2021年2月19日 星期五

Biden Praises Perseverance At Munich Security Conference

NASA Mars Perseverance Excerpt: Remarks by President Biden at the 2021 Virtual Munich Security Conference

"I know we can do this. We've done it before. Just yesterday -- after a seven-month, 300-million mile journey -- NASA successfully landed the Perseverance Rover on Mars. It's on a mission of exploration, with elements contributed by our European partners to seek evidence of the possibility of life beyond our planet and the mysteries of the universe.

Over the next few years -- "Percy" is (inaudible) call -- but Perseverance will range and collect samples from the Red Planet and pile them up so another mission and rover, envisioned as a joint effort between NASA and the European Space Agency, will retrieve this trove of scientific wonders and bring it home to all of us.

That's what we can do together. If our unbound capacity to carry us to Mars and back don't tell us anything else, they tell us we can meet any challenge we can face on Earth. We have everything we need. And I want you to know the United States will do -- we'll do our part. We'll stand with you. We'll fight for our shared values. We'll meet the challenges of this new moment in history.

America is back. So let's get together and demonstrate to our great, great grandchildren, when they read about us, that democracy -- democracy -- democracy functions and works, and together, there is nothing we can't do. So let's get working."



from NASA Watch https://ift.tt/3ub2Wxf
via IFTTT

The Casual Marvel Fan’s Guide to WandaVision Episode 7

This article contains spoilers for the first seven episodes of WandaVision.

So … Modern Family? Is that what this is? But then the theme song was more like The Office?

Yes, this episode riffs on Modern Family, even though the theme song is clearly aping The Office, and the visual style of the credits is mimicking Happy Endings, the ABC sitcom created by the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s own Russo brothers. When you’re looking for a modern family sitcom to emulate, Modern Family just fits the bill. As for why the show would use a theme song from a show it’s not emulating, the Office theme song has way more of a cultural foothold when it comes to immediately making the listener think of a recent sitcom, not least because the Modern Family theme is only 10 seconds long.

What about the commercial? Any meaning to the name “Nexus”?

In WandaWorld, Nexus is a “unique antidepressant” whose side effects include “feeling your feelings,” “confronting your truth,” and “possibly more depression.” In the comics, the Nexus is a gateway by which people can travel to different universes, sort of like what happens in Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. (This might explain why Evan Peters’ Pietro is here and not Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s Pietro.) Scarlet Witch is also a “Nexus Being.” Only one Nexus Being can exist per universe, and serves as the anchor point for that particular version of reality. Nexus Beings are also uniquely able to alter the flow of time through all universes, and thereby can maintain or upset the balance of the Multiverse.

Sign up for the Slate Culture newsletter

The best of movies, music, TV, books, and more, delivered to your inbox three times a week.

I take it Monica is a superhero now? What are her powers? And who is she in the comics?

Monica has finally come into her superpowers, something comics readers have been expecting for a while given that she was introduced in the comics as the second Captain Marvel. After being bombarded with the energy from Wanda’s hex so many times, she is now able to see and manipulate all forms of electromagnetic energy. She’s had a few names over the years, going by Photon, Pulsar, and most recently Spectrum, and according to the comics she’s really now a being made up of electromagnetic energy herself and just choosing to exist in a physical form. But she might not know that yet.

You mentioned something about Agnes maybe being Agatha Harkness before, but who is Agatha Harkness again? And what are her powers?

The twist that Agatha Harkness is responsible for a lot, if not all, of the chaos in Westview is a fun one, not least because her comics origins generally don’t paint her in such an antagonistic light. In the comics, Agatha is a powerful witch (and more often than not illustrated as a white-haired old woman) who has done everything from nanny Franklin Richards, the son of Mister Fantastic and the Invisible Woman, to, more relevantly, serve as a mentor to Scarlet Witch. She’s capable of teleportation, energy projection, mesmerism, planting thoughts, and creating illusions. And her rabbit, Señor Scratchy, might be a reference to Agatha’s son in the comics, the supervillain Nicholas Scratch.

So … it was Agatha all along?

That would seem to be the upshot of the song, “It Was Agatha All Along.”

What were those credits mimicking by the way? They couldn’t have been doing Bewitched again?

The Munsters!

Aha. And what precisely has Agatha been doing all along?

The flashbacks in those credits indicate she’s been the one punching holes in Wanda’s carefully crafted alternate reality, messing with Vision’s magic trick, prompting Wanda’s neighbor to saw through a cinderblock wall with his hedge clippers, and engineering the reappearance of Wanda’s brother Pietro/Peter. We also learn that she faked her fugue state at the edge of WestView, giving her a chance to tell Vision what’s really going on here, and she’s the one throwing questions—most pointedly, “Do you think maybe this is what you deserve?”—from behind the camera during the episodes talking head-style interviews. (Sure it’s in a man’s voice, but she can do magic, after all.) And she killed Sparky, too!

There’s a lot of creepy witch-stuff in Agatha’s basement, but that weird book seems especially important. What’s the deal there?

There’s already been a lot of speculation that the book in Agatha’s basement is the Darkhold, a mystical spellbook that’s already made several appearances in the Marvel TV series Agents of SHIELD. Given that there’s already one all-powerful ancient tome in the MCU, it seems odd to add another, but Agatha’s book has an entirely different symbol on the cover, and the last time anyone saw the Darkhold, it was in the possession of Ghost Rider as he was taking it to Hell. So … maybe not.

What about Major Goodner, the military woman this episode introduced? Is she anybody we should know?

As of right now, no! Goodner isn’t a character with any comics background.

What did we learn from the post-credits scene?

That Evan Peters’ Pietro seems to be in on whatever Agatha is up to. And that “snoopers gonna snoop.”

Why do the objects in Wanda’s house keep changing?

Not just changing—shifting. Although according to Darcy the action of the show has only occupied a week or so in real time, Wanda has been moving through sitcom styles by the decade, moving closer to the present day—presumably because she’s eventually going to rejoin the real world and reckon with the truth of Vision’s death. But her unconscious seems to be fighting back, perhaps turning back the clock to delay the inevitable. Her flatscreen TV turns back into a tube set, her bottle of almond milk transforms into a carton of whole milk—complete with a photo of a missing child—her sons’ PlayStation controllers into Atari joysticks, then Uno cards. (We get a glimpse of the Brady Bunch-era stairway as well.)

Speaking of missing children, what happened to Billy and Tommy?

We don’t know yet. Hopefully not the fate that struck them in the comics, which was, we must always remember, turning into baby hands.



from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/2NkR7ni
via IFTTT

The U.S. Has Released the Most Comprehensive Catalog of North Korean Cybercrimes Ever Made Public

North Korea has always been a bit of an outlier among the countries that make extensive use of offensive cyber capabilities. Unlike the United States, Russia, China, Israel, or Iran, North Korea has never appeared to be particularly focused on cyber-espionage or targeted cyber-sabotage. Instead it has performed a series of financially-motivated cybercrime campaigns like the 2017 WannaCry ransomware, as well as some splashy revenge-motivated breaches, most notably the 2014 Sony Pictures compromise. These high-profile incidents have suggested for a while that North Korea has more in common with cybercriminals than other nation states. But a December indictment unsealed this week by the Department of Justice makes clear just how central financial gain is to North Korea’s cyber activities. More importantly, it sheds light on the extent to which cryptocurrency and cybercrime can allow countries to undermine existing economic sanctions.

The indictment charges three hackers who work for the North Korean Reconnaissance General Bureau with a long list of computer intrusions and cybercrimes targeting victims all over the world and totaling some $1.3 billion in attempted theft and extortion efforts. The incidents range from well-known attacks like the Sony Pictures breach and WannaCry to intrusions into and thefts from Bangladesh Bank, Banco Nacional de Comercio Exterior in Mexico (Bancomext), BankIslami Pakistan Limited, the Polish Financial Supervision Authority, and casinos and cryptocurrency companies in Central America and Asia, to name just a few. The charges include fraudulent SWIFT transfers to manipulating bank computers in order to dispense cash from ATMs, developing and distributing cryptocurrency programs that were actually malware, stealing from cryptocurrency companies across the globe, among other things. It’s the most comprehensive and extensive catalog of North Korean cybercrimes the United States has ever made public, and it includes enough details to show not just how wide-ranging North Korea’s cyber exploits have been, but also which of those activities have been most lucrative.

Despite the name “Reconnaissance General Bureau,” very little of the activity described in the indictment resembles espionage or reconnaissance. Instead, as the indictment describes, the charged individuals “sought to cause damage through computer intrusions in response to perceived reputational harm” or “to steal currency and virtual currency … or to obtain it through extortion, for the benefit of the DPRK regime—and, at times, for their own private financial gain.” Aside from a few cases like Sony Pictures in which North Korea sought to publicly shame a victim (the indictment dubs these “revenge-motivated computer attacks”), most of the indictment details financially motivated instances of cybercrime. It also reveals some failures:

Despite the $1.3 billion figure that the Department of Justice calculated in total attempted theft and extortion, North Korea only succeeds in stealing a small portion of that sum. In 2016, for example, North Korea attempted to steal $951 million via transfers from Bangladesh Bank to accounts in the Philippines and Sri Lanka, according to the indictment, but only about $101 million from those fraudulent transfers went through.

Still, $100 million is a lot of money for a single cybercrime operation—and the Bangladesh Bank incident is only one of many detailed in the indictment. Another 2016 compromise of a bank in Africa yielded $104.1 million in false and fraudulent wire transfers. A 2018 breach of Bancomext led to $110 million in profits for the North Korean hackers. These breaches of banks are some of the most lucrative efforts detailed in the indictment. By comparison, the ransomware and extortion incidents described in the indictment tend to yield much smaller sums. For instance, one ransomware incident leads to a $100,000 payment, another to a $361,500 payout from a casino in Central America, and a third to $2.3 million worth of cryptocurrency from a different Central American casino.

North Korea’s use of cryptocurrency for cybercrime was not limited to ransomware attacks, however. In fact, it appears to have been more successful at stealing money directly from cryptocurrency companies through fraudulent transfers than it was at eliciting ransoms from individual victims. By compromising companies in Slovenia and Indonesia, the individuals named in the indictment were apparently able to steal $75 million and $24.9 million worth of cryptocurrency, respectively, from the virtual currency wallets managed by those companies. They also developed and distributed malware in the guise of cryptocurrency trading programs called things like iCryptoFx (a purported “cryptocurrency algo-trading tool”), CoinGo Trade, and CryptoNeuro Trader. Even more wild, they apparently developed a plan to create their own cryptocurrency called “Marine Chain Token” which would “allow investors to purchase fractional ownership interests in marine shipping vessels, such as cargo ships, supported by a blockchain” and planned to raise money for it through a fraudulent initial coin offering.

North Korea also made use of lower-tech financial infrastructure to access non-virtual currency. In 2018, for instance, it compromised the BankIslami computer network in order to approve fraudulent ATM withdrawal requests that led to $6.1 million being dispensed from ATMs. That money was then laundered with the help of a co-conspirator identified as Canadian American Ghaleb Alaumary.

The range of activities, victims, and theft and extortion models laid out in the indictment is staggering, not because any of these models are so new or sophisticated, but because, taken together, they paint the clearest picture yet of how effectively cybercrime can be used to undermine international sanctions. It’s a stark reminder that even as more countries are beginning to use economic sanctions as a response to malicious cyber activity, that very same activity can itself be used to circumvent those sanctions. As heartening as it is that countries are bolstering their responses to cyberattacks through the use of sanctions, the latest North Korea indictment demonstrates just how worthless those efforts will be without simultaneous aggressive, coordinated, international policing of cybercrime.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.



from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/2Zu9PeV
via IFTTT

What HBO’s New Documentary Gets Wrong About Open Relationships

This article contains spoilers for There Is No “I” in Threesome.

A few minutes into the HBO Max documentary There Is No “I” in Threesome, director, narrator, and central character Jan Oliver “Ollie” Lucks describes the parameters of the open relationship “experiment” he and his fiancée Zoe are trying in the year leading up to their wedding.

“We’re mostly committed to each other,” Lucks says. “We’re allowed to cheat.”

With a single word—cheat—the documentary’s audience is split in two. Some viewers will chuckle at the couple’s foolishness and ready themselves for the familiar story: Two people who don’t know what the hell they’re doing flail their way through a weird, crazy little adventure until they inevitably break each other’s hearts. But for people who’ve experienced the happiness of an open relationship, Lucks’ choice of words reveals a woeful ignorance of what it takes to make those relationships work. “It’s not ‘cheating,’ it’s consensual non-monogamy,” we yell at the screen. “The word ‘consensual’ is right there!”

Anyone who isn’t some kind of mad scientist-slash-tourist playing around in the world of non-monogamy is left to clunk their head on the coffee table.

No “I,” which premiered on HBO just in time for Valentine’s Day, squanders the opportunity to produce a documentary that could have helped people understand non-monogamy, the forms it can take, and its inherent challenges, in favor of what Ollie calls his “selfie film,” complete with a splashy final-act twist. While some open relationships implode—you know, just like some monogamous ones—yet another portrayal of messy non-monogamy only reinforces the notion that this style of relationship is necessarily doomed from the start.

Consensually non-monogamous people who like to talk about their relationships—and oh, do we—will say that these arrangements depend on regular, specific, clear communication about terms, boundaries, and feelings. Ollie and Zoe fail spectacularly to communicate not only with each other, but to the audience.

Ollie says one of the “rules” of the experiment is that he and Zoe, both bisexual, will only hook up with same-sex partners. But whoops, Zoe replies, she already broke that rule by sleeping with a man. Later, Ollie is dating and sleeping with a woman. We don’t see them discussing their rules, why they exist, why they might change, how they talk about the ones they’ve broken. Ollie’s narration adds no clarity.

Throughout the entire documentary, Ollie describes iterations of his and Zoe’s situation as “an open relationship” or that they are “full-blown swingers” or “polyamorous,” or that they were in an open relationship but now they’re polyamorous. These are distinct terms under the consensual non-monogamy umbrella, and even then one couple might do things differently than another couple in a relationship with the same label. Ollie and Zoe would better serve their audience by breaking down what their ground rules are at any given time, but even they don’t seem to know.

Sign up for the Slate Culture newsletter

The best of movies, music, TV, books, and more, delivered to your inbox three times a week.

While Ollie and Zoe are just kind of irritating—we’re treated to long sequences of them frolicking naked in fields; Ollie waxes poetic about how he loves Zoe for being such an “adult,” because she soaks her oats overnight —what’s hardest to watch is how they’re hurting each other because they don’t communicate with specificity or empathy, or even agree why they’re doing this in the first place. Ollie is obviously uncomfortable and pained when Zoe starts developing serious feelings for a man named Tom, but Zoe relentlessly tells Ollie how funny Tom is, or how she wants to send a Tom a picture of her breast that Ollie took, all while Ollie seems to be cracking under the weight of his jealousy. Non-monogamous people experience jealousy, of course, but there’s typically an expectation that couples will talk it through, consider the origins and effects of that jealousy, and decide whether any relationship outside theirs is ultimately harmful to any party. We don’t see Ollie and Zoe do any of that.

Why, of all the consensually non-monogamous relationships in all the towns in all the world, did HBO produce the story of this one? Turns out that while the story of Ollie and Zoe is real, this isn’t it. Zoe, Tom, and the other non-Ollie characters are played by actors, and the film is a re-creation of Ollie’s experience with the real Zoe (whose name is not actually Zoe). Ollie and Real Zoe did try an open relationship and were documenting it, and Real Zoe really did end their relationship to be with  another man, but what we see on screen here is not a documentary of an experiment in real-time so much as Ollie’s on-screen memoir, starring himself.

The documentary reels us in with a titillating poster and the promise of a peek into the lives of those crazy kids and their ethical sluttiness, but it was never really about the nuances and logistics of open relationships at all. The open relationship “experiment” gets pushed aside by the shock of the faux-documentary reveal, and anyone who isn’t some kind of mad scientist-slash-tourist playing around in the world of non-monogamy is left to clunk their head on the coffee table.

I’ve been in an open relationship for six years, the entire time I’ve been with my significant other, and I have a hard time thinking of any TV shows or movies that really sink their teeth into consensual non-monogamy in a three-dimensional way that offers the kind of insight, understanding, or potential words of advice I would have wanted when I entered into it myself.
I don’t want media that only shows open relationships that work, I just want media that’s invested in seriously understanding or portraying all forms of consensual non-monogamy, not just using it as a seductive hook for a movie that’s more shock than substance.

People get into open relationships for all kinds of reasons, some deeper than others. In mine, we enjoy flirting with, dating, and hooking up with other people while we’re still young, cute, and have the energy, but we’ve also gained a deeper trust and bond than we’ve had before. We explore different parts of ourselves together and apart, we see each other as even more attractive through other people’s eyes, and we have new experiences that we talk about with honesty and vulnerability. But being consensually non-monogamous isn’t always about what you get—for some people, it just works. It feels like their default setting, just as monogamy is for others.

Ollie says he learned that an open relationship just wasn’t right for him. That’s fine. They’re not for everyone. But there are tells all over the film that suggest why that might particularly be the case for Ollie. For one, successful relationships, open relationships included, are founded on trust and transparency, yet his entire documentary is founded in misdirection. At one point, Ollie and Zoe talk with Tom about documentary filmmaking. Ollie says he “cares more” about his documentaries when he’s in them, when he’s the subject. It’s hard to miss that at the points in his life when he tried his open relationship experiment and then made this movie, Ollie just might have cared more about his own story than making the relationship work.

But I keep thinking about his words at the beginning of the movie: “We’re mostly committed to each other.” I can’t see how any relationship, monogamous or not, can work if both partners aren’t all-in. You have to be entirely committed to trying to make it work with each other, to protecting each other’s feelings, to respecting terms and boundaries. In the case of this film, an experiment within an experiment, the subjects seemed more committed to shock than anything else.



from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/3qAWJYZ
via IFTTT

Texans Caught in the Blackout Are Rescuing Thousands of Sea Turtles From the Cold

An unprecedented winter storm provoked massive disruption in Texas this week: Millions lost power, hundreds were displaced from homes, and Ted Cruz went to Cancún. Other Texas residents have been bearing the brunt of the unexpected cold as well—because of the temperature, thousands and thousands of sea turtles cannot move.

An endangered species, these sea turtles usually live off the waters of South Padre Island, which is off the southern coast of Texas. Over the past week, they’ve been loaded into dinner cruise boats and minivans. The rescue center at the nonprofit Sea Turtle Inc. is used to rehabilitating injured sea turtles and responding to minor cold snaps but cannot hold all the turtles—so they’re also filling up a convention center. To find out what it’s like to try to save sea turtles in the middle of a state emergency, Slate spoke to Wendy Knight, Sea Turtle Inc.’s executive director. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Rachael Allen: Can you walk me through what’s been going on this week with the turtles?

Wendy Knight: We are in the midst of the single largest cold-stun event in history. We have approximately 4,800 cold-stunned, federally protected, endangered sea turtles [which we’ve rescued] laying all over South Padre Island, Texas. We plan for cold stun, but we live on an island, so it’s usually a small number—usually 100, maybe 500 in big years. We saw the storm coming midweek last week and then as the weekend drew nearer it became clearer that this was not going to be our norm. On Sunday things really started to hype up and we had local boat owners go out and found hundreds of floating sea turtles.

What does it mean for a sea turtle to be cold-stunned?

Sea turtles are cold-blooded so they need the temperature of water to regulate their own body temperature. That’s why they like it here—it’s beach island warmth. Unfortunately, if the water gets below a certain temperature, the turtles are no longer able to sustain their own body temperature. Usually, they don’t think about all of their instincts—moving their flippers to swim, eating, diving to the bottom of the ocean, lifting their head up to draw breath. In a cold-stun event, they’re still aware they need to do those things, but because their body is frozen, or cold-stunned, it’s is not reacting to the instinct message. As a result they’re not able to swim, so the turtle floats to the top of the water and because their body is not responding by lifting their head to breathe, they drown in the ocean. I’m sure as we get farther away from the stun event, there will be perished turtles found, regardless of our best efforts.

How did your team rescue thousands of turtles?

“I can’t explain what it’s like to stand in a convention center that’s probably a football field and a half, and see 4,200 sea turtles laying tip to toe as far as the eye can see.” — Wendy Knight, Sea Turtle Inc.

This is a nesting beach where thousands and thousands of hatchlings are born each season, so everybody is keenly aware that we’re sharing space with sea turtles. We have almost 500 registered volunteers, plus all the city employees, who participate in training at the beginning of cold-stun season. That plan was executed here, just on a much bigger scale. It’s important to remember that when all this was happening these hundreds of community members didn’t have power of their own. They hadn’t had electricity or running water in days, grocery stores ran out of everything, gas stations ran out of gas. They had their own personal tragedy happening. And despite that, they took time away to serve an animal that can’t serve itself.

I can’t explain what it’s like to stand in a convention center that’s probably a football field and a half, and see 4,200 sea turtles laying tip to toe as far as the eye can see. And that’s not even all of them—that’s the overflow. The treatment for cold stun initially is to let them relax and chill. So we dry-dock them and put them in bins and kiddie pools. Nothing happens when they’re stunned—no bodily functions. It’s like a catatonic state. The best thing you can do is to let them rest. As things go along, they will start to wake up, but there are consequences that can come from cold stuns that require antibiotics and IV therapy, like pneumonia. We’ll watch them all closely, and as they recover and become more alert, we’ll start releasing them incrementally back into the Gulf of Mexico.

Have any started to wake up yet?

A few. I think if Mother Nature would participate with us and the water temperature would get a little higher, we could probably release some. As soon as the water temperature participates, we’re going to be ready to release them.

No one has ever released this many turtles back into the ocean. Conceptually, I think we take intake process and flip it around backward. We have a list ready of volunteers with trailers and trucks and big rigs, so we can take a phased approach to mass release. The temperature needs to be between 55 and 65 degrees and it needs to have an upward trend, so it’s possible we could be ready Saturday or Sunday. I’d think early next week for sure unless something comes up again.

I heard that SpaceX, which has a launch site nearby, has been involved with rescuing the turtles.

SpaceX has been involved in Sea Turtle Inc. since they came to the area. They have been very conservation-minded about asking for training and actually have a cold-stunned team at SpaceX of volunteers. SpaceX rescued 850 of the turtles and brought them to us. And then early in the morning on Monday the power went out. When we’re not dealing with cold stuns, we have a hospital full of patients and a huge residential area with 350,000-galloon tanks that require warming. Without power, our residents and hospital patients were at critical mass—we were about to lose a significant amount of turtles. On Tuesday night at 7:30 p.m. the site leader of SpaceX and a couple of electrical engineers showed up with the biggest three-phase generator I had ever seen, and by 1:30 a.m. we were standing in the parking lot watching them turn the lights on. We screamed, we cheered, we cried. They really came through for us in a time within hours of being a real tragedy.

And though we plan for cold stuns, but we certainly don’t plan for the financial impact of 4,800 cold stuns. When we finally got power back on through the generator, we found that the storm ruined all 10 of our heaters and chillers so we’ve still got about $100,000 worth of damage.

Photos of the sea turtles online have gone viral. What has that been like for you?

The most positive thing that’s come out of a devastating situation for us is that there are so many people talking about it. I hope that seeing these volunteers in our community ignore their own personal needs for something else moves people to act and get involved. Almost 80 percent of the patients in our hospital are there because a human interacted with their world—they littered in the ocean or on the beach, they dropped trash out of the window of their car, they fished and injured a sea turtle, they hit them with a boat. Our hospital and our rehabilitation clinic are our reactive approach to solving the problems that are happening to the species. Our education center is our proactive approach, where we teach our visitors what they can do to make a change. You don’t have to be the champion of new straws. If every person who entered our beaches picked up five pieces of trash and threw them where they belonged, the difference that it would make in our world would be significant.

What is your favorite thing about sea turtles?

I think they have a little personality. I talk to every patient that comes into the hospital. They have a name. We get to know their likes and dislikes. Allison is one of our resident turtles—she only has one flipper, she loves bell peppers, and she will do almost anything you want her to do for one of them. Fred lives with us too. He’s a loggerhead and almost 300 pounds. Fred’s got high cholesterol, so we spend $500 on cholesterol medication and liver medication for him. He’s not unlike people—he likes to eat and doesn’t get around enough.



from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/37w0vvf
via IFTTT

The Texas Crisis Shows (Again) There’s No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster

When I started working in disaster risk reduction (does what it says on the tin), one of the first things I learned was to distinguish between hazards and disasters. Hazards are dangerous events, like earthquakes, hurricanes, and extreme cold. We can’t do anything to stop hazards from occurring, although we do seem to be able to make them worse, whether by causing earthquakes through fracking or environmental depredations that make storms more intense.

But hazards do not automatically cause disasters. An earthquake in the middle of an uninhabited desert does no harm; a tsunami may affect plants and animals, but if there are no people or buildings on the coast that it hits, we wouldn’t call it a disaster. It’s the interaction between hazard and human settlement or activity that creates a catastrophe.

Unlike hazards, human and societal decisions are something we can change. If those examples seemed extreme, consider the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, a 30-meter wave caused by a 9.0 earthquake that left nearly a quarter of a million people dead, and the 2011 Japan tsunami, a 30-meter wave caused by a 9.0 earthquake that killed fewer than 20,000. Or the magnitude 7.0 Haiti earthquake in 2010 that killed more than 100,000, and the magnitude 8.8 earthquake just off the coast of Chile in 2010 that killed fewer than 600. No two hazards are exactly the same, but looking at the relative similarities of the events with the massive discrepancy in impacts makes it clear: Hazards are only a part of what causes disasters. The rest is up to us.

Early warning systems, evacuation routes and drills, education, and awareness are all critical elements, especially in rapid-onset disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis. But while such preparedness efforts are valuable, the real power of understanding that disasters are not natural cuts deeper. Practitioners often summarize it with the formula R = H x V: Disaster risks are a product of hazards and vulnerabilities. Poor construction is a vulnerability that turns earthquakes into deadly disasters. Lack of access to clean water can turn an outbreak of cholera into an epidemic.

You’ll notice that these vulnerabilities, fatal when they intersect with a hazard, are not good at other times, either. A poorly built house may collapse without an earthquake, or cause stresses and costs and health problems in a multitude of long-running ways. The lack of clean drinking water can be deadly even without a disease outbreak, but when it happens individual by individual and without a frightening word attached, we pay less attention.

This means that we can work backward from crisis to see the underlying weaknesses in a place. Disasters, with their compressed timeframes and intense media attention, reveal the long-running problems that residents might tend accept as “normal” or inevitable and the inequities that people in power prefer to ignore.

The Hurricane Katrina evacuation plan was very successful, but only for people with cars, showing how city and regional public transportation failed citizens on a regular basis. The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated, horrifically, how unequal access to medical care, often racially correlated, has led to chronic, preventable health issues across broad swaths of the U.S. population. The extreme cold in Texas this week has underlined a utility sector designed for short-term profits rather than robust provision of essential services.

As our societies become more industrialized, even natural hazards start to mingle with human-made impact multipliers. Floodwaters after Katrina and in Houston in 2017 where contaminated with industrial byproducts and chemical overflow. The Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant meltdown was only the most noticeable of the natural-industrial interactions after the 2011 Japan tsunami; off-shore oil tanks thrown into cities by the waves triggered devastating oil fires.

There’s a reason governments like to talk about disasters as natural, or as acts of God, or as unprecedented and unimaginable: It absolves them of responsibility, not only for the specific preparations that should have mitigated the disaster, but also for the underlying conditions that hurt their populations every day and are exacerbated into visibility when a hazard hits.

If we think too much about it, we might start to demand better. If we think too much about it, we might start to question why a hurricane that kills 1000 people is labeled a disaster but gun violence that leads to 30,000 deaths per year isn’t, and unsafe water in Flint and other places in the US isn’t, and poverty isn’t, and lack of health care isn’t. If we think too much about it, we might want a change.

There is some good news. This close linkage between everyday inequalities and societal weaknesses and disaster impacts means that we can prepare for disasters by making our normal lives better. Improving public services like transportation, communications, electricity, and water infrastructure will make our cities and rural areas more resilient to disaster. Ensuring people don’t have to go to work when it’s unsafe for them to do so—whether because of a communicable disease or a looming hurricane—will lower disaster casualties. Affordable, accessible health care for all will mean that individuals, and their communities, are better able to survive difficult times, whether that means a week of cold temperatures or a dangerous flu season.

Nothing is going to eliminate hazards—or even disasters—completely. But as the tragedy unfolding in Texas this week reminds us, we can do much more to save lives and live better.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.



from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/3axKSWe
via IFTTT

It Turns Out People Really Like Throwing Axes During a Pandemic

Comebacks is a series about businesses that have made dramatic turnarounds during the pandemic, in partnership with Slate’s Thrilling Tales of Modern Capitalism podcast.

When the pandemic first came for America’s hatchet houses, America stopped, surveyed the damage, and thought, “Yeah, that sort of makes sense.” For millennia, after all, human beings had filled their hatchet-throwing needs by hurling the tools at stumps, or small game, or each other if they were angry and drunk enough. Only over the past decade had this outdoor non-pastime become an indoor recreational activity; only over the past few years had hatchet-throwing facilities begun to pop up in cities and towns across America, while hatchet-throwing tournaments began to populate the lowest-leverage hours on ESPN spinoff channels. In March and April 2020, when simply visiting the supermarket felt like indulging a death wish, an indoor hatchet-throwing facility seemed definitionally inessential. If ever there was a corporate pandemic casualty that the world wouldn’t particularly miss, it was the hatchet house.

So when Stumpy’s Hatchet House, a fast-growing American chain of hatchet-throwing centers, decided to temporarily shutter all of its locations last spring, I personally did not give them much of a chance at long-term survival. Who knew how much time might pass before people would feel safe gathering indoors to hurl hatchets at wooden boards?

Today, though, Stumpy’s is still here—and, what’s more, the chain is expanding. The brand’s survival speaks to the surprising resilience of the low-budget experiential adult entertainment sector at a time when bars, restaurants, movie theaters, and performance venues are reeling. From hatchet houses to escape rooms, many smaller-scale fun palaces have defied the odds and have survived the pandemic thus far intact, if not entirely unscathed. How’d they make it through?

I first (and last) wrote about hatchet-throwing in 2016, in the waning days of the Obama administration, when Slate sent me to the original Stumpy’s Hatchet House in Eatontown, New Jersey—at the time, the first and only indoor hatchet-throwing facility in the United States. Tucked away in a nondescript industrial park, the venue was the brainchild of two New Jersey couples who, while casting about for a fun project to pursue together in their retirement, decided that what the world really needed was a place where untrained and unskilled suburbanites could huck hatchets at wooden targets while drinking beers indoors.

Stumpy’s was the result: a BYOB facility with several “throwing pits” where individuals or groups could pass the time in a brand new sort of indoor adventure. Very few people walked into Stumpy’s with significant previous experience in throwing metal hatchets at targets. (”It’s not like ‘She’s good, she threw hatchets in college,’” one of the co-founders told me in 2016.) But the novelty was a big part of the appeal. Hatchet-throwing was a totally new entertainment experience. It was like darts, but outdoorsy and sort of violent, and it caught on with a public desperately seeking an alternative to the same old teambuilding excursions and first-date venues. Today, rates at Stumpy’s locations across the country start at $25 per person for an hour’s throwing time. (If you’re a “non-thrower,” you’ll only pay $15.) While the original Stumpy’s and some other franchise locations remain BYOB only, other outlets sell beer and wine to their guests, which adds another revenue stream. If you’re throwing a big party, or are an eccentric millionaire, you can generally rent out the entire facility, too.

The rise of Stumpy’s was very broadly concurrent with the rise of other low-budget entertainment facilities for grownups, like escape rooms and happy-hour painting studios. Over the course of the last decade, these sorts of venues have sprung up everywhere, without much fanfare, filling entertainment needs that they themselves created. They were rarely found on the main drag of their towns and cities, because walk-in traffic was never central to their business models, though they would often advertise aggressively on Facebook; instead, people sought them out and reserved their sessions in advance. (On their website, Stumpy’s actively discourages walk-in traffic.) It turns out that plenty of adults wanted more from a night on the town than simply sitting and staring at a screen or a bartender for two hours. These semi-active adults had been underserved by the broader entertainment market—and once the market began to fill their needs, these people were willing to spend.

In its first year in business, according to a Franchise Times article from 2017, the original Stumpy’s raked in between $30,000 and $50,000 per month, with minimal marketing and an out-of-the-way location. When I visited in 2016, the co-owners were about to meet with a franchising attorney who saw growth potential in their low-overhead, high-upside concept. Plenty of entrepreneurs agreed. Today, according to the company’s website, there are 27 Stumpy’s Hatchet Houses spread across 11 states, with at least 10 more facilities on the way. Some of these outlets had their grand openings during the pandemic, which to my mind takes a real leap of entrepreneurial faith.

It was never a given that any of these outlets would survive the pandemic. After all, axe-throwing isn’t exactly the sort of pastime that pivots well to digital. “It was honestly terrible, because there was nothing we could do,” the general manager of a Maryland Stumpy’s outlet told the Frederick News-Post, speaking of the location’s initial struggles to stay relevant during the shutdown. “We tried to offer, people could buy gift cards… but we really didn’t have anything to offer curbside or delivery.”  Though the company tried early on to create online content that would continue to engage their customers—posts featuring staffers “doing exercises to get their axe throwing skills on point,” for example, as a Stumpy’s co-founder told Fortune last April—hatchets wouldn’t seem to have any natural advantage over any of the other nonsense activities (trampolines, weird baked goods) that go viral on Instagram and TikTok.

So if social media didn’t save Stumpy’s, then what did? First, the franchises seem to have fairly low operational costs relative to a restaurant, a movie theater, or a Dave & Buster’s. You’ve got your hatchets, your targets, and your commemorative T-shirts—that’s more or less it. They don’t have a lot of inventory that will expire or depreciate, nor do they have massive staffing costs. Even the franchise fees are low—according to the Franchise Times article, the initial fee was a relatively piddly $30,000. All of which meant that Stumpy’s location owners were relatively well-situated to hunker down and wait things out.

When the world began to re-open last summer, Stumpy’s benefitted from the fact that people had a lot of pent-up aggression that they needed to expend. “It feels good right now to throw something and maybe have it stick in a target,” a Stumpy’s co-founder told Fox Business in August. Stumpy’s locations across the country saw an uptick in business from people looking to release stress that had built up during months of home confinement and limited social interactions with others. “We had no idea what kind of response we’d have, but it was overwhelming despite the limits of COVID because everyone was looking for something to do,” said the co-owner of a Waco, Texas Stumpy’s franchise that had its grand opening in July.

It also helped that it’s pretty easy to socially distance inside a Stumpy’s, especially when the locations are operating at reduced capacity. (As far as I can tell, none of the Stumpy’s locations have added outdoor hatchet-throwing options, which makes sense, because throwing hatchets in some random parking lot seems very unsafe and uninsurable.) “We’re definitely trying to get it out there to people that we’ve got a very safe space. Even though it is indoors, it’s wide open space,” the general manager of the Frederick, Maryland, Stumpy’s told the local paper in July. The “pits” in which the hatchets are thrown are spacious, and strangers aren’t paired up with other strangers; you throw with the group you came with. “Part of the Stumpy’s brand is to have a private throwing pit atmosphere, so that way you kind of feel like you’re at home,” said the owner of a Manchester, Connecticut, Stumpy’s, which opened in November.

All of these factors combined to help the brand stay afloat during a dark year. “Everyone is moving along,” one of the co-owners told CNBC in October. “Business is up 75 percent since we reopened in July. It’s not where we want to be yet, but, of course, we’re looking at every week and noticing increases and we’re really happy about that.” In this ongoing annus horribilis, it’s completely sensible that people want to do things that are stupid, violent, and, despite it all, relatively safe.



from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/3dumhmQ
via IFTTT