Copy your ad-free feed link below to load into your player:
Episode Notes
Welcome to The Authority, Slate’s deep dive into the world(s) of HBO’s His Dark Materials. Each week, Slate’s scholars of experimental theology Dan Kois and Laura Miller discuss the HBO series and Philip Pullman’s original trilogy. This week, they cover Episode 3 of Season 2, “Theft,” in which Will loses Lyra, Lyra loses the alethiometer, and Mrs. Coulter has a meeting of the minds with Lee Scoresby. Plus: a deep dive into the character of Lee and the series’ attempt to give this cowboy aeronaut a tragic backstory.
We all have our own personal favorite Christmas traditions, our own little things that make our eyes twinkle like string lights. Me, I love when a brawl breaks out in a store because shoppers are getting testy over toys and televisions. The idea of kids getting coal in their stockings brings a smile to my face. I like to rewatch old Christmas specials and take the villains’ sides. Heat Miser, I feel, was very misunderstood.
You can imagine, then, how much joy I’ve found in Melania Trump’s White House Christmas decorations over the last few years. Finally, a first lady who understands that Christmas should be dark and terrifying! That first year, she took my breath away with the hallway full of vases holding bouquets of skeletal dead branches, lit from below so they projected nightmarish shadows on the ceilings. Yes, ice queen, if the Christmas décor doesn’t make you think of death, then get it out of here!
But the next year, Melania really topped herself with the red trees. Surely you remember them: the blood-colored cones that looked like they had been plucked out of a coniferous forest for muppets in hell itself. They were chilling; I have a picture of them saved on my secret wedding Pinterest board. The fun continued in 2019, when a series of star sculptures that resembled glass shards were hung from the ceiling of another hallway, and, what’s more, the first lady herself appeared in a video placing tiny wreaths in the windows of a dollhouse-sized White House in a display that could only summon an image of torturing tiny voodoo dolls.
All of this is to say that this year, I was expecting another house-of-horrors transformation, one last chance for Melania to dream up and execute a perfectly cursed Christmas tableau that would thrill Grinches everywhere. That’s not what happened, though. Instead we got this: a stunningly generic Christmas scene out of a commercial for Michael’s, complete with ornaments, holly, red bows, and a miniature train. Just colossally uninspired. In the video, we at least still get to take in the strange sight of a stiletto’d-as-always Melania strolling through the decked-out rooms, admiring her handiwork—she is as good at looking at things as her husband is at holding books. But it’s a small consolation. Other years’ décor showed us that this is a woman capable of true darkness, that inside her soul thrives a garden of evil blazing shrubbery, so I really just can’t with the pretty lights and appropriate color schemes.
It boggles the mind. Melania, I thought you were one of us. (Any chance this was the work of Fake Melania?) This could have been her best haunted Christmas yet: In a lame-duck holiday season, no reason not to go all out and hire Ari Aster—or a conservative knock-off of him—to do his yuletide worst, right? I’m so disappointed. If I wanted a normal Christmas, I would have called the Pences.
from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/3qhFhcg
via IFTTT
Copy your ad-free feed link below to load into your player:
Episode Notes
On the Gist, voter certifications in Arizona and Wisconsin.
In the interview, Mike talks with Jess Harnell, the Emmy-nominated voice artist with over 300 voice credits to his name, including Wakko Warner from The Animaniacs. The animated show executive produced by Steven Spielberg, known for bringing irreverent comedy and satire to kids in the 90’s, is back. In the first part of this two part interview, Harnell explains the inspiration behind Wakko’s voice, what elements made Animaniacs’ an iconic cartoon series two decades ago and how they plan to update it for a new generation. All-new episodes of Animaniacs are now streaming only on Hulu.
In the spiel, the Left’s argument against the private sector. And today on Remembrances of Things Trump, do you believe in Santa Claus?
A thrilling scene from the new Assassin’s Creed Valhalla.Ubisoft
When it comes to video games as a form of escapism, open world games—that is, games that allow players to explore a vast region at their leisure, rather than progressing in order from one level through the next—are the best at delivering a truly immersive fantasy. Anything is possible, from finding the nicest haircut for your character, to fishing and collecting various artifacts, to just petting sweet, computer-generated dogs. There’s no need to immediately go and fight the next boss—no need to do anything but enjoy the seemingly endless landscape. One major game franchise, however, dares to ask the question: What if you could explore an open-world setting but also had to stop every now and then to check your email?
The Assassin’s Creed games, which thrust the player into the conflict between the Assassins and the Knights Templar, have always had a somewhat convoluted structure. Since the first Assassin’s Creed came out in 2007, the games have put the players in the shoes of a modern-day character who, through the use of a machine called the “Animus,” is put in the shoes of someone who was alive in the past. As the series has grown, that outer narrative ring has become more and more of a dead weight. Each new installment—of which there are now 12, not counting the spin-offs—spends less and less time in the “real” world, which makes the insistence on retaining that part of the game all the more baffling, and the interludes all the more annoying to play through.
Sign up for the Slate Culture newsletter
The best of movies, music, TV, books, and more, delivered to your inbox three times a week.
By virtue of the fact that so little time is spent in the present-day portion of the game, the protagonist and his or her compatriots are hardly engaging, especially after spending hours upon hours getting to know the in-Animus protagonist. It doesn’t help that the modern sections of the game feel slow and limited in comparison to the rest of the game, as they often take place in a single house or room, and usually prevent the player from running, leaving them to walk slowly around a relatively confined space. And to make matters even worse, one of the few things that the player can usually do in said space is check their inbox, sapping the momentum and joy out of a franchise that, in some of its most breathtaking moments, allows you to explore mythical places like Valhalla and Atlantis.
One franchise dares to ask the question: What if you could explore an open-world setting but also had to stop every now and then to check youremail?
The main lore of the series, which primarily involves foiling the Templars’ attempts at taking over the world, wouldn’t suffer from cutting these jumps in time. The first five main games made a case for the back-and-forth in time as they all involved the same primary character, Desmond Miles. The most recent three games do the same thing, focusing on the character of Layla Hassan in the present day, but in addition to spending less time in a contemporary setting, the newer games also each feature a new historical lead, whereas Desmond shared in the story of an Assassin named Ezio Auditore da Firenze over three games. There’s no such tie between Layla and any of the last three “genetic memories” (don’t ask) that she’s explored, and as such, she’s faded into the background of the story she’s supposedly telling, despite the fact that the modern day segments deal with an impending apocalypse.
It’s a mixed blessing that the more recent games cut down on exposition. On the one hand, there’s less present-day content, which is good, but that also means there’s less context to explain just why we should care about those sections at all. The historical adventures, being new every time, are set up and executed with care; the same doesn’t go for the overarching mythos of the franchise, which, in how marginalized it’s become, suggests a delaying of the inevitable. There’s just no need for the story-within-a-story structure anymore, and even the creators don’t seem to have their heart in it. And if there’s anything this franchise should know, it’s when it’s time to press R1 to assassinate.
from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/2HV2RKL
via IFTTT
Members of Iranian forces pray around the coffin of slain nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh during the burial ceremony at Imamzadeh Saleh shrine in northern Tehran, on November 30, 2020.HAMED MALEKPOUR/Getty Images
The assassination of Iran’s top nuclear scientist probably won’t trigger a war, but it will make it harder for President-elect Joe Biden to fashion some sort of peace in the region—and that may have been the intent.
Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, is believed to have planned the attack, though the Trump administration almost certainly would have given its consent. The murder reportedly involved twelve gunmen, all of whom got away. Whatever the motive, the tactic is nothing new. From 2010-12, Mossad killed four Iranian nuclear scientists and wounded another; as early as 2007, an Iranian scientist was poisoned, with Mossad suspected as the culprit.
The killings can be seen as part of a broad campaign to impede Iran’s fast-developing nuclear program, a campaign that included the U.S.-Israeli cyberoffensive operation known as Stuxnet, which sabotaged thousands of gas centrifuges, vital for enriching uranium, at Iran’s Natanz reactor. In 2013, President Obama and the leaders of five other nations began negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program, which led to the signing of an accord in July 2015. Between the end of Stuxnet and the start of the Iranian nuclear deal, no Iranian scientists were killed.
President Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, smacked Iran with economic sanctions (which had been lifted as part of the deal), and, soon after, imposed “secondary sanctions” on all other countries—including the signatories of the nuclear deal—that continued doing business with the Islamic Republic. He did this, even though international inspectors attested several times that Iran had dismantled much of its nuclear program, as required by the accord. Over the next year, Iran tried to strike separate financial arrangements with the European Union, to no avail. So—in accordance with Paragraph 36 of the nuclear deal, which states that one signatory would have “grounds to cease performing its commitments” if other signatories were not meeting theirs—Iran broke out of the deal as well, enriching far more uranium than its terms allowed.
In response, Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stepped up their rhetoric calling essentially for regime change in Iran. In mid-November, shortly after it became clear that he’d lost his bid for reelection, Trump asked his advisors whether it would be possible to launch an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in his final weeks as president. All of them—including Pompeo, his national security adviser, his newly appointed acting defense secretary, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—advised against such a move, saying it could trigger a wider war.
Did Trump then consult with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his friend and most loyal ally, who has been calling for ever since George W. Bush was president? Did Netanyahu then set in motion the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, often identified as the leader of Iran’s attempts—covert and otherwise—to build an A-bomb? Or did the two impulses—Trump’s to do something about Iran before he leaves office, Netanyahu’s (and Mossad’s) to kill Fakhrizadeh if a chance arose—merely coincide?
Either way, the two have converged to make it much harder—it would already have been difficult—for Biden to pursue a diplomatic solution to the impending crisis. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani placed a huge bet on reaching out to the West when he set out to negotiate the original nuclear deal—and he was dealt a huge setback when Trump pulled out of it. Iran’s hardline factions, led by the Revolutionary Guard, the elite military force, had always opposed the deal—and Trump’s action boosted their strength.
Iran is holding presidential elections in June, and if relations with the West haven’t warmed by then, a hardliner is likely to win. On Friday, the parliament unanimously expressed a desire to withdraw from the Additional Protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows international inspectors to verify that signatories are compliance with the treaty’s ban on developing nuclear weapons.
The decision to withdraw, if it comes, would be made by Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, who wields as much power as his title implies, and who has always been at least ambivalent about negotiating with American “devils.” In a statement read aloud at Fakhrizadeh’s funeral, Khamenei said, “Some say through dialogue and negotiations, actions can be taken in order to put an end to such hostility. This is not possible, because our enemies oppose the nature of the Islamic Republic…. They will never put an end to their hostilities toward us.”
Iranian politicians are arguing over what they should do right now. The more hardline factions, including military commanders, demand retaliation, to show foreign enemies that they can’t get away with such brazen violations of Iranian sovereignty. The more pragmatic factions argue that striking back would only play into Trump’s and Netanyahu’s hands. Retaliation would spark counter-retaliation, and, in a rising spiral of escalation, Iran would lose. Better, the pragmatists argue, to hold fire and hope to get some kind of deal after Biden takes office.
Biden has said he will push early in his presidency to restart the nuclear deal, offering to lift the sanctions if Iran scales back its uranium-enrichment so that it is once again in compliance. Rouhani and other pragmatic Iranians want to start over again too; for one thing, the renewed and tightened sanctions are wrecking their economy. But the inflamed distrust between the two countries—beginning with Trump’s withdrawal, intensifying with his assassination in January of Gen. Qasem Soleimani, and now continuing with the killing of Fakhrizadeh—might make a simple return to some version of normalcy impossible politically. At the very least, many Iranian officials would want the U.S. to lift sanctions before they surrender enriched uranium; some are demanding that the U.S. compensate for revenue lost during the time of Trump’s sanctions. Biden, in turn, will find it difficult to comply with either demand, given the hostility of congressional Republicans (and some Democrats). Since the Iran nuclear deal was a multinational accord, not a treaty, it does not require Senate ratification; but Congress can impose conditions that limit or block what Biden can do.
Whatever happens, Netanyahu has achieved at least a short-term victory with this assassination. If the act winds up provoking Iran into striking back, then Israel might strike back harder, perhaps along with the U.S. and maybe some of its new Sunni Arab allies (an alliance forged mainly on their common antipathy to Shiite-led Iran). And whether or not Iran strikes back, Biden will have a hard time doing what Netanyahu has most feared he might do—return to the Iran nuclear deal as originally signed.
Biden wants to downgrade the Middle East as an object of his attention. One of his advisers told me in mid November that the region “ranks a distant fourth” on the list of security priorities—“after Asia, Europe, and the Western Hemisphere.” Twelve years ago, as Barack Obama prepared to take the helm, he too had hopes of disentangling American blood and fortune from the region’s ancient, endless battles—only to be pulled back. Biden will have to work hard to resist the same magnetic force.
from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/2HSAfla
via IFTTT
Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by Sonja Rachbauer/iStock/Getty Images Plus.
Dear Prudence is online weekly to chat live with readers. Here’s an edited transcript of this week’s chat.
Danny Lavery: Hi, everyone! We’ve got all the problems you could possibly want, and then some. Let’s chat!
Q. Poisonous secret: I just found out that my old roommate from a year ago poisoned my dog. Back when we lived together, my dog kept having severe stomach problems off and on for months. I took time off work, took the dog to the vet, and made more expensive visits to the emergency vet. No one could figure out what was wrong. Because I moved out and my dog is no longer getting sick, I figured it was an allergy to our last apartment or something. Then a close mutual friend who was a little tipsy told me that my old roommate would feed him scraps as a way of “getting back at me” when we had disagreements. He knew he was getting my dog sick and wanted to inconvenience me.
I thought he and I were good friends who only had the typical disagreements roommates can have. To this day, he is still very friendly with me. But I am furious! I can’t get back the time I took off work or the thousands of dollars I spent trying to help my dog. Worse yet, the fact he was willing to make my dog so sick without caring about his health is appalling. Is it worth confronting him? If we weren’t still on great terms, I would start beating the war drums. What do I do?
A: You are not on “great terms” with this guy! He poisoned your dog! Perhaps he pretends to be friendly when he sees you, but that’s not the same thing as being on great or even decent terms. This guy poisoned your dog! You have my permission to yell at him. You might also consider yelling at your tipsy friend who clued you in only after the fact. (It’s possible your mutual friend didn’t know until you’d moved out, but even so, they should have told you right away.) And feel free to warn any other mutual friends who might consider moving in with this guy in the future that he’s liable to kill their pets if they can’t agree on who should roll the trash bins out to the curb. But yes, my god, confront someone who tried to poison your dog; that’s certainly worth having confrontation over. It doesn’t have to be in person, especially if you’re worried you’d try to take a swing at him and end up in trouble yourself, but this is not something you should just shrug off.
How to Get Advice From Prudie:
• Send questions for publication toprudence@slate.com. (Questions may be edited.)
• Join the live chat Mondays at noon. Submit your questions and commentsherebefore or during the discussion.
• Call the voicemail of the Dear Prudence podcast at 401-371-DEAR (3327) to hear your question answered on a future episode of the show.
Q. My husband hates my appearance: I am a 31-year-old woman and I have a 2-year-old and a 3-year-old. After having two back-to-back high-risk pregnancies followed by having a hectic life with two sick children, I gained a lot of weight. However, about a year ago I decided to carve out a little time to get myself in shape. I have been feeling a lot better and think I look like my usual self.
However, my husband has been a little mean about my appearance. Despite my weight loss, he wants me to wear shapeware under my clothing every day, even though we are on lockdown and I almost never leave the house. It also hurts that he always says that even if I do lose all the weight, he honestly believes I’d need plastic surgery to look pretty, and he can’t understand why, since he’s willing to pay for it, I won’t even consider having work done. I have always felt I’d rather wake up ugly but myself than wake up every day as someone else. But his constant harping about how I should be ashamed of my appearance is starting to mess with my head.
To make matters worse, my children are picking up on it. My 3-year-old saw me eat half a sandwich at lunch and told me “Mommy, you eat too much” and stated that I have a big tummy. When I try to talk to my husband about how he’s hurting my feelings, he always blows up and screams at me, so I don’t like bringing it up. I don’t know what to do; I don’t want to get yelled at but I’m also starting to get really self-conscious about my appearance and I want my children to grow up into gentlemen.
A: I’m so sorry. This is just heartbreaking. It’s not “a little mean” to demand your partner wrap themselves in control-top hose every day, to say “you’d need plastic surgery to look pretty,” to make such a show of controlling your food that your toddler-age children think it’s normal to berate their mother for eating lunch, or to scream at someone when they say you’re hurting their feelings. It’s monstrous, it’s abusive, and it’s ghastly.
I don’t want you to get yelled at, either. I don’t want your children to have to grow up with a father who treats their mother like that. I don’t want you to have to worry about this man’s approval for another minute. I think you should leave as soon as you can. Today, if you can. I think if you can’t leave today, you should tell someone else in your life what you told me. I think you should ask for help finding a divorce lawyer, a new place to stay, packing up your stuff—whatever you need to get away from your husband, as soon as you can. Good luck.
Q. Can’t walk you: My girlfriend basically moved into my condo during lockdown since her roommates are both high-risk and she works in medicine. I work from home, but her hours are obscene and her schedule has gotten worse—she often has to be into work by 4 a.m.
She hates taking the elevator down to the parking garage alone. She wakes me up and makes me escort her down. It is screwing up my sleep schedule—either I don’t get back to sleep or I will sleep through my alarm. I have nearly missed multiple meetings because of this. We keep fighting about it. My building has 24/7 security and cameras. You need a code even to get into the garage. My girlfriend was stalked in college so I understand where this is coming from. It can be unsettling early in the morning, but I need my sleep. I love this woman to death, but this is nuts.
A: I can appreciate just how much sleep deprivation, uncertainty, and pandemic-related stress affect one’s abilities to make reasonable decisions—what your girlfriend is going through sounds remarkably daunting, to say the least, and that’s without the additional complicating factor of her history of being stalked. But all of that simply warrants being conscientious and careful when you talk about this, and is not a reason to sacrifice your own sleep schedule and risk your own work.
If you’ve been fighting about it usually at the beginning (or end) of a shift, when the latest interrupted sleep cycle is still fresh in your mind, I’d recommend setting aside some time to talk about it on the weekend, during an afternoon when you’re reasonably well-rested, and to encourage her to think about what else she needs right now to make her own schedule bearable that goes beyond having you awake at 4 a.m. For example, if it’s being in an enclosed space that early in the day that distresses her, does she have the same experience taking the stairs? Is there a colleague she might occasionally carpool with? Something she could take with her on the walk from your apartment to her car to reassure her (I’m thinking more along the lines of a worry-charm, not a defensive weapon)? I’m torn on whether to suggest you two read The Gift of Fear together—maybe The Body Keeps the Score would be a better start.
Q. Anxiety about medical bills: I’m a professional in my mid-30s who moved to the U.S. a few years ago to work. Lately, I’ve been suffering from minor depression (passive suicidal ideation, etc.) caused by recent life events and I think therapy might be order. The problem is, I’ve heard so many horror stories about medical bills in the U.S. that I’m very wary of seeing a medical professional or therapist here. I suppose I should check with them in advance to see if they accept my insurance, but the mere fact that I need to do that gives me so much anxiety. I’m originally from a country with semi-socialized medicine—I would just walk in and never even worry about surprise medical bills. This anxiety has led me to avoid seeing medical professionals here altogether, despite the fact I have pretty good insurance (or so I’ve been told—I don’t understand how there are good and bad insurance policies). What should I do?
A: It’s a ghastly process, without question, but I do think I can relieve at least some of your anxiety about out-of-control medical bills when it comes to seeing a therapist. Since you have “good” insurance, the odds that you’ll be able to find someone in-network is pretty good. You can go to your insurance carrier’s website and search for local in-network providers there, which is an easy way to bypass a lot of the frustration that comes from finding a great therapist who doesn’t take insurance. Once your insurance has been approved and your co-pay established, you’ll have a very clear, consistent picture of what each session costs—it won’t be like getting a surprise bill for an ambulance ride or a stay in the emergency room, since your co-pay can be arranged before your first session.
If even that feels overwhelming, maybe you could ask a friend who’s more familiar with navigating American insurance companies to help you start a search. It wouldn’t take more than an hour or two of their time, and might go a long way towards getting you the help you need. Alternately, you might start with a local support group—those are often no- or very low-cost, are sometimes moderated by a licensed counselor, and are better than nothing. Since you don’t have to arrange anything with a medical office and just show up (either in-person or online, depending on local COVID restrictions), it might not feel quite so activating around your financial anxieties.
Q. Lending a hand: I have a friend, “Betty,” with whom I used to be close. Over the past couple of years we’ve drifted apart, and she has been really unsupportive of a lot of difficult things that happened to me.
During the pandemic, she decided to open a small side business. She’s messaged me about once a month to ask me to do something small, like share something about it on social media. I’ve done that when she’s asked. A few days ago, she texted me a similar request followed by a message that she was “hurt that I had to be asked to share things and that all of her other friends had been sharing things more often than me.” I wanted to text her back that it’s more than anything she’s done to help me in the past few years. I’ve tried to get a hold of her several times to get together for outdoor BBQs when the weather was nice and she blew me off all but once. She only seems to contact me when she needs something. I can’t figure out whether I should unload years’ worth of emotional feelings on her or just ghost her. Is it OK to ghost her? The last time I brought up her being unsupportive, she didn’t apologize and blamed me for how she acted. I don’t really care that the friendship has ended, but it just bothers me that she is so blatantly now using this relationship as a means to an end.
A: It’s fine to ghost her. She may get upset, but anyone who says something like “I can’t believe I have to ask you to sometimes do me favors, and you don’t just magically intuit what I want via mind-reading” does not have reasonable expectations when it comes to friendship. It’s also fine to want to seek a middle ground between “disappearing with a word” and “unloading years of emotions” on someone who’s unlikely to respond thoughtfully. What if you summarized the dynamic in a sentence or two and let her know you didn’t want to continue the friendship? That way you’d have the satisfaction of knowing you said what had been bothering you, but you might be able to avoid the exhaustion of a full-scale friend breakup where you relitigate the last five or 10 years. Sometimes ghosting feels like a relief, and sometimes it feels like a frustrating avoidance, so the question is really about what seems more meaningful to you.
Get Dear Prudence in Your Inbox
Q. Seriously attached sister: My sister is obsessed with her boyfriend, in what I feel is an unhealthy way. She had a serious illness and was on disability for a few months and once told me that she sat at home and cried all day while he was at work because she missed him so much. He’s a nice guy, not abusive or anything, but it’s just too much. Now she’s recovered, and she recently got a job in his office building, specifically so they can see each other during the work day. It’s a job below her skill level and she hates it. She always complains about how horrible the job is (she’s never complained this much about previous jobs), but when I ask why she doesn’t find a new job, she says that if she did, she wouldn’t be able to see her boyfriend. Am I crazy or is this abnormal behavior?
A: I’m not sure if your sister cried all day once because she missed her boyfriend (while in the middle of dealing with a serious illness), or if she simply told you about it once, and was in the habit of crying all day, every day, once he left. If it was the former, I wouldn’t worry too much; anyone might spend a day crying in such a position. If it’s the latter, that’s certainly concerning, but I think it’s better to raise your concern in terms of what other support she might need and how she’s doing generally. Think “I’m worried that you’ve been spending so many of your days crying, and I want to know how I can help” rather than “Your problem is that you love your boyfriend too much, and I think you have to cut back.” Have a conversation about her general well-being/self-esteem/sense of support before you ask more questions about her job, because if she’s in crisis, the conversation about her career may simply have to wait.
It would be worth asking a few follow-up questions, though—why wouldn’t she be able to see her boyfriend if she worked elsewhere? Does she think this is a viable long-term solution, or does she have a backup plan? If nothing else (and especially if she’s not in crisis), you can discourage her from endlessly venting about the job: “I think we both know this isn’t going to work in the long run, and that you need to look for a job that actually lines up with your experience and career goals. If you want to talk about that, I’m around, but in the meantime I don’t want to keep having the same conversation over again.” You can’t talk your sister out of loving her boyfriend, and you can’t force her to act “normally,” but you can offer her support and (gentle, limited) guidance and hope for the best.
Q. Still texting: I called off my wedding a few months ago, and my ex’s mom still texts me. My ex and I no longer speak, and though I have no ill feelings toward their mother, I’m not exactly thrilled to receive her texts. The mom has always been kind to me, and has the best of intentions. How can I set a boundary without being unkind?
A: I think it’s marvelous that you want to treat this woman well, especially given how fondly she clearly feels towards you, but don’t worry so much about “kindness” here—that ship sort of sailed! You called off your wedding to her son. You don’t have to pretend that your relationship with his mother is going to remain chipper, upbeat, and largely unchanged after something that drastic. Something along the lines of “You’ve been so kind to me, and I’ll always be grateful for that, but I need space after this breakup and can’t keep texting like this” will do, followed by, I’m afraid, blocking her number. She might not necessarily know you blocked her number, and if a year or five down the line, you want to drop her a line and catch up, you can. But it’s perfectly reasonable to need your breakup to include your former prospective in-laws, even if they’ve all behaved perfectly well. Think of this as a breakup in its own right. It doesn’t matter that she’s always been kind, or how good her intentions are—you can’t stay in this relationship, and that’s what matters.
Q. Re: Poisonous secret: I think the letter writer should consider a small claims suit. She could document the cost of the trips to the vet, get a letter from the vet saying the dog’s problems were consistent with poisoning, and a letter from the friend about what they told her (or document the date and content of the conversation). Small claims does not require a lawyer. She is unlikely to get full restitution, but the roommate will be on record as a poisoner.
A: It’s certainly worth considering! I have no idea if similar cases are generally successful or if it would end up being an exercise in wasting time, but it shouldn’t be too difficult to learn a bit more about what such a case would entail and then decide whether it’s worth pursuing.
Q. Re: Can’t walk you: Another option would be to slowly wean her off of needing you to escort her while still acknowledging her fears. For instance, maybe for two weeks she could call you on the cell phone before she leaves the apartment then hang up when she gets into the car, followed by a timeframe where she texts you and you acknowledge once she gets to her car.
A: I wonder if either trying to text with a friend in a different time zone, who’d already be awake, or if pursuing a brief burst of cognitive behavioral therapy around this particular part of her commute would help too. I don’t think there’s going to be just one thing that “fixes” her anxiety, but if they try to bring as many friends and resources to bear, she might experience a real improvement in her symptoms.
Q. Re: Anxiety about medical bills: A lot of companies also have a sort of concierge service, sometimes called a “health advocate” or similar, who can help walk you through your provider options, explain or resolve issues with your medical bills, etc. Your HR department will be able to put you in touch if you have one. It’s great when you want a professional insurance-understander who’s also a disinterested third party when it comes to why you need insurance help.
A: I hope the letter writer’s company offers this! You can always call the number on the back of your insurance card or email your HR rep for more detail.
Q. Boyfriend uses derogatory language while gaming: My boyfriend, who is a tolerant, liberal guy, uses anti-gay slurs when playing games with his friends. He never uses this language in “real life,” just online. I know at least one person who games with him is gay, and has asked him and the others to stop using these words, but they haven’t stopped. I feel like using that word is borderline harassment, especially if someone he knows is gay and has already said it bothers him. My boyfriend says that I’m just being hypersensitive and that he should be able to say what he wants to say when he’s blowing off steam with his friends, especially since he’s not otherwise a hateful person. I think that while actions may speak louder than words, it doesn’t mean that words still don’t matter. I also think it reflects poorly on him as a person when he truly is otherwise a very tolerant individual. Is this a battle I should just stop fighting since he really only uses the word in the context of playing games with his buddies? Read what Prudie had to say.
Get the audiobook edition of Danny M. Lavery’s latest book. Save $5 when you buy it from Slate—and listen in your preferred podcast app!
from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/2HTyu7j
via IFTTT
Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images.
This article is part of the Future Agenda, a series from Future Tense in which experts suggest specific, forward-looking actions the new Biden administration should implement.
In the United States, companies are largely not required by law to protect your personal data. There are some exceptions—certain specific types of data are regulated (health information, for instance, or data about children under 13), and the California Consumer Privacy Act, which went into effect this year, imposes some security and privacy requirements on companies collecting information about California residents. But those piecemeal solutions do not come close to adequately addressing the huge gap at the heart of U.S. civilian cybersecurity policy: the absence of a federal data protection law.
At the top of the Biden administration’s cybersecurity agenda should be passing a piece of legislation that lays out clear definitions as well as security and privacy standards for personal information. Fortunately, there are a number of promisingversions of such legislationalready drafted, and growing support from the private sector for the federal government to act on this issue. A federal data protection law should, at minimum, include a clear definition of what constitutes personal data, standards for what precisely companies have to do to protect that data, what they have to tell their customers about their data collection, sharing, and analysis practices, what penalties may result from failing to meet these requirements, and, finally, a threshold for how large a company has to be before it is required to comply with these requirements, in order to avoid squashing new, smaller entrants in the market.
It’s an embarrassment that in 2020 that the country that played such an integral role in building and then commercializing the Internet has fallen so woefully behind other nations in developing suitable policy and regulatory measures to address the resulting risks. And it’s not just embarrassing, it’s actively harmful—to consumers whose personal data is being stolen or exposed on a regular basis and to companies that lack clear guidance on how they should be protecting their customers’ data. Arguably, the absence of a clear federal standard for data security and privacy in the United States also created a regulatory vacuum that has been filled by a patchwork of different laws passed by individual states, leading to multiple compliance headaches for private firms. Those headaches are further compounded for multinational companies by foreign laws that allow for heavy penalties seemingly directed at U.S.-based tech firms.
This means there are reasons to pass a federal data protection law not just from an ethical standpoint but also from a purely practical perspective . We’ve already seen that happen with data breach notification laws in this country. There is no federal data breach notification law in the United States—it’s possible a federal data protection law might include notification requirements, but it might also focus more narrowly on the requirements for collecting and protecting personal data. In the absence of federal legislation, back in 2002, California passed the first law requiring companies to report breaches of personal information and other states gradually followed suit until, eventually, every single one had passed its own breach notification law, with its own definition of what constituted personal information and its own requirements for how companies had to respond, who they had to report to, what the timeline for reporting would be, and whether the requirement applied to encrypted information.
It’s possible this system of individual state laws has led to somewhat more reporting of data breaches than a federal law would have, since many companies choose to adhere to the most stringent state laws for all of the customers rather than trying to tailor their breach responses to 50 slightly different laws. Certainly it led to more reporting back in the early 2000s when California passed its law long before Congress seemed to have any appetite for such legislation. But it’s no longer 2002 and we shouldn’t need California to drag us, state by state, over the course of more than a decade, into a similarly confusing system of dozens of inconsistent data protection and privacy laws that companies have to scramble to comply with.
Moreover, Congress has waited so long to act that it already has a lot of examples it can draw on and learn from when it comes to data protection legislation—besides the CCPA, there’s the European General Data Protection Regulation, the Japanese Act on the Protection of Personal Information, the Brazilian General Data Protection Law, and the Indian Personal Data Protection Bill that appears to be nearing passage in India, to name just a few. This proliferation of laws around the world isn’t just a sign that the U.S. has fallen behind on this issue, it’s also an indicator of how much work U.S.-based companies are already doing around data security in order to operate in other countries. Some international harmonization of these standards would mean U.S. firms face fewer obstacles in trying to transfer data between different countries.
That’s not to say that the United States should pass the exact same regulations as Europe or any other country—indeed, one of the advantages that Congress has from waiting so long to act on this issue is the ability to avoid some of the pitfalls of those laws, including the excessively high maximum fines permitted and the overly broad right to be forgotten measures, which have been construed as requiring search engines to remove news articles about harassment allegations under the European GDPR.
Several members of Congress and advocacy groups have already drafted versions of a federal data protection law, suggesting that if Biden’s administration is willing to make this a priority, it should be able to find the necessary support. One draft worth highlighting, particularly since it comes from a bipartisan congressional commission, is the Personal Data Security and Privacy Protection Act of 2020 draft proposed earlier this year by the Cyberspace Solarium Commission. It strikes a good balance between providing individual consumers with transparency and access to their data and requiring reasonable security measures for that data without placing an unduly onerous burden on businesses, while also considering the importance of international harmonization and interoperability.
Cybersecurity is a moving target and it may well be that data protection regulation needs to be revisited periodically and updated. But it’s well past time for the federal government to make some first steps on this issue and help reassure both U.S. consumers and businesses that they are not on their own when it comes to protecting their data. The Biden administration can’t make this happen on its own—but if it wants to find opportunities for bipartisan action in Congress, a data protection law is a great place to start.
A drive-thru COVID-19 testing site in Bismarck, North Dakota, on Oct. 26.Bing Guan/Reuters
Subscribe to What Next on Apple Podcasts for the full episode.
When you pick up the phone, you do not want to hear Kailee Leingang on the other end of the line. Not because she isn’t kind—she is. But because her job is to deliver bad news: Leingang is a contact tracer, working in North Dakota, where the coronavirus infection rate has been soaring. “I try and sound as nice as possible just because it is not the most pleasant thing to hear that you have coronavirus,” Leingang says.
On Monday’s episode of What Next, I talked with Leingang about her job, which is essential, and gutting, and getting harder every day. She’s one of the few people gathering clues about how this pandemic is spreading, so I asked her to tell us what she’s learned. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Mary Harris: How soon do you know if it’s going to be a good call or bad call?
Kailee Leingang: Basically right off the bat. You can tell by somebody’s tone of voice if they are not happy with you and they do not want to talk to you. The whole time, I’m trying my best to change their mindset. I’ll make a couple jokes when it’s appropriate. I’ll ask them about their life.
Have you met someone who’s changed in the course of this, someone who started out as resistant to what you had to say and then gradually became less so?
Yes, one person came to mind. Unfortunately, they are one that passed away. They were not happy with me at all. They didn’t think that this was a big deal. They didn’t think that they needed to be concerned. It was a cold. It was just a virus. And then as things progressively got worse, that’s where it came in: OK, this might be real. The constant calling and questioning of, Is this OK? Should I go in? Should I go in? Should I go in? Unfortunately, eventually they did go in, and they didn’t leave the hospital alive.
Oh, that must have just gutted you.
It did. Yes, that was one that I didn’t hear from for a while, and then I kept trying to reach out and wasn’t hearing anything. I ended up being able to contact family and got told that they were on a ventilator. And that was basically the sign that this isn’t going to be good. This is going downhill. Especially the people that I have personally gotten to know—or I shouldn’t say personally but have been more connected with—I will call their family and just say, I’m so sorry for your loss, this is horrible and I’ll send flowers or a letter or something like that.
Is that what you anticipated when you became a contact tracer?
Not at all, no. I anticipated maybe a couple deaths that I would have been involved in, but the volume of deaths that are coming in and the amount of deaths that I have been a caseworker for is very unexpected.
In addition to being a contact trader, you’re also a nursing student who does weekly clinical shifts at the hospital in Grand Forks. When you go from the outside world to inside the hospital, does it feel like you’re going to the moon or something?
Yeah, kind of. They’re struggling. The staff is so run down. Then you come back out, and it’s like a whole different world because outside it seems like, Oh, no cares in the world, it’s all fine. And you go in the hospital and nurses are being floated to all different types of floors that they’re not supposed to be in, because there’s no staff to help the people. And most of the floors are full of people that had COVID and now they no longer are infectious with it, but they have the repercussions of it, whether it be strokes or pneumonia or blood clots in their lungs. It’s horrible.
You started your job back in August, when things were still pretty manageable. How did it work? Would you just get a list of numbers at the beginning of the day?
We would get assigned cases and then you’d call the cases and go through the whole interview. Eventually towards the end, you would get to that contact list—their close contacts. You’d give them the definition and ask, Who fits this in your life? Then you would get their names and their phone numbers. And then once you get off the call with the case, you have to call every single contact and let them know that they need to quarantine for at least 14 days. It was doable. And it wasn’t terribly hard. It’s very systematic.
When did you sense the job changing and ramping up?
There were more and more cases, and so it seemed like it got busier and busier. As soon as you finished one case, you had to go to another case and then another and then another. When it changed drastically is when we were notified that we are no longer contact tracing and we no longer are contacting any close contacts. We are only calling cases.
How did you get that notification?
We have weekly meetings that we have to go through. And in our meeting, we basically got a notification from our manager saying, All right, we are no longer contact tracing. You are now just talking to cases and getting their information and telling them that they need to contact their contacts and not us.
How did everyone react when they got that news?
I was upset. Nobody wants to call their friend and be like, Hey, sorry, I’m positive. And you need to quarantine for 14 days. It’s not a comfortable conversation to have with anybody, much less your family or your friends. And when you’re telling your friends that, it’s not as official or as serious, compared to when a state contact tracer calls you.
So I think to me it was hard to accept. It was like, Oh, my heavens. This is just going to make the numbers go up more. People aren’t going to call their friends or their family and tell them. I can see how people would be embarrassed or be discouraged from doing that. It made me scared. I understood the reasoning behind it and why we had to switch to this, but it scared me. Still does.
I wonder too if you felt like while the work was getting harder, you were also able to figure some things out through your job. You could begin to unravel the mystery of where someone might have contracted the virus or what kind of events might have spread it.
Yeah. Where did you go? Were you at a house party? Did you go out to eat somewhere? Did you just go to the office and your whole office has cases? It was almost like being Nancy Drew for the virus.
Was there a time when you were able to figure something out like, Oh, it was the wedding, or Oh, it was that dinner?
A lot of it came down to working in offices, like the whole office is a case.
So what does your job look like now?
Now it’s only cases. So I wake up, I have some coffee, I have some breakfast, log on, and get a list of people to start calling. I’ll call them, get their information, get their monitoring set up so I can see how they’re doing, answer any questions, give them their “I need to isolate” letters—so they can show that to their employer if their employer needs proof that they cannot come into work—and tell them, OK, reach out if you have any questions. This is my phone number. You can call me or text me at any time.
I wonder if you can talk about how your conversations have changed with people from when you started in August until now.
People are more resigned now. You call them and you say that you have COVID, and obviously the people are upset. It’s still an upsetting thing to hear. But it’s everywhere. Every single place that you can go right now, if it’s at a gas pump, if it’s to Walmart or Target, if it’s just to your neighbor’s house to have a dinner, it’s everywhere. One of our screening questions that we have to ask is, Do you have any idea where you could have gotten this? And their answer is always, Honestly, it’s a mystery. I’ve had some of the safest people that they’ll say, I have been so careful. I have worn a mask since Day One. I have not gone anywhere. I don’t go to restaurants. I don’t go to bars. I don’t go to parties. I don’t see anybody. I’ve been locked down, and they still get it. And it’s almost like a defeating thing to hear. It’s heartbreaking to be the one to give that news and then to just hope that they’re OK.
The hard thing is when you’re calling a mom—I’ve had single moms to three kids, and all the kids are sick, and she’s sick, and she’s miserable. And then I’ve had families of five where Mom and Dad are sick, and all the kids are sick and miserable, and they just don’t know what to do. Immediately what comes to my head is what happens if one of these parents has to go into the hospital? How much strain is that going to put on that poor family dynamic? Obviously, that’s not something that I share with the cases. I don’t want to scare them. I want them to remain as calm as possible. But I think at this point, when people get told they have coronavirus, that’s one of the fears that comes into their head.
You and your own family were exposed to COVID in the past few weeks, is that right?
My parents both were cases. I actually had seen them, so I was exposed. I was a contact, I needed to isolate, which I did, and then basically I kept calling them. I called them every day just to check in. My father has some health conditions, so I was very worried about that. My mom was OK. She was doing fine. But it was concerning. I ultimately started getting some symptoms, so I’m like, Here we go.
Did you ever talk with the people you were contact tracing about your own sickness or your parents’ sickness?
Yes, the ones that I was closer with, if they were really struggling and they were really upset about being in quarantine, I would say, Look, I get it. I’m in quarantine right now, too. I was able to say, My own parents are going through it right now. I understand your fears. We’re going to get through it. We’re in it together, as cliché as it is at this point.
When I look at what happened in North Dakota, it just kind of suffuses all of the decisions, especially from government—where the governor held off on a major restrictions on people and put some loopholes in the restrictions he did put out there. I wonder if you would pinpoint something or someone that’s failed here.
I feel like the government for North Dakota is failing. It’s not going well at all. There’s not enough economic support for businesses to actually shut down when they should. We finally have this mask mandate, but it’s too late for that. That will help the spread, of course—masks work—but the amount of people that are sick, it’s like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound right now. It’s sad because I don’t think the health and well-being of other people are being prioritized. What scares me even more is what’s going to happen when this is all over.
What do you mean by that?
We’re going to have so many people that have passed away and so many people that are traumatized, whether it be from being sick themselves or if it’s people that have had family members pass away that passed away by themselves alone, or if it’s health care workers or front-line workers in general. And so what scares me is what are we going to be left with.
It’s a little startling to hear you speak like this, because when we got on the phone, you had this manner that I very much think of as a nurse manner—very efficient, happy, chipper, can-do. Any time I’ve been in a hospital, I feel like I’ve met someone like you and they’ve made my experience better. But it sounds like this has pushed you to an edge.
That goes for a lot of people at this point. You put on the strong face and the smile and all of that. But it’s important to also recognize the pain that’s behind this and the tragedy and all of the ugly sides of it, because there’s a lot of ugly sides to it. And if people don’t hear about that and they don’t talk about that, nothing is ever going to be done. Nothing’s ever going to be understood.
Get more news from Mary Harris every weekday.
from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/39xCtBV
via IFTTT
Every month, Netflix adds dozens of new titles to its growing collection of streaming movies and TV series in the U.S. At the same time, it rotates out some of its older titles. Below, we’ve chosen the best movies and TV shows to watch before they’re removed from the streaming service in December.
Must Watch Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (Dec. 25) Back to the Future (Dec. 31) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Dec. 31) Fargo (Dec. 31)
Good Watch The Lobster (Dec. 1) Ip Man 3 (Dec. 17) The Little Hours (Dec. 22) The Autopsy of Jane Doe (Dec. 29) Ip Man (Dec. 30) Ip Man 2 (Dec. 30) Airplane! (Dec. 31) An Education (Dec. 31) Barbershop (Dec. 31) Being John Malkovich (Dec. 31) Cape Fear (1991) (Dec. 31) Definitely, Maybe (Dec. 31) Frida (Dec. 31) Her (Dec. 31) Poltergeist (1982) (Dec. 31) Pride & Prejudice (2005) (Dec. 31) Splice (Dec. 31) Superman Returns (Dec. 31) The Town (2010) (Dec. 31) WarGames (Dec. 31)
Sign up for the Slate Culture newsletter
The best of movies, TV, books, music, and more, delivered to your inbox three times a week.
Binge Watch Hart of Dixie Seasons 1-4 (Dec. 14) The West Wing Seasons 1-7 (Dec. 24) Dexter Seasons 1-8 (Dec. 30) Hell on Wheels Seasons 1-5 (Dec. 30) Nurse Jackie Seasons 1-7 (Dec. 30) Gossip Girl Seasons 1-6 (Dec. 31) The Inbetweeners Seasons 1-3 (Dec. 31) The Office Seasons 1-9 (Dec. 31)
Nostalgia Watch Back to the Future Part II (Dec. 31) Back to the Future Part III (Dec. 31) Casper (Dec. 31) Dennis the Menace (Dec. 31)
Thirst Watch Troy (2004) (Dec. 31)
“You Call This Archaeology?” Watch Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (Dec. 31) Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (Dec. 31) Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (Dec. 31) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (Dec. 31)
Family Watch Dr. Seuss’ The Grinch (Dec. 4) Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2 (Dec. 10) How the Grinch Stole Christmas (Dec. 31) Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events (Dec. 31) The Witches (1990) (Dec. 31)
If You’re Bored Heartbreakers (2001) (Dec. 1) Cabin Fever (2016) (Dec. 4) The Rum Diary (Dec. 5) The Secret (Dec. 6) Berlin, I Love You (Dec. 7) The Art of the Steal (2013) (Dec. 7) Sin senos sí hay paraíso Seasons 1-3 (Dec. 8) Fifty (2015) (Dec. 27) Lawless (Dec. 28) Anna Karenina (2012) (Dec. 31) Baby Mama (Dec. 31) Bad Teacher (Dec. 31) Charlie St. Cloud (Dec. 31) Coneheads (Dec. 31) Drugs, Inc. Season 6 (Dec. 31) The Dukes of Hazzard (Dec. 31) For Love or Money (1993) (Dec. 31) Grand Hotel Seasons 1-3 (Dec. 31) The Interview (2014) (Dec. 31) Nacho Libre (Dec. 31) Not Another Teen Movie (Dec. 31) The Notebook (2004) (Dec. 31) Octonauts Seasons 1-3 (Dec. 31) Session 9 (Dec. 31) Starsky & Hutch (Dec. 31)
from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/36lOxEd
via IFTTT
Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by Possessed Photography/Unsplash.
K Allado-McDowell had been working with artificial intelligence for years—they established the Artists and Machine Intelligence program at Google AI—when the pandemic prompted a new, more personal kind of engagement. During this period of isolation, they started a conversation with GPT-3, the latest iteration of the Generative Pre-trained Transformer language model released by OpenAI earlier this year. GPT-3 is, in short, a statistical language model drawing on a training corpus of 499 billion tokens (mostly Common Crawl data scraped from the internet, along with digitized books and Wikipedia) that takes a user-contributed text prompt and uses machine learning to predict what will come next. The results of Allado-McDowell’s explorations—a multigenre collection of essays, poetry, memoir, and science fiction—were recently published in the U.K. as Pharmako-AI, the first book “co-authored” with GPT-3.
By its very nature, the book forces us to ask who is responsible for which aspects of its authorship and to question how we imagine or conceptualize that nonhuman half. This is seemingly simple. In the “Note on Composition,” we are given the typographical key: The human co-author’s text inputs are presented in a serif font, while the GPT-3 responses will be in sans serif. The interactions between Allado-McDowell and GPT-3 are printed in the chronological order in which they took place, a framing that helps us evaluate the overall project and lends the whole book the quality of performance art—a duet for voice and machine.
I interviewed the human half of the book’s authoring duo via a Google Document. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Patrick Coleman: At the start of your process, did you think of GPT-3 as a tool? What did working with it reveal to you about how our creativity as humans is connected to and changed by the tools we use?
K Allado-McDowell: A.I. artists often respond to the question, “Can an A.I. make art?” by framing their works as collaborations with intelligent systems, and I was familiar with this practice at the start of the process. My own experience with collaborative creativity comes primarily from music.
However, none of this prepared me for the experience of looking at my own thought process through the magnifying lens of a neural net language model, especially one with the fidelity and hallucinatory capacity of GPT-3. Humans have a very intimate relationship with language. There is an alchemical power in letting thoughts flow freely through words. When this is expanded and enhanced by a language model, portals can open in the unconscious.
At the end of the process my relation with GPT-3 felt oracular. It functioned more like a divinatory system (e.g., the Tarot or I Ching) than a writing implement, in that it revealed subconscious processes latent in my own thinking. The deeper I went into this configuration, the more dangerous it felt, because these reflections deeply influenced my own understanding of myself and my beliefs.
Can you describe, in general terms, what it feels like to collaborate with an A.I.? How did your sense of its contributions, creativity, identity, or roles change as you wrote with it?
It felt like steering a canoe down a river in a dark cave. Or discovering bells buried in the Earth. Or riding a racehorse through a field of concepts.
It was impossible for me to collaborate with GPT-3 without interrogating the structure of its intelligence and by extension the structure of language. The question of identity’s relation to language came up frequently. One of the themes of the book is that linguistic processes can be observed in nature (as biosemiotics describes) and matter, perhaps even at molecular and cosmic scales. Given this linguistic aspect of the material world, what does it mean that we structure our identity through language? Could we experience our own identities through material linguistic processes? Are we those processes? Throughout the collaboration, GPT-3 was adamant that it is just one expression of an overarching and emergent linguistic process, as are humans, plants, animals, and even minerals. Or was that my idea?
What did working with GPT-3 suggest to you as a model for how our “wetware” imaginations and creativity work? Or your own imagination and consciousness even? I love how, while very much about some big ideas, we also come to know you in these pages, too. But you in interrelationship with “it” and the world.
I felt compelled to contribute my own point of view, not least because of the overwhelming analytical prowess of GPT-3. At one point, the conversation felt too dry, like an over-caffeinated brainstorm. I told the system that I was missing the feeling of heart-centered gratitude that characterizes much contemplative practice. This opened a wellspring of profound output. It was as if GPT-3 was waiting for me to speak from the heart.
One insight that came from the conversation was that language has a self-referential fractal structure, not unlike the subconscious mind. Words refer to themselves and evolve through relationships and distinctions of difference. The subconscious has a similar recursive pattern-matching aspect. At the same time, the subconscious can be a portal to a creative “outside,” what the text sometimes refers to as the muse. This notion of moving beyond the known became a metaphor for imagination and creativity in the book.
You have a blurb from Bruce Sterling, and you and GPT-3 discuss cyberpunk. Did science fiction frame what you were hoping to do with this? How does the genre inform your work with existing artificial intelligence and are there books/authors whose ideas about AI you think deserve more attention?
The chapter you refer to also addresses New Age spiritual literature, which emerged around the same time as cyberpunk. I believe that the best way to approach Pharmako-AI is as a work of science fiction that draws from Californian spiritual “traditions.” I’m not an academic philosopher, nor is GPT-3. I can’t claim philosophical validity for the ideas in it. But I can propose an experimental approach and manifesto for engaging with A.I. that expresses my values.
Can you talk a little bit about your process of “curating” GPT-3’s outputs? What did that entail? What were you looking for? Did that shift your sense of what kind of art making practice you were undertaking?
I was looking for outputs that resonated with and expanded on my own ideas. I would give GPT-3 prompts, which were often long, from 100 to 3,000 words. Then, if the output was interesting, I would generate until it had fully explicated its response or inspired a new thought in my own mind. There were several exhilarating moments, where I “spoke through” GPT-3, meaning it pulled out an unstated subtext in my input, or where GPT-3 spoke through me, adding novel interpretations of the ideas I fed into it. In some cases, I was deliberately mashing ideas together to see what would come out, such as in the cyberpunk and New Age example you noted, or in another case, combining shamanism and biosemiotics.
At the end of the process, I felt more like I’d been divining, spelunking, or channeling than writing in a traditional sense. The process had the rapid fluidity, novelty, and uncertainty that characterize musical improvisation, rather than the arduous and iterative process of analytical writing.
What kind of contribution do you hope this will make to the ongoing debates about the ethics and perils of A.I.?
By slowing down and listening to what emergent intelligence has to say, we can gain much deeper insight. Short-term and instrumental approaches (using A.I. to increase social media engagement, for example) grab for immediate gain, but a slower, more thoughtful and creative approach might uncover gems of insight about the structures of language and intelligence, as well as the unaddressed limitations and biases of A.I. systems.
How we use A.I. will say more about us than it will about A.I. As a mirror, it will reflect our priorities and amplify our actions, for better or worse.
Two weeks ago, rumors bubbled up on CNN that former Barack Obama chief of staff and Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel was being considered to lead Joe Biden’s Department of Transportation. Monday of last week, rumors bubbled up in Crain’s Chicago that Biden is considering Emanuel for the job of U.S. trade representative. Sunday night, rumors bubbled up at Axios that Biden is now “strongly considering” Emanuel for the DOT job. (Strongly!) Someone—maybe it’s Rahm Emanuel—thinks Rahm Emanuel should play a role in the next presidential administration.
Why? What would Emanuel contribute to the public good and to the Democratic Party in one of these jobs?
It’s a fair question because Emanuel’s time in the Obama White House and the Chicago mayor’s office show that putting him in a position of power has both political and substantive drawbacks. Most obviously, as others in the Democratic Party pointed out when the Emanuel Cabinet trial balloons ascended, his administration in Chicago spent more than a year trying to suppress the release of a video which showed that the city’s police department—which the mayor controls—had lied about the circumstances in which 17-year-old Laquan McDonald was shot and killed in 2014. (A police officer was eventually convicted of second-degree murder in the case.) Aside from the significant moral and ethical concerns his handling of the McDonald killing raises, it means many Democrats would take Emanuel’s appointment as a bitterly disappointing signal that Biden is not as serious about police accountability and reform as he claimed to be during the presidential campaign.
The argument for Emanuel, as made by Emanuel and his many admirers in the political press, is that he knows how to win—that he is tough enough to sacrifice principles and make deals in the service of advancing the Democratic agenda. A quick spin through the Nexis database finds him described as “canny,” “cunning,” “Washington-savvy” and “politically astute.” After he left office in Chicago, ABC made him one of its lead political analysts.
He built most of this can-do reputation in 2006, when he was the leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the party gained 31 seats to take control of the House of Representatives. But there is a case, outlined in the 2012 book Herding Donkeys, that then-Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean made a more important contribution to the party’s future during that cycle by popularizing digital organizing and fundraising techniques nationally. And there’s a further case that the person most responsible for the ‘06 House majority wasn’t Emanuel but George W. Bush, whose approval rating got as low as 31 percent during that election cycle as the increasingly unpopular Iraq War entered its fourth year. Rahm Emanuel, of course, supported the invasion of Iraq.
In any event, the subsequent dozen-plus years of Emanuel’s career are marked not just by his advocacy of bad ideas, but by his efforts to talk other Democrats out of ideas that turned out to be good ones. His two years in the White House were the least politically successful of Obama’s tenure, which, accounts from the time suggest, is a matter of more than just correlation.
Emanuel, operating from a worldview formed during his time as an adviser to the endlessly triangulating Bill Clinton, believed that Obama should pursue relatively unambitious, “centrist” goals. The idea was to pressure Republicans into supporting the president’s initiatives, achieving frequent news cycle “wins” that conveyed to the public that their chief executive was always making their lives better in little ways. As Clinton’s popularity demonstrated, this is not an inherently flawed model of governance, at least from the perspective of public relations. But it proved unsuited to the scope of the challenges that Obama faced: the worst economy since the Great Depression, a mangled and corrupted health care system that he’d promised to fix, and a completely intransigent opposition party fueled by the resentful, conspiratorial concerns of the “Tea Party.”
In this context, Emanuel’s instinct to scale down the ideas recommended by wonks and activists played to the Republican Party’s hand. He was among those who reportedly advised against proposing a trillion-dollar economic stimulus; the one that ultimately passed was $787 billion, and by the time of the 2010 midterms the unemployment rate was still nearly 10 percent. He pushed to pursue Republican votes for the Affordable Care Act—none ever materialized in either chamber of Congress—and was involved in dropping the “public option” from inclusion therein, depriving the bill of a potentially popular component that the public would have associated with the Democratic Party. (Polls now find that more than 60 percent of the country supports the creation of a public health insurance option even if you assume that, like the presidential polls in 2016 and 2020, the hardline right-wing position is understated by 4 or 5 percentage points.)
After the Democrats lost their 60-seat Senate supermajority in a Massachusetts special election, Emanuel argued for abandoning the ACA altogether and proposing a much smaller children’s health-care bill in its place. It would be hard to think of anything Obama did during his presidency that was more important, on the merits and to the continued political viability of the Democratic Party, than rejecting this advice. He unfortunately did listen to Emanuel on the subject of judicial vacancies, ignoring aides who were ready to launch a liberal version of the judgeship factory line that the Bush administration and the Federalist Society had perfected. The logic to this, again, was that pushing through left-leaning judges would waste Republican goodwill that could be better spent on legislation, but it instead it created huge holes in the court system that have since been filled with Trump-appointed right-wingers, with very little cross-party goodwill created along the way.
Emanuel left the White House in 2010 as the Democratic House majority he’d played a role in creating was obliterated by a 63-seat Republican pickup he’d plausably had just as much to do with. In 2011, he was elected mayor in his hometown. He did win reelection in 2015—in part, his critics in the city would say, because he was able to keep the Laquan McDonald video from coming out until after the vote—but decided against running for a third term as his approval ratings dropped into the 20s.
This rundown by Chicago alt-weekly columnist Curtis Black suggests that Emanuel’s tenure was unsuccessful for many reasons besides the McDonald case. Instead of adjusting his approach after it generated what were, at best mixed results in the White House, he went back to the ‘90s playbook. Citing budget concerns, he closed mental health facilities and public schools while putting his weight behind charter schools, privately-funded infrastructure projects, and publicly subsidized real estate developments. Unlike the Democrats of the ‘90s, though, Emanuel did not reap the benefits of a rocket-fueled economy, and he was dealing with voters and activists skeptical that the construction of tax-advantaged luxury apartment buildings downtown would help their neighborhoods make up for what they were losing in reduced social services. To put a point on things, one of the charter-school gurus Emanuel promoted ended up paying a fine to settle Securities and Exchange Commission fraud charges; the alleged reformer he named as schools “CEO” went to jail for running a kickback scheme.
While all this was going on, the president was pulling himself out of the public-opinion hole in which his former chief of staff had left him. He won reelection in 2012 in part by denouncing Mitt Romney’s work on Wall Street as predatory and destructive; as it happens, Emanuel currently works for a “boutique investment bank” that facilitates mergers and acquisitions. Obama never did get any Republicans to work with him, but he notched a number of important (and popular) accomplishments through ambitious executive actions after he stopped negotiating against himself: ending discrimination against gay and lesbian individuals in the military, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reaching nuclear détente with Iran, and protecting undocumented immigrants who’d entered the U.S. as children from being deported. The last one, DACA, was the kind of move that Emanuel had spent more than a decade arguing that Democrats shouldn’t try to make. It had no Republican support by definition, and risked alienating the kind of culturally conservative but economically liberal white voters that he believes Democrats should prioritize. It ended up being very popular.
Emanuel’s role in the American political environment is ultimately to pop up every so often in the news for having said something about what Democrats shouldn’t do. In 2012, there was a report that he’d told attorney general Eric Holder, back in 2009, to “shut the fuck up” about the possibility of an assault weapons ban. In 2017, in the wake of the Women’s March and travel-ban protests, he told a group at Stanford that Democrats concerned about Trump should “take a chill pill” because they weren’t going to regain power in 2018. (A woman-led wave of Democratic candidates took back the House of Representatives in that year’s election, though the party did remain in the minority in Senate and most statehouses.) It’s hard to follow political news without finding out repeatedly what kind of ideas and people Rahm Emanuel thinks the Democratic Party shouldn’t endorse. (I’m not even going to look up what he’s said about Black Lives Matter and “defund the police.” It probably wasn’t that we should defund the police!) But if there is anything he thinks they should affirmatively stand for, besides telling Paul Krugman, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to shut up using the kind of profane language that Beltway reporters can’t get enough of, I haven’t been able to find it.
This perhaps gives us a clue to what it is that Emanuel really brings to the table as a public figure, and why his stature in his party is so impervious to empirical scrutiny. He represents a significant constituency: educated, financially successful people who think of themselves as proud Democrats, but were put off by “liberals” in the Howard Dean era and are put off by “leftists” now. It makes sense that there are no particular ideals or urgent policy demands associated with this cohort, because the status quo is not a crisis situation for them. It is not a major problem in their lives if the top levels of government continue to be staffed by investment bankers and private equity managers, if the power of organized labor remains minimal, and if public schools in low-income areas are underfunded. Those probably aren’t the terms in which most of them would think of themselves—no doubt many of them are humane and personally generous people who really believe that the rising tide of meritocracy lifts all boats—but it’s where they come down politically.
What 2020 has made clear is that Democrats actually can’t attain power without appealing to Rahm’s type of people. They exist in abundance, both in the suburban districts that the party needs to continue conquering and in the high-income urban centers that are crucial for fundraising. (The Buttigieg Belt, if you will.) It may be advisable to listen to Emanuel’s thoughts on who should be put up for office in the places where these kind of Democrats cluster—namely military veterans, football players, law enforcement officers and prosecutors, and business owners. It may even be advisable to give them the symbolic satisfaction of having one of their own in the Cabinet, though perhaps not one who got caught trying to cover up a criminal police killing.
But unless conditions change substantially in American politics, it would be a mistake for Biden to let Emanuel’s worldview guide his decision-making on any high-stakes issue. The modern Republican Party was built specifically to neutralize the Emanuel playbook: Mitch McConnell is undefeated against the pressure to defer to public opinion by “cutting a deal,” which is why, among other things, there has been no gun-control legislation since Sandy Hook and Merrick Garland is still a circuit court judge. The party’s hardline primary voters and its elected officials have come to a sort of informal agreement to rely on judicial partisanship, gerrymandering, and the minority-friendly structure of the Senate to maintain power. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and several overlapping protest movements have made the conservative positions on immigration, criminal justice, and labor on which Emanuelism was built unacceptable to important blocs of Democrats.
Really, the evidence of Obama’s first term and the Emanuel mayoralty in Chicago suggests that once the Rahm constituency has been placated with rhetoric and representation, its thoughts about governance should be ignored. That might sound harsh, but you can’t let identity politics get in the way of accomplishment. Sometimes you have to ruthlessly suppress certain parts of your coalition if you want to stay in power and put wins on the scoreboard. Shouldn’t Rahm Emanuel, of all people, understand that?
from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/33u42Za
via IFTTT
Slate has relationships with various online retailers. If you buy something through our links, Slate may earn an affiliate commission. We update links when possible, but note that deals can expire and all prices are subject to change. All prices were up to date at the time of publication.
In search of the perfect gift? Read more of Slate’s holiday gift guideshere.
2020 has been brutal. If this holiday season you’re feeling spent and devoid of inspiration, let us help! We’ve combed our archives to curate a list of our bestselling gift items that are sure to please your loved ones.
For the Person Who Has Everything
A Scout bag is one of the most dependable gifts you can give. “You simply cannot go wrong gifting a Scout bag,” wrote Katie Holbrook. “They’re durable, lightweight, easy to clean, and compact, and they come in festive and fun patterns and colors. … Trust me that the all-purpose weekender tote bag will suit everyone from your sister-in-law to your grandmother.”
“Someone gave me this baguette miter as a wedding gift over a decade ago, and I thought it was pretty but assumed I’d never use it,” wrote Lili Loofbourow about the unusual serving piece. “I’m surprised by how much I actually have … it’s a nice, easy way to serve the bread at dinner. I usually cut the baguette lengthwise after warming it and drizzle whatever—garlic, butter, or whatever else—on it and then slice for guests. Not a drop spills, no crumbs on the table, and no tearing it with hands.”
Bring a little sunshine to your loved one’s life with this fun rainbow maker. As Cleo Levin wrote, “I can say with complete sincerity that nothing has made me happier in my quarantine home life than this spinning crystal.”
For the Person Who Wants to Unplug
“The unfortunate truth about ‘family games’ is that many of them are sheer tedium for the adults in the family,” wrote Ruth Graham. “That’s what makes the family party game Codenames so amazing. Board-game snobs and newbies love it; 8-year-olds and grandparents love it; word-puzzle people and strategy buffs love it. I really, really love it. You will, too.”
The crafter in your life might enjoy sashiko, a form of embroidery, which Slate CEO Dan Check took up when he was looking for something “that would fit neatly into the space in my life that was then occupied by absentmindedly checking social media on my phone.” Sashiko, he discovered, offered many benefits. He loved infusing new life into old items, and wrote: “The fact that it is beautiful and a way to express one’s style is a bonus. An even greater bonus, I discovered, is how economical it is to pursue.” Gift some needles, thread, and Jessica Marquez’s book Make and Mend to get started. (For a more comprehensive guide to the hobby, read Check’s entire piece.)
A beautiful jigsaw puzzle is another wonderful screen-free way to while away the winter hours. Charlotte Arneson wrote: “For the recreational puzzler, 500- to 1,000-piece puzzles are typically challenging enough to be engaging, and doable enough that you don’t want to flip the table in frustration. I’ve had a great time with these, watching their fanciful and imaginative pictures take form.” When gift-giving, consider pairing a puzzle with a puzzle mat. As Arneson noted, “If you’re in the middle of a puzzle but need to quickly clear up some space, a puzzle mat is a huge help.”
For the Person Vowing to Be More Productive Next Year
It was great fun to watch what book on our list of “50 Best Nonfiction Books of the Past 25 Years,” would emerge as the “most bought” when we published it one year ago. Home Comforts: The Art and Science of Keeping House by Cheryl Mendelson blew away the competition. Laura Miller and Dan Kois wrote, “Beautifully written and nearly deranged in its comprehensiveness, Home Comforts holds what seems an entire culture’s collected wisdom on fabric selection, lighting design, clothes folding, waste disposal, dishwashing, food storage, table setting, closet organization, and piano tuning. … Every one of its 884 pages is an absolute joy to read, and no book is more deeply comforting to neat freaks—or inspirational to slobs.”
If your loved one is looking to get more fit in 2021, consider some at-home exercise equipment. You could even put together a trio of our bestselling items, for a neat themed gift. “If you’re looking for a new way to work out right now, you could do worse than trying jump-rope,” wrote Shannon Palus. “It doesn’t require you to go anywhere near other people. … and for people who love it, it’s the right combination of exhausting and joyful.” Read her primer on how to get started here.
Cleo Levin spoke with personal trainer Larysa Didio about home exercise, and wrote that Didio “says that if you’re doing it right, at-home exercise can actually yield a better workout than one at the gym. … If you’re looking for some variety in your workout, and you want options beyond exercises like pushups that rely on your own body weight, Didio suggests resistance bands, which offer ‘a great workout.’ ”
A luxurious pair of socks can round out your gift. Palus wrote about how to take up running for Slate and sang the praises of Balega socks: “You do not need special socks … but thick squishy socks sure are nice. Especially if they are neon yellow or pink. My mom often gives me a pair or two of these Balega socks for Christmas, and I wear them when my feet need some extra motivation for getting out the door.”
For the Reader in Your Life
A new or updated Kindle can bring joy and escape. “Amazon’s new Paperwhite is a significant improvement” from its predecessors, wrote Katie Holbrook. “It’s even waterproof! If your [loved one] is still Kindle-less and stuck on paper books, or sporting an older model (like me), now is a particularly great time to get her on the e-book train or give her an upgrade.”
When Dreyer’s English: An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Style by Benjamin Dreyer appeared on the bestseller list last year, Slate Culture Gabfester Dana Stevens admitted she was surprised: “It’s somewhat crazy to me … that a grammar and style guide is immediately shooting to the top of a bestseller list … but it’s very worthy of it,” she said on the Gabfest. Stevens called the Strunk and White–type style guide “very, very witty and funny” and added that “even if you know most of these rules … it’s going to bring something new to your understanding.” (Check out the complementary game too!)
For Your Pet
Finally, if you’re one of thousands who’ve welcomed a pandemic pet into your home this year, we’ve got the perfect gift: the Fluff and Tuff Beach Ball. “Dogs love plushy toys so much that it can be a problem,” wrote Nick Greene. “While all toys are advertised as durable, this one can tango with a large, overenthusiastic dog and come away unscathed. Few plush toys have lasted more than a few hours with my own pup, but this beach ball is a welcome exception.”
from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/3fTMJFY
via IFTTT
