers sedition trial, which could go to the jury as early as this week. A central part of the defenses strategy in the case has been to introduce evidence that the Oath Keepers had no explicit plan to attack the Capitol.

The post F.B.I. Had Informants in Proud Boys, Court Papers Suggest appeared first on New York Times.

Go here to read the rest:

F.B.I. Had Informants in Proud Boys, Court Papers Suggest

Posted in Proud Boys | Comments Off on F.B.I. Had Informants in Proud Boys, Court Papers Suggest

Tenure Track Faculty Position in Quantum Information Science in Hoboken …

Posted: at 2:09 pm

Details

Posted: 21-Nov-22

Location: Hoboken, New Jersey

Salary: Negotiable

Categories:

Physics: Optics and Laser

Physics: Photonics

Physics: Quantum

Sector:

Academic

Work Function:

Faculty 4-Year College/University

Preferred Education:

Doctorate

The Department of Physics in the Charles V. Schaefer School of Engineering and Science at Stevens Institute of Technology invites applications for a faculty position in the field of quantum information science. This is an open-rank search, and candidates will be considered for appointment both at the tenure-track assistant professor level and at higher ranks, as appropriate. Candidates in both theory and experiment will be considered but candidates with background in experimental quantum research are particularly encouraged to apply.

Stevens Institute of Technology has a strong presence in quantum information research, spanning areas such as quantum optics, laser physics, and quantum foundations. The university seeks to further strengthen and complement efforts in quantum information science, one of the top priorities of the University. As such, the initiative is a central component of the new Stevens strategic plan Stevens2032: Inspired by Humanity, Powered by Technology.

Candidates must have a PhD in physics or a closely related field and are expected to develop a strong research program and to teach at the undergraduate and graduate levels. The research should be capable of attracting substantial extra-mural funding and is expected to complement and strengthen the research conducted within the Department of Physics and the Center for Quantum Science and Engineering. For more information, see

https://www.stevens.edu/research-entrepreneurship/research-centers-labs/center-quantum-science-and-engineering

Stevens Institute of Technology is a premier, private research university in Hoboken, New Jersey, overlooking the Manhattan skyline. Stevens prepares its more than 8,000 undergraduate and graduate students for an increasingly complex and technology-centric world, leveraging finance, computing, engineering and the arts to confront the most challenging problems of our time with innovative teaching and research. The university is in the top 1% nationally of colleges with the highest-paid graduates.

Stevens values diversity and seeks candidates who will contribute to a welcoming and inclusive environment for students, faculty and staff of all backgrounds. We are an NSF ADVANCE institution committed to equitable practices and policies, and strongly encourage applications from women, racial and ethnic minority candidates, veterans and individuals with disabilities.

The search committee will begin to review applications on January 2, 2023. Applications will continue to be accepted until the position is filled.

To apply online follow these instructions:

Prepare a single pdf file (maximum size of 50 MB) with the following sections:

Navigate to https://www.stevens.edu/page-right-nav/careers-at-stevens

Click Job Portal for External Candidates and enter the Requisition number RQ26358 in the search field. Click on the resultant link and then click on Apply Online. You must create an ID and use the Manual entry option. When prompted for the CV file, upload the single file prepared as indicated above.

For any questions, please contact the Search Committee Chair, Prof. Edward Whittaker, at ewhittak@stevens.edu.

Stevens Institute of Technology is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Accordingly, Stevens adheres to an employment policy that prohibits discriminatory practices or harassment against candidates or employees based on legally impermissible factor(s) including, but not necessarily limited to, race, color, religion, creed, sex, national origin, nationality, citizenship status, age, ancestry, marital or domestic partnership or civil union status, familial status, affectional or sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, atypical cellular or blood trait, genetic information, pregnancy or pregnancy-related medical conditions, disability, or any protected military or veteran status. Stevens is building a diverse faculty, staff and student body and strongly encourages applications from female and minority candidates, as well as veterans and individuals with disabilities. Stevens is a federal contractor under the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as well as other federal statutes.

About Stevens Institute of Technology

Stevens Institute of Technology is a premier, private research university in Hoboken,New Jersey, overlooking the Manhattan skyline. Stevens prepares its more than 8,000undergraduate and graduate students for an increasingly complex and technology-centricworld, leveraging finance, computing, engineering and the arts to confront themost challenging problems of our time with innovative teaching and research. Theuniversity is in the top 1% nationally of colleges with the highest-paid graduates.Stevens values diversity and seeks candidates who will contribute to a welcoming andinclusive environment for students, faculty and staff of all backgrounds. We are an NSFADVANCE institution committed to equitable practices and policies, and stronglyencourage applications from women, racial and ethnic minority candidates, veteransand individuals with disabilities.

https://careers.aps.org/jobs/17804025/tenure-track-faculty-position-in-quantum-information-science

See more here:

Tenure Track Faculty Position in Quantum Information Science in Hoboken ...

Posted in Quantum Physics | Comments Off on Tenure Track Faculty Position in Quantum Information Science in Hoboken …

Teens caught smoking or vaping at Dearborn Public Schools will face zero tolerance from district, police – Dearborn Press and Guide

Posted: at 2:06 pm

Teens caught smoking or vaping at Dearborn Public Schools will face zero tolerance from district, police  Dearborn Press and Guide

See more here:

Teens caught smoking or vaping at Dearborn Public Schools will face zero tolerance from district, police - Dearborn Press and Guide

Posted in Vaping | Comments Off on Teens caught smoking or vaping at Dearborn Public Schools will face zero tolerance from district, police – Dearborn Press and Guide

Russian Tech Giant Wants Out of the Country As Ukraine War Rages on

Posted: at 2:01 pm

Thanks for signing up!

Access your favorite topics in a personalized feed while you're on the go. download the app

Russia stands to lose its biggest tech company, which would throw a wrench in President Putin's plans to foster Russian-grown alternatives for Western technology.

Yandex, often referred to as Russia's Google, is the country's largest internet business best known for its search browser and ride-hailing apps. But its Dutch-based parent company, Yandex N.V., wants out of Russia because of the potential negative impact the Ukrainian invasion could have on its business, according to a report by The New York Times.

The exit of Russia's biggest tech company would deliver a blow to Putin, who has made a concerted effort to produce Russian technology and goods as sanctions cut access to Western suppliers.

Yandex N.V. said Friday that its board had "commenced a strategic process to review options to restructure the group's ownership and governance in light of the current geopolitical environment."

These options, Yandex said, included developing some of its international divisions "independently from Russia" and divesting "ownership and control of all other businesses in the Yandex Group." The company added: "This process is at a preliminary stage."

The Bell, a Russian media group, had earlier reported that Yandex N.V. would move its new businesses and most promising technologies including self-driving cars, machine learning, and cloud-computing services outside of Russia, the Times reported, citing two anonymous sources familiar with the matter. Those businesses would need access to Western markets, experts, and technology, all of which is unviable while the Russian invasion of Ukraine rages on and Western sanctions remain in place.

However, the decision to move Yandex's fledgling technology businesses might not be up to its parent company. The firm will have to get the Kremlin's approval to transfer Russian-registered tech licenses outside of the country, The Times reported. Plus, Yandex's shareholders would have to approve the broader restructuring plan.

Yandex's business, once hailed as a rare Russian business success story, has struggled since the invasion of Ukraine. The tech giant's story is not unlike those found in the Silicon Valley. Yandex employed more than 18,000 people, it was worth more than $31 billion, and is often referred to as the "Google of Russia." It even had offices in downtown Palo Alto, California, at one point.

But since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, thousands of Yandex employees have left Russia, and the price of the company's New York-listed shares lost more than $20 billion in value almost immediately after the war, before Nasdaq suspended trading in its shares. Meanwhile, Yandex's Moscow-listed shares dropped 62% in the past year.

Yandex's misfortune mirrors other Russian tech companies, which have struggled in the face of Western sanctions and the exodus of tens of thousands of Russian IT workers, according to an Al Jazeera report. It's something even Putin can't deny, admitting that the Russian IT sector will experience "colossal" difficulties as the US and 37 other countries restrict Russia's access to technologies, like semiconductors and telecommunications equipment, via export controls.

Untangling Russia's reliance on the global economy has been an uphill battle for the country, even before the Ukranian invasion and its sanctions.

In 2015, the Kremlin tried to stop all government bodies from using foreign software, but by 2019 only 10% of state-used software was Russian made. Russia's not just dependent on foreign tech, either. More than half, or 65% of Russian businesses relied on imports for their manufacturing, according to a 2021 note from Russia's central bank. From cars to office paper, most companies involve foreign providers some place in the supply chain.

More:

Russian Tech Giant Wants Out of the Country As Ukraine War Rages on

Comments Off on Russian Tech Giant Wants Out of the Country As Ukraine War Rages on

Hate speech – Wikipedia

Posted: at 1:57 pm

Speech that expresses hatred towards individuals or groups

Hate speech is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country.

There has been much debate over freedom of speech, hate speech, and hate speech legislation.[3] The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or that disparage or intimidate a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group. The law may identify a group based on certain characteristics.[4][5][6] In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term.[7] Additionally, in some countries, including the United States, much of what falls under the category of "hate speech" is constitutionally protected.[8][9] In other countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both.

In this section, the term "theories of hate speech" is being used as an umbrella term describing the ways in which different thinkers throughout history have defined hate speech and have provided frameworks for understanding its impact.

One theory on the merits of freedom of speech, and consequently hate speech, is the view that public discourse ought to serve as a marketplace of ideas. This perspective, often attributed to mid-19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill, claims that hate speech is an unavoidable part of the wider current of free speech. Within this theory, there exists no partial truth; everything must be debated in order to determine what is true and what is false. This theory privileges the community's progression over individual desires. Mill writes in On Liberty, "They [an individual] have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility".[10] Here, Mill asserts the necessity of hate speech as a stepping stone to truth. Denying others the ability to evaluate statements because one believes those words to be offensive is to make a unilateral decision that is ultimately harmful to the collective good. Although these thinkers believe speech can and should be limited in certain contexts, they firmly contend that all speech, including hate speech, is a part of the growth and development of the community.

Starting in the 1940s and 50s, different civil rights groups responded to the atrocities of World War II by advocating for restrictions on hateful speech targeting groups on the basis of race and religion.[11] These organizations used group libel as a legal framework for describing the violence of hate speech and addressing its harm. In his discussion of the history of criminal libel, scholar Jeremy Waldron states that these laws helped "vindicate public order, not just by preempting violence, but by upholding against attack a shared sense of the basic elements of each person's status, dignity, and reputation as a citizen or member of society in good standing".[12] A key legal victory for civil rights groups came in 1952 when group libel law was affirmed by the supreme court in Beauharnais v. Illinois.[13] However, the group libel approach lost ground due to a rise in support for individual rights within civil rights movements during the 60s.[14] Critiques of group defamation laws are not limited to defenders of individual rights. Some legal theorists, such as Richard Delgado, support legal limits on hate speech, but claim that defamation is too narrow a category to fully counter hate speech. Ultimately, Delgado advocates a legal strategy that would establish a specific section of tort law for responding to racist insults, citing the difficulty of receiving redress under the existing legal system.[15]

Often cited in the 1970s Feminist Sex Wars, a third framework for conceptualizing hate speech claims that speech can restructure social norms in violently subordinating ways. In this model, hate speech does not incite violence, but rather is itself a violent act that changes the power relations between speakers and across group hierarchies. This branch of thought, termed Speech-Act Theory, has been used by Catharine A. MacKinnon to argue that pornography, as speech, is inherently violent to women because it silences them and acts to subordinate them both through its creation and its consumption.[16] This theory has been expanded on by Mary Kate McGowan to include the role of authority in words performing acts. Essentially, truth becomes truth because it is said to be true by a legitimate authority. McGowan provides the example of an umpire's call to illustrate this point. If an umpire calls a play as safe, the play may or may not be safe, but it is designated as so because of the authority of the umpire.[17] This relates to Speech-Act Theory because words are able to do, to produce new meaning and reality. In the case of hate speech, those ostensibly with authority and power are able to tangibly alter the social location or life experience of others when they utter demeaning or derogatory words.

After WWII, Germany criminalized Volksverhetzung ("incitement of popular hatred") to prevent resurgence of Nazism. Hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity also is banned in Germany.[18] Most other European and WWII combatant countries have done likewise, except for Italy, though a new law is contemplated.[19]

International human rights laws from the United Nations Humans Rights Committee have been protecting freedom of expression, and one of the most fundamental documents is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) drafted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1948.[20] In Article 19 of the UDHR, it states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."[20]

Even though there are fundamental laws protecting freedom of expression, there are multiple international laws that expand on the UDHR and pose limitations and restrictions, specifically concerning the safety and protection of individuals.[21]

A majority of developed democracies have laws that restrict hate speech, including Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, India, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.[25] In the United Kingdom, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 expands on the UDHR, stating that restrictions on freedom of expression would be permitted when it threatens national security, incites racial or religious hatred, causes individual harm on health or morals, or threatens the rights and reputations on individuals.[26] The United States does not have hate speech laws, since the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[9]

Laws against hate speech can be divided into two types: those intended to preserve public order and those intended to protect human dignity. The laws designed to protect public order require that a higher threshold be violated, so they are not often enforced. For example, a 1992 study found that only one person was prosecuted in Northern Ireland in the preceding 21 years for violating a law against incitement to religious violence. The laws meant to protect human dignity have a much lower threshold for violation, so those in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands tend to be more frequently enforced.[27]

A few states, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Rwanda Hutu factions, actors in the Yugoslav Wars and Ethiopia have been described as spreading official hate speech or incitement to genocide.[28][29][30]

On 31 May 2016, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter, jointly agreed to a European Union code of conduct obligating them to review "[the] majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech" posted on their services within 24 hours.[31]

Prior to this in 2013, Facebook, with pressure from over 100 advocacy groups including the Everyday Sexism Project, agreed to change their hate speech policies after data released regarding content that promoted domestic and sexual violence against women led to the withdrawal of advertising by 15 large companies.[32][33]

Companies that have hate speech policies include Facebook and YouTube. In 2018 a post containing a section of the United States Declaration of Independence that labels Native Americans "merciless Indian savages" was labeled hate speech by Facebook and removed from its site.[34] In 2019, video-sharing platform YouTube demonetized channels, such as U.S. radio host Jesse Lee Peterson, under their hate speech policy.[35]

Several activists and scholars have criticized the practice of limiting hate speech. Civil liberties activist Nadine Strossen says that, while efforts to censor hate speech have the goal of protecting the most vulnerable, they are ineffective and may have the opposite effect: disadvantaged and ethnic minorities being charged with violating laws against hate speech.[36] Kim Holmes, Vice President of the conservative Heritage Foundation and a critic of hate speech theory, has argued that it "assumes bad faith on the part of people regardless of their stated intentions" and that it "obliterates the ethical responsibility of the individual".[37] Rebecca Ruth Gould, a professor of Islamic and Comparative Literature at the University of Birmingham, argues that laws against hate speech constitute viewpoint discrimination (prohibited by First Amendment jurisprudence in the United States) as the legal system punishes some viewpoints but not others;[38] other scholars such as Gideon Elford argue instead that "insofar as hate speech regulation targets the consequences of speech that are contingently connected with the substance of what is expressed then it is viewpoint discriminatory in only an indirect sense."[39] John Bennett argues that restricting hate speech relies on questionable conceptual and empirical foundations[40] and is reminiscent of efforts by totalitarian regimes to control the thoughts of their citizens.[41]

Michael Conklin argues that there are positive benefits to hate speech that are often overlooked. He contends that allowing hate speech provides a more accurate view of the human condition, provides opportunities to change people's minds, and identifies certain people that may need to be avoided in certain circumstances.[42] According to one psychological research study, a high degree of psychopathy is "a significant predictor" for involvement in online hate activity, while none of the other 7 criteria examined were found to have statistical significance.[43]

Political philosopher Jeffrey W. Howard considers the popular framing of hate speech as "free speech vs. other political values" as a mischaracterization. He refers to this as the "balancing model", and says it seeks to weigh the benefit of free speech against other values such as dignity and equality for historically marginalized groups. Instead, he believes that the crux of debate should be whether or not freedom of expression is inclusive of hate speech.[25] Research indicates that when people support censoring hate speech, they are motivated more by concerns about the effects the speech has on others than they are about its effects on themselves.[44] Women are somewhat more likely than men to support censoring hate speech due to greater perceived harm of hate speech, which some researchers believe may be due to gender differences in empathy towards targets of hate speech.[45]

Here is the original post:
Hate speech - Wikipedia

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Hate speech – Wikipedia

Methane ‘super-emitters’ on Earth spotted by space station experiment …

Posted: at 1:55 pm

A powerful eye in the sky is helping scientists spy "super-emitters" of methane, a greenhouse gas about 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

That observer is NASA's Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation instrument, or EMIT for short. EMIT has been mapping the chemical composition of dust throughout Earth's desert regions since being installed on the exterior of the International Space Station (ISS) in July, helping researchers understand how airborne dust affects climate.

That's the main goal of EMIT's mission. But it's making another, less expected contribution to climate studies as well, NASA officials announced on Tuesday (Oct. 25). The instrument is identifying huge plumes of heat-trapping methane gas around the world more than 50 of them already, in fact.

Related: Climate change: Causes and effects

"Reining in methane emissions is key to limiting global warming. This exciting new development will not only help researchers better pinpoint where methane leaks are coming from, but also provide insight on how they can be addressed quickly," NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said in a statement (opens in new tab).

"The International Space Station and NASA's more than two dozen satellites and instruments in space have long been invaluable in determining changes to the Earth's climate," Nelson added. "EMIT is proving to be a critical tool in our toolbox to measure this potent greenhouse gas and stop it at the source."

EMIT is an imaging spectrometer designed to identify the chemical fingerprints of a variety of minerals on Earth's surface. The ability to spot methane as well is a sort of happy accident.

"It turns out that methane also has a spectral signature in the same wavelength range, and that's what has allowed us to be sensitive to methane," EMIT principal investigator Robert Green, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Southern California, said during a press conference on Tuesday afternoon.

Green and other EMIT team members gave some examples of the instrument's sensitivity during the Tuesday media call. For example, the instrument detected a plume of methane also known as natural gas at least 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) long in the sky above an Iranian landfill. This newfound super-emitter is pumping about 18,700 pounds (8,500 kilograms) of methane into the air every hour, the researchers said.

That's a lot, but it pales in comparison to a cluster of 12 super-emitters EMIT spotted in Turkmenistan, all of them associated with oil and gas infrastructure. Some of those plumes are up to 20 miles (32 km) long, and, together, they're adding about 111,000 pounds (50,400 kg) of methane to Earth's atmosphere per hour.

That's comparable to the peak rates of the Aliso Canyon leak, one of the largest methane releases in U.S. history. (The Aliso Canyon event, which occurred at a Southern California methane storage facility, was first noticed in October 2015 and wasn't fully plugged until February 2016.)

EMIT spotted all of these super-emitters very early, during the instrument's checkout phase. So it should make even greater contributions as it gets fully up and running, and as scientists gain more familiarity with the instrument's capabilities, team members said.

"We are really only scratching the surface of EMIT's potential for mapping greenhouse gases," Andrew Thorpe, a research technologist at JPL, said during Tuesday's press conference. "We're really excited about EMIT's potential for reducing emissions from human activity by pinpointing these emission sources."

Mike Wall is the author of "Out There (opens in new tab)" (Grand Central Publishing, 2018; illustrated by Karl Tate), a book about the search for alien life. Follow him on Twitter @michaeldwall (opens in new tab). Follow us on Twitter @Spacedotcom (opens in new tab) or on Facebook (opens in new tab).

Go here to read the rest:
Methane 'super-emitters' on Earth spotted by space station experiment ...

Posted in Space Station | Comments Off on Methane ‘super-emitters’ on Earth spotted by space station experiment …