News Feeds

A zigzag design can maximise how much heat walls radiate into space, while minimising heat absorption from the ground

Both Lin Yu-ting of Taiwan and Imane Khelif of Algeria earned medals in female boxing competition at the 2024 Olympics. This has caused a controversy because both boxers, according to reports, have some form of DSD – difference of sex development. This means they have been caught up in the culture war regarding trans athletes, even though neither of them is technically trans. What is the science here and how should sporting competitions like the Olympics deal with it?

Both female boxers have XY chromosomes (according to the IBA). For some people this means they are male, but as is often the case, it’s more complicated than that. Let’s quickly review some basic biology regarding biological sex to put this into perspective.

Male-Female develop does begin with sex chromosomes: XX for female and XY for male. Specific genes on the X and Y chromosomes affect sexual development, partly through production of sex hormones such as estrogen and testosterone. XX individuals develop ovaries and eggs, produce high estrogen and low testosterone, and develop anatomically along a typical female path with uterus, vagina, and with puberty, female secondary sexual characteristics. XY individuals develop gonads and sperm, make high testosterone, and develop along a typical male path with descended testes, penis and with puberty, male secondary sexual characteristics. All of this is part of biological sex. But also there is the potential for differences every step of the way. In addition, there are other chromosomal arrangements possible.  By some estimates about 1 in 300 people have some difference of sex development.

Yu-ting and Khelif are XY females. How does this happen? One possibility is that they have an incomplete Y chromosome, and may specifically lack the SRY gene which is necessary for male genital development. You can also have XY females who do not produce testosterone. Another possibility is complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) in which XY individuals make testosterone but don’t have functioning receptors, so they develop as if they do not have testosterone (the default developmental pathway without testosterone is female). They typically have undescended tested, no uterus, but female external genitalia and female secondary sexual characteristics.

There are also XX females who are maculinized because they produce more androgens than is typical, such as in congenital adrenal hyperplasia. They may have ambiguous genitalia, but not always and may simply be identified female at birth. When they go through puberty, however, they can develop a deeper voice, become more hairy, and also develop more muscle mass and greater strength than a typical female.

The bottom line is that human biological sex is clearly not strictly binary. But the Olympics, like many sporting organizations, is strictly binary. How do we make these things work together? I think most people will agree we want sporting competitions to be fair and meaningful, but there can be disagreement on exactly what this means. Further, biological sex is just one of many parameters that can be affected by genetics and development that can impact sporting performance.

One question is – how much testing are we going to put athletes through to determine if they may have any genetic or developmental advantages related to sexual development? If we want at least a reasonably clear picture we would need to test for chromosomes, hormone levels, and receptor sensitivity. Such testing would be invasive and expensive, but nothing less would really show the complete picture. Also, the results would be along a spectrum, which means we would have to draw somewhat arbitrary dividing lines. Further still, who has the burden of proof to show that any particular biology has inherent advantages in any particular sport? And of course, the answer would differ for every sport – boxing and archery would not have the same biological advantages.

If we are going to open this can of worms, would it be consistent to also consider other biological factors. Heritage also impacts sports-relevant biological features. African Americans, for example, (both male and female) have higher average muscle mass and strength than Caucasians or Asians. The sex and race streams often cross, as AA women are more likely to be accused of being “too masculine”.

I am not proposing any specific answer here, just laying out the inherent complexity. There is not one right or wrong answer, just trade-offs. This is because there is an inherent disconnect between the binary world of sports and the non-binary world of human biological sex. Should we just exclude the estimated 26 million people in the world with DSD from competitive sports? Should we do very thorough biological assessments of athletes and divide them into leagues accordingly? Or do we do something in the middle, balancing various considerations to create an imperfect system that’s reasonably fair and functional?

I do think there is one thing we shouldn’t do – turn the whole thing into a culture war rife with pseudoscience and intolerance.

The post The Gender Boxing Hubub first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.

A century ago, Albert Einstein suggested that the universe might contain ripples in space-time, known as gravitational waves – but then he changed his mind

A split in the southern vortex – not seen since 2002 – could lead to sudden warming of the Antarctic stratosphere and hotter weather in Australia and South America

Meanwhile, in Dobrzyn, Hili is schooled on the reality of life:

Hili: Why is the truth always left in the shadows? A: Because it demands concentration and fools are enchanted by the vulgar entertainment of liars.

 

 

Hili: Dlaczego prawda zostaje zawsze w cieniu?
Ja: Bo wymaga skupienia, a kłamcy urzekają głupców jarmarczną zabawą.

Two nankeen kestrels have been filmed flying in a wind tunnel to learn how the raptors keep their heads in a fixed position under turbulent conditions

As a sociologist interested in the scientific study of social life, I’ve long been concerned about the ideological bent of much of sociology. Many sociologists reject outright the idea of sociology as a science and instead prefer to engage in political activism. Others subordinate scientific to activist goals, and are unclear as to what they believe sociology’s purpose should be. Still others say different things depending on the audience.

The American Sociological Association (ASA) does the latter. Last December, the Board of Governors of Florida’s state university system removed an introductory sociology course from the list of college courses that could be taken to fulfil part of the general education requirement. It seemed clear that sociology’s reputation for progressive politics played a role in the decision. Florida’s Commissioner of Education, for example, wrote that sociology had been hijacked by political activists.1 The ASA denied the charge and went on to declare that sociology is “the scientific study of social life, social change, and the social causes and consequences of human behavior.”

While that definition certainly aligns with my vision of what sociology should be, it contrasts with another recent statement made by the ASA itself when announcing this year’s annual conference theme. The theme is “Intersectional Solidarities: Building Communities of Hope, Justice, and Joy,” which, as the ASA website explains, “emphasizes sociology as a form of liberatory praxis: an effort to not only understand structural inequities, but to intervene in socio-political struggles.”2 It’s easy to see how Florida’s Commissioner of Education somehow got the idea that sociology has become infused with ideology.

The ASA’s statement in defense of sociology as the science of social life seems insincere. That’s unfortunate— we really do need a science of social life if we’re going to understand the social world better. And we need to understand the world better if we’re going to effectively pursue social justice. The ASA’s brand of sociology as liberatory praxis leads not only to bad sociology, but also to misguided efforts to change the world. As I’ve argued in my book How to Think Better About Social Justice, if we’re going to change the world for the better, we need to make use of the insights of sociology. But bad sociology only makes things worse.

Contemporary social justice activism tends to draw from a sociological perspective known as critical theory. Critical theory is a kind of conflict theory, wherein social life is understood as a struggle for domination. It is rooted in Marxist theory, which viewed class conflict as the driver of historical change and interpreted capitalist societies in terms of the oppression of wage laborers by the owners of the means of production. Critical theory understands social life similarly, except that domination and oppression are no longer simply about economic class but also race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, gender identity, and much more.

There are two problems with social justice efforts informed by critical theory. First, this form of social justice—often called “critical social justice” by supporters and “wokeism” by detractors—deliberately ignores the insights that might come from other sociological perspectives. Critical theory, like conflict theory more broadly, is just one of many theoretical approaches in a field that includes a number of competing paradigms. It’s possible to view social life as domination and oppression, but it’s also possible to view it as a network of relationships, or as an arena of rational transactions similar to a marketplace, or as a stage where actors play their parts, or as a system where the different parts contribute to the functioning of the whole. If you’re going to change the social world, it’s important to have some understanding of how social life works, but there’s no justification for relying exclusively on critical theory.

The second problem is that, unlike most other sociological perspectives, critical theory assumes an oppositional stance toward science. This is partly because critical theory is intended not just to describe and explain the world, but rather to change it—an approach the ASA took in speaking of sociology as “liberatory praxis.” However, the problem isn’t just that critical theory prioritizes political goals over scientific ones, it’s that it also sees science as oppressive and itself in need of critique and dismantling. The claim is that scientific norms and scientific knowledge—just like other norms and other forms of knowledge in liberal democratic societies—have been constructed merely to serve the interests of the powerful and enable the oppression of the powerless.

Critical theory makes declarations about observable aspects of social reality, but because of its political commitments and its hostile stance toward scientific norms, it tends to act more like a political ideology than a scientific theory. As one example, consider Ibram X. Kendi’s assertions about racial disparities. Kendi, a scholar and activist probably best known for his book How to Be an Antiracist, has said, “As an anti-racist, when I see racial disparities, I see racism.”3 The problem with this approach is that while racism is one possible cause of racial disparities (and often the main cause!), in science, our theories need to be testable, and they need to be tested. Kendi doesn’t put his idea forward as a proposition to be tested but instead as a fundamental truth not to be questioned. In any true science, claims about social reality must be formulated into testable hypotheses. And then we need to actually gather the evidence. Usually what we find is variation, and this case is likely to be no different. That is, we’re likely to find that in some contexts racism has more of a causal role than in others.

We often want easy answers to social problems. Social justice activists might be inclined to turn to would-be prophets who proclaim what seems to be the truth, rather than to scientists who know we have to do the legwork required to understand and address things. Yes, science gives us imperfect knowledge, and it points to the difficulties we encounter when changing the world… but since we live in a world of tradeoffs, there are seldom easy answers to social problems. We can’t create a perfect world—utopia isn’t possible—so any kind of social justice rooted in reality must try to increase human flourishing while recognizing that not all problems can be eliminated, certainly not easily or quickly.

This article appeared in Skeptic magazine 29.2
Buy print edition
Buy digital edition
Subscribe to print edition
Subscribe to digital edition
Download our app

What does it all mean? For one, we should be much more skeptical about one of critical theory’s central claims— that the norms and institutions of liberal democratic societies are simply disguised tools of oppression. Do liberal ideals such as equality before the law, due process, free speech, free markets, and individual rights simply mask social inequalities so as to advance the interests of the powerful? Critical theorists don’t really subject this claim to scientific scrutiny. Instead, they take the presence of inequalities in liberal societies as selfsufficient evidence that liberalism is responsible for these failures. Yet any serious attempt to pursue social justice informed by scientific understanding of the world would involve comparing liberal democratic societies with other societies, both present and past.

Scientific sociology can’t tell us the best way to organize a society and social justice involves making tradeoffs among competing values. We may never reach a consensus on what kind of society is best, but we should consider the possibility that liberal democracies seem to provide the best framework we yet know of for pursuing social justice effectively. At the very least, they provide mechanisms for peacefully managing disputes in an imperfect world.

About the Author

Bradley Campbell is a professor of sociology at California State University, Los Angeles. He is the author The Geometry of Genocide, The Rise of Victimhood Culture (with Jason Manning), and How to Think Better About Social Justice: Why Good Sociology Matters. His research interests include moral conflict, violence, collision of right and wrong, and how they are handled. He has recently begun to examine conflicts on college campuses, manifestations of ongoing moral change, and the clash of different moral ideals.

References

1. https://bit.ly/3xxYgYb
2. https://bit.ly/3W2NKCo
3. https://bit.ly/3U2d4WK

Neutron stars (NS) are the collapsed cores of supermassive giant stars that contain between 10 and 25 solar masses. Aside from black holes, they are the densest objects in the Universe. Their journey from a main sequence star to a collapsed stellar remnant is a fascinating scientific story.

Sometimes, a binary pair of NS will merge, and what happens then is equally as fascinating.

When two NS merge, a remnant is created that either becomes a black hole or a neutron star, with the black hole being the most common result. But the eventual remnant is just part of the story. There’s a lot going on in the extreme environment created by the merger.

NS mergers can almost instantaneously create extremely powerful magnetic fields trillions of times stronger than Earth’s. They can create short gamma-ray bursts (GRBs). They create kilonovae. They create such an extreme environment that the elusive r-process, or rapid neutron capture process, can occur. The r-process is responsible for a large number of the stable element isotopes heavier than iron, including gold, platinum, and other precious metals.

New research in The Astrophysical Journal examines this extreme environment to see how the interacting forces create a remnant. Its title is “Ab-initio General-relativistic Neutrino-radiation Hydrodynamics Simulations of Long-lived Neutron Star Merger Remnants to Neutrino Cooling Timescales.” The authors are David Radice and Sebastiano Bernuzzi, both from Pennsylvania State University.

The authors say that this is the first ab-initio study into NS mergers. Ab-initio means ‘from the beginning’ in Latin. It means that their simulations are based directly on the fundamental laws of nature and don’t include empirical data. These types of simulations require extremely high levels of computing power, but the payoff is in their predictive power. Ab-initio studies can reveal aspects of complex systems that are extremely difficult to study experimentally. General-relativistic means the simulations incorporate Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which is critical for describing the extreme gravity near neutron stars.

“Despite its astrophysical relevance, the evolution of long-lived NS merger remnants past the GW-dominated phase of their evolution is poorly understood,” the authors write.

The researchers simulated the mergers of a pair of neutron stars with 1.35 solar masses each. The initial distance between the two was a mere 50 km (30 mi). The simulations covered the last ~six orbits prior to the merger and extended to more than ~100 ms after the merger.

“The research explored neutron stars’ early evolution, just moments after they were created,” the authors write. “This research is a starting point for identifying the astronomical signals that could help answer questions about neutron stars and black hole formation.”

The first phase of a neutron star merger, after the inspiral, is the gravitational wave (GW) phase. It lasts until about 20 milliseconds after the merger. By releasing GWs, the neutron star releases some of the merger’s energy.

The next phase is the neutrino cooling phase, and it’s the focus of this work. “We find that neutrino cooling becomes the dominant energy loss mechanism after the gravitational-wave dominated phase (?20 ms postmerger),” the authors write.

This figure shows the possible stages of a neutron star merger. It doesn’t show the neutrino cooling phase but does show the viscous phase. Viscosity arises in the remnant due to turbulence and plays key roles in mass ejection and the merger’s outcome: usually a black hole but sometimes a stable NS. Image Credit: Radice D et al. 2020.

Neutrinos are elusive particles that are electrically neutral and have very small masses. According to some research, about 400 billion neutrinos pass through every person on Earth each second. Despite their lack of interaction, neutrinos do carry energy away from the merger, and their energy level depends on the process that formed them. Over time, that energy decays.

A neutron star merger usually creates a black hole remnant. But sometimes, it creates another neutron star called an RMNS, or remnant massive neutron star.

“The neutrino luminosities decay more slowly, so 10–20 ms after merger neutrinos, they become the dominant mechanism through which energy is lost by the RMNS,” the authors write.

This figure from the research shows the GW (red) and neutrino (blue) cooling timescales. About 10 ms after the merger, neutrino radiation becomes the dominant mechanism in the evolution of the remnant. Image Credit: Radice et al. 2024.

The simulations show that the RMNS is different than the protoneutron stars created when massive stars collapse.

The merger creates a dense gas of electron antineutrinos in the RMNS’s outer core. This correlates with hot spots on the outer core. The RMNS is also stable against convection despite the surface being hotter than the core. If there were convective instabilities, they could trigger more GW emissions, but according to the authors, the simulations didn’t show that. “We find no evidence for a revival of the GW signal due to convective instabilities,” they write.

Some research shows that merging NSs are the sources of short gamma-ray bursts (SGRBs.) But for that to happen, the magnetic field needs to somehow escape the remnant and form larger magnetic fields. “If RMNSs are a viable central engine for SGRBs, then the field needs somehow to bubble out of the remnant and form large-scale magnetic structures,” the authors write. But the RMNS’s stability seems to rule that out. “However, our simulations indicate that the RMNS is stably stratified, so it remains unclear how the magnetic fields can emerge from it,” the authors explain.

The merger also creates a massive accretion disk in its outer core.

“A massive accretion disk is formed by the ejection of material squeezed out of the collisional interface between the two stars, forming a massive disk in the first ?20 ms after the merger,” the researchers explain. This disk carries a large portion of the merger’s angular momentum. This allows the RMNS to settle into a fairly stable equilibrium within one of several possible stable configuration regions in the disk.

Illustration showing the merger of two neutron stars. Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/CI Lab

Stable neutron stars are far less common outcomes of mergers than black holes. It only occurs if the combined mass is below a maximum stable mass. But some of the details of how this happened have been obscured.

“These findings reveal a central object surrounded by a rapidly rotating ring of hot matter. If these remnants avoid collapse, scientists expect that they release the majority of their internal energy within seconds of when they form,” the authors write.

Estimates show that as few as 10% of neutron star mergers result in RMNSs, so they’re comparatively rare. By exploring the early evolution of RMNSs, this research has established a starting point for identifying the astronomical signals that can tell scientists more about neutron star mergers and how black holes are created from mergers.

By opening a new window into the fractions of a second that follow a merger, the researchers have also shown the forces involved in creating a very rare object: a stable, remnant massive neutron star.

The post The Aftermath of Neutron Star Mergers appeared first on Universe Today.

Commercially available quantum technology could let stock traders coordinate decisions to buy or sell nearly instantaneously using a technique called “quantum telepathy”

A scientific drilling ship has burrowed further into Earth’s mantle than ever before, obtaining new clues about the processes that feed oceanic volcanoes and the possible origins of life

We took off from Capetown yesterday, and after several hours of driving through farmland, we stopped at what in local argot is called a “farm stall,” but it’s really a combination restaurant, snack shop, food store (they sell all kinds of frozen meat), and preserves, teas, and snacks. Here’s a farm stall (click on all photos to enlarge them; twice to make them really big):

. . . and its chalkboard motto, which immediately made me think of ecology because it’s wrong: flowers do compete with their neighbors if they’re of the same species. This is an ideological statement that ignores biology in favor of aesthetics. (Yes, I’m joking, but not 100%!)

This is the menu (1 South African rand is worth about 6 American cents, so you can see things are cheap. Martim told me that Roosterkoek (no, it’s not pronounced “rooster cock”) was a local item: a sandwich made on a special kind of bread. And he recommended the Boerwars Roosterkoek, made from a local sausage. So that’s what I had, with a soda.

Here’s the sausage sandwich. The bread (“Roosterkock,” or grilled bread) is delightful: thick and chewy. It wold be ideal for hamburgers or other juicy fillings.

The inside of the sandwich:

This is a cape weaver (Ploceus capensis), which weaves nests. A lovely yellow bird, with the males being especially yellow.  They hopped around skittishly hoping for crumbs from the rooster cock.

A nest that the males weave, with the photo taken from Wikipedia. The species is polygynous, with a male weaving a group of nests at the rate of about one a week, and the quality of the nest is what attracts the females. A male with mate with all the females that are attracted to the nest he builds.

JMK, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Rita studies the sociable weaver (Philetairus socius) found further north. It’s a fascinating species which builds large group nests that can have up to several hundred birds. She and her team band each one and take blood samples, so they know the relatedness of every bird. Curiously, they have “helpers at the nest” during breeding time, and not all the helpers are relatives, which is an unsolved mystery. Here’s a sociable weaver nest on a power pole; photo from Wikipedia:

Photograph by Mike Peel (www.mikepeel.net)., CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Local endemic squash plants (probably the Kalahari Melon) that are, I think, eaten by antelopes. I’m not sure of the plant species. There are several antelopes in the area.

And so we enter the fynbos, a small but important and diverse vegetation zone, one of the six “floristic kingdoms” of the world, and the smallest one. Here from Wikipedia is a diagram of all the kingdoms, and you can see that “capensis” (the fynbos, or “Cape Floristic Region“) is the smallest. As Wikipedia notes, the Region  “is home to over 9,000 vascular plant species, of which 69 percent are endemic.”

Dietzel, CC BY-SA 2.5, via Wikimedia Commons

We are staying in a fancy “hut” (more like a hotel) a long drive into the Cederberg Mountains over dirt roads. It’s located on the Driehoek Farm, which not only rears animals, but takes in tourists for hiking and exploring the fynbos, and also harbors the highest vineyards in South Africa, which means the highest vineyards in Africa.

This is a fancy “hut”, as you can see from the appearance of my bedroom:

Last night we had a fancy dinner in our fancy hut, accompanied by the farm’s wine, in this case a 2023 Syrah. It was very good. They also make a white wine and a pinotage.

The adults shared three ostrich filets (my first ostrich), while the two daughters had pasta. These look like beef filets, and I asked for Rita to cook mine rare.

Dinner: potatoes, ostrich filets, young broccoli stems, and bread, washed down with a syrah.

The farm-y part of the farm, but all around are trails that go up to the mountains, with waterfalls, climbing, and vegetation.  Pig and horse below.

The pig, which was very wart-hoggy with bristles and fangs, a precursor of what I’ll see when I meet Ozy in a week.

And a backlit horse:

What I was told were baboon tracks, and the only species here is the chacma baboon (Papio ursinus). They can be quite aggressive when going after tourists’ food, and we’re told to keep our doors shut lest they invade the kitchen.

Martim thought these may have been mongoose tracks:

. . . and two sets of antelope tracks, probably made by small antelopes like common duikers (Sylvicapra grimmia), or perhaps the Cape grysbok.

I was told that this hole was where a local porcupine dug up a tuber:

Views from the farm:

Prickly purple gorse (Muraltia heisteria):

Some of the most striking plants in the fynbos are those in the genus Protea, also called “sugarbushes” because of their sugar-rich nectar. (The national flower of South Africa is the King Protea (Protea cynaroides). Go have a look at the flower at the link. It’s not exactly flowering time here yet, but we could see old flowers on this species (there are several dozen, 92% of them endemic to the Cape Floristic Region.

This is the Grey Sugarbush (Protea laurifolia):

Another view of the prickly purple gorse:

Where there’s a niche, there’s a plant. Here we have a Babiana, probably of the species ambigua (see below).

Purple gorse and unidentified plant:

Grey sugarbush:

Cape Snow (Syncarpa sp.)

An open flower of the gray sugarbush:

Cone bush (Leucadendron sp.):

Grey sugarbush flower at its peak:

More fynbos:

Baboon cabbage (Othonna quinquedentata):

Carwilliam True-Eye (Euryops speciosissimus):

View to the North. I had the Southern Cross pointed out to me last night (the stars are fantastic here since there is no light pollution), and the Milky Way spread across the sky like a huge cloud. When I looked at it through 8X Swarovski binoculars, you could see that the cloud actually comprised billions and billions of stars.

Professor Ceiling Cat in the fynbos; photo by Rita. It is cold here today!

Sour Fig (Carpobrotus edulis):

Vygie, Possibly Lampranthus:

A panorama of a small waterfall with one of Martim and Rita’s daughters:

Another panorama:

Paintbrush lily, genus Haemanthus. Young leaves that will produce a shoot and a beautiful red flower.

Babiana, probably of the species ambigua.

Rita by a termite mound (yes, there are termites inside) I’m told they are much larger in Kruger:

Tomorrow we’re on our way to another locale on the Great Circle Tour.

Corrections welcome if you’re an expert.

Thanks to Martim for the identifications.

Below are screenshots of are all the articles I found on this morning’s New York Times site  It’s clear that the paper has unapologetically gone all out for Kamala Harris (what do you expect?), but has done so in both the news and the op-eds. There is only one dissenter: the ever-heterodox and thoughtful Pamela Paul (see below). The paper is also making a virtue of necessity in heaping encomiums on Tim Walz, an okay VP candidate but not as good, in my view, as Shapiro.

Like Paul in the article below, I’m tired of people urging others to vote for Kamala Harris because she’d be the first black/Asian/woman President. In fact, my favorite candidate was a woman—Gretchen Whitmer—but that was because of merit, not gender or ethnicity. As for Harris, if I do vote for President it would be for her (my vote doesn’t matter in Democratic Illinois), but I have to say—and you already know this—that I’m not a big fan of Harris. I don’t think Paul is, either, at least in the article below (click to read, or find it archived here):

Some excerpts:

But I don’t particularly care that the Democratic candidate is a woman. I care about having the best, most electable Democratic candidate possible, and I suspect many Americans, male and female, feel the same. As my colleague Jeremy Peters reported last week, voters are looking for electability, not representation. “In interviews, Harris supporters of all races said they were concerned that if she talked more directly about her race, she risked feeding the backlash that has been building over diversity,” he wrote.

The year 2020, in other words, is as over as 2016.

If President Biden had pulled out of the race months ago, other candidates, male and female, could have made a case for their qualifications and electability and maybe had a better shot at the presidency. As groovy as the vibe feels right now, all the memes and Zooms in the world can’t cover for Harris’s weaknesses or less than overwhelming vice-presidential record. Nor will promoting her as possibly the first woman president do anything substantive to help her win.

The last paragraph expresses my view, and I’m sure that if Biden had pulled out, say, six months ago, and if there had been an open Democratic forum and a series of debates, Harris wouldn’t be the candidate—except for her inheriting Biden’s campaign funds. But I’d rather have a candidate run on merit than on funds, sex, or ethnicity.

. . . Donald Trump may be the latest in a long line of male presidential candidates, but I don’t oppose him because he’s a man; I oppose him because he is a terrible candidate, a catastrophic leader and a terrible human being, one who treats women (and men) horribly.

Similarly, women didn’t necessarily vote for Hillary Clinton because of her sex. And despite efforts to make gender central to her campaign, women didn’t turn out for her in the same force as pollsters predicted. “I’m Not With Her: Why Women Are Wary of Hillary Clinton” ran a headline in The Guardian months ahead of the election.

. . . I hope Harris is elected and succeeds mightily not as an emblem or a representative and not based on essentialist or identitarian terms but simply on the merits — and that’s on her to prove. Whether she wins or loses, fails or excels, she should be judged based on what she does, not on which box she checks.

So please, stop all the talk of breaking barriers and glass ceilings, of which group is somehow categorically represented by a single human being and which isn’t and instead talk about the candidates’ qualities. A good president represents all Americans, regardless of his or her own identity.

To those who insist on focusing on sex this election, home in instead on Trump’s contempt for members of the opposite sex. That alone — leaving aside his atrocious record and stance on nearly every policy issue — should be reason for his defeat.

It looks to me that Paul wants Harris elected simply because she’s not as insane as Trump, but note that Paul says nothing about Harris’s own merits. What did Harris mean when she said she wanted to earn the nomination rather than inherit it? How has she earned it? By turning down Shapiro, for one thing, because, as a Jew, he wouldn’t appeal to progressives?

Here from the Times of Israel are some of Harris’s antics as she campaigns in Michigan, a state not exactly favorable to Israel:

Democratic US presidential candidate President Kamala Harris told a group chanting about the “genocide” in Gaza at her election rally in Michigan Wednesday to quiet down unless they “want Donald Trump to win.”

Before the Detroit rally, she met briefly with the founders of the Uncommitted National Movement, which led a mass vote protesting US President Joe Biden’s support for the war in Gaza during the swing state’s February primary.

. . . Ahead of the Detroit rally on Tuesday, Harris met with Abbas Alawieh and Layla Elabed, the Uncommitted National Movement’s co-founders. According to The New York Times, Harris indicated she was willing to meet with the two over their demand for an arms embargo on Israel, and introduced them to her staff.

. . .In a subsequent statement, her campaign gave no indication of this, however. “Since October 7, the vice president has prioritized engaging with Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian community members and others regarding the war in Gaza,” the statement said. “In this brief engagement, she reaffirmed that her campaign will continue to engage with those communities. The vice president has been clear: she will always work to ensure Israel is able to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups. The Vice President is focused on securing the ceasefire and hostage deal currently on the table.”

According to the Times, Alawieh and Elabed had been invited to stand in a photo line welcoming Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Alawieh was quoted in the report as saying he “felt an openness from [Vice President] Harris, as well as a listening ear from Governor Walz.”

“I appreciate her leadership, and I know the uncommitted voters want to support her, uncommitted delegates want to support her,” Alawieh said, “but our voters need to see her turn a new page on Gaza policy.”

Oh, she will, she will, though not perhaps before she’s elected. But her calls for a cease fire are equivalent to calls for a Hamas victory.

And from Batya Ungar-Sargon at the Free Press, in an article called, “America is ready for a Jewish Veep. The Democrats aren’t.”

On Monday night, Vice President Kamala Harris had narrowed her search for a running mate to two men: Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro and Minnesota governor Tim Walz. Each had pros and cons.

In Walz’s favor, he had the distinction of applying the term weird to J.D. Vance, a word that the entirety of his party’s elites then picked up and ran with. Against Walz was the fact that Minnesota is not a swing state and Walz himself is a progressive, like Harris, making it unclear what he would add to the ticket.

In Shapiro’s favor was a 61 percent approval rating in a must-win state for Harris and a history of working across the political divide and choosing moderate, popular positions on everything from school choice to Covid-19 restrictions to degree requirements to corporate taxes. But working against him turned out to be something insurmountable: Josh Shapiro is a proud Jew.

Almost as soon as Harris began her search for a running mate in earnest, a campaign from the progressive left made it clear that the anti-Israel wing of the party would not vote for Shapiro. Though his support of Israel is identical to that of every other contender, though he hates Benjamin Netanyahu a lot, though his view on college campus protesters (he called it “absolutely unacceptable” that “universities can’t guarantee the safety and security of their students”) is the most common, most popular view, none of this was a match for his last name, the fact that he is an observant, kosher-keeping proud Jew, and that, like the vast majority of Jews, he supports the state of Israel.

. . . There can be no doubt about it: there was only one reason to reject Shapiro, and it was that the Democrats would rather cater to their antisemitic base and lose the election than embrace the vast non-antisemitic American middle and win. “You also have antisemitism that has gotten marbled into this party,” Van Jones said on CNN Tuesday. “You can be for the Palestinians without being an anti-Jewish bigot, but there are some anti-Jewish bigots out there.”

There’s an argument to be made—and Free Press reporter Peter Savodnik has made it smartly—that the goal in picking a vice president should be to do no harm. And, like it or not, in the current version of the Democratic Party, Shapiro harms the ticket. But consider what this means: the most qualified person to help a major party nominee win the presidency was passed over because he’s a proud Jew with a strong connection to his heritage.

And a satirical article from the Babylon Bee that still rings true (click to read):

An excerpt, somewhat but not completely satirical:

After hearing Josh Shapiro might be Kamala Harris’s pick for Vice President, Democrats worry his name on the ticket might cost them the all-important “Death To America” vote.

“I think Josh is very qualified to be Harris’s VP pick,” Chuck Schumer told the press over the weekend. “I do worry he might discourage those wishing to obliterate the U.S. and wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. We really need those votes.”

The Harris team announced it is nearing a decision on who will join the current Vice President on the national ticket. Governor of Pennsylvania Josh Shapiro is rumored to be at the top of the list, but some worry his Jewish heritage and past as an IDF soldier might cost the dems votes from those wishing to make the streets run red with the blood of Jews if it’s the last thing they ever do.

“We really need those 15,000 votes from Dearborn, Michigan who want America to be eternally consumed by the fires of holy jihad,” Schumer said. “We’d hate to lose out on their support just because we have a guy on the ticket who probably thinks Jews should exist. It’s a real conundrum.”

I’m not a one-issue voter, but I do care whether Harris supports Israel or not. If she calls for a ceasefire, cuts off or severely reduces aid to Israel, or bawls for a two-state solution, she wants Hamas to win so that she can win. But this surely bears on her moral compass, and if it points to Hamas, it’s 180º off.

Further, I’m not keen on her views on gender or Titles VI and IX, nor on her abysmal failure to do anything about the border. She alienates a huge proportion of people who have worked for her, and that doesn’t bode well, either.  In my view, she has earned the nomination in only one way, by inheriting Biden’s war chest.  And, as with Pamela Paul, I don’t think anybody should be ruled out as President because of their sex or ethnicity. But neither is that a reason to vote for them.

Semiconductor industry waste is typically seen as a costly disposal problem and an environmental hazard. But what if this waste could be transformed into a valuable resource? In an exciting development, researchers have unveiled an eco-friendly method to extract rare metals from semiconductor waste. This innovative approach not only recovers precious tungsten but also assesses its economic viability, offering a sustainable solution for waste management in the tech industry.

Semiconductor industry waste is typically seen as a costly disposal problem and an environmental hazard. But what if this waste could be transformed into a valuable resource? In an exciting development, researchers have unveiled an eco-friendly method to extract rare metals from semiconductor waste. This innovative approach not only recovers precious tungsten but also assesses its economic viability, offering a sustainable solution for waste management in the tech industry.

Researchers develop a microstructured 'artificial lung' model using bioprinting technology.

Stirring allows for homogenization and efficient gas exchange -- this fact has been known for decades. Controlling the stirring rate during the nanocluster synthesis is pivotal in achieving nanostructures with well-defined sizes, structures, optical properties, and stability.

A catalyst that significantly enhances ammonia conversion could improve wastewater treatment, green chemical and hydrogen production.

Researchers have used a new technique to identify pathological abnormalities associated with motor neurone disease.

Polymers can be thought of like trains: Just as a train is composed of multiple cars, polymers are made up of multiple monomers, and the couplings between the train cars are similar to the chemical bonds that link monomers together. While polymers have myriad applications -- from drug delivery to construction materials -- their structures and functions are restricted by the chemically similar monomer building blocks they're composed of. Now, chemists have developed a new reaction to create unique monomers in a controlled way. This reaction, which uses nickel as a catalyst, ultimately enables scientists to create polymers with unique and modifiable properties for drug delivery, energy storage, microelectronics and more.

A research team has recently developed a novel artificial compound eye system that is not only more cost-effective, but demonstrates a sensitivity at least twice that of existing market products in small areas. The system promises to revolutionize robotic vision, enhance robots' abilities in navigation, perception and decision-making, while promoting commercial application and further development in human-robot collaboration.