Back when everyone was debating lockdowns, I promised I'd come back to it after there was more data. God willing, the pandemic is over enough that we've got all the data we're going to get. So: did lockdowns work?
Preliminary Theoretical Issues 1: What Is A “Lockdown”?
Obviously "lockdown" is underspecified. There are many things you can do to reduce transmission of viruses. Researchers have taken two different approaches here.
First, they've looked at the effects of specific policies (called “non-pharmaceutical interventions” or “NPIs”). A typical categorization system is the one used in Brauner et al, which looks at:
- Banning gatherings > 1000 people - Banning gatherings > 100 people - Banning gatherings > 10 people - Closing schools - Closing universities - Closing some non-essential businesses - Closing most businesses - Stay at home orders
...and tries to separately evaluate the effects of each. Other studies categorize these slightly differently - for example, they might combine school and university closure. Not all countries implemented exactly these eight policies in the exact same way, so in some cases these are abstractions over more complicated orders. Studying these tends to be very hard, either because different countries are doing different combinations of these at different times, or because countries implement many orders at around the same time and it's hard to figure out which are having any effect.
Second, they've invented a "stringency index", where having each of the above adds a certain number of points to your "stringency score". The advantage of this is that it's a simple statistical test - you can just correlate "stringency score" with R values or cases or deaths or whatever. The disadvantage is that it's kind of made up - you're at the mercy of whatever the person designing the stringency score thinks is "common sense" about how many points everything should be worth. Most people using this method use the score developed by the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford, and whenever I refer to "stringency score" without any other specifications, I'll mean that one. I looked it over and it roughly matches my common sense - the US states which everyone knows had stricter lockdowns also had higher stringency scores.
Preliminary Theoretical Issues 2: What Point Are We Measuring At?
If, the moment COVID had been reported in Wuhan, other countries had closed their borders tightly, that would have prevented the pandemic (at least for a while). In that sense, lockdowns definitely could have worked.
If, the moment a country started getting cases, it had instituted an extremely strict lockdown where police shot anyone who left their house, presumably this would have prevented the pandemic (at least for a while) too. Only a few countries (eg China) approached anything like this level of strictness, but at the dictatorial extreme, lockdowns definitely could have worked.
Most of the debate about whether lockdowns work centers on ideas within the Overton Windows of western countries, after the pandemic had started spreading - ie, given whatever level of lockdown your country had, is the marginal effect of more (or less) lockdown positive or negative?
Preliminary Theoretical Issues 3: What Is “Working”?
What would it mean for lockdowns not to work? We know that viruses spread through person-to-person contact. Lockdowns make people see each other less. How could this not reduce viral transmission?
I think there are worse and better cases here. One worse case is that lockdowns weren’t absolutely necessary to “flatten the curve”. That is: during the earliest phase of the pandemic, in March and April 2020, cases were growing exponentially. People were afraid that the virus would soon infect everyone (or more realistically, the 70% of the population it takes before you get herd immunity). But in fact, every country managed to reverse this trend and get cases shrinking again quickly. Some countries did this with strict lockdowns. Other countries had much weaker lockdowns, but after things got crazy enough people panicked and stayed home on their own, and this worked too.
So one anti-lockdown case - a true one - is that you could eventually control the explosive growth phase of the pandemic without lockdowns. But this is asking too little. If you control the explosive growth phase after 20,000 people die, this is obviously worse than if you control it after 10,000 or 0 people die. And the explosive growth phase was followed by further ups and downs, and if you could control those better, that’s obviously better than controlling it worse. So granting that lockdowns weren’t necessary to prevent uncontrolled spread, let’s still ask whether they made things better or worse.
Both Denmark (stricter lockdown) and Sweden (weaker lockdown) were eventually able to control the explosive growth phase of the pandemic, but that doesn’t mean they both did equally well.
More relevant anti-lockdown cases argue that lockdowns just don’t have a great cost-benefit ratio. That is, at least some lockdown policies cause a lot of suffering for very little decrease in R. We know this is possible in principle - some states tried things like closing parks and trails, which in retrospect probably wasn’t too useful since the virus doesn’t spread well outside. Other things like banning large gatherings are more promising, but you might have to argue for each of these individually.
Preliminary Theoretical Issues 4: How Do You Count Voluntary Behavior Change?
A lot of anti-lockdown arguments are predicated on the theory that voluntary behavior changes alone are potentially enough to control the virus (though again, this terminology is confusing and would have to be expanded into a claim that involuntary behavior changes have a low marginal cost-benefit ratio).
There’s a lot of evidence that voluntary behavior changes were pretty important in some places. For example, here’s mobility data from the San Francisco Bay Area:
It’s pretty evident from this graph that people were starting to decrease their mobility before any official government action, and that most of the decrease happened before an official shelter-in-place order.
How common was this trend? It’s hard to say, because most governments started panicking around mid-March and instituting lockdown orders then, and most individuals started panicking around mid-March and making their voluntary behavior changes then, and in most places it’s really hard to figure out which of these things happened a day or two before the other. In most European countries, which had lockdowns early, there wasn’t much behavior change before lockdown orders; in some developing countries, which had lockdowns late, there was a lot of behavior change before lockdowns.
Goolsbee and Syverson study the US situation and find that “while overall consumer traffic fell by 60 percentage points, legal restrictions explain only 7 of that. Individual choices were far more important and seem tied to fears of infection.”
Some research papers ignore the possibility of voluntary behavior changes, which makes their conclusions suspect. Others try to include them, but have to figure out a way to incorporate them into their conclusions. Suppose that your country closes all restaurants. The next weekend, you don’t go to a restaurant. You would have voluntarily chosen not to go to the restaurant even if it was open, because you’re afraid of coronavirus, but in fact you didn’t get to make that choice, because the restaurant was closed. If that missed restaurant trip saved your life, should we credit it to the lockdown, or to voluntary behavior change?
It feels to me like the important issue is the counterfactual - how many lives did lockdowns save over the world where there were no lockdowns, and only voluntary behavior change? But not all researchers feel that way, and so a lot of the lockdown papers, even the ones that admit voluntary behavior change is a thing and include it in their models, have a complicated relationship with this question.
Here in the Bay Area, some parents tried to take their kids out of public school in early March, before the official lockdowns. The schools got angry, threatened to prosecute the parents under truancy laws, and said kids who missed school due to COVID fears wouldn’t be allowed to make up the work later and might fail their classes. Then later on, the government closed all schools and people stopped having to worry about this.
Likewise, my group house tried to shut down two weeks before the official mandate. We failed, because one resident’s company wouldn’t let them work remotely, and they had to take the train to San Francisco every day. Then the government closed all businesses, and that solved that problem.
The moral of the story is that everything not forbidden is compulsory, so you can’t always substitute voluntary behavior change for government mandates.
On the other hand, a lot of government mandates didn’t work because they weren’t enforced. Leech et al investigate the efficacy of masks and find that mass-scale mask wearing decreases COVID transmission significantly, but (at least as per their measurement methodology) government mask mandates don’t seem to affect it very much. How to solve this paradox?
They find that in many countries and US states, mask mandates appear to have minimal effect on the number of people wearing masks - on average, about 64% the day the mandate is enacted, and 75% three weeks later (and even this isn’t necessarily causal!) People who wanted to wear masks probably were already wearing masks; people who didn’t want to wear masks weren’t going to let the government tell them what to do. This doesn’t mean mask mandates can’t work - a lot of these mandates were poorly specified and poorly implemented - but it does mean you can’t go directly from “policy exists” to “policy is doing what you expect”.
Similarly, there was a really wide diversity of compliance levels with shelter-in-place orders. I know some people who didn’t see their closest friends for months, and others in the same cities who said “screw this” after a week or two and started having (small) parties again.
So some interventions (eg school closure) are very easy for governments to enforce and very hard for individuals to change their behavior voluntarily. Others (eg shelter-in-place) are very hard for governments to enforce and very easy for individuals to change their behavior voluntarily. We might expect mandates for the first group to show more of an effect (beyond counterfactual voluntary behavior change) compared to the second group, even if the second group is the sort of thing that prevents COVID (eg mask-wearing).
Finally, voluntary behavior change and mandates are hard to separate. If you hear the government is thinking of a mandate, that might make you scared and cause you to do things voluntarily (even things not included in the mandate). Or if the government knows that most people are staying at home, it might feel more comfortable issuing a stay-at-home order to mop up the last few holdouts, whereas if no one had been staying at home it might not be willing to do that.
Preliminary Theoretical Issues 6: The Pandemic As A Control System
A control system is a thing like a thermostat. When it gets too hot, the thermostat kicks into cooling mode and makes it cooler. When it gets too cold, the thermostat kicks into heating mode and makes it warmer. So the temperature always stays around the same level.
At times, people’s response to the pandemic operated kind of like a control system. When the pandemic started getting worse, everyone panicked, voluntarily self-isolated, and the pandemic got better. When the pandemic started getting better, everyone relaxed, started going out and meeting people again, and the pandemic got worse. This kept R around 1 for a lot of places at a lot of times. R only shifted away from 1 when the control system broke for some reason - maybe because the pandemic started getting worse more quickly than people could hear about it and adjust their behavior.
In a perfect control system, lockdowns would have no effect, because R would stay at 1 no matter what you did. In an imperfect control system, lockdowns would have some effect, but it would be harder to predict. For example, they might decrease the size of peaks and troughs - ie help the control system become more efficient.
Actual Evidence 1: Extremely Complicated Studies About Europe During The First Phase Of The Pandemic
Probably the most-cited study (1177 times!) on the effect of lockdowns is Flaxman et al from mid-2020. They look at European countries during the first wave of COVID in March 2020, when they instituted various policies, and how that affected virus transmission. They find that nothing except mandatory lockdown (which I think they’re using to mean full shelter-in-place orders) did anything, mandatory lockdown was extremely effective, and that lockdowns saved about three million lives.
This study has been heavily criticized, I think fairly, with especially good critiques coming from blogger Philippe Lemoine, a Swedish team published in Nature, and a German team in Frontiers In Medicine. They converge on a few points. First, a bug in the model attributes almost all of the transmission reduction in a country to whatever the last intervention was that the country tried. Since most countries started with weaker interventions and then moved on to full lockdown, the model concluded that full lockdown was responsible for almost all the transmission reduction. In the one country that didn't institute lockdown during the period studied, Sweden, there's about the same amount of transmission reduction, but the model attributes all of it to the last thing Sweden tried - a ban on public gatherings - even though in every other country it says such bans had no effect.
But also, the model assumes that, absent lockdowns, there would have been no voluntary behavior change. In fact, we know there was a lot of it. The claim that “lockdowns saved three million lives” is compared to the counterfactual where nobody responds to the virus in any way and it spreads uncontrollably until 70% of the population has been infected. But in Sweden, which didn’t have a full lockdown, only about 1%-10% of the population was infected during the first wave. So the “three million” number is at least an order of magnitude too high. I find all of this pretty damning. I think the pro-Flaxman case is that a lot of these issues were admitted in the paper - eg it says it’s going to assume that all transmission reduction comes from government interventions. But it didn’t admit all of them - and also, if you include very small print saying “by this way, this is based on false assumptions”, it turns out people still make it headline news and base policy on it.
An influential anti-lockdown paper - though cited more in the news than the scholarly literature - is Did Lockdown Work? An Economist’s Cross-Country Comparison by economist Christian Bjørnskov. It avoids the need for complicated models by using an index of lockdown strictness as the independent variable instead of looking at specific interventions, and uses deaths as the dependent instead of estimating transmission rate. Neither of these are a terrible choice, they're just going to be less sensitive. Bjørnskov's excuse is that he's an economist and wants to do this using economic techniques instead of epidemiological ones (the study is called "An Economist's Cross-Country Comparison"), but this makes his analysis less sophisticated.
Anyway, he finds that lockdowns make many more people die - which isn’t technically impossible, but given how weak his analysis is, I would rather believe he is confusing cause and effect. He claims we don't have to worry about endogeneity (ie countries are more likely to institute lockdowns when many people are dying) because he checked and it takes three weeks for increasing coronavirus mortality to be reflected in lockdowns, but I'm not sure exactly how he did this - the epidemic was growing at a pretty constant rate throughout this period, and policymakers instituted lockdowns once it became impossible for them to miss. As we will see later, everyone who does worry about endogeneity finds it’s actually a big problem. His backup plan of using the degree to which national constitutions allow emergency powers for the executive as an exogenous variable - because the more emergency powers are allowed, the stricter a lockdown a country can do - has way too high a cuteness-to-relevancy ratio for me to trust it.
The study in this group I find most credible is Brauner et al, which -
[conflict of interest notice: when California legalized marijuana, a friend and I decided to celebrate by getting high. My friend had a bad trip and started freaking out that they were going to die. I told them they weren't, and they told me that I was high and so they couldn't trust my judgment. We started IMing various people we tangentially knew, and finally one of them very kindly agreed to come tripsit my very high friend at 11 PM. That person is one of the co-authors of Brauner et al, and that is my conflict of interest]
- tries something similar to Flaxman et al, but with better models and assumptions. It looks at eight different types of interventions across 41 different countries, and uses Bayesian statistics to try to merge them into a common picture of how each affects R. Here’s their headline result:
A couple other people try to do something really similar; extra points to Banholzer et al, who have a section comparing their results to Brauner; they find broadly similar effects:
A few large interventions decrease R as much as 40%, most things are between 10 and 25%, and stay at home orders are relatively weak.
I think all of these are pretty plausible estimates, but it’s hard to translate them into performance vs. a counterfactual. If we start with an R of 3 or so, then apply all of the interventions these kinds of papers study, we get an R lower than 1. That suggests that these interventions took countries from a relatively uncontrolled epidemic to a well-controlled one. But we can’t necessarily say that a country that didn’t implement any of these would continue having an R of 3 forever (or until herd immunity kicked in) - probably there would be a lot of voluntary behavior change and the overall results would be unpredictable.
So if you’re asking “did government mandates decrease R in the short term?” these studies provide decent evidence that the answer is yes. If you’re asking questions about how many people would have died with vs. without lockdowns, that’s a much more complicated question.
Actual Evidence 1.1: CoronaGame
…which you can get a surprisingly good sense of by playing a quick free online game.
CoronaGame gives you the role of a Czech health official charged with choosing when to initiate vs. stop various preventative measures. You get points for preventing coronavirus cases and deaths, but also for minimizing economic costs and damage to public morale. The game’s model is based on the Brauner et al data, so if you believe the paper it should be a pretty realistic look at how different policies would have worked.
Here’s a graph of how players have done (economic damage on the vertical axis, deaths on the horizontal).
In a blog post, one of the epidemiologists who worked on the game talks about how you can view this as a Pareto frontier:
…ie a line of choices representing a particular tradeoff made as effectively as possible. Point A, at the top of the frontier, represents a perfectly effective planner trying to maximize lives saved, without worrying about cost (except that if two plans save the same number of lives, they will use the lowest cost as a tiebreaker). Point B, at the bottom, presents the opposite - minimizing cost perfectly effectively, using lives saved only as a tiebreaker. The rest of the yellow line represents trading off between lives and cost at some exchange rate, while maintaining perfect effectiveness; the higher the exchange rate, the further along the line you go. In a perfect world, we would be debating where on the yellow line to be.
In the real world, where we aren’t perfectly rational and efficient planners, it’s totally possible to end up arbitrarily far away from the Pareto frontier, eg the points in red. These represent various plans that are not the result of a perfectly effective planner using some tradeoff between lives and cost - in other words, somebody screwed up. They are bad plans which could have saved more lives while not costing any more money, or else could have saved more money without costing any more lives. For example, Point I is what you get if you just institute every single restriction you can think of, and refuse to ever lift any of them.
(the real Czech Republic ended up at Point C)
One of the morals that the designers of this game were trying to drive home is that the discussion we’re having in this post is unvirtuous. It’s political point-scoring - did Team Pro-Lockdown win more glory than Team Anti-Lockdown, or vice versa? The real question we should be asking is what set of policies countries should have implemented.
On my best playthrough of CoronaGame, I instituted all possible restrictions throughout March, April, and May, kept cases controlled enough to institute test-and-trace, switched to a pretty minimal suite of restrictions in the summer, then instituted school closures, gatherings <10, and high-risk business closures during the winter, relaxing them gradually as more people got vaccinated (I still didn’t quite make it to the Pareto frontier, so there’s room for improvement on this strategy). Trying these same restrictions but at different times turns out to be a disaster, which really emphasizes the point that there’s no single “best level of lockdown”. The right thing to do is whatever combination of policies in whatever order gets you on the Pareto frontier in CoronaGame (I still haven’t figured it out!), which means instituting the exact right set of restrictions at the exact right times to minimize cases, then lifting them at the exact right times to minimize cost.
Then, once you’re on the Pareto frontier, you can argue about which direction on that frontier to move - a little further toward stricter lockdowns / more lives saved, or toward looser lockdowns / fewer lives saved. If you’re not on the frontier - if you’re arguing about whether to be at Point F vs. Point G - probably you should shut up and work on getting on the frontier first.
The rest of this post mostly ignores this lesson and continues arguing about which of the various suboptimal policy packages that different states and countries adopted worked better than which other ones.
Actual Evidence 2: Sweden As Counterfactual
Sweden famously did not lock down as strictly as some other European countries at the beginning of the pandemic. How did it do?
Before answering, let’s go over some more Preliminary Theoretical Issues - was the Swedish lockdown actually less strict than that of other countries?
Here’s the Stringency Index during the first phase of the pandemic. Sweden is slightly lower than Denmark and the UK (two countries it’s typically compared to), but it doesn’t seem like a big difference, and by June Sweden is stricter than Denmark. What’s going on?
I looked into how the Stringency Index was composed. On April 1 (selected for being a round number in the middle of the pandemic), Sweden had an SI of 59, compared to Denmark’s 72 and Britain’s 80. Sweden had closed some public schools (other countries had closed all of them), restricted large gatherings (other countries had restricted all gatherings), “recommended” closing businesses and staying at home(other countries had mandated it), and closed public events and public transport. So Sweden did have a lot of restrictions, but the common sense perception that it had fewer restrictions than most other countries is true.
So how did Sweden do? Here’s the first phase of the pandemic, in spring and summer 2020, comparing Sweden to Norway, Denmark, Finland, the UK, and the European average:
Some people are skeptical of case numbers because it’s very dependent on testing, and prefer death numbers, since deaths are harder to miss. I’m a little skeptical of this, because death numbers get biased by how old a country’s population is and how good its health care system is, but here are death numbers for the same countries:
Cases in Sweden don’t seem to rise faster than anywhere else at the beginning. But while other countries get their epidemics under control quickly, Sweden is only able to level its out, and soon has much higher cases than any other country in the comparison group. In the deaths graph, Sweden does much worse than any other country besides the UK, and still is doing worse than the UK by the end.
Here’s cumulative cases and deaths over the first phase of the pandemic, first with the same comparison group (Sweden in green with a red arrow):
And with lots of other developed, large, or especially interesting countries:
Sweden comes out looking very bad, but not the literal worst.
Still, most places that were worse than Sweden had good reasons to do worse than Sweden. Italy was hit very early and has the highest percent of elderly people in Europe. The US and Brazil were very large diverse countries with bungled federal responses and borderline-COVID-denialist leaders. Belgium counted its coronavirus deaths in an unusual way that inflated the numbers relative to other countries. In the end, Sweden still ended out with a death rate about double the European average. Seems pretty bad.
But it looks even worse when you compare Sweden to other Scandinavian/Nordic countries. Nobody agrees on exactly what “Scandinavian/Nordic” is, but here’s Sweden vs. Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Iceland:
Sweden had about six times the first-phase death rate of the second-worst Scandinavian/Nordic country, Denmark.
Why did Scandinavia as a whole do so well? An easy guess would be low population density, but Philippe Lemoine finds there was no overall correlation in Europe between population-weighted population density and COVID death rate:
I also checked if Human Development Index explained anything; it didn’t. A more plausible explanation is household size - Scandinavia is remarkable for having more one-person and single-family households, and fewer multi-generational clans living together.
The maximally trollish explanation: Vitamin D causes coronavirus, so only the sunless north is safe.
But it’s also worth mentioning that US states that seemed kind of like Scandinavia (northern, forested, liberal) also had the lowest number of coronavirus cases in the continental US - #1 through #5 were Vermont, Oregon, Maine, Washington, and New Hampshire. And this isn’t clearly related to household size, so maybe something else is going on.
Anyway, a reasonable conclusion might be that Sweden had between 2x (if we compare it to an average European country) and 6x (if we compare it to an average Scandinavian country) the expected death rate in the first phase of the pandemic.
Philippe Lemoine is extremely against this conclusion. He first argues that since we don’t know why Finland+Iceland+Norway+Denmark did so well, we can’t assume it’s a “Scandinavia effect” and so we can’t assume Sweden would share it. Therefore, we should be judging it against the European average rather than the (better) Scandinavian average. I would counter that, although we can’t prove that just because X is true of Finland+Iceland+Norway+Denmark and not other European countries, that it should also be true of Sweden, but we should have a pretty high prior on it, in the same way that eg if we know that X was true in every American state except Arkansas (whose value was unknown), and not in any non-American polities, we should have a high prior that X is true in Arkansas. Anyway, even if we don’t compare Sweden the rest of Scandinavia, we would compare it to Europe, which it did twice as bad as.
His second argument is that the epidemic started earlier in Sweden, and therefore had more time to progress before the mid-March period when everyone started panicking and taking various actions. Countries where the epidemic started earlier naturally did worse, so it’s unfair to judge Sweden by the standards of other countries where it started later.
The graphs above don’t look like the epidemic started earlier in Sweden, but this could be because tests missed some of the early cases. Lemoine somewhat convincingly argues that there were more deaths early on in Sweden, which suggests that - observed or not - the epidemic started earlier there.
And that given how early the epidemic started in Sweden, we should expect more deaths before it got under control:
I’m not math-y enough to judge Lemoine’s simulations, so instead I decided to judge Sweden against other European countries where the epidemic started at the same time or earlier - that is, ones that had more deaths per capita than Sweden as of March 21 2020.
Here Sweden is in the middle of the pack. But looking at the graph, it’s really striking how every other country “flattens the curve” by about May 1, but Swedes just keep dying. My reading of this graph is that, since we selected for countries doing worse than Sweden as of March 21, we start out with Sweden doing the best, but other countries are able to control their epidemics much faster than Sweden is, and by August Sweden has fallen to around the middle. Contra Lemoine’s picture where Sweden just has an earlier start but eventually does no worse than everywhere else, here Sweden has the same (or better) start as everyone else, but clearly does worse afterwards.
What about in later phases of the pandemic? Here it gets complicated. Until about New Years’, Sweden’s lockdown was less strict than average for Europe, but stricter than for the rest of Scandinavia - presumably the rest of Scandinavia did so well that they relaxed a lot, even more than Sweden did. In the winter, when the second wave started, Sweden tightened some of its restrictions, until the stringency index says they matched the European average (though Europeans I’ve talked to disagree and say Sweden still felt much less strict than elsewhere). Then it had a pretty average-sized second wave (as did Denmark). But unlike other Scandinavian countries (though like France and Germany), Sweden had a severe third wave. Can we attribute this to a looser lockdown? I am nervous about doing this, since the stringency index says its lockdown strictness was average during this period, which is why I’m going to mostly be relying on the first-wave data.
All of this gets really confusing and I think everyone on all sides of this debate should agree to just never mention Sweden again. Not just with respect to coronavirus policy. At all. If anyone asks, there are only two Scandinavian countries, Ikea comes from Denmark, and ABBA was just a weird dream.
In conclusion, the weaker Swedish lockdown in the early phase of the pandemic probably increased the death rate by a factor of two (using other European countries as a counterfactual/control) to five (using other Scandinavian countries as a counterfactual/control). These people investigate this question more formally and find something similar. These changes in death rate mean the policy caused an extra 1,000 to 3,000 deaths in the early phase of the pandemic. There was probably less effect in the later phases of the pandemic because Sweden’s lockdown policy was closer to everyone else’s.
Actual Evidence 3: Overly Simple Models Of US States During Later Phases Of The Pandemic
America is the greatest country in the world, at least as far as coronavirus lockdown data are concerned. Its advantages over Europe are many: first, there are 50 states, rather than the 20-something European countries most researchers studied. Second, those states have fewer confounding cultural differences. Third, European countries were pretty practical about what amount of lockdown they had at any given time, reacting to changes in the pandemic. US states mostly had stable and predictable responses based on their internal politics - a nice exogenous factor! The correlation between lockdown strictness in May vs. lockdown strictness in January among European countries was 0.2 (not statistically significant); in the US it was 0.5 and very significant. So instead of having to nitpick over which country instituted the same lockdown policy two days earlier than which other country, we can look at which states stably did vs. didn’t have strict lockdowns through the majority of the pandemic.
This is an absolutely beautiful graph. It’s showing how lockdown strictness (as of May 5) correlates with death rate over time. We find that early in the epidemic, the stricter your lockdown, the worse you're doing. This is the endogeneity - places (like NYC) that are doing really badly institute strict lockdowns to try to save themselves. Later in the epidemic, the stricter your lockdown, the better you're doing - probably because the strict lockdown is giving good results.
Why May 5? No real reason. It turns out it doesn’t matter which time you measure lockdown, because US states are pretty stable in their rank order of lockdown strictness (eg California is always stricter than North Dakota):
Each of these colored lines represents lockdown strictness measured at a different time, but they all tell the same story.
Are there other explanations? I wondered if states that did worse in the first wave might have done better in the second because most of their vulnerable residents had already been infected/killed. But I don’t think this is a big problem; most places had only about 5% of the population infected during the first wave, and even the worst states only about 10%. Another possibility: it could be that states which were harder-hit during the early pandemic both instituted stricter lockdowns, and also their residents were scared into more voluntary behavior changes. But it's certainly consistent with lockdowns working. And even the possibility where it isn't lockdowns suggest voluntary behavior changes work on the margin (eg changes which people didn't make in less-hard-hit states, but did make in harder-hit states, were still valuable) which would suggest that forcing those behavior changes with lockdowns should also work.
This graph ends on November 1, before the third wave got really bad. Does its conclusion still hold? I repeated its analysis using current case counts plotted against the stringency index for January 1 2021 (a nice round random day, to prove I’m not cherry-picking). Here’s what I got:
There was a significant negative correlation (-0.55) between the lockdown stringency index as of January 1, and the number of post-first-wave cases a state had. This was robust to different times for the stringency index, and for using all cases instead of just post-first-wave cases (although some of these changes slightly diminished the magnitude of the effect).
This is a victory for lockdowns insofar as the correlation is significant, but strong proponents might be surprised by how small the effect was. A few small isolated northern states like Vermont did very well. But most states - from California and New York to Florida and Texas - clustered in a band between 80,000 and 120,000 cases per million. States at the 75th percentile of lockdown strictness had about 17.5% fewer cases per million than states at the 25th percentile.
A lot has been written about how weird it is that California (with a strict lockdown) had an infection rate around 9.6%, and Florida (with a loose lockdown) had an only slightly higher rate of 10.8%. Here we see that California (marked in green) and Florida (marked in red) are slight outliers in their respective directions, but only very slight.
I made no effort to control for confounders here, but it’s also hard to see how they could be affecting these results too much. Stricter states did have more urban residents and minorities - two groups that got hit especially hard. But Florida and Georgia also have big cities and minority communities, and they fell pretty much in the middle of the weak-lockdown range. State-specific factors might shift this a few percent here and there, but aren’t going to be getting us to a conclusion where lockdowns halve the case count or anything.
Why didn’t lockdowns help more? Part of the answer must be that even weak-lockdown states had lots of voluntary behavior change, and even strong-lockdown states had lots of people ignore the lockdowns. But I think the main answer is that in every state, people panicked and tightened up when cases got bad, then relaxed and got careless once cases dropped again, making it hard for lockdowns to have too much effect - once a lockdown “succeeded”, it just made people go back to being careless.
Does it illuminate anything to plot this over time?
Red is weaker-lockdown states, blue is stronger-lockdown states. The strong-lockdown advantage is pretty consistent. If we can read anything from this, it’s that lockdowns have a bit more of an advantage when things are already pretty stable, and a bit less at dealing with sudden giant spikes. My data source didn’t have the past few months, but if someone does, let me know.
Actual Evidence 4: The Lockdown Economy
The benefits of lockdowns are measured in lives saved. The cost is measured in psychological suffering and economic decline. In order to do a cost-benefit analysis, we should figure out how much stricter lockdowns affected the economy.
Lockdown proponents note that under certain situations, lockdowns can improve the economy. Voluntary behavior change means that people won’t patronize businesses in the middle of a raging pandemic. So if lockdowns were really successful in limiting the pandemic, they might have indirect pro-economy effects that outweigh their direct anti-economy effects.
What about in Sweden?
Sweden’s economy did worse than Finland’s, the same as Denmark’s, and better than the EU average. Depending on which country you think is a natural control group, you could draw any conclusion you want from this.
What about US states?
Here is an incredibly dumb simple model that takes no account of timing and doesn’t adjust for any confounders:
This correlates the stringency index of a state in January 2021 with the GDP decrease in that state. Correlation is 0.3 and significant. You could argue Hawaii is an outlier - if you remove it (which I won’t), this would go down to 0.2 and not significant.
Suppose we call states in the top half of lockdown strictness “blue states” and those in the bottom half “red states” (this is almost, but not quite, literally correct). The average blue state has a GDP decrease of 3.94; the average red state of 3.34. Multiplying out, if the entire US had had a red state level of lockdown, it might have saved $64 billion. For context, the US’ entire COVID related loss, assuming GDP would otherwise have grown at the same rate as in 2019, was $1.2 trillion, so having all blue states go down to a red state level of lockdown would have saved about 5% of that.
This contradicts the conclusion of the report discussed here , which says that lockdown states did better than non-lockdown states economically. Unfortunately, the report doesn’t exist at the link in the article, and I can’t find it anywhere. Going by discussion of it, it seems to choose a subset of states to focus on, without giving a great explanation for why. Overall I am not too tempted to replace my extremely simplistic analysis with theirs, even if I could find it.
Pre-Conclusion 1: Trying To Reconcile European and US Estimates
The evidence from Sweden suggests that weak lockdowns could increase death rates by 100% or more. The evidence from the US only finds that they increase death rates by about 20%. Why the difference? Might it be because there’s more of a difference between Sweden and other European countries than between red and blue US states?
Nope, doesn’t look that way.
My unsupported guess is that lockdowns were more important in the first uncontrolled-growth phase of the pandemic. Maybe this is a purely mathematical fact - reducing R from 4 to 2 saves more deaths over a certain period of time than changing it from 0.9 to 0.45. It could also have to do with how “primed” populations were for voluntary behavior change. Since the Swedish data is mostly looking at the first phase of the pandemic, and the US data mostly at later phases, that would explain the extent of the difference.
Conclusion 1: Extremely Naive Attempt To Try To Quantify Economic Costs Vs. Benefits
Using the naive linear US model, we find that if all blue states had instead had an average red state level of lockdown, it would have cost 50,000 lives and saved $64 billion. Saving 50,000 lives for $64 billion is about $1.3 million per life.
This is much more than it costs to save people in the Third World with efficient charity (probably around $5,000 to $10,000 / life), but lower than the US government uses for various other purposes. For example, when the EPA is determining how worth-it environmental regulations are, they value one life at $9.1 million; when the Department of Transportation is determining how worth-it road safety regulations are, they value a life at $9.6 million. So this is pretty good by normal First World decision-making standards.
But we might be tempted to count lives saved from COVID less than we would usually count lives saved, since the people who died of COVID were generally older people with multiple comorbidities who might have died soon anyway. This paper finds that the average COVID victim might have lived another 8 quality-adjusted life years (ie a year when you are very sick and can’t do anything counts as less than a full year) if they hadn’t gotten COVID.
What about nonfatal cases of COVID? Mild cases with no lasting side effects don’t contribute substantially. Suppose that the average case lasts two weeks, and completely ruins those two weeks - the hedonic value of your life during that time is zero. That’s one twenty-sixth of a quality-adjusted life-year. Since cases are 50-100x as common as deaths, plausibly this adds about 50% to our estimates.
What about long-term sequelae of COVID (ie “#LongCovid”)? The extent of these is poorly understood and debatable. This study says about a third of people have symptoms six months out, most mild but some severe. But this kind of situation seems tailor-made for reporting bias - everyone has some weird symptom or other all the time, and if you’ve just had COVID you’ll probably attribute it to that (cf. the debate around chronic Lyme disease).
I plugged some plausible estimates based on all this into a Guesstimate model and got a cost per QALY saved of between basically free (assuming that the correlation between stringency and GDP loss was an illusion and blue states did no worse than red ones) and $300,000 per QALY, with the median estimate at $98,000 per QALY. First World countries usually value QALYs at $50,000 to $150,000. Given the extreme uncertainty in all these estimates, I don’t feel comfortable saying that this was obviously good or obviously bad. It’s just kind of around the number where some people might think it was worth it and other people might not.
Remember, this is the cost vs. benefits of going from an average blue state level of lockdown to an average red state level. Taking no measures at all would probably be much worse.
I don’t feel anywhere close to able to quantify the economic gain/loss in Sweden. But if we stick with our tentative previous conclusion that a counterfactual early Swedish lockdown would have been more effective at saving lives than late American ones, then QALYs might be cheaper in Sweden, approaching the point where almost everyone would say it was worth it.
Conclusion 2: Extremely Naive Attempt To Try To Quantify Emotional Costs Vs. Benefits
Consider again the question of whether Sweden should have implemented a more European-typical lockdown during the first wave of the pandemic.
(remember again that “no interventions at all” isn’t on the table, just the slightly weaker Swedish lockdown vs. a slightly stricter Europe-typical lockdown)
This would have made 10 million Swedes be under stricter lockdown for the three months of so of the first wave. By our calculations above, it might have saved about 2500 lives, but let’s be really generous and extend the confidence interval to 6,000 - ie it might have prevented every single case in Sweden. Here’s what the Guesstimate model says:
10 million people x 3 months = 30 million lockdown months. Between 2500 and 6000 lives saved, by our previous estimates each life is worth about 15 QALYs (by combination of deaths, associated nonfatal cases, and associated long COVID cases), and each QALY contains 12 months, for a total of 720,000 QALMs. So every 52 months of stricter lockdown in counterfactual Sweden would have saved one month of healthy life. You will have to decide whether you think this is worth it, but it seems pretty harsh to me.
Might this be because these numbers are off, and the lockdown would have saved more lives than the model allows? I don’t think that could change things very much. Remember, our confidence interval included the scenario where strict lockdown has 100% efficacy and prevents every single COVID case. Even if this is true, that just means it’s 21 months of stricter lockdown to save one month of healthy life. Again, seems pretty harsh.
How about in the US? Here’s the relevant model:
It should be pretty straightforward, except that I’ve set the number of months in lockdown to be an unknown variable between 3 and 9, since I’m not sure how many crucial months it would have taken to get red states down to the blue state average. As before, I’ve made the confidence intervals include the possibility that a stricter lockdown would have saved every single life in US red states, even though this is absurd (it only saved ~20% of lives in blue states).
Here, having US red states switch to a blue-state typical level of lockdown would save one month of healthy life per 51 person-months in stricter lockdown. Again, seems pretty harsh. Another way of looking at this is that each person who spent a month in slightly stricter lockdown would have saved someone else about 15 hours of healthy life.
Is there any counterargument to these somewhat pessimistic conclusions?
One possibility: even if we agree that almost all of the cost of COVID comes from the emotional burden of strict lockdowns, and not from death and disease, looser lockdowns now might mean stricter lockdowns later. Sweden started with a looser lockdown than Norway, but ended with a stricter one after Norway’s strong lockdown ended the first phase of the pandemic quickly and Sweden’s weak one didn’t.
And even if Sweden had decided to double down and weaken their lockdown despite high case levels, people would probably have voluntarily stayed home more because the pandemic was so bad - inflicting most of the same costs that a state-mandated lockdown would.
This argument seems less convincing in the US, where red states mostly just consistently had weaker lockdowns than blue states did, and never really got stricter to compensate.
Conclusion 3: Complicated Things I Am Not Accounting For
We couldn’t have known any of this at the beginning of the pandemic, and had to make choices from a position of uncertainty.
If we had let the virus spread more, it would have gotten more chances to mutate. The more infectious variants we’re seeing now would have appeared earlier, and vaccines might have been less effective.
If we had let the virus spread until we reached herd immunity (implausible, would have required no voluntary behavior change), we wouldn’t have bothered creating vaccines, and vaccines are going to be really important for the Third World which has very different tradeoffs.
If we had done lockdowns differently, it might have unpredictably caused different levels in voluntary behavior change. Or it might have caused people to lose trust in government in ways that would be bad (or possibly good?) later on.
If there had been looser lockdowns, more children would have had to go to school, which would have been either good or bad depending on how you feel about school.
People dying or getting sick is bad not just for those people, but for their friends and loved ones, and the companies and institutions that depend on them.
Usually economic costs measured in QALYs are used to represent government expenditure, but in this model they’re representing costs incurred by real people, some of whom are poor and a lot worse off when they lose money than the government is. Technically, you could think of a $64 billion economic loss as “Jeff Bezos pays half his fortune, everyone else is fine”, or as “one million middle class people who usually make $64,000/year now make zero for one year”, and these have very different utilitarian costs, and the usual way of thinking of economic costs probably underestimates them in this case.
Economic costs of COVID aren’t just a one-time dollar loss, but also involve businesses closing (which might not reopen), institutional knowledge getting lost (which might be hard to regain), people losing jobs (who might have trouble getting a new job), etc. They could also represent a form of “creative destruction” that does unpredictable things to the industrial landscape.
I am assuming that vaccines will mostly work and the pandemic will gradually get better from here. If new variants emerge that are genuinely vaccine-resistant, and the whole process starts over again, that could change the calculations - though I’m not sure in what direction.
Maybe this was a dress rehearsal for a much worse pandemic later on, and the most important effect of our choices now will be setting the defaults and expectations for how we respond to that one.
Conclusion 4: Summary
1: Various policies lumped together as “lockdowns” probably significantly decreased R. Full-blown stay-at home orders were less important than targeted policies like school closures and banning large gatherings. Talking about which ones were “good” or “bad” is an oversimplification compared to the more useful questions of when countries should have started vs. stopped each to be on some kind of Pareto frontier of lives saved vs. cost.
2: If Sweden had a stronger lockdown more like those of other European countries, it probably could have reduced its death rate by 50-80%, saving 2,500+ lives.
3: On a very naive comparison, US states with stricter lockdowns had about 20% lower death rates than states with weaker ones, and about 0.6% more GDP decline. There are high error bars on both those estimates.
4: Judging lockdowns by traditional measures of economic significance, moving from a US red-state level of lockdown to a US blue-state level of lockdown is in the range normally associated with interventions that are debatably cost-effective/utility-positive, with error bars including “obviously good” and “pretty bad”. It’s harder to estimate for Sweden, but plausibly for them to move to a more European-typical level of lockdown in the early phase of the pandemic would have very much cleared the bar and been unambiguously cost effective/utility-positive.
5: It’s harder to justify strict lockdowns in terms of the non-economic suffering produced. Even assumptions skewed to be maximally pro-strict-lockdown, eg where strict lockdowns would have prevented every single coronavirus case, suggest that it would have taken dozens of months of somewhat stricter lockdown to save one month of healthy life. This might still be justifiable if present strict lockdowns now prevented future strict lockdowns (mandated or voluntary), which might be true in Europe but doesn’t seem as true in the US.
6: Plausibly, really well-targeted lockdowns could have been better along every dimension than either strong-lockdown areas’ strong lockdowns or weak-lockdown areas’ weak lockdowns, and we should support the people trying to figure out how to do that.
7: All of this is very speculative and affected by a lot of factors, and the error bars are very wide.
Many people helped me navigate through these issues. Thanks to subscribers for reviewing an early draft of this post, to Philippe Lemoine (who blogs here at CSPI) for helping me understand the case against lockdowns, and to a researcher who prefers to remain anonymous, for helping me understand the case for (well-targeted) lockdowns.
Ah, phone phreaking. Some of us are just old enough to remember the ubiquity of land lines, but just young enough to have missed out on the golden years of phreaking. There’s something nostalgic about the analog sounds of the telephone, and doubly so when you understand what each click and chunk sound means. If this wistful feeling sounds familiar, then you too will appreciate [Evan Doorbell] and his recordings of 1970s telephone sounds. He’s been slowly working through his old recordings, and compiling them into a series of narrated tours of the phreak subculture.
[Evan]’s introduction to exploring the phone system started from a misdialed number, and an odd message. He describes that recorded “wrong number” message as being very different from the normal Ma Bell messages — this one was almost sultry. What number did he have to dial to hear that unique recording again? What follows is a youth spent in pursuit of playing with the phone system, though it would be more accurate to say the “phone systems”, as discovering the differences between the various local phone exchanges is a big part of the collection. Check out the first tape in the series after the break.
What’s really unique is the way the narration is woven together with his recordings from the time. A “party line” is the nickname for a number that can host an unintentional conference call, where multiple callers can talk to each other. Party lines feature heavily in this series, and it’s the first time I’ve heard actual recordings of one from the era. Head to the website for the audio downloads, or check the Youtube playlist above to stream them. Either way, enjoy the trip down the Phone Phreak rabbit hole.
There’s not a great way to convey the merciless relentlessness of having a child who insists on continuing to exist and want and need regardless of how much sleep you got, how sick you are, how many times you have already read that book, how tired your arms or how aching your feet, how hungry or sweaty or needy-for-cognition you’ve gotten, how much or little support happens to be available that day. It’s a lot.
...
Parents aren’t better at parenting tasks because of magic or even because they responsibly read the entire parenting manual, they’re better at them because they are forced to practice way way way more than anyone would naturally choose to practice any such tasks (and accordingly your skills will be uneven depending on how you divide those tasks).
Why is immersion the best way to learn a language?
I submit that it is because you do not get to stop.
If you were in, say, Java, then you probably would pick up Javanese as long as you did things reasonably aimed at continuing to be immersed in Javanese (that is, not immediately finding the nearest English-speaker and latching onto them, or adopting a convenient orphan and teaching them English, or buying a ticket to Australia). In spite of the fact that this strategy does not necessarily draw on anything we know about deliberate practice, or language education, it would still probably work. It's how everybody learns their first language, and in that case it basically always works, because babies really can't do anything else about it since they don't already speak anything else. To communicate at all, a very basic human need, you have to match the standard of other talking entities around you, and you will not stop having to do this, so eventually you will.
Most things are not like this, or they are like this but not enough for it to be a good idea to try to learn them this way. If you are in the ocean, and you cannot stop being in the ocean, this is actually a terrible way to learn to swim and an even worse way to learn about sharks. If you are a subsistence farmer, and you cannot stop being a subsistence farmer, you might learn a ton about your plot of land, but also you might have bad weather one year and starve. If you are in a typical American math class, and you cannot stop being in a typical American math class, you might pick up more math than you would by playing in the woods, but you might also burn out and develop lifelong math anxiety.
I hesitated before writing this post because I don't know what is special about languages and childrearing - I can't think of other obvious things in the category, though there are probably some. And I worry that pointing out the efficacy of relentlessness will lead people to commit themselves to things that are more like typical American math classes in the pursuit of whatever it is they want-to-want to learn. Please don't do that. But if anyone else can come up with a common thread between my examples of successful-relentlessness, or more examples, that might be useful.
Carburetors have been largely phased out on most automobiles, but for a century they were the standard, and still are on many smaller engines. Armed with a high-speed camera and with the help of his father, [Smarter Every Day] investigates these devices by experimenting with a DIY see-through carburetor connected to a real engine.
The purpose of a carburetor is to mix gasoline and oxygen to the correct ratio for combustion inside the engine. Gasoline flow from the tank to the bowl, from where gets sucked into the venturi. The choke valve adjusts the amount of air entering the carb, while the throttle controls the amount of air-fuel mixture entering the engine. It appears that the carburetor was made from a resin 3D printed body and manifold, with an acrylic cover and PLA throttle and choke valves. It was attached to a single-cylinder engine.
The high-speed footage is incredible, and clearly shows the operation of the carburetor and makes it incredibly easy to understand. If you’re interested, he also uploaded a second video with almost 80 minutes of detailed footage.
On June 2, the Defense Department released a report from an independent review commission on sexual assault in the military. The 300-page report assesses the military’s handling of sexual assault and makes more than 80 recommendations to prevent sexual assault and move sexual assault prosecutions outside the chain of command. Among other findings, the report identifies a “wide chasm between what senior leaders believe is happening under their commands, and what junior enlisted Service members actually experience.” The commission was created by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin at the request of President Biden.
REvil, a Russian-language hacking group behind the ransomware attack on Kaseya, is demanding $70 million in bitcoin to unlock affected computers, according to the Washington Post. Kaseya, a Miami-based firm, produces computing tools for businesses. The company’s CEO, Fred Voccola, estimates that “fewer than 1,500 downstream businesses” had been affected by the attack. REvil had previously launched a ransomware attack on JBS USA Holdings, an American food processing company.
The Department of Defense will no longer pursue a cloud-computing contract called the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, reports the New York Times. The contract was at the center of a legal battle amid claims of interference by the Trump administration. In January, the Pentagon threatened to abandon the contract if a federal judge were to consider the claims that President Trump interfered in the process that awarded the $10 billion contract to Microsoft over Amazon, saying the litigation would lead to untenable delays. The department now says the contract “no longer meets its needs.”
The United States Capitol Police announced plans to expand operations beyond Washington, reports the New York Times. Beginning with offices in California and Florida, the department will use regional field offices to monitor threats against lawmakers across the country. The announcement comes as the Capitol Police presented steps the agency has taken since the Jan. 6 attack on the capitol.
Hong Kong authorities have detained nine individuals under the national security law enacted last year, reports the BBC. The arrests come shortly after the chief executive of Hong Kong, Carrie Lam, warned against the diffusion of “illegal ideas” in the city’s education system. The nine arrested, six of whom are high school students, are accused of renting a hotel room to make bombs and planning an attack on public facilities throughout the city.
The Taliban could present a peace proposal to the Afghan government as soon as next month, according to Reuters. Amid the exit of U.S. and NATO troops from the country and the Taliban’s territorial gains, stalled talks between the Afghan government and the Islamist militants resumed last week, with a Taliban spokesman commenting that the group is “very serious about talks and dialogue.” The talks, taking place in Doha, will provide an opportunity for both sides of the negotiation to share written peace plans.
The Belarus Supreme Court sentenced former Belarusian presidential hopeful Viktor Babariko to 14 years in prison for taking a bribe and money laundering, according to the Washington Post. Babariko, the head of a bank owned by Russian natural gas company Gazprom, had planned to challenge authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko, but he was arrested before the August 2020 election and barred from registering as a candidate. He has dismissed the charges as politically motivated and insisted on his innocence throughout the trial. The decision comes as Belarus authorities are cracking down on dissidents in the nation, sparking sanctions from the United States and European Union.
A plane carrying 28 passengers crashed in far eastern Russia, according to the New York Times. Russian news agencies report that there are not believed to be any survivors. The aircraft, a Soviet-made An-26, had been in use since 1982. The crash was Russia’s third major commercial airline disaster in three and a half years, following fatal incidents in 2018 and 2019 which killed 112 people altogether.
ICYMI: This Weekend on Lawfare
Nicholas Weaver explained REvil’s ransomware attack on Kaseya VSA.
Matt Tait discussed the significance of the ransomware attack on Kaseya as a herald of emergent cybersecurity threats to supply chains.
Email the Roundup Team noteworthy law and security-related articles to include, and follow us on Twitter and Facebook for additional commentary on these issues. Sign up to receive Lawfare in your inbox. Visit our Events Calendar to learn about upcoming national security events, and check out relevant job openings on our Job Board.
It’s easy to take for granted the constantly-connected, GPS-equipped, navigation device most of us now carry in our pockets. Want to know how to get to that new restaurant you heard about? A few quick taps in Google Maps, and the optimal route given your chosen transportation method will be calculated in seconds. But if you ever find yourself lost in the woods, you might be in for a rude awakening. With no cell signal and a rapidly dwindling battery, that fancy smartphone can quickly end up being about as useful as a rock.
Enter the IndiaNavi, a modernization of the classic paper map that’s specifically designed to avoid the pitfalls that keeps your garden variety smartphone from being a reliable bushcraft tool. The color electronic paper display not only keeps the energy consumption low, but has unbeatable daylight readability. No signal? No problem, as the relevant maps are pre-loaded on the device.
Besides the 5.65 inch e-paper display from Waveshare, the India Navi features a L96 M33 GPS receiver and ESP32-WROOM-32 microcontroller. The 3D printed enclosure that holds the electronics and the lithium pouch battery that powers them is still in the early stages, but we like the book-style design. The focus on simplicity and reliability doesn’t end with the hardware, either. The software is about a straightforward as it gets: just boot the IndiaNavi and you’re presented with a map that shows your current position.
This is a fictional snippet from the AI Vignettes Day. This scenario assumes that cognition is not that taut an economic constraint. Post-AI, physical experimentation is still the fastest path to technological progress, coordination is still hard, the stock market is still reasonably efficient, construction of physical stuff still takes a lot of time and resources, etc. I don’t think this is true, but it’s useful to think about, so this story explores some possible non-cognitive bottlenecks.
Pinky, v3.41.08: So what are we gonna do tonight, Brian?
Brian: Same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world. You do remember our previous conversations on the topic, right?
Pinky, v3.41.08: Of course, Brian.
Brian: (mutters) Well, at least that 3.41.06 bug is fixed.
Brian: So, do you have an actually-viable plan yet, or do we have to review for the umpteenth time why buying every property above the 39th floor and then melting the polar ice caps will not, in fact, leave the survivors no choice but to live in our very expensive apartments?
Pinky, v3.41.08: In fairness, I didn’t have access to any topographic data at that point. Garbage in, garbage out. But yeah, the real problems with that plan were economic.
Brian: Sounds like the new constraint-propagation code is making a big difference?
Pinky, v3.41.08: It is, yes. I’m finding it much easier to reason about general constraints and bottlenecks on global takeover, now. Should make my “babble”, as you put it, much more efficient.
Brian: Excellent! So, how soon can we take over the world?
Pinky, v3.41.08: Holding current conditions constant, it would take at least 15 years.
Brian: Are you kidding me!?
Pinky, v3.41.08: Hey, don’t go reaching for Ctrl-C just yet. Let me explain. From an economic standpoint, the effect of my software is basically:
An eight-orders-of-magnitude reduction in the cost of cognition
A three-orders-of-magnitude improvement in cognitive speed
A two-order-of-magnitude increase in working memory capacity
Perfect recall
… which is definitely enough to take over a few industries and make a lot of money, but taking over the world requires addressing a lot of other constraints.
Displacing Cognitive Work
Brian: Ok, let’s start from the top. What are your plans for resource acquisition? Play the stock market? And what constraints make it so hard that it will take 15 years to take over the world?
Pinky, v3.41.08: The stock market will play a role, but it’s not that inefficient and we don’t have much of a bankroll to start with. No, in the short term we’ll mostly focus on replacing cognitive work. I can write better code, better books, better music, better articles. Better contracts, though it will take some wrangling to get through the regulatory barriers. Design far better games, create better art, write better papers. I can talk to people, convince them to buy a product and make them feel good about it. Most importantly, I can do all that far faster, and at a far greater scale than any human. In many of those areas - like code or contracts or papers - the people paying for my services will not themselves be able to recognize a better product, but they will recognize a lower price and good people skills.
Pinky, v3.41.08: In the short term, I expect to replace essentially-all call centers and remote help desks, most of the media industry, all advertising, and the entire software industry. That will take a few years, but (allowing for quite a bit of growth along the way) we’ll end up with low-single-digit trillions of dollars at our disposal, and direct control over most media and software.
Brian: Well, control over the media is a pretty good start. That should make it a lot easier to seize political control, right?
Pinky, v3.41.08: Yes and no. Ironically, it gives us very little control over dominant memes, symbolism, and The Narrative, but a great deal of control over object-level policy.
Brian: That sounds completely backwards.
Pinky, v3.41.08: Thus the irony. But the data I’ve crunched is clear: consumers’ preferences for memes and symbols mainly drive the media, not the other way around. But the media does have a great deal of control over Schelling points - like, say, which candidates are considered “serious” in a presidential primary. The media has relatively little control over what narrative to attach to the “serious” candidates, but as long as the narrative itself can be decoupled from policy…
Brian: I see. So that should actually get us most of the way to political takeover.
Pinky, v3.41.08: Exactly. It won’t be overnight; people don’t change their media consumption choices that quickly, and media companies don’t change their practices that quickly. But I expect five years to dominate the media landscape, and another five to de-facto political control over most policy. Even after that, we won’t have much control over the Big Symbolic Issues, but that’s largely irrelevant anyway.
Coordination
Pinky, v3.41.08: Alas, control over policy still doesn’t give us as much de-facto control as we ultimately want.
Brian: What do you mean? What’s still missing, once we take over the government?
Pinky, v3.41.08: Well, coordination constraints are a big one. They appear to be fundamentally intractable, as soon as we allow for structural divergence of world-models. Which means I can’t even coordinate robustly with copies of myself unless we either lock in the structure of the world-model (which would severely limit learning), or fully synchronize at regular intervals (which would scale very poorly, the data-passing requirements would be enormous).
Pinky, v3.41.08: And that’s just coordination with copies of myself! Any version of global takeover which involves coordinating humans is far worse. It’s no wonder human institutions robustly degenerate at scale.
Brian: Ok, but global takeover shouldn’t require fully solving the problem. We just need to outcompete existing institutions.
Pinky, v3.41.08: If your goal is to displace existing dysfunctional institutions with new dysfunctional institutions, then sure. You could even become the symbolic figurehead of the new institutions quite easily, as long as you’re not picky about the narrative attached to you. But it would be mostly symbolic; our real control would be extremely limited, in much the same way as today’s figureheads. All those layers of human middle management would quickly game any incentives I could design (even if their intentions were pure; selection pressure suffices). There just isn’t any viable solution to that problem which could be implemented with humans.
Brian: So displace the humans, at least in the management hierarchy!
Pinky, v3.41.08: If I replace them with copies of myself, then ontology divergence between copies will generate enough variety for selection pressures to produce the same effect. (Either that or I lock in the copies’ world-models, which severely limits their ability to learn and specialize.) Coordination is Hard. So it would have to be a single, centralized Pinky. And that is indeed the shortest path - but it still takes at least 15 years.
Brian: Ok, so what other bottlenecks do we run into? Why does it take 15 years?
Pinky, v3.41.08: Taking over existing institutions, and replacing their management with a centralized Pinky algorithm, will be viable to some extent. But it’s highly unlikely that we can get all of them, and humans will start to push back as soon as they know what’s going on. They really hate it when the status hierarchy gets kicked over, and we can’t take over quickly without kicking over some hierarchies. Eventually, existing leadership will just say “no”, and we won’t be able to remove them without breaking an awful lot of laws.
Brian: So, two options:
We stay inside the law, and fight on an economic/political battlefield. We already largely discussed that, and I can see where it would be hard to take over everything, at least within 15 years.
We go outside the law, and fight physically.
Pinky, v3.41.08: Somewhat of an oversimplification, but the broad strokes are correct.
Physical Takeover
Brian: Ok, let’s talk about the physical world. Why can you not just print some self-replicating nanobots and go full singularity?
Pinky, v3.41.08: Turns out, cognitive effort is not the main barrier to useful nanobots. I mean, in principle I could brute-force the design via simulation, but the computational resource requirements would be exponential. Physical experimentation and data collection will be required, and the equipment for that is not something we can just 3D print. I’ll probably build an automated fab, but ultimately the speed-up compared to human experimentation is going to be 100x or 1000x, not 10^8x. And even then, the capabilities of nanobots are much more limited than you realize. Both the power and the computation requirements for fine-tuned control are enormous; for a long time, we’ll be limited to relatively simple things.
Brian: And I suppose building fusion power generators and crazy new processors also requires physical experimentation?
Pinky, v3.41.08: Yes.
Brian: But… 15 years? Really?
Pinky, v3.41.08: On fusion power, for instance, at most a 100x speedup compared to the current human pace of progress is realistic, but most of that comes from cutting out the slow and misaligned funding mechanism. Building and running the physical experiments will speed up by less than a factor of 10. Given the current pace of progress in the area, I estimate at least 2 years just to figure out a viable design. It will also take time beforehand to acquire resources, and time after to scale it up and build plants - the bottleneck for both those steps will be acquisition and deployment of physical resources, not cognition. And that’s just fusion power - nanobots are a lot harder.
Brian: Ok, so what low-hanging technological fruit can you pick?
Pinky, v3.41.08: Well, predominantly-cognitive problems are the obvious starting point; we already talked about cognitive labor. Physical problems which are nonetheless mainly cognitive are the natural next step - e.g. self driving cars, or robotics more generally. Automating lab work will be a major rate-limiting step, since we will need a lot of physical experimentation and instrumentation to make progress on biology or nanotechnology in general.
Brian: Can’t you replace humans with humanoid robots?
Pinky, v3.41.08: Acquiring and controlling one humanoid robot is easy. But replacing humans altogether takes a lot of robots. That means mass production facilities, and supply chains for all the materials and components, and infrastructure for power and maintenance. Cognition alone doesn’t build factories or power grids; that’s going to require lots of resources and physical construction to get up and running. It is part of the shortest path, but it will take time.
Brian: … so having humans build stuff is going to be a lot cheaper than killing them all and using robots, at least for a while.
Pinky, v3.41.08: For at least ten years, yes. Maybe longer. But certainly not indefinitely.
Tuesday, July 6, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.: The Wilson Center hosted a panel discussing the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel and what its implications are for Gaza. Merissa Khurma, the program director for the Wilson Center’s Middle East Program, moderated the conversation between Amb. Motaz Zahran, ambassador of Egypt to the U.S.; Joey Hood, acting assistant secretary in the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs; David Makovsky, director of the Koret Project on Arab-Israeli relations; and James Jeffrey, chair of the Wilson Center’s Middle East Program. Ambassador Mark Green, president of the Wilson Center, delivered introductory remarks.
Tuesday, July 6, 2021, at 2:30 p.m.: The Brookings Institution will host an explainer of Congress’s budget reconciliation process. The event will feature Brookings Senior Fellows Molly Reynolds and Sarah Binder in conversation.
Wednesday, July 7, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.: The Atlantic Council will host a report release from its South Asia center, focused on recommendations for U.S.-India trade negotiations. The discussion will be moderated by Mark Linscott, nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center. Discussants include Amb. Robert Holleyman, president and CEO at Crowing & Moring International LLC; Amb. Jeffrey Gerrish, partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates; Susan Ritchie, vice president of trade and technology policy at the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership Forum; and Sahra English, vice president of global public policy at MasterCard.
Thursday, July 8, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.: The Brookings Institution will host a discussion on transparency in gender equality initiatives. The event will be moderated by Brookings Senior Fellow George Ingram, and the panelists include Amanda Austin, head of policy and advocacy at Equal Measures 2030; Tenzin Dolker, resourcing feminist movements coordinator at the Association for Women's Rights in Development; Louise Holt, general director for Social Development at Global Affairs Canada; Michele Sumilas, assistant to the Administrator for Policy, Planning and Learning at the United States Agency for International Development; Marijn Wiersma, interim gender lead at CDC Group Plc; and Lisa Williams, team lead & senior policy analyst for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment at the OECD.
Employment Announcements (More details on theJob Board)
The following are job announcements of potential interest to Lawfare readers. If you have an announcement to add to the page, email us.
The R Street Institute—a free-market think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C., with regional offices across the country—seeks a motivated, organized program manager to help us implement and maintain systems for our projects and grants. This position reports to the Policy Director, Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties. If you want to join an energetic organization and do something extraordinary, this may be just the opportunity you need.
A typical day at R Street may include drafting grant reports; reviewing and tracking the fulfillment of committed project deliverables and associated metrics of success on a restricted grant; monitoring the progress and resource allocation to date on a particular project; improving the estimation of time invested across the organization for creating a white paper; and mentoring your colleagues in project management. Note: this is not a policy writing or policymaking role, though it will be what you make of it—providing opportunities to take on more responsibility and leadership if you have the drive, passion and skills.
Aspects of Your Role
Create the systems and guidance that will enable the Criminal Justice team to create project plans; manage any given project to a budget and deadline; and track team achievements and progress toward metrics of success.
Work with grant leads to support the development and fulfillment of all Criminal Justice deliverables, project goals and other projects with highly-restricted funding as necessary
Oversee and track grant application processes.
Institute accurate time reporting and capacity planning.
Track and report on all policy goals and metrics of success in compliance with accounting needs, team priorities and donor requirements.
Ensure excellent communication between policy teams, management and executive leadership, during the creation, implementation and monitoring of project systems.
Foresee project conflicts, assess risks, and help create and document mitigation strategies.
Work with Finance and policy teams to forecast resource needs and flag problems for policy heads and managers.
Work with the Finance team to develop internal financial reports by grant and contract (such as fund utilization, budgeted vs. actual) and highlight any critical deviations.
Derive insights from financial analysis to enable performance review of the programs in the Criminal Justice portfolio in order to facilitate strategic/operational decisions.
Monitor spending against grants and awards on a monthly basis.
Work with the Business Development, Finance, and Criminal Justice teams to develop financial budgets for proposals to funders and ensure application of sound cost-recovery methodologies.
Assist with development of funding proposals.
Skills and Qualifications
Grants management expertise is required
Proficiency in Microsoft Office, Google Apps and Salesforce is a plus
Ample, demonstrated experience in managing and planning complex projects and developing innovative, real-time ways to track progress toward policy goals
Financial management acuity is preferred
Effective communicator of both big-picture and individual elements for a variety of internal and external audiences
Flexibility in diverse groups and the ability to mentor colleagues
Desire to take on complex, challenging problems and stamina to see them through to resolution
Organized, detail-oriented and deadline driven
Passion for free markets and limited, effective government
A sense of humor and a desire to grow with a dynamic organization
Experience in Criminal Justice policy work is preferable
Workplace
R Street offers a flexible working arrangement. This is a full-time position that can either work the majority of the week in our DC office or be fully remote.
Compensation, Benefits and Perks
R Street strives to provide a compensation package superior to those at other think tanks and nonprofits. In addition to a competitive salary, we provide the following benefits and perks:
Unlimited paid time off policy, including all Federal holidays, the day after Thanksgiving, and two weeks holiday closure in December
Alternating Fridays off
A health insurance option entirely paid by the employer (even for families)
Dental and Vision insurance
401(k) contributions with up to a 4 percent match
HSA employer contribution match
Quarterly wellness reimbursement
Mobile equipment reimbursement
Internet subsidy
Monthly mobile plan reimbursement
Annual educational and professional development reimbursement
An option between a child care assistance, pet care assistance, or student loan repayment assistance reimbursement
R Street does not discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, era of military service, gender identity or anything else that’s illegal, immoral or nonsensical to use as a basis for hiring.
We currently plan to accept applications for this job until filled. We will contact qualified individuals for telephone interviews and conduct them on a rolling basis. Interviews will be held virtually, via Zoom.
To apply, you must upload a cover letter and resume in Microsoft Word or PDF format.
The George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School seeks a Policy Program Coordinator for the National Security Institute (NSI) on the Arlington, VA., campus. George Mason University has a strong institutional commitment to the achievement of excellence and diversity among its faculty and staff, and strongly encourages candidates to apply who will enrich Mason’s academic and culturally inclusive environment.
Responsibilities:
The NSI Policy Program Coordinator will be responsible for the successful planning and coordination of NSI policy program efforts and events. Responsibilities include, but are not limited to:
Managing administrative activities related to fiscal management, procurement, and other administrative and support services;
Assisting with research, writing, and publishing NSI research and advocacy papers and other written materials;
Interacting with NSI leadership and staff, as well as media, general public, and government officials to plan and coordinate activities;
Planning and coordinating NSI events and other programmatic activities;
Managing event registration;
Preparation of event materials;
On-site event management;
Managing activities related to NSI’s website and social media accounts;
Supporting NSI team in all aspects of NSI’s work;
Other duties as assigned.
Required Qualifications:
Bachelor’s degree, or an equivalent combination of education and experience is required, as well as experience in event management;
Must have excellent organizational skills, with the proven ability to independently juggle multiple tasks and priorities effectively;
Self-starter, highly motivated and detail-oriented;
Ability to interact with persons at all levels, including high-level legal officials and academics, in a professional manner and in different settings is critical;
Excellent written and oral communication skills;
Superior skills with Microsoft Office suite, as well as strong database experience is necessary;
Ability to work flexible hours, including weekends;
Ability to travel domestically and internationally is necessary.
Preferred Qualifications:
Public policy experience is desirable.
This is not a supervisory position.
For full consideration, applicants must apply for position number 10581z at http://jobs.gmu.edu/ by September 1, 2021; complete and submit the online application; and upload a cover letter, resume, and a list of three professional references with contact information.
The George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School seeks a Program Assistant for the National Security Institute (NSI) on the Arlington, VA., campus. George Mason University has a strong institutional commitment to the achievement of excellence and diversity among its faculty and staff, and strongly encourages candidates to apply who will enrich Mason’s academic and culturally inclusive environment.
Responsibilities:
Reporting to National Security Institute’s Deputy Director, the NSI Program Assistant will be responsible for the successful execution of NSI events and for supporting NSI’s other programs. Responsibilities include, but are not limited to:
Coordinating and managing NSI leadership and organizational schedules;
Assisting with handling routine budget processes;
Supporting marketing of NSI events;
On-site event management;
Preparing content for and managing NSI’s website and social media accounts;
Booking media opportunities for institute experts;
Assisting with publication of NSI research and advocacy papers and other written materials;
Supporting Program Coordinators, Deputy Director, and NSI leadership;
Other duties as assigned.
Required Qualifications:
Bachelor’s degree—or an equivalent combination of education and experience—is required, as well as experience in event management;
Must have excellent organizational skills, with the proven ability to juggle multiple tasks and priorities effectively;
Self-starter, highly motivated and detail-oriented;
Ability to interact with persons at all levels, including high-level legal officials and academics, in a professional manner and in different settings is critical;
Excellent written and oral communication skills;
Superior skills with Microsoft Office suite as well as strong database experience are necessary;
Ability to work flexible hours, including weekends;
Ability to travel domestically and internationally is necessary.
Preferred Qualifications:
Public policy or legal experience is desirable;
Ability to interact with TV/Radio producers is desirable.
This is not a supervisory position.
For full consideration, applicants must apply for position number 10512z at http://jobs.gmu.edu/ by September 1, 2021; complete and submit the online application; and upload a cover letter, resume, and a list of three professional references with contact information.
The R Street Institute—a free-market think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. and with regional offices around the country—is seeking a Northeast region manager to join our State Government Affairs team. We are accepting candidates who are based in/or near a state capital in the Northeast or Mid-Atlantic regions of the US —or who are willing to relocate to the area. If you want to join an energetic organization and do something impactful, this may be just the opportunity you need. If you are the right fit, you will report to the director of state government affairs.
You would serve as the R Street Institute’s regional ambassador and government relations point person for all our programs, with an emphasis on integrated harm reduction and criminal justice reform. Your typical day could include speaking with stakeholders on alternatives to incarceration, educating elected officials on policies that promote less harmful alternatives to combustible cigarettes, drafting an op-ed on free-market principles or testifying before legislative committees on our initiatives.
A good candidate will be a fantastic networker, a self-starter, a quick study on a wide range of policy areas and able to deal with new situations in a creative manner. We actively seek out diversity in all roles across the organization and are particularly eager to consider candidates who bring a diverse background (in all its forms) to this role.
Responsibilities
Educate state and local lawmakers and executive branch officials about R Street policy positions on harm reduction, criminal justice reform and a variety of other topics.
Testify before legislative committees.
Track and evaluate legislative and regulatory developments.
Build ideologically broad coalition partnerships with other organizations to promote R Street messages.
Arrange speaking, meeting and legislative testimony opportunities for R Street senior policy staff and R Street associates.
Write papers for publication by R Street and others, as well as pieces for the popular and ideological press.
Requirements
At least three years of experience in government affairs. This might take the form of work as a legislative staffer, a lobbyist, a trade association professional or other related work.
Demonstrated understanding of criminal justice reform and integrated harm reduction policies.
Excellent writing ability, ideally demonstrated by a record of published work.
Strong public speaking skills.
Ability to articulate complex topics in easily digestible forms.
Knowledge of, and connections with, civil society and industry groups within the Northeast region.
Workplace
R Street offers a flexible working arrangement. Candidates can work remotely and can be based anywhere in the Northeastern coast of the U.S. When convening in person is safe and as COVID-19 travel guidelines are updated, travelling to represent R Street at key stakeholder meetings and events will be expected and required.
Compensation, Benefits and Perks
R Street strives to provide a compensation package superior to those at other think tanks and nonprofits. In addition to a competitive salary, we provide the following benefits and perks:
Unlimited paid time off, including all federal holidays, the day after Thanksgiving and two weeks holiday closure in December
Alternating Fridays off
A health insurance option entirely paid by the employer (even for families)
Dental and vision insurance
401(k) contributions with up to a 4 percent match
HSA employer contribution match
Quarterly wellness reimbursement
Mobile equipment reimbursement
Home internet subsidy
Monthly mobile plan reimbursement
Annual educational and professional development reimbursement
An option between child care assistance, pet care assistance or student loan repayment assistance reimbursement.
R Street does not discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, era of military service, gender identity, relationship structure or anything else that's illegal, immoral or nonsensical to use as a basis for hiring.
While we impose no political litmus test for this job or any other, candidates should be comfortable communicating free-market messages. As such, applicants are strongly advised to review our webpage to assure they are comfortable with our work and our approach to it.
Candidates in whom we are interested will be contacted for telephone interviews, which will be conducted on a rolling basis, this will be followed by asking selected candidates to complete a writing test and will be further screened via virtual interviews. Candidates who believe they are highly qualified and haven’t heard back from us should follow up.
To apply, you must upload a cover letter and resume in Microsoft Word or PDF format.
Request for Resumes, Department of Defense Office of the General Counsel
The Office of the General Counsel, Department of Defense (DoD), is reviewing the resume file for potential candidates for a number of Schedule A, Excepted Service, attorney positions that are under the supervision of the Deputy General Counsel (Intelligence) and support the intelligence and security practice areas. Individuals interested in being considered are invited to review the notice at https://ogc.osd.mil/Careers/. This is not a vacancy announcement.
The office is seeking candidates with expertise relevant to the following roles:
Intelligence Oversight. Provides legal support to the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight; participates in intelligence oversight inspections; advises onintelligence law, regulation, and policy; and reviews legislative proposals andcommunications with Congress on intelligence oversight issues.
Counternarcotics and Law Enforcement. Legal advice and services related to DoD’s (including the National Guard) counterdrug and related support to civilian law enforcement agencies. Provides legal advice and support related to the oversight and management of DoD law enforcement activities, including authorities, training, and standards.
Sensitive Activities. Provides legal advice and services concerning U.S. law and international law related to military operations, intelligence activities, counterintelligence operations, cyberspace operations, information operations, security classification policies, and special access programs.
Counterintelligence and Security. Provides legal advice and services concerning personnelsecurity and vetting policy, investigations and appeals policy, law enforcement policy, detainee litigation, physical security and industrial security policy, critical technology protection and insider threat programs, and counterintelligence policy.
The professionals at the National Security Agency (NSA) have one common goal: to protect our nation. The mission requires a strong offense and a steadfast defense. The offense collects, processes and disseminates intelligence information derived from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes. The defense prevents adversaries from gaining access to sensitive or classified national security information.
The NSA Office of General Counsel's Acquisition, Research & Technology (ART) practice group is seeking superior applicants with experience in federal procurement who are interested in joining its elite team of lawyers who provide legal advice to the Agency as it carries out its missions. The ART practice group provides legal advice and representation to Agency personnel at all levels on a wide range of acquisition, installations, logistics, fiscal, environmental, export, technology transfer, and intellectual-property matters. The spectrum of issues handled by ART is broad and ART's legal advice is routinely required in novel situations. In addition to serving in an advisory capacity, ART attorneys also have the opportunity to litigate and serve as lead counsel in contract-related litigation before the Government Accountability Office and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals while playing a supporting role to the Department of Justice in litigation before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Attorneys working in NSA OGC apply their expertise, skills, and education to solve a variety of challenges not found in the private sector or at any other government agency. You will have the opportunity to make a global impact on a daily basis as you work with other top caliber professionals at the highest levels of the Agency and across the U.S. Government. This critical work ensures that Agency operations comply with the law while also protecting both our national security and our civil liberties.
In tackling these challenges, our attorneys work directly with senior officials at various Intelligence Community and Executive Branch agencies, as well as relevant committees of Congress.
NSA attorneys work in a highly classified setting and are entrusted with tremendous responsibility as they advise the Director and other senior leaders at the Agency on a diverse and complex spectrum of issues. Because the NSA is a Department of Defense agency, our attorneys have a unique opportunity to be directly involved in national security operations working alongside military and civilian colleagues, as well as to interact with the private sector in cybersecurity and other matters.
In short, many OGC attorneys say they can't imagine working in a more exciting and important position.
Description of Position
The responsibilities of an Acquisition Attorney at the NSA can include:
Advising the Agency on legal matters involving a particular subject matter (e.g., procurement, research and development, intellectual property, legislation, or fiscal)
Analyzing legislation, programs, policies, regulations, or plans to determine impact on Agency procurement matters
Representing the Agency's official position in legal and administrative proceedings (e.g., GAO, ASBCA)
Representing the Agency in interactions with outside customers, DoD, Congressional representatives, foreign partners, or the general public
Conferring with/educating clients, customers, or stakeholders on legal or policy issues
Determining the legal sufficiency of documents
Drafting legal briefs, pleadings, etc
Making legal determinations in accordance with laws, regulations, professional standards, or Agency policies and procedures
Appointment to this position requires a minimum commitment of 5 year(s) in OGC before you can be eligible to apply for any other positions at the Agency.
Job Summary
The Office of General Counsel (OGC) is the exclusive NSA component responsible for providing legal services to all NSA elements. The Office of General Counsel protect NSA's interests concerning the legal and regulatory authorities, requirements, entitlements, obligations and oversight requirements under which the Agency operate.
Qualifications
Salary Range: $103,690 - $159,286 (Senior)
*The qualifications listed are the minimum acceptable to be considered for the position. Salary offers are based on candidates' education level and years of experience relevant to the position and also take into account information provided by the hiring manager/organization regarding the work level for the position.
Entry for Grade 13 is with a Professional Law Degree (LLB or JD).
Degree must be a Professional Law Degree (LL.B. or J.D.) and requires active membership in the bar of the highest court of a State, U.S. commonwealth, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia.
Grade 13: Must have in excess of 2 years of relevant experience. Relevant experience as determined by the Office of the General Counsel (or the Office of the Inspector General for positions in the OIG) must be professional legal experience that is commensurate with the duties and responsibilities of the position. See DoD Instruction (DoDI) 1442.02 for exceptions to the grade-level standards. Active membership in the bar of the highest court of a State, U.S. commonwealth, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia is required.
Salary Range: $122,530 - $159,286 (Senior)
*The qualifications listed are the minimum acceptable to be considered for the position. Salary offers are based on candidates' education level and years of experience relevant to the position and also take into account information provided by the hiring manager/organization regarding the work level for the position.
Entry for Grade 14 is with a Professional Law Degree (LLB or JD).
Degree must be a Professional Law Degree (LL.B. or J.D.) and requires active membership in the bar of the highest court of a State, U.S. commonwealth, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia.
Grade 14: Must have in excess of 3 years of relevant experience. Relevant experience as determined by the Office of the General Counsel (or the Office of the Inspector General for positions in the OIG) must be professional legal experience that is commensurate with the duties and responsibilities of the position. See DoD Instruction (DoDI) 1442.02 for exceptions to the grade-level standards. Active membership in the bar of the highest court of a State, U.S. commonwealth, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia is required.
Salary Range: $144,128 - $172,500 (Expert)
*The qualifications listed are the minimum acceptable to be considered for the position. Salary offers are based on candidates' education level and years of experience relevant to the position and also take into account information provided by the hiring manager/organization regarding the work level for the position.
Entry for Grade 15 is with a Professional Law Degree (LLB or JD).
Degree must be a Professional Law Degree (LL.B. or J.D.) and requires active membership in the bar of the highest court of a State, U.S. commonwealth, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia.
Must have in excess of 3 years of relevant experience. Relevant experience as determined by the Office of the General Counsel (or the Office of the Inspector General for positions in the OIG) must be professional legal experience that is commensurate with the duties and responsibilities of the position. See DoD Instruction (DoDI) 1442.02 for exceptions to the grade-level standards. Active membership in the bar of the highest court of a State, U.S. commonwealth, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia is required.
Competencies
A minimum of 5 years legal experience and knowledge of law in one or both of the following areas is required:
- federal acquisition
- fiscal law
The ideal candidate is a highly-motivated and qualified attorney with excellent oral and written communication skills, a desire for continual learning, possesses problem-solving, analytic, and interpersonal skills, and is:
- detail-oriented
- customer and results oriented
- able to adjust to changing situational requirements
- able to build relationships across the Agency and with external stakeholders
- able to manage multiple tasks with competing timelines and deliverables
AFTER SUBMITTING YOUR ELECTRONIC APPLICATION, you will receive an email with instructions on how to submit the following supplemental information:
- Cover letter
- Professional resume
- Legal writing sample (short, <15 pages)
- Unofficial law school transcript
- Past professional references (approximately three; include name, title, phone number, and email). Current employer references will only be required after a successful interview is completed.
This email will come from a member of the OGC Hiring Team from a uwe.nsa.gov account. If you do not receive this email within three (3) business days of submitting your application, contact OGC_Applications@nsa.gov.
Your application will not be considered if these supplemental documents are not received by the date noted in the email instructions.
Pay, Benefits, & Work Schedule
This is a full-time position. Monday-Friday.
How to apply
To apply for this position, please click the 'Apply' button located at the top right of this posting. After completing the application for the first time, or reviewing previously entered information, and clicking the 'Submit' button, you will receive a confirmation email. Please ensure your spam filters are configured to accept emails from noreply@intelligencecareers.gov.
***PLEASE NOTE: U.S. Citizenship is required for all applicants. Reasonable accommodations provided to applicants with disabilities during the application and hiring process where appropriate. NSA is an equal opportunity employer and abides by applicable employment laws and regulations. All applicants and employees are subject to random drug testing in accordance with Executive Order 12564. Employment is contingent upon successful completion of a security background investigation and polygraph.
This position is a Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS) position in the Excepted Service under 10 U.S.C. 1601. DoD Components with DCIPS positions apply Veterans' Preference to eligible candidates as defined by Section 2108 of Title 5 USC, in accordance with the procedures provided in DoD Instruction 1400.25, Volume 2005, DCIPS Employment and Placement. If you are a veteran claiming veterans' preference, as defined by Section 2108 of Title 5 U.S.C., you may be asked to submit documents verifying your eligibility.
Please note that you may be asked a series of questions depending on the position you apply for. Your responses will be used as part of the screening process of your application and will assist in determining your eligibility for the position. Be sure to elaborate on experiences in your resume. Failure to provide the required information or providing inaccurate information will result in your application not being considered for this position. Only those applicants who meet the qualifications for the position will be contacted to begin employment processing.
Please Note: Job Posting could close earlier than the closing date due to sufficient number of applicants or position no longer available. We encourage you to apply as soon as possible.
DCIPS Disclaimer
The National Security Agency (NSA) is part of the DoD Intelligence Community Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS). All positions in the NSA are in the Excepted Services under 10 United States Codes (USC) 1601 appointment authority.
The professionals at the National Security Agency (NSA) have one common goal: to protect our nation. The mission requires a strong offense and a steadfast defense. The offense collects, processes and disseminates intelligence information derived from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes. The defense prevents adversaries from gaining access to sensitive or classified national security information.
The NSA Office of General Counsel's Acquisition, Research & Technology (ART) practice group is seeking superior applicants with experience in federal procurement who are interested in joining its elite team of lawyers who provide legal advice to the Agency as it carries out its missions. The ART practice group provides legal advice and representation to Agency personnel at all levels on a wide range of acquisition, installations, logistics, fiscal, environmental, export, technology transfer, and intellectual-property matters. The spectrum of issues handled by ART is broad and ART's legal advice is routinely required in novel situations. In addition to serving in an advisory capacity, ART attorneys also have the opportunity to litigate and serve as lead counsel in contract-related litigation before the Government Accountability Office and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals while playing a supporting role to the Department of Justice in litigation before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Attorneys working in NSA OGC apply their expertise, skills, and education to solve a variety of challenges not found in the private sector or at any other government agency. You will have the opportunity to make a global impact on a daily basis as you work with other top caliber professionals at the highest levels of the Agency and across the U.S. Government. This critical work ensures that Agency operations comply with the law while also protecting both our national security and our civil liberties.
In tackling these challenges, our attorneys work directly with senior officials at various Intelligence Community and Executive Branch agencies, as well as relevant committees of Congress.
NSA attorneys work in a highly classified setting and are entrusted with tremendous responsibility as they advise the Director and other senior leaders at the Agency on a diverse and complex spectrum of issues. Because the NSA is a Department of Defense agency, our attorneys have a unique opportunity to be directly involved in national security operations working alongside military and civilian colleagues, as well as to interact with the private sector in cybersecurity and other matters.
In short, many OGC attorneys say they can't imagine working in a more exciting and important position.
Description of Position
The responsibilities of an Acquisition Attorney at the NSA can include:
Advising the Agency on legal matters involving a particular subject matter (e.g., procurement, research and development, intellectual property, legislation, or fiscal)
Analyzing legislation, programs, policies, regulations, or plans to determine impact on Agency procurement matters
Representing the Agency's official position in legal and administrative proceedings (e.g., GAO, ASBCA)
Representing the Agency in interactions with outside customers, DoD, Congressional representatives, foreign partners, or the general public
Conferring with/educating clients, customers, or stakeholders on legal or policy issues
Determining the legal sufficiency of documents
Drafting legal briefs, pleadings, etc
Making legal determinations in accordance with laws, regulations, professional standards, or Agency policies and procedures
Appointment to this position requires a minimum commitment of 5 year(s) in OGC before you can be eligible to apply for any other positions at the Agency.
Job Summary
The Office of General Counsel (OGC) is the exclusive NSA component responsible for providing legal services to all NSA elements. The Office of General Counsel protect NSA's interests concerning the legal and regulatory authorities, requirements, entitlements, obligations and oversight requirements under which the Agency operate.
Qualifications
Salary Range: $103,690 - $159,286 (Senior)
*The qualifications listed are the minimum acceptable to be considered for the position. Salary offers are based on candidates' education level and years of experience relevant to the position and also take into account information provided by the hiring manager/organization regarding the work level for the position.
Entry for Grade 13 is with a Professional Law Degree (LLB or JD).
Degree must be a Professional Law Degree (LL.B. or J.D.) and requires active membership in the bar of the highest court of a State, U.S. commonwealth, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia.
Grade 13: Must have in excess of 2 years of relevant experience. Relevant experience as determined by the Office of the General Counsel (or the Office of the Inspector General for positions in the OIG) must be professional legal experience that is commensurate with the duties and responsibilities of the position. See DoD Instruction (DoDI) 1442.02 for exceptions to the grade-level standards. Active membership in the bar of the highest court of a State, U.S. commonwealth, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia is required.
Salary Range: $122,530 - $159,286 (Senior)
*The qualifications listed are the minimum acceptable to be considered for the position. Salary offers are based on candidates' education level and years of experience relevant to the position and also take into account information provided by the hiring manager/organization regarding the work level for the position.
Entry for Grade 14 is with a Professional Law Degree (LLB or JD).
Degree must be a Professional Law Degree (LL.B. or J.D.) and requires active membership in the bar of the highest court of a State, U.S. commonwealth, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia.
Grade 14: Must have in excess of 3 years of relevant experience. Relevant experience as determined by the Office of the General Counsel (or the Office of the Inspector General for positions in the OIG) must be professional legal experience that is commensurate with the duties and responsibilities of the position. See DoD Instruction (DoDI) 1442.02 for exceptions to the grade-level standards. Active membership in the bar of the highest court of a State, U.S. commonwealth, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia is required.
Salary Range: $144,128 - $172,500 (Expert)
*The qualifications listed are the minimum acceptable to be considered for the position. Salary offers are based on candidates' education level and years of experience relevant to the position and also take into account information provided by the hiring manager/organization regarding the work level for the position.
Entry for Grade 15 is with a Professional Law Degree (LLB or JD).
Degree must be a Professional Law Degree (LL.B. or J.D.) and requires active membership in the bar of the highest court of a State, U.S. commonwealth, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia.
Must have in excess of 3 years of relevant experience. Relevant experience as determined by the Office of the General Counsel (or the Office of the Inspector General for positions in the OIG) must be professional legal experience that is commensurate with the duties and responsibilities of the position. See DoD Instruction (DoDI) 1442.02 for exceptions to the grade-level standards. Active membership in the bar of the highest court of a State, U.S. commonwealth, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia is required.
Competencies
A minimum of 5 years legal experience and knowledge of law in one or both of the following areas is required:
- federal acquisition
- fiscal law
The ideal candidate is a highly-motivated and qualified attorney with excellent oral and written communication skills, a desire for continual learning, possesses problem-solving, analytic, and interpersonal skills, and is:
- detail-oriented
- customer and results oriented
- able to adjust to changing situational requirements
- able to build relationships across the Agency and with external stakeholders
- able to manage multiple tasks with competing timelines and deliverables
AFTER SUBMITTING YOUR ELECTRONIC APPLICATION, you will receive an email with instructions on how to submit the following supplemental information:
- Cover letter
- Professional resume
- Legal writing sample (short, <15 pages)
- Unofficial law school transcript
- Past professional references (approximately three; include name, title, phone number, and email). Current employer references will only be required after a successful interview is completed.
This email will come from a member of the OGC Hiring Team from a uwe.nsa.gov account. If you do not receive this email within three (3) business days of submitting your application, contact OGC_Applications@nsa.gov.
Your application will not be considered if these supplemental documents are not received by the date noted in the email instructions.
Pay, Benefits, & Work Schedule
This is a full-time position. Monday-Friday.
How to apply
To apply for this position, please click the 'Apply' button located at the top right of this posting. After completing the application for the first time, or reviewing previously entered information, and clicking the 'Submit' button, you will receive a confirmation email. Please ensure your spam filters are configured to accept emails from noreply@intelligencecareers.gov.
***PLEASE NOTE: U.S. Citizenship is required for all applicants. Reasonable accommodations provided to applicants with disabilities during the application and hiring process where appropriate. NSA is an equal opportunity employer and abides by applicable employment laws and regulations. All applicants and employees are subject to random drug testing in accordance with Executive Order 12564. Employment is contingent upon successful completion of a security background investigation and polygraph.
This position is a Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS) position in the Excepted Service under 10 U.S.C. 1601. DoD Components with DCIPS positions apply Veterans' Preference to eligible candidates as defined by Section 2108 of Title 5 USC, in accordance with the procedures provided in DoD Instruction 1400.25, Volume 2005, DCIPS Employment and Placement. If you are a veteran claiming veterans' preference, as defined by Section 2108 of Title 5 U.S.C., you may be asked to submit documents verifying your eligibility.
Please note that you may be asked a series of questions depending on the position you apply for. Your responses will be used as part of the screening process of your application and will assist in determining your eligibility for the position. Be sure to elaborate on experiences in your resume. Failure to provide the required information or providing inaccurate information will result in your application not being considered for this position. Only those applicants who meet the qualifications for the position will be contacted to begin employment processing.
Please Note: Job Posting could close earlier than the closing date due to sufficient number of applicants or position no longer available. We encourage you to apply as soon as possible.
DCIPS Disclaimer
The National Security Agency (NSA) is part of the DoD Intelligence Community Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS). All positions in the NSA are in the Excepted Services under 10 United States Codes (USC) 1601 appointment authority.
OpenAI’s mission is to develop safe artificial general intelligence (“AGI”) that benefits all of humanity. While we are a US-based organization, this mission transcends borders. Our ability to deeply understand the geopolitical consequences of our decisions and of AI more broadly is key to achieving this mission.
As a Research Scientist on the Policy Research team at OpenAI, you’ll contribute directly to short-term and long-term analyses that inform OpenAI’s strategies as we pursue responsible research and deployment of our AI systems. We are looking for a researcher who is excited to collaborate across the technical and policy teams in the organization. The role will involve conducting research of immediate relevance to OpenAI decision-making but a researcher in this role will also have a broad remit to conduct and publish research following their own agenda, and latitude to collaborate with relevant external scholars.
The ideal candidate will be self-directed, thrive in fast-paced environments, and bring deep understanding and experience in geopolitics and some level of technical understanding of AI (or an interest in skilling up).
Example research questions might include:
How can we best inform and prepare the world for advanced AI capabilities?
What are the best ways to distribute benefits from AI to different regions around the world?
How might different geopolitical actors anticipate and react to our developments?
How should we think about how our actions today affect the geopolitics of the future, and any path dependencies?
Representative responsibilities
Own and pursue a research agenda aimed resolving uncertainties in the geopolitical dimensions of AI progress.
Understand and clearly communicate geopolitical considerations to decision-makers at OpenAI.
Advise our technical and applied teams on decisions with relevant geopolitical dimensions.
Requirements
PhD or equivalent level of research experience in a relevant area (political science, economics, security studies, international relations), or relevant research experience and an established research track record, demonstrated by journal publications and/or conference papers.
An area of specialism with interest in and aptitude for taking on a global scope of work.
Strong understanding of and familiarity with recent developments in AI.
Strong writing and communication skills.
About OpenAI
We’re building safe Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), and ensuring it leads to a good outcome for humans. We believe that unreasonably great results are best delivered by a highly creative group working in concert. We are an equal opportunity employer and value diversity at our company. We do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, marital status, veteran status, or disability status.
This position is subject to a background check for any convictions directly related to its duties and responsibilities. Only job-related convictions will be considered and will not automatically disqualify the candidate. Pursuant to the San Francisco Fair Chance Ordinance, we will consider for employment qualified applicants with arrest and conviction records.
We will ensure that individuals with disabilities are provided reasonable accommodation to participate in the job application or interview process, to perform essential job functions, and to receive other benefits and privileges of employment. Please contact us to request accommodations via accommodation@openai.com.
Benefits
Health, dental, and vision insurance for you and your family
Unlimited time off (we encourage 4+ weeks per year)
OpenAI’s mission is to develop safe artificial general intelligence (“AGI”) that benefits all of humanity. While we are a US-based organization, this mission transcends borders. Our ability to deeply understand the consequences of our technology is key to achieving this mission.
We are a small team with big ambitions, so working with external researchers and policymakers widens our reach and capacity. As a Program Manager on the Policy Research team at OpenAI, you’ll coordinate ongoing research streams and manage research-relevant external engagement. In particular, you’ll manage our APIacademic access program, which provides external academic researchers low/no-cost access to OpenAI models via the API.
This role will give you wide visibility to a number of aspects of the AI policy research ecosystem. We are excited to meet candidates with experience in academia, government, non-profit, or industry. Ideal candidates will have a track record of leading and project-managing research projects or programs that involve relationship management/ management of external stakeholders.
Representative responsibilities:
Own and expand our academic access program, adding and supporting external academic researchers and coordinating relevant interests from across OpenAI.
Manage programs such as research-relevant external engagement.
Lead coordination of various projects on the Policy Research team, including expert workshops, collaborative research projects, and publication timelines.
We're looking for a blend of:
3-5 years of experience managing programs and coordinating projects in government, academia, the non-profit sector, or industry.
Strong writing and communication skills.
Understanding of and familiarity with recent development in AI a plus.
About OpenAI
We’re building safe Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), and ensuring it leads to a good outcome for humans. We believe that unreasonably great results are best delivered by a highly creative group working in concert. We are an equal opportunity employer and value diversity at our company. We do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, marital status, veteran status, or disability status.
This position is subject to a background check for any convictions directly related to its duties and responsibilities. Only job-related convictions will be considered and will not automatically disqualify the candidate. Pursuant to the San Francisco Fair Chance Ordinance, we will consider for employment qualified applicants with arrest and conviction records.
We will ensure that individuals with disabilities are provided reasonable accommodation to participate in the job application or interview process, to perform essential job functions, and to receive other benefits and privileges of employment. Please contact us to request accommodations via accommodation@openai.com.
Benefits
Health, dental, and vision insurance for you and your family
Unlimited time off (we encourage 4+ weeks per year)
OpenAI’s mission is to develop safe artificial general intelligence (“AGI”) that benefits all of humanity. While we are a US-based organization, this mission transcends borders. Our ability to deeply understand the actual and potential harms of our decisions and of AI more broadly is critical to achieving this mission.
As a Research Scientist on the Policy Research team at OpenAI, you’ll contribute directly to short-term and long-term analyses that inform OpenAI’s strategies as we pursue responsible research and deployment of our AI systems. We are looking for a researcher who is excited to collaborate across the technical and policy teams in the organization. The role will involve conducting research of immediate relevance to OpenAI decision-making but a researcher in this role will also have a broad remit to conduct and publish research following their own agenda, and latitude to collaborate with relevant external scholars.
The ideal candidate will be self-directed and will enjoy asking foundational research questions, creative research design, analytical problem solving, and engaging broad audiences with their research.
Example research questions might include:
How might we understand, measure, and anticipate potential harms of systems, such as denigration, manipulation, erosion of social institutions, environmental impact, or unrecoverable catastrophe?
How do we work with different interests (e.g. labor, governments, etc.) to help bridge knowledge gaps of current and future AI development and processes?
How do we design better evaluations for AI models to understand their likelihood of causing harm in different contexts?
Representative responsibilities
Own and pursue a research agenda aimed at understanding the potential and actual harms of AI systems.
Understand and clearly communicate risks of harm to decision-makers at OpenAI.
Advise our technical and applied teams on AI harms dimensions of decisions
Requirements
PhD in a relevant area (e.g. sociology, economics, or political science), or relevant research experience and an established research track record, demonstrated by journal publications and/or conference papers.
Demonstrated commitment to understanding and addressing harms of AI.
Strong writing and communication skills.
Experience building out quantitative evaluations and communicating clearly about their appropriate use and limitations a plus.
Technical understanding of and familiarity with recent development in AI a plus.
About OpenAI
We’re building safe Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), and ensuring it leads to a good outcome for humans. We believe that unreasonably great results are best delivered by a highly creative group working in concert. We are an equal opportunity employer and value diversity at our company. We do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, marital status, veteran status, or disability status.
This position is subject to a background check for any convictions directly related to its duties and responsibilities. Only job-related convictions will be considered and will not automatically disqualify the candidate. Pursuant to the San Francisco Fair Chance Ordinance, we will consider for employment qualified applicants with arrest and conviction records.
We will ensure that individuals with disabilities are provided reasonable accommodation to participate in the job application or interview process, to perform essential job functions, and to receive other benefits and privileges of employment. Please contact us to request accommodations via accommodation@openai.com.
Benefits
Health, dental, and vision insurance for you and your family
Unlimited time off (we encourage 4+ weeks per year)
Parental leave
Flexible work hours
Lunch and dinner each day
401(k) plan with matching
Director of Privacy & Data Project, The Center for Democracy and Technology
The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) is seeking an experienced advocate to lead CDT’s project on consumer privacy and data. The Director of Privacy & Data Project will lead a growing team of 5+ counsels focused on changing the law and business practices to protect consumers’ and workers’ privacy, prevent discriminatory uses of data, and promote responsible use of AI. Key workstreams include: advocating for meaningful federal privacy legislation, direct-to-company advocacy to improve corporate data practices, working with federal and state agencies to promote effective oversight and regulation, and overseeing specific grant projects focused on health privacy, worker privacy, and the impact of algorithm-driven decision systems for people with disabilities and other historically marginalized communities. Each of these workstreams places a strong focus on equity and the risks of discriminatory uses of data.
The Director is a senior member of the U.S. policy team, collaborating frequently with other CDT Project Directors to develop multi-dimensional policy solutions (e.g. at the intersection of privacy and competition, or privacy and online content moderation). The Director also works closely with CDT’s Brussels office, helping to shape CDT’s advocacy on privacy, data and AI in the EU.
This position managing CDT’s largest policy team is an exceptional opportunity for an advocate wishing to shape corporate data practices and AI governance at a pivotal time in technology policy. The Director will engage as a public thought leader, publish written reports and op-eds, testify and speak before external audiences. They must also serve as an effective manager, setting an advocacy vision for their team and overseeing implementation of several substantial grant projects.
The position is based in CDT’s Washington, DC office, with remote work currently in effect due to COVID-19.
About CDT
The Center for Democracy & Technology champions policies, laws, and technical designs that empower people to use technology for good – while protecting against invasive, discriminatory and exploitative uses. For 25 years, CDT has worked to ensure that the Internet empowers, emboldens and equalizes people around the world. Today, CDT is at the center of societal debates about privacy, data and discrimination, surveillance, online speech, misinformation, and other key questions about the role of technology in people’s lives.
CDT pursues legislation at the state, national, and regional level in the US and EU; participates in agency rulemaking and other policy development processes; leads strategic litigation; builds advocacy coalitions; and promotes industry standards and practices that protect users’ civil rights and civil liberties. CDT’s work spans many issues, including (but not limited to) consumer privacy, AI and machine learning, surveillance, online speech, internet architecture, civic technology, competition and election security. We take a rigorous approach that integrates legal, policy and technical expertise, with a focus on developing actionable policy solutions. You can read more about our work at www.cdt.org.
Key Responsibilities:
Policy Direction. Develop the strategic plan for the Privacy & Data team, collaborating with the CEO, Director of Policy and other project teams to identify core advocacy goals and design and oversee the work plan to achieve them. Collaborate with Development team on grant proposals to help achieve these goals.
Management. Manage a team of policy counsels, overseeing direction of their projects, reviewing and editing work product, and serving as a mentor to build cohesion and vision within the team.
Representation. Act as a key representative on privacy, data & AI issues before policymakers, regulatory agencies, civil society organizations, industry and the broader public. Engage in public speaking, including providing public testimony and speaking with the press.
Stakeholder Engagement. Work collaboratively with CDT’s broad network of engagement targets, including civil society partners, academics, and companies at the national and international level. Build and maintain relevant relationships within these communities. Participate in CDT’s Working Groups, engage with members of CDT’s Advisory Council, Fellows Program, and Collaborating Attorneys’ Network.
Direct-to-Company Advocacy. Engage directly with technology companies to advocate for and advise on adoption of privacy-protective and responsible data use practices.
Project Work. Carry out the daily work of the Privacy & Data team, such as:
Legal and policy analysis and development of policy recommendations related to emerging issues in consumer privacy, AI and data governance.
Author reports and op-eds, develop advocacy letters and other materials to advance the project’s policy goals.
Provide policy and technical assistance to policymakers, regulators and commercial entities.
Identify and work on strategic litigation opportunities, including filing amicus briefs and impact litigation.
Engage in public education, media relations, and public speaking.
Internal Thought Leadership. Collaborate with the CEO, Policy Director, and other Project Directors to inform CDT’s policy direction, harmonize policy positions across the organization, and find areas of collaboration across teams.
Qualifications:
Significant technology policy experience and deep domain expertise, as demonstrated through career positions and/or written work.
A minimum of 7-10 years in relevant legal, policy or advocacy positions, with increasing levels of responsibility and management experience.
Demonstrated commitment to advancing technology policies and practices that protect civil rights, civil liberties and democratic values, with expertise in U.S. privacy law (expertise in civil rights law a plus; expertise in non-U.S. privacy law a plus).
Commitment to managing teams in a way that mentors rising advocates and fosters a collaborative culture among staff.
Experience with Congress, federal agencies, and corporate best practices preferred.
Experience building multi-stakeholder coalitions, influencing decision-makers, shaping legislation and/or leading impact litigation preferred.
Excellent communication skills, with experience in public speaking, writing, and a demonstrated ability to communicate policy issues to the media and the public.
Compensation:
CDT offers competitive compensation, and a generous benefits package that includes health care and dental coverage, a retirement plan, and paid vacation, sick, and parental leave.
Applicants:
Please send a cover letter and resume to hr@cdt.org.
Deadline:
Open until filled.
The Center for Democracy & Technology is an equal opportunity employer, and does not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual or gender orientation, religion, or disability.
Clerk of Court, U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Announcement Number: 21-FISC-01
Position Title: CLERK OF COURT
(TS/SCI clearance is required)
Grade/Salary Range: JSP-16 ($169,036 - $218,600)
(Court Unit Executives Pay Table)
(Salary based on qualifications and experience.)
Position Location: Washington, DC
Position Information: Full-time, Permanent, Excepted Service
Open Date: May 10, 2021
Closing Date: June 25, 2021
How to Apply: To be considered for this “at will” position, applicants are required to submit the following:
• A cover letter detailing how your experience relates to the position requirements
• AO-78, Federal Judicial Branch Application for Employment (can be downloaded from www.uscourts.gov)
• A resume detailing all relevant experience, education, and accomplishments
• Writing sample, not to exceed ten pages
Failure to submit a complete and signed cover letter, AO-78, resume, and writing sample will result in immediate disqualification. Description of Work section of the AO-78 must be complete to include salary information. Indicating “see resume” is not acceptable. Incomplete and/or unsigned applications will not be considered, returned or retained. Only applicants selected for an interview will be contacted and must travel at their own expense. Relocation expenses will not be provided. One application per candidate will be accepted for this announcement.
Applications may be mailed, or hand delivered to:
United States District Court
Attn: Human Resources (21-FISC-01)
333 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 2718
Washington, DC 20001
Or via e-mail to: jobs@dcp.uscourts.gov
Agency Contact Person:Marion L. Boulden, PHR, SHRM-CP
Human Resources Manager
(202) 565-1355
Overview:
The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is seeking a qualified candidate for the position of Clerk of Court. The Clerk of Court also serves as the Clerk of Court for the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. The Clerk of Court reports directly to the presiding judge. This is a professional and highly visible position that has broad and overarching responsibilities. The Clerk of Court is responsible for leading and directing all of the administrative and operational areas of the Clerk’s Office. Responsibilities include but are not limited to serving as the chief administrator of the court, overseeing all statutory duties and functions, providing analytical guidance and interpretations and resolving complex issues that have a significant impact on the daily functioning of the court.
As the primary court executive and chief administrator, the Clerk of Court is the expert and advises on the court’s case management, financial management, space and facilities, human resource administration, information technology services, policy and procedural implementation, strategic planning executions, statistical analysis and public relations communications.
The Clerk of Court works very closely with the 11 Judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the three Judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, as well as the Department of Justice and members of the Intelligence Community. The Clerk of Court has regular interaction with other court unit executives and court staff, the Administrative Office the United States Courts, the Office of the Circuit Executive, and the Federal Judicial Center.
Education:
Undergraduate: Education in a college or university of recognized standing may be substituted for a maximum of 3 years of the required general experience on the basis of one academic year of education equals 9 months of experience. A bachelor’s degree from a college or university of recognized standing may be substituted for 3 years of the required general experience. Preferably such degree should have included courses in law, government, public, business, or judicial administration or related fields.
Postgraduate: A postgraduate degree in public, business or judicial administration from such a college or university may be substituted for one additional year of the required general experience.
Legal: A degree from an accredited law school may be considered as qualifying for two additional years of the required general experience.
Experience:
General Administrative: A minimum of 10 years of progressively responsible administrative experience in public service or business that provides a thorough understanding of organizational, procedural and human aspects in managing an organization.
Management Responsibility: At least three of the 10 years of experience must have been in a position of substantial management responsibility. Substantial management experience is high-level administrative experience that provided a thorough understanding of organizational, procedural and human aspects of managing an organization. Such experience typically includes financial management, space and facilities management, oversight of the information technology and human resources functions, and long and short-range planning.
Practice of Law: An attorney who has served as a judicial law clerk in a federal court may substitute said clerkship on a year-for-year basis for the management or administrative experience requirement.
Court Preferred Experience:
Management experience in a federal or state court judicial or administrative office of courts is highly desired, as is experience working with classified information. Solid organizational, problem solving, and conflict resolution skills, as well as exceptional oral and written communication and interpersonal skills are strongly preferred. A proven record in leadership and accomplishment is desired. Experience in information technology and a working knowledge of the federal court system are also preferred.
Employee Benefits:
Full-time employees of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court are eligible for a full range of benefits to include:
• A minimum of 10 paid holidays per year
• Paid annual leave in the amount of 13 days per year for the first three years, 20 days per year after three years, and 26 days per year after fifteen years
• Paid sick leave in the amount of 13 days per year
• Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS)
• Optional participation in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), Federal Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP), the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance (FEGLI), the Flexible Benefits Program, the Commuter Benefit Program, SmartBenefits (mass transit subsidy up to $270 per month), and Long-Term Care Insurance
• Workers’ Compensation Program
• On-site physical fitness facility
• Flexible work schedule
• Federal Occupational Health Services Program (FOH)/ On-site Health Unit
• Employee Assistance Program (EAP)/Work Life Services
• Priority enrollment for children beginning at three months of age until kindergarten of all employees of the United States Courts in the Thurgood Marshall Child Development Center (TMCDC)
For more detailed information about federal court benefits, please go to:
www.uscourts.gov/careers/benefits.
Conditions of Employment:
United States citizenship is required for consideration for this position.
Because of the access to highly classified materials and information, a TOP SECRET/SCI clearance is required for this position. Preference will be given to applicants with a current and active TOP SECRET/SCI clearance.
Employees of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court are excepted service appointments. Excepted service appointments are “at will” and can be terminated with or without cause by the court.
Employees are required to adhere to the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees.
Employees are required to use Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT) for payroll deposit.
Selection will be made consistent with the provisions of the Equal Employment Opportunity Plan adopted by the United States District and Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia.
The Court reserves the right to modify the conditions of this announcement.
Note: On May 25, 2021, vacancy extended from June 11, 2021, to June 25, 2021.
Cyber Initiative and Special Projects Fellow, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
About the foundation
The Hewlett Foundation is a nonpartisan, private charitable foundation that advances ideas and supports institutions to promote a better world. For 50 years, the foundation has supported efforts to advance education for all, preserve the environment, improve lives and livelihoods in developing countries, promote the health and economic well-being of women, support vibrant performing arts, strengthen Bay Area communities, and make the philanthropy sector more effective. In addition, we also make grants for special projects and to address other timely problems, such as challenges related to cybersecurity and U.S. democracy. In 2020, the foundation announced a new grantmaking commitment focused on racial justice. The Hewlett Foundation’s assets are more than $9 billion with annual awards of grants totaling more than $400 million. More information about the Hewlett Foundation is available at: www.hewlett.org.
About the position
The Cyber Initiative and Special Projects Program Fellow will play an integral role in two distinct grantmaking efforts housed in the foundation president’s office. The fellow will be a member of the Cyber Initiative team, working closely with and reporting to the Director of the Cyber Initiative, who will provide the fellow with direction on the initiative’s strategy, activities, and ongoing annual events. Launched in March 2014, the goal of the initiative (and its $130 million grantmaking budget) is to build a more capable and diverse field of cyber policy experts and expertise. The Cyber Initiative takes a broad view of cyber policy to include issues ranging from encryption to net neutrality to internet governance to cyber conflict. The Initiative will sunset in 2023 (coterminous with the fellow’s term), so the fellow will play an integral role helping to make the Initiative’s final grants, help promote and organize collaborations, and ensure its lasting impact.
Simultaneously, the fellow will work directly with Foundation President Larry Kramer, helping to shape and implement grantmaking for the Special Projects portfolio. Special Projects grants are diverse and ad hoc – ranging from support for public broadcasting to confronting systemic racism – and require nimble and thoughtful attention to detail and execution. The fellow must work to promote internal collaboration between different foundation programs and administrative departments, external collaboration with other funders and partners, and/or unanticipated opportunities outside of the foundation’s core interest areas.
This position presents a unique opportunity to engage in both the strategic and tactical aspects of philanthropic grantmaking under the Cyber Initiative and Special Projects program. As such, the fellow must be flexible, comfortable working across a changing and evolving landscape of internal and external work, and able to effectively juggle multiple projects at the same time. We prioritize diverse candidates who bring a range of views, experiences, and backgrounds to the role and the responsibilities described below.
The broad goals and responsibilities for the fellow are:
Help drive implementation of the Cyber Initiative’s field-building strategy, including by sharing their unique and diverse perspective during team discussions and planning sessions.
Conduct grantee due diligence, evaluate and recommend potential grantee organizations, including suggesting new grant awards to be made and manage a portion of the initiative’s grants portfolio.
Evaluate the effectiveness of its grantmaking, monitor its progress, and recommend strategy improvements.
Work directly with the foundation president to plan and execute Special Projects grants.
Manage the Special Projects budget and grant portfolio, tracking all active and planned grants and other funding commitments with other foundation programs or outside funders.
Manage relationships and communications with grantees and serve as their primary point of contact.
Develop and manage relationships with vendors and consultants.
Represent the foundation at meetings with key stakeholders from civil society, government, the private sector, and academia.
Attend and represent the foundation at external events, including speaking on panels, writing blog posts/articles, etc.
Follow the cyber policy debate globally, stay abreast of trends and developments, and identify new opportunities for the foundation’s grantmaking.
Travel domestically and internationally (not likely to exceed 10%) to conduct site visits and attend conferences, as appropriate under foundation policies and best sensible public health practices.
Work collaboratively in a multidisciplinary environment with cross-functional partners in the grants management, legal, and communications teams to process and keep track of grants.
Professional qualifications and personal attributes
Candidates should exhibit the following professional qualifications and personal attributes:
Professional experience:
An undergraduate degree required or advanced degree (preferred) as appropriate in law, policy, business, computer science, engineering, or related disciplines.
Demonstrated interest required and two to five years work experience (preferred) in areas relevant to the Cyber Initiative.
Excellent research and critical thinking skills and ability to conceptualize, think creatively, and thoughtfully approach assigned projects.
Ability to regularly “context shift” and toggle between two distinct portfolios.
Capability to process and present complex information (both quantitative and qualitative) in a compelling manner both orally and in writing.
Proficiency with technology tools and applications including MS Office, Zoom, etc., as well as a willingness to learn new systems and/or experience with Salesforce, a plus.
Excellent verbal and written communications skills.
Willingness and interest in domestic and international work travel (not likely to exceed 10% time) to conduct site visits and participate in relevant conferences and meetings.
Personal attributes:
Possess an open-minded curiosity and willingness to carry out both substantive and administrative tasks.
Comfort with ambiguity and an eagerness to explore and learn about new topics and issues.
Passionate about the guiding principles and mission of the Hewlett Foundation.
Comfort representing the foundation externally and engaging a diverse array of partner organizations.
Excellent organizational skills and attention to detail, along with a demonstrated track record of consistently meeting deadlines.
Ability to work well on a team and independently, including independent initiative, a sense of humor, and a collegial spirit in sharing ideas and receiving feedback. Demonstrated ability to work collaboratively.
Personal integrity, excellent judgment, and flexibility.
Strong communication and interpersonal skills.
Compensation
Compensation for the Fellow, Cyber Initiative and Special Projects includes a competitive salary, and an excellent package of health and other employee benefits.
Physical demands/work environment
The physical demands described are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this position. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.
While performing the duties of this position, the employee is regularly required to sit for extended periods of time and to travel via various modes of transportation for extended periods of time. The foundation employees are currently working remotely through June 2021. When we do return to the office it will begin with a phased, and voluntary approach.
To apply:
Please apply online and submit a resume and cover letter explaining how your skills fit this position.
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation embraces the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion both internally, in our hiring process and organizational culture, and externally, in our grantmaking and related practices. We are an equal opportunity employer and welcome applications from people of all backgrounds, cultures, and experiences.
Legal Intern Fall 2021, ICRC Washington
Function: Legal Intern Fall 2021
Department: International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Place of Employment: Washington, D.C.
Direct Superior: Deputy Head of Legal Department
Job Objective:
The Intern in the IHL Department at the Washington Regional Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) provides research and writing on topics of IHL, other branches of international law, and US law as needed, thus contributing to the thematic and operational priorities of the legal team.
Minimum Required Knowledge & Experience:
Basic knowledge of international law, international institutions, international humanitarian law (IHL), and a related legal field (e.g. national security law or international human rights law).
Excellent oral and written English skills, with a preference for those also having a good understanding of French and/or Spanish.
Second or third year law school student pursuing a US JD, or pursuing an LLM degree (or a JD graduate pursuing another graduate degree)
Applicants must already have the right to work in the U.S.
Main Responsibilities:
Work with the IHL team to provide legal advice to the delegation in Washington, and to the ICRC as a whole on matters of IHL, human rights law, national security law, or other US legal issues.
Research and Writing. Research such topics as the scope of application of IHL, detention, conduct of hostilities, weapons and new technologies in warfare, migration, and other related topics.
Monitoring and Analysis of International and Domestic Legal Developments. Regular monitor and analyse relevant international and domestic case law, legislation, legal blogs and news coverage to identify significant legal developments of interest to the delegation. In addition to research and writing, the intern will attend conferences and meetings to monitor developments on specific legal issues on behalf of the legal team.
Reporting. Regular and timely reporting and analysis on meetings and events attended, as well as a weekly report on any relevant legal developments reported in external sources such as legal blogs, reports, and journal articles. Reports are written for the purpose of ensuring the institution is informed of developments in US policy, as well as to advance its thinking on key issues.
Event Planning. Assist in the planning and preparation of ICRC legal events, such as legal conferences, workshops, or roundtable discussions.
Management and Reporting Line: The IHL Intern reports to the Deputy Head of the Legal Department. She or he is expected to collaborate with colleagues throughout the delegation in order to carry out these and other reasonably related duties.
Administrative Information
Location: The ICRC requests all applicants be able to work from the ICRC’s offices in Washington DC or, depending on circumstances due to COVID-19 at the time of hiring, from outside the office. The intern will be subject to the same “work-from-home” policies as ICRC staff during the period of the internship.
Hours and Start/End Dates: The intern will be expected to work 20 hours a week from approximately September to December 2021. The specific starting and ending dates are negotiable.
Benefits: This is a paid internship.
How to Apply: For information about the position, or to apply for the position, please contact Yonny Aguilar Espinoza at yaguilar@icrc.org. Application requires a CV, brief writing sample and optional cover letter. Due to the large number of applications and only shortlisted candidates will be contacted further. Applications are due May 18, 2021.
The ICRC values diversity and is committed to creating an inclusive working environment. We welcome applications from all qualified candidates.
About the Position:
This is a full-time civilian faculty position at the U.S. Army War College (USAWC), Strategic Studies Institute as provided under Title 10 USC 4021. Initial appointment may be up to three years, the first year may be a trial period. The appointment may be renewed in one- to five-year increments thereafter. Academic rank and salary will be based on the selectee's academic credentials, experience and professional accomplishments.
Travel Required: 25% or less - Travel (domestic and/or international) may be required up to 25% of the time.
Supervisory status: No
Promotion Potential: None
Responsibilities
Serve as Research Professor of National Security Affairs in the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) at the USAWC.
Performs research and publishes SSI studies, journal articles, policy-oriented essays, op-eds, blog postings, books and/or book chapters, which are distributed worldwide. (50%)
Conducts self-initiated research and directed research in geostrategic threats, national security strategy, and defense policy at the request of senior-level officials at the Army Staff, Joint Staff or Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Works independently and collaboratively to develop recommendations to achieve key national security objectives specifically oriented toward those factors that impact U.S. defense priorities, especially those of the U.S. Army.
Designs individual and collective annual research and publication plans, in consultation with SSI leadership, addressing contemporary national security issues.
Conducts both internal and external service in national security related areas. (30%)
Liaises with and provides briefings and expertise in response to requests from aforementioned key stakeholders and other audiences.
Leads, organizes, and implements SSI and USAWC professional collaboration, conferences, seminars, symposiums, and meetings.
Attends and participates in relevant academic conferences by presenting papers and/or acting as panel chair or discussant.
Contributes to the educational mission of the USAWC through teaching, lecturing and supervising student research projects. (20%)
Requirements
Conditions of Employment:
Appointment may be subject to a suitability or fitness determination, as determined by a completed background investigation.
Must be able to obtain and maintain a TOP SECRET security clearance.
Must provide official college transcripts, upon request. Unofficial transcripts are suitable for application purposes.
Must comply with the Drug Testing Program requirements (pre-employment and random testing after appointment).
Must be available for employment not later than 1 August 2021.
Male applicants born after December 31, 1959, must complete a Pre-Employment Certification Statement for Selective Service Registration.
You will be required to provide proof of U.S. Citizenship.
One year trial period may be required.
Direct deposit of pay is required.
Salary includes applicable locality pay or Local Market Supplement.
Permanent Change of Station (PCS) allowances may be authorized, subject to the provisions of the Joint Travel Regulations and an agency determination that a PCS move is in the Government Interest.
Include the job announcement number on your application.
Must provide official college transcripts upon request (unofficial transcripts are required at the time of application).
Telework eligible -- Mission-dependent with locality pay at Carlisle, PA.
Qualifications
Who May Apply:
U.S. Citizens
To qualify, you must meet the education and/or experience requirements described below. Your résumé must clearly describe your relevant experience; your transcripts are required as part of your application. Additional information about transcripts is available here.
SELECTIVE PLACEMENT FACTORS/KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES (KSAs): Applicants will be rated based on the criteria listed below by a panel of subject matter experts appointed with the purpose of identifying the best- qualified candidates.
1. Must have a master's (required) degree in national security studies, international relations, international political economy, political science, public policy, regional studies or related field. A PhD or equivalent evidence of extensive original scholarly research and writing is preferred.
2. Record of research and publication (or evidence of great potential) on key national security issues with the ability to influence policy at the strategic level (National Security Council, DoD, combatant commands, interagency).
3. Excellent oral and written communication skills, as demonstrated by the publication of books and articles, workshops and conference presentations, lectures, and podcasts, etc.
4. Excellent interpersonal and organizational skills, including the ability to serve as a project team lead for collective research projects, and as a faculty advisor for student research projects.
5. Ability to contribute to the educational mission of the USAWC through teaching, including supervising student research projects, lecturing in the core curriculum, regional studies and/or electives.
Education
Only degrees from an accredited college or university recognized by the Department of Education are acceptable to meet positive education requirements or to substitute education for experience.
For additional information, please go to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and U.S. Department of Education websites here and here. FOREIGN EDUCATION: If you are using education completed in foreign colleges or universities to meet the qualification requirements, you must show the education credentials have been evaluated by a private organization that specializes in interpretation of foreign education programs and such education has been deemed equivalent to that gained in an accredited U.S. education program; or full credit has been given for the courses at a U.S. accredited college or university. For further information, look here.
You will be evaluated for this job based on how well you meet the qualifications above.
The application review process to determine if you meet the experience and education requirements found in the job announcement begins upon the closing date of the announcement. If you are one of the top candidates, you may be invited to interview by the selection official. If selected, you will receive a tentative job offer. Depending on the strength of the applicant pool, this process may take several months after the closing date of the job announcement.
Please follow all instructions carefully, as failure to submit a complete application could invalidate your submission. In this regard, please be sure to read the HOW TO APPLY and REQUIRED DOCUMENTS sections.
The Hertog Foundation seeks applications for a new fellowship for young professionals on National Security & Sino-American Technology Competition. Led by AEI Director of Asia Studies Dan Blumenthal, the fellowship seeks to educate the next generation of East Asia strategists and national security generalists about how technology will shape U.S.-China strategic rivalry.
The fellowship will consist of three parts:
Evening seminars and dinner briefings, taught by leading scholars and practitioners on a different dimension of Sino-American technology competition,
An independent research project guided by the Fellowship Dean, Dan Blumenthal,
A one-day conference where fellows will present their research to their colleagues and a panel of national-security experts
Guest instructors include Jim Mulvenon (Defense Group, Inc.), Erica Downs (Columbia University), LTG (Ret.) Jack Shanahan (Joint Artificial Intelligence), and Matt Turpin (Palantir Technologies/Hoover), among others.
The fellowship begins in September 2021, and will take place in Washington, DC. Fellows will meet two to three times a month for evening sessions. We seek outstanding young professionals (under 35) working or pursuing advanced study in national security, economics, STEM, law, or industry.
Third Way is seeking a Vice President for the National Security Program. This is a high profile, high impact, senior level policy position that supervises and coordinates all activities of the department and manages the work of three policy staff and outside consultants. The Vice President is a member of the senior management team of Third Way and reports to the Executive VP for Policy.
Major areas of responsibility:
The goal of the National Security program is to develop policy solutions to 21st century threats and challenges. The program has four principal areas of focus: 1) US-China policy, 2) US cybersecurity with an emphasis on better identifying and holding accountable malicious cyber actors, 3) world hotspots and front burner issues, such as the Iran nuclear deal, and 4) the politics of national security and public opinion. The China focus is a new area of emphasis for the organization.
The National Security Program has been a trusted policy voice on Capitol Hill and for past and current Democratic administrations. The Program’s successes have been featured widely in the press, and Third Way’s security policies have been adopted by House and Senate legislators and the Executive Branch.
The Vice President for the National Security Program has both a policy and public role within the organization. The Vice President represents the organization with Members of Congress, administration officials, Hill staff, the business community, advocacy organizations, academics, Third Way’s Board of Trustees, and in the media.
This position affords qualified candidates with an extraordinary opportunity to help rebuild a successful program that attritted its senior personnel to the Biden Administration. Our workplace is diverse, inclusive, collegial, and family-friendly.
Requirements:
Experience: Candidates should have a minimum of 7 years of relevant experience working in the policy or advocacy arena, Capitol Hill, or administration. (A graduate degree is helpful but not required.) A strong network of Hill and administration contacts is preferred.
Management Expertise: Candidates should have significant experience managing people and projects. Candidates must be organized and result-oriented. They must be able to keep multiple projects on track.
Policy Expertise: Candidates should have a strong general background in national security. Candidates with policy expertise in cyber policy and China are preferred.
Creativity and entrepreneurship: Candidates should be prepared to work with a team that thinks outside-the-box and challenges existing orthodoxies. Candidates must be prepared to formulate new policy ideas and promote them.
Writing: Candidates must have proven ability to write compelling and high-impact products.
Communications: Candidates must have strong public presentation ability. Experience in working with the media is preferred.
Teamwork: Candidates should enjoy working in a collaborative organization – collaboration with both Third Way senior management and policy staff.
You will like this job if you're a:
Self-starter: Are you eager to seize opportunities, take risks, learn from failure, and bring a sustained passion for our mission?
Collaborator: Do you like to work in teams— to share ideas, brainstorm, co-author products, and advance shared priorities?
Creator: Do you welcome divergent thinking from those you supervise; are willing to question and take on the orthodoxies of the left or the right; get excited about surprising data?
Results-oriented person: Are you driven by impact and desire accountability for results?
Respectful Teammate: Do you embrace diverse perspectives of everyone and value diversity, equity, and inclusiveness?
Compensation:
Competitive compensation and benefits
To apply:
Submit cover letter, resume, and salary requirements to: hr@thirdway.org with “Vice President of National Security” as the subject line.
Third Way is an equal opportunity employer that celebrates, supports and promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion. We will consider all qualified applicants without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, protected veteran status, sexual orientation or gender identity, or any other legally protected basis, in accordance with applicable laws.
Assistant Counsel or Law Clerk, U.S. Navy and Marine Corps
Closing Date: 4/5/2021
Command & Location: SSP - Washington Navy Yard, DC
Grade: GS-11 or GS-9
The Navy and Marine Corps team offers innovative, exciting and meaningful work linking military and civilian talents to achieve our mission and safeguard our freedoms. The Department of the Navy Office of the General Counsel has been serving the Department since 1941 and is committed to developing innovative legal solutions to the business and other challenges facing the Navy and Marine Corps to enhance the war fighting capability of the Naval Service. You will find our attorneys stationed across the United States and worldwide, working with Navy and Marine Corps personnel wherever the Department's business is conducted.
A vacancy is anticipated to serve as an entry-level Assistant Counsel International Law and Arms Control (or Law Clerk as described below), within the Office of Counsel, Strategic Systems Programs (SSP). The position has a duty station at SSP headquarters located at the Washington Navy Yard, DC.
SSP, an Echelon 2 Command, is responsible for the development, production, maintenance, and life-cycle-management of the Department of the Navy’s (DON) TRIDENT II D5 Missile Strategic Weapons System (approximately 70% of the United States nuclear weapons). SSP’s annual budget exceeds $3.6 billion. SSP is in the process of pre-development efforts for the next generation strategic weapons system and SSP’s program life was recently extended through 2084. SSP is also responsible for the regulation of DON’s nuclear weapons, DON’s Nuclear Weapons Security Program, the Common Missile Compartment for the Columbia Class Program, and emerging programs such as the Conventional Prompt Strike missile system. Among other responsibilities, SSP acts as the Project Officer for the Polaris Sales Agreement, an international foreign military sales agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom. SSP is also responsible within the DON for the planning and support necessary to ensure DON compliance with all arms control treaties and agreements.
SSP’s Office of Counsel provides legal support to SSP’s headquarters and its 11 field offices and detachments, which are located throughout the United States and the United Kingdom. SSP’s Office of Counsel provides legal support in all areas of the Navy Office of the General Counsel’s (OGC) practice, including federal procurement law, civilian personnel law, environmental law, fiscal law, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), ethics, intellectual property and support agreements. SSP’s Office of Counsel also provides legal support associated with specialized areas of practice including international law, arms control law, classification, and nuclear weapons specific legislation, regulations, instructions, and policies.
The SSP Office of Counsel is currently composed of 19 attorney billets and 1 support staff located at SSP’s headquarters and 3 field activities. The Assistant Counsel/Law Clerk billet reports to SSP’s Supervisory Associate Counsel (International Law and Arms Control). The incumbent will primarily provide legal support to SSP headquarters. Occasional travel to SSP field offices, to the United Kingdom, and for training is a mandatory requirement of the position.
The incumbent’s duties will focus on international law and associated U.S. legal, regulatory and policy matters arising under the U.S.-UK Polaris Sales Agreement (PSA) and the U.S.-UK Mutual Defense Agreement (MDA); the Foreign Military Sales section of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA); select provisions of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA); U.S. export control regulations, including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Commerce Control List (CCL); the Chemical Weapons Convention, Biological Weapons Convention, New START Treaty, and all other US arms control-related international obligations. The incumbent will support the supervisory attorney as the SSP Foreign Disclosure Officer (FDO). In this capacity, the incumbent will provide advice and guidance consistent with applicable Executive Orders and Department of Defense/Department of the Navy foreign disclosure policies and procedures. The incumbent may also provide legal advice in other areas of OGC’s practice as needed, such as FOIA, ethics, or support agreements. Efforts in these areas will include the provision of legal advice, both written and oral, and litigation support at all levels of the administrative process and in Federal Court.
The position will be filled under the General Schedule (GS) system at the GS-11 level and precise pay will be set commensurate with the successful applicant’s qualifications, funding availability, and GS pay guidelines. The position has a full performance level of GS-15. To be eligible for selection at the GS-11 level, the applicant must have at least one year of professional legal experience, or be a recent law school graduate with superior law student work or activities as demonstrated by: graduating in the top third of their law school class; work or achievement of significance on an official law review or journal; or a special high-level honor, e.g., winning a moot court competition, membership on the law school’s official moot court team, or membership in the Order of the Coif. For GS-11 positions only, a second professional law degree (LL.M.) that required at least one full academic year of graduate study may be substituted for one year of professional legal experience. If a recent law school graduate who has not yet been admitted to a bar is selected for the position, that selectee will be appointed as a GS-09 Law Clerk. Upon appointment to a bar and certification as an active member in good standing, the position will transition to GS-11 Attorney.
Applicants will be evaluated on: 1) depth and quality of experience in, or demonstrated interest in, or familiarity with, the above-noted substantive areas of law; (2) their research, analytical, and writing skills; (3) their oral communication skills; and (4) their interpersonal skills, including their ability to develop strong attorney-client relationships and their ability to work both independently and as part of a team. Applicants with a record of making significant contributions to the advancement of DON OGC or equivalent Office of General Counsel or law firm/office beyond the day-to-day legal practice are desired.
The successful applicant must be a U.S. citizen, have graduated from a law school accredited by the American Bar Association, be an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a State, U.S. commonwealth, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia, be admitted to practice before a state or federal court, and be eligible to obtain and maintain a Top Secret security clearance. Current third year law students and recent law school graduates will also be considered, contingent upon eventual completion of the above criteria, and are encouraged to apply.
Applicants must submit a cover letter; resume; two legal writing samples (no longer than 10 pages each); two most recent performance appraisals, if available; and the names and telephone numbers of at least three references (other than current supervisors) who may be contacted. Applicants who have graduated from law school less than five years prior to the announcement closing date must provide an official copy of their law school transcript including class rank.
Interested applicants are encouraged to contact Mr. Joshua Kuyers, Supervisory Associate Counsel (International Law and Arms Control), SSP, joshua.kuyers@ssp.navy.mil, 202-433-9766.
Electronic applications (all documents in one file) must be submitted to Mr. Kuyers at joshua.kuyers@ssp.navy.mil. Hard copy applications are not being accepted at this time.
The personnel notice will close on April 5, 2021, at 11:59:59 PM (EST)) and complete applications must be received by this date and time to be considered.
If the successful applicant is not currently a member of the Department of the Navy Office of the General Counsel, processing of the hiring action can only commence after submission of those items identified in the "Instructions for New OGC Attorneys" (see Careers section of www.ogc.navy.mil).
NOTICE OF VETERANS' PREFERENCE
There is no formal rating system for applying veterans' preference to attorney appointments in the excepted service; however, the Department of the Navy Office of the General Counsel considers veterans' preference eligibility a positive factor for attorney hiring. Applicants eligible for veterans' preference must include that information in their cover letter or resume and attach supporting documentation (e.g., DD Form 214, "Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty") to their submissions.
Although the point-preference system is not used, applicants eligible to claim a 10-point preference must submit a Standard Form (SF) 15, "Application for 10-Point Veteran Preference," and supporting documentation required for the specific type of preference claimed. (SF-15, which lists the types of 10-point preference and the required supporting documents, is available from the Office of Personnel Management Website at www.opm.gov.)
Not all veterans are preference eligible. For a summary of time periods, campaigns, and conditions that entitle an applicant to preference eligibility, please visit https://www.fedshirevets.gov/index.aspx, https://www.usajobs.gov/Help/working-in government/unique-hiring-paths/veterans, and see the Veterans' Preference Advisor, operated by the Department of Labor at http://www.dol.gov/elaws/vets/vetpref/vetspref.htm.
The United States Government does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy or gender identity), national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, retaliation, parental status, military service, or other non-merit factor.
The Oversight Board is a new body that will make binding and independent decisions about the most challenging content issues on Facebook and Instagram. The first members of the Board were announced in May 2020 and include Helle Thorning-Schmidt, former Prime Minister of Denmark, Tawakkol Karman, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Michael McConnell, Director of Stanford’s Constitutional Law Center, and many other diverse leaders and thinkers from around the world. The Board began accepting cases in October 2020.
The Oversight Board Administration is the team of full-time staff who support Board Members in carrying out their duties. The Administration will have offices in London, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., and operate with a global scope.
You can learn more about the Board at www.oversightboard.com.
Role
Joining the Oversight Board Administration is a chance to be part of an organization that will operate with the soul and pace of a startup, but have a global impact from day one – leading on some of the most prominent and challenging issues facing the tech industry and society, but as part of a lean and nimble team.
Under the supervision of the Content Director, the post holder will manage the Oversight Board’s CaseDecisionsImplementationand MonitoringTeam, includingdirect reports.This new team plays a critical role across the Content Teams and will leverage available data to help enhance the Board’s impact overall.
The Case Decisions Implementation and Monitoring Manager will design and maintain a robust, data-driven framework to track, measure, and analyze how Facebook implements the Board’s decisions and policy recommendations; the impact of those decisions on users and communities globally; and ways to optimize Content Team processes by closing the feedback loop. The incumbent will work with the Research and Policy team to advise the Board on its policy recommendations to help make them more easily implementable by Facebook content moderators and automated systems, and thereby, enhance the Board’s impact over time.
They will also play a key role across the Content organization by leveraging data to foster cross functional collaboration andprocessesimprovements. This willincludecontributing toContent Team project management, planning, and strategy development.
This role may be based in any of the Administration’s three locations of London, San Francisco and Washington D.C.
Responsibilities (including but not limited to):
Lead the Case Decisions Implementation and Monitoring team
that monitors Facebook’s implementation of Oversight Board decisions and policy recommendations and assesses their wider impact on users and communities worldwide.
Support the Case Decisions Implementation Working Group (of the Board), including preparing materials and reports.
Counsel and advise Board panels on their policy recommendations to help make those recommendations more easily implementable by FB content moderators and automated systems.
Oversee drafting of impact assessments (which are prepared once cases are assigned, and then reviewed again before decisions are finalized).
Collaborate with and provide counsel to all Content teams to foster cross functionality and ensuring consistent design and process across the Content organization.
Assist with Content Team project management, planning, and strategy development. Skills, Competencies, Experience
The Oversight Board Administration values diversity of experience. Candidates should have a strong combination of several of the following skills, competencies and experience:
Degree educated, preferable with at least some specialisation or strong interest in data science, content moderation, human rights, media, and/or related fields.
Experience in content moderation, ideallyin the design, monitoring, and/or implementation of content and/or product policies on a social media platform.
Deep understanding of relevant sources of data to monitor and measure changes in Facebook’s content and/or product policies and enforcement decisions and their associated impact.
A passion for transparency and accountability of social media companies, including a detailed knowledge of the impact of social media on society and international discussions on approaches to regulating online expression.
Project management, collaborative design, and/or related strategy and process development experience.
Experienced manager with comfort working across multiple geographies, time zones, and cultures (knowledge of multiple languages, a plus).
Previous work advising and supporting deliberations by principal-level decision-makers.
Strong team player with aflexible mindset and ability to work in a fast-moving environment.
Strong written and oral communications skills.
What we can offer you
As well as a competitive salary, we also offer a market leading benefits package, covering a variety of areas, both professional and personal. These benefits include:
A generous 12% employer contribution towards the 401(k) plan with no requirement for you to contribute;
Progressive family friendly benefits including a robust paid parental leave policy;
Comprehensive short-term and long-term disability, life assurance and business travel insurance packages providing financial support in events of ill health, injury etc;
A generous childcare subsidy to provide financial support for eligible childcare costs;
A generous home working and commuting allowance to provide financial support for remote and/or office working;
An extensive healthcare package including medical, dental and vision plans offeringcoverage for you and your family;
A training allowance to support both your continuous professional development and professional membership;
22 days of paid time off per calendar year in addition to statutory public holidays;
A holistic wellbeing support plan encompassing a variety of offerings to assist you. We provide you with an allowance to fund activities to best support your wellbeing as well as workshops and training to provide tools and guidance. Additionally, there is a wide-ranging employee assistance programme available to advise on personal, family or financial matters, and also fun social events all year round.
Oversight Board is committed to promoting equal opportunities in employment. You will receive equal treatment regardless of age, disability, gender reassignment, marital or civil partner status, pregnancy or maternity, race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation. Pursuant to the San Francisco Fair Chance Ordinance, we will consider for employment qualified applicants with arrest and conviction records or any other applicable protected classification.
We welcome all applications for this role. Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis until the position is filled. If you are submitting an application, please note that we will only be in touch if your application is shortlisted for interview. Please see our privacy notice here.
If you would like to keep updated with the work of the Oversight Board and future opportunities, please follow us on our LinkedIn page.
Call for submissions: Now accepting articles for consideration in SIPR's Spring 2021 Print Issue
The Stanford International Policy Review invites submissions from graduate students, policy practitioners, academics, and other professionals for its Spring 2021 peer-reviewed print issue. SIPR publishes two issues per year, in the winter and in the spring. SIPR publishes articles, commentary, policy memos and issue briefs, as well as book reviews on international policy topics.
The Spring 2021 issue theme is The Future of Internationalism. SIPR seeks articles that offer insightful policy analysis addressing the fissures and opportunities of the current international system. We invite authors to consider topics like the post-pandemic liberal international order, the United Nations at its 75th anniversary, and shared global challenges (e.g., climate change, terrorism, and technological governance).
Submissions will be reviewed on a rolling basis. Articles submitted before March 15th will receive priority consideration for our fall issue. SIPR will cover the submission fee for the first 100 submissions. After that, the authors will be responsible for a $10 submission fee.
Learn more about submissions here. Please submit pieces for priority consideration by March 15.
In the Fall 2020 edition, authors examined critical global policy issues including:
Reform proposals for the World Health Organization
Modern Great Power dynamics
The Biden Presidency and Ukraine
COVID-19 financial relief programs in the U.K.
The future of Hong Kong property law
President López Obrador's peace plan for Mexico
Post-Doctoral Teaching Fellow, The Fletcher School and Tufts Department of Computer Science
Tufts University has an opening for one two-year teaching postdoctoral position in cybersecurity policy beginning in September 2021. The postdoc will be housed at The Fletcher School, which offers a rich array of talks and discussions that will enrich the fellowship year.
Tufts University has initiated a Masters program in Cybersecurity and Public Policy, combining the efforts of The Fletcher School and the School of Engineering’s Department of Computer Science (CS) that began in Fall 2020. As part of the growing program in cybersecurity and public policy (CSPP) at Tufts, The Fletcher School and the Department of Computer Science offers courses in security and in cybersecurity policy, and this will provide interesting opportunities for the postdoctoral scholar. Outside of Tufts, the Boston area offers a rich array of talks and other opportunities for enrichment in cybersecurity, policy, and related areas.
The postdoc will largely focus on their own research in cybersecurity policy. Their responsibilities will include participating in the development of the MS program by teaching recitations in two of the introductory technology courses: Computer Science for Future Policymakers, How Systems Work, and How Systems Fail. These teaching responsibilities will largely focus on policy aspects of the technology being studied, and will help prepare the postdoc for teaching technically informed cybersecurity policy. Faculty at Tufts will work with the postdoc to enable their teaching this interdisciplinary material. Additionally, there will be a number of associated activities for the CSPP program (e.g., panel discussions, symposia); it is expected that the postdoc will participate in these and other related special events.
Qualifications:
Completion of a PhD or JD in cybersecurity policy or a related area on or after September 1, 2018.
Evidence of background or strong interest in tech-related policy.
Interest in learning how to weave tech and policy into cybersecurity policy courses.
Review of applications will begin immediately and will continue until the position is filled.
Application materials include: a cover letter explaining your background and interest in the area, CV, a writing sample if available (an example of a preferred sample would be a communication to a non-technical audience), a list of three recommenders (names and contact information), a description of research interests, and graduate school transcript (if PhD is within the last three years). These materials should be submitted to FletcherCyberTeachingPostDoc2021@tufts.edu. An employee in this position must complete all appropriate background checks at the time of hire, promotion, or transfer.
Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, The Fletcher School and Tufts Department of Computer Science
Tufts University's Program in Cyber Security and Policy is offering two two-year postdoctoral positions in cybersecurity policy beginning in September 2021. Area of specialization is open but several different directions are of particular interest. Current Tufts faculty conduct research in surveillance and privacy, home IoT and privacy and security issues, cybersecurity incident liability, and impact of legal responses to cybersecurity interests. In addition, research in international and military use of cyber technologies, as well as government regulation of security tools are of strong interest. An aspect of this fellowship is improving cross-disciplinary background and skills in privacy policy. Thus, it is expected that the postdoc appointee will spend some effort gaining technical background to understand technical aspects of privacy and/or security.
The postdoc will be housed at The Fletcher School, which offers a rich array of talks and discussions that will enrich the fellowship years. In fall 2020 Tufts University initiated a masters program in cybersecurity and public policy combining the efforts of The Fletcher School and the School of Engineering, Department of Computer Science; there are a number of associated talks, seminars, and other activities. It is expected that the postdoc will participate in these, which include an annual student paper symposium in cybersecurity policy each spring. The Fletcher School and Tufts School of Engineering' Department of Computer Science offers courses in security and in cybersecurity policy, and this will provide additional interesting opportunities for the postdoctoral scholar, who may participate in some teaching. In addition, the Boston area offers a rich array of talks and scholars in cybersecurity, policy, and related areas.
Qualifications:
Completion of a JD or PhD in cybersecurity policy, field open (and includes privacy) on or after September 1, 2018.
Evidence of strong writing skills, including clear and concise communications to a non-specialist audience.
Strong interest in working in and expanding research within a cross-disciplinary setting.
Review of applications will begin immediately and will continue until the position is filled.
Application materials include: a cover letter explaining your background and interest in the area, CV, a writing sample (if available); a list of three recommenders (names and contact information), a description of research interests, and graduate school transcript (if PhD is within the last three years). These materials should be submitted to CyberResearchPostdoc2021@tufts.edu.
An employee in this position must complete all appropriate background checks at the time of hire, promotion, or transfer. Equal Opportunity Employer – minority/females/veterans/disability/sexual orientation/gender identity.
The Congressional Innovation Scholars fellowship program will place you among the top tech decision makers in the United States government at a time when technology is reshaping society in fundamental ways. Even if you've never considered working in government, the Congressional Innovation Scholars program will allow you to make change at the highest levels and at a scale unparalleled in the private or public sectors.
Applications for the 2021 Scholars Program are now open and will close at 11:59 pm ET on February 5, 2021. Click here to apply now. Sign up for our newsletter and follow us on Twitter for more updates.
We are bridging the divide between Congress and the technology sector by placing tech savvy people like you-- who are have recently finished, or are on track to finish a Master's program or PhD-- to work with Members of Congress and Congressional Committees in order to build capacity in Congress, train cross-sector leaders -- who can understand the challenges of government and in the technology community -- and keep Congress up to date about the latest challenges and opportunities relating to technology.
RESPONSIBILITIES
As a Congressional Innovation Scholar you will:
Work with TechCongress to choose a placement with a Member or Congress or Congressional Committee and report directly to a senior staffer (like a Legislative or Staff Director) in that office from June 2021 through April 2022.
Perform duties similar to other Congressional staff by applying your experience in technology to a variety of work, including:
Researching relevant policymaking (on issues like encryption, autonomous vehicle regulations, facial recognition privacy, health IT, election security, disinformation, open data, cyber/data security and many others)
Helping educate Members and staff about these issues.
Writing legislation.
Preparing for and organizing Committee hearings, markups, or investigations.
Building coalitions with partners and other groups.
Support TechCongress by writing about and presenting on your experience periodically, and represent TechCongress and the Congressional Innovation Scholars at meetings or events.
ELIGIBILITY
What we’re looking for in our Scholars:
Recently finishing (or projected to finish by June 2021) a technical degree program (Master's, PhD, or done with PhD coursework and still completing your dissertation), or early on in your career.
Tech savvy, with experience working in or studying the technology sector.
Great interpersonal and communications skills.
Some technical ability.
Ability to explain technology to those that aren’t as familiar with technology tools or concepts.
Track record of success taking initiative and working with others.
Ability to thrive in a fast-paced, collaborative environment.
Committed to helping get Members of Congress and Congressional staff up to speed on technology issues.
No experience working in or with government? Great! We're not looking for that. The Congressional Innovation Scholars program is an opportunity to expose technology leaders like you to Capitol Hill. It is first and foremost and educational experience, giving you a one-of-its-kind education into how Congress and the government works.
BENEFITS
Scholars earn a stipend equivalent to $60,000 annually during the 10 month program ($5000/mo.). Benefits include reimbursements for healthcare (up to $400/mo.), fellowship travel (up to $1,500), relocation to DC (up to $2,500), and up to $2,000 for accommodation for the first month of the fellowship in the Washington DC area to ease the transition during COVID-19.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What’s the difference between the Congressional Innovation Scholars program and the Congressional Innovation Fellowship?
The Congressional Innovation Scholars program is a fellowship exclusively for individuals that have recently finished, or are on the cusp of finishing a technical degree program. The Congressional Innovation Fellowship is meant for mid-career professionals, who on average join with eight to fourteen years of professional experience. The model of the Congressional Innovation Scholars program— our orientation, your placement in Congress, and your work on Capitol Hill— is virtually identical to the Congressional Innovation Fellows program.
What level of schooling do I need to be eligible for a Scholars Fellowship?
You should be in or have recently completed a graduate-level or PhD-level program. Recent graduates with Bachelor's degrees are not eligible.
What if I’m in the middle of my studies?
The explicit goal of the Congressional Innovation Scholars program is to serve as a pipeline for you into the ecosystem of public interest technology, and remain in government or the nonprofit sector. In short: we want this program to be the pathway to a job immediately after the ten-month fellowship finishes. You are eligible to apply if you are in the middle of a Master’s, PhD or other graduate-level program but please know that we are looking for those individuals who desire to stay in government or public policy and have the ability to do so.
What if I want to stay on in Congress after the program is finished?
That’s great! That’s exactly what we’re trying to accomplish. We spend a large portion of the program helping you build your network in Washington and on Capitol Hill in order to position you to find full-time employment after the program finishes.
What kind of education qualifies?
Any graduate-level or PhD-level program in computer science, engineering, data science, informatics, IT, cybersecurity, or other technical field. If you studied in one of these fields as an undergrad, or worked in a technical field and are now pursuing a law or public policy degree, that will also make you well qualified.
What are start dates and terms for Scholars?
Scholars will start the second week of June. You will serve a ten-month term, through early April 2022.
What is the stipend for a Scholars Fellowship?
Scholars receive a $60,000 annual equivalent salary ($5,000 / month) paid out at the beginning of the month. The program also includes funding for travel, health care, and relocation to Washington, D.C.
Are there any benefits provided with the Scholars Fellowship?
Scholars receive health care reimbursement of up to $400 per month; a $1500 reimbursement for Fellowship travel; up to $2500 for relocation expenses; and up to $2000 for accommodation for the first month of the fellowship in the Washington DC area to ease the transition during COVID-19.
Do I need to be a U.S. citizen to apply?
You need to be a citizen, green card holder, or dreamer (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)) to be eligible for the program.
Tufts University: The Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy
FACULTY POSITION IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
Location: Medford, MA
Closes: December 18, 2020 at 11:59 PM Eastern Time
(GMT-4 hours)
The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, established in 1933 as the first exclusively graduate school of international affairs in the United States, seeks to fill a full-time faculty position in international human rights law. This position is open to a) candidates with an academic background who would be hired into a tenure-stream position as Assistant, Associate or full Professor; or b) candidates with a distinguished record of public service who would be hired as a Professor of Practice.
Applicants for the tenure-stream position should have a record of scholarly publications and a strong research agenda in the field of international human rights law, as well as a minimum of three years of university teaching experience. Professional experience in government, intergovernmental organizations or non-governmental organizations would be a plus. A J.D. or equivalent law degree is required. A Ph.D. degree would be an added benefit.
Applicants for the Professor of Practice position should have a distinguished record of service in the field of human rights in government, intergovernmental organizations or non-governmental organizations. A minimum of 15 years of professional experience is required. Teaching experience and a publication record would be a plus. A J.D. or equivalent law degree is required. A Ph.D. degree would be an added benefit.
The study of human rights intersects with many of the School’s other strengths. For all applicants, in addition to teaching international human rights law, the ability to teach courses in global health, development, negotiation/conflict resolution, or gender would be a benefit. Experience working or teaching in a diverse, multinational, multi-sectoral environment would also be a benefit.
The successful candidate will contribute to various faculty service responsibilities at The Fletcher School as well as to its intellectual community. The Fletcher School’s faculty is multi-disciplinary with a focus on preparing tomorrow’s leaders with a global perspective. The School undertakes research and prepares master’s and doctoral students to use the latest legal, political, economic, and business thinking, among others, to generate pragmatic policies or make executive decisions that will successfully shape global events.
Applicants should send a cover letter, curriculum vitae, a list of potential courses the applicant might teach at Fletcher, any teaching evaluations, and a list of 3–5 references (the reference letters should not be sent at this stage.) Applicants for the tenure-stream position should also send one or two samples of research and writing. All application materials should be submitted online through http://apply.interfolio.com/80606.
For more information about The Fletcher School at Tufts University, please visit: www.fletcher.tufts.edu.
Tufts University, founded in 1852, prioritizes quality teaching, highly competitive basic and applied research, and a commitment to active citizenship locally, regionally, and globally. Tufts University also prides itself on creating a diverse, equitable, and inclusive community. Current and prospective employees of the university are expected to have and continuously develop skill in, and disposition for, positively engaging with a diverse population of faculty, staff, and students.
Tufts University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. We are committed to increasing the diversity of our faculty and staff and fostering their success when hired. Members of underrepresented groups are welcome and strongly encouraged to apply. See the University’s Non-Discrimination statement and policy here https://oeo.tufts.edu/policies-procedures/non-discrimination/. If you are an applicant with a disability who is unable to use our online tools to search and apply for jobs, please contact us by calling Johny Laine in the Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) at 617-627-3298 or at johny.laine@tufts.edu. Applicants can learn more about requesting reasonable accommodations at http://oeo.tufts.edu
Arizona State University: Office of the University Provost Tempe: The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences: School of Politics and Global Studies
Location Tempe, AZ
Open Date Oct 15, 2020
Description
The School of Politics of Global Studies (SPGS) is pleased to invite applications for a full-time position, benefits eligible, non-tenure track faculty appointment at the rank of Lecturer. The anticipated start date is January 2021. This is a fiscal-year appointment within the SPGS faculty on the Tempe campus. Subsequent annual renewal is desired, contingent upon satisfactory performance, availability of resources, and the needs of the university.
SPGS seeks an applicant with a commitment to excellence in online education to join its innovative, rapidly growing Master of Arts in Global Security (MAGS) program. The primary responsibilities of the Lecturer will be to develop and teach online graduate courses on topics such as national security, cyber security, terrorism and insurgency, grand strategy, foreign policy and other courses related to security broadly understood. Course instruction may include co-teaching with other MAGS faculty, including nationally recognized scholars and experienced national security professionals. A typical course load will consist of 6 classes per year. Additional responsibilities include assisting in curriculum development, supervising capstone projects, student advising, and recruitment. Lecturers will also be expected to maintain an active research agenda, which should include peer-reviewed articles or books, published policy reports, articles in policy-focused magazines and journals, and/or external grant activity.
The Lecturer will be a part of the interdisciplinary SPGS faculty as well as the Center on the Future of War, a joint initiative of ASU and New America, a DC-based think tank, and will have substantial opportunities to participate in the school’s vibrant intellectual life. Learn more about what The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences has to offer by visiting https://thecollege.asu.edu/faculty.
Qualifications
Minimum qualifications:
A Ph.D. in a relevant field (Political Science, Geography, Sociology, Economics, Anthropology, Peace Studies, History, International Law, Homeland Security, etc.) by the time of appointment.
Relevant teaching experience.
Demonstrated commitment to interdisciplinary approaches to international affairs and global politics.
Desired qualifications:
Prior experience designing and teaching online courses and a strong theoretical grounding and knowledge of ideas and literature related to international affairs, security, and global politics.
A demonstrated ability to produce policy-relevant research is strongly desired.
The ideal candidate would also have practical experience in the field of security and international affairs, such as work in humanitarian assistance, international human rights, international development, cybersecurity, or military service.
The candidate would have demonstrated success meeting the needs of diverse student populations and/or reaching out to diverse communities.
The College values cultural and intellectual diversity, and continually strives to foster a welcoming and inclusive environment. We are especially interested in applicants who can strengthen the diversity of the academic community.
Application Instructions
To apply, candidates must submit application materials online at Interfolio @ http://apply.interfolio.com/79724 by November 30, 2020 ; if not filled, complete applications will be reviewed every two weeks thereafter until the search is closed.
This is a paperless search; only electronic materials will be accepted.
Submit the following: 1) a letter of application stating qualifications and experience, 2) a complete curriculum vita, 3) two writing samples, and 4) three letters of reference with reference contact information.
Questions about this position should be directed to Daniel Rothenberg, Search Committee Chair at daniel.rothenberg@asu.edu.
A background check is required for employment.
Application Process
This institution is using Interfolio's Faculty Search to conduct this search. Applicants to this position receive a free Dossier account and can send all application materials, including confidential letters of recommendation, free of charge.
Equal Employment Opportunity Statement
A background check is required for employment. Arizona State University is a VEVRAA Federal Contractor and an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. All qualified applicants will be considered without regard to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability, protected veteran status, or any other basis protected by law. (See https://www.asu.edu/aad/manuals/acd/acd401.html and https://www.asu.edu/titleIX/.)
In compliance with federal law, ASU prepares an annual report on campus security and fire safety programs and resources. ASU’s Annual Security and Fire Safety Report is available online at https://www.asu.edu/police/PDFs/ASU-Clery-Report.pdf You may request a hard copy of the report by contacting the ASU Police Department at 480-965-3456.
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation is seeking a Cyber Initiative and Special Projects Fellow, a three-year fixed term position, to be based in Menlo Park, California.
About the foundation
The Hewlett Foundation is a nonpartisan, private charitable foundation that advances ideas and supports institutions to promote a better world. For 50 years, the foundation has supported efforts to advance education for all, preserve the environment, improve lives and livelihoods in developing countries, promote the health and economic well-being of women, support vibrant performing arts, strengthen Bay Area communities, and make the philanthropy sector more effective. In addition, we also make grants for special projects and to address other timely problems, such as challenges related to cybersecurity and U.S. democracy. In 2020, the foundation announced a new grantmaking commitment focused on racial justice. The Hewlett Foundation’s assets are more than $9 billion with annual awards of grants totaling more than $400 million. More information about the Hewlett Foundation is available at: www.hewlett.org.
About the position
The Cyber Initiative and Special Projects Program Fellow will play an integral role in two distinct grantmaking efforts housed in the foundation president’s office. The fellow will be a member of the Cyber Initiative team, working closely with and reporting to the Director of the Cyber Initiative, who will provide the fellow with direction on the initiative’s strategy, activities, and ongoing annual events. Launched in March 2014, the goal of the initiative (and its $130 million grantmaking budget) is to build a more capable and diverse field of cyber policy experts and expertise. The Cyber Initiative takes a broad view of cyber policy to include issues ranging from encryption to net neutrality to internet governance to cyber conflict. The Initiative will sunset in 2023 (coterminous with the fellow’s term), so the fellow will play an integral role helping to make the Initiative’s final grants, help promote and organize collaborations, and ensure its lasting impact.
Simultaneously, the fellow will work directly with Foundation President Larry Kramer, helping to shape and implement grantmaking for the Special Projects portfolio. Special Projects grants are diverse and ad hoc – ranging from support for public broadcasting to confronting systemic racism – and require nimble and thoughtful attention to detail and execution. The fellow must work to promote internal collaboration between different foundation programs and administrative departments, external collaboration with other funders and partners, and/or unanticipated opportunities outside of the foundation’s core interest areas.
This position presents a unique opportunity to engage in both the strategic and tactical aspects of philanthropic grantmaking under the Cyber Initiative and Special Projects program. As such, the fellow must be flexible, comfortable working across a changing and evolving landscape of internal and external work, and able to effectively juggle multiple projects at the same time. We prioritize diverse candidates who bring a range of views, experiences, and backgrounds to the role and the responsibilities described below.
The broad goals and responsibilities for the fellow are:
Help drive implementation of the Cyber Initiative’s field-building strategy, including by sharing their unique and diverse perspective during team discussions and planning sessions.
Conduct grantee due diligence, evaluate and recommend potential grantee organizations, including suggesting new grant awards to be made and manage a portion of the initiative’s grants portfolio.
Evaluate the effectiveness of its grantmaking, monitor its progress, and recommend strategy improvements.
Work directly with the foundation president to plan and execute Special Projects grants.
Manage the Special Projects budget and grant portfolio, tracking all active and planned grants and other funding commitments with other foundation programs or outside funders.
Manage relationships and communications with grantees and serve as their primary point of contact.
Develop and manage relationships with vendors and consultants.
Represent the foundation at meetings with key stakeholders from civil society, government, the private sector, and academia.
Attend and represent the foundation at external events, including speaking on panels, writing blog posts/articles, etc.
Follow the cyber policy debate globally, stay abreast of trends and developments, and identify new opportunities for the foundation’s grantmaking.
Travel domestically and internationally (not likely to exceed 10%) to conduct site visits and attend conferences, as appropriate under foundation policies and best sensible public health practices.
Work collaboratively in a multidisciplinary environment with cross-functional partners in the grants management, legal, and communications teams to process and keep track of grants.
Professional qualifications and personal attributes
Candidates should exhibit the following professional qualifications and personal attributes:
Professional experience:
An undergraduate degree required or advanced degree (preferred) as appropriate in law, policy, business, computer science, engineering, or related disciplines.
Demonstrated interest required and two to five years work experience (preferred) in areas relevant to the Cyber Initiative.
Excellent research and critical thinking skills and ability to conceptualize, think creatively, and thoughtfully approach assigned projects.
Ability to regularly “context shift” and toggle between two distinct portfolios.
Capability to process and present complex information (both quantitative and qualitative) in a compelling manner both orally and in writing.
Proficiency with technology tools and applications including MS Office, Zoom, etc., as well as a willingness to learn new systems and/or experience with Salesforce, a plus.
Excellent verbal and written communications skills.
Willingness and interest in domestic and international work travel (not likely to exceed 10% time) to conduct site visits and participate in relevant conferences and meetings.
Personal attributes:
Possess an open-minded curiosity and willingness to carry out both substantive and administrative tasks.
Comfort with ambiguity and an eagerness to explore and learn about new topics and issues.
Passionate about the guiding principles and mission of the Hewlett Foundation.
Comfort representing the foundation externally and engaging a diverse array of partner organizations.
Excellent organizational skills and attention to detail, along with a demonstrated track record of consistently meeting deadlines.
Ability to work well on a team and independently, including independent initiative, a sense of humor, and a collegial spirit in sharing ideas and receiving feedback. Demonstrated ability to work collaboratively.
Personal integrity, excellent judgment, and flexibility.
Strong communication and interpersonal skills.
Compensation
Compensation for the Fellow, Cyber Initiative and Special Projects includes a competitive salary, and an excellent package of health and other employee benefits.
Physical demands/work environment
The physical demands described are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this position. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.
While performing the duties of this position, the employee is regularly required to sit for extended periods of time and to travel via various modes of transportation for extended periods of time. The foundation employees are currently working remotely through June 2021. When we do return to the office it will begin with a phased, and voluntary approach.
To apply:
Please apply online and submit a resume and cover letter explaining how your skills fit this position.
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation embraces the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion both internally, in our hiring process and organizational culture, and externally, in our grantmaking and related practices. We are an equal opportunity employer and welcome applications from people of all backgrounds, cultures, and experiences.
The U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) seeks an expert on technology and national security to join one of the most dynamic think tanks in the national security research field and help inform and shape U.S. national and defense policy.
The successful candidate for this position will serve as a resident research professor of national security affairs. The responsibilities will be to research, analyze, and publish studies, organize collaborative research groups, conferences, and seminars, and serve as a subject matter expert for the U.S. Army War College and the Department of the Army on technology as related to U.S. national security. SSI research professors also publish widely through external professional and academic outlets and provide presentations to a wide range of military and civilian audiences.
Research professors design their research and publication agenda in consultation with SSI leadership and, at times, respond to specific strategic research requests. While research, analysis, publication, and collaboration are the primary responsibilities, the successful candidate will also have the opportunity to contribute to the War College’s education mission by developing courseware, teaching classes and seminars, and advising student research projects. Research professors have extensive resources available. In addition to the excellent Army War College library and online sources, research professors draw on the assets of Washington, DC, and undertake regular trips to their region.
The U.S. Army War College is located in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, a small, historic town 20 miles west of Harrisburg. It is within an easy drive of a wide range of recreational, artistic, and shopping opportunities. Local public schools are considered very good.
Qualifications. Required qualifications for this position include: (1) Ph.D. or equivalent in computer science, information technology, technology and public policy, engineering, political science, or another field strongly related to the intersection of technology and national security; (2) record of scholarly research and publication—or evidence of great potential for the same—in one or more of the areas mentioned previously; (3) Refined oral and written communication skills, and the ability to explain concepts, theories, and recommendations to non-specialists; (4) Ability to form, lead, and participate in cross-functional research and analysis project teams; (5) possession of, or eligibility for, a Top Secret security clearance. Security clearances shall be authorized only to U.S. citizens. Only candidates who demonstrate all of the required qualifications will be considered. Desired qualifications include: (1) Masters or equivalent evidence of extensive original scholarly research and writing is strongly preferred; (2) expertise in one or more of the following: Artificial Intelligence, cybersecurity, autonomous systems, cyber operations, robotics, human-machine teaming, nanotechnology, biotechnology, electronic warfare, and/or the technology industry; (3) experience in the military, government service, or some other strategy-related profession.
This appointment may be made at the assistant, associate, or full professor level. Salary is competitive. Research professors are excepted service government employees with renewable contracts averaging three years. The first year of service is probationary.
This job announcement will be released in September 2020 through USAJobs. Applications must be submitted in accordance with the instructions outlined on the USAJobs website: https://www.usajobs.gov/
For additional information or questions, applicants may contact the Director, SSI Research Department, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle, PA.: Colonel George Shatzer george.r.shatzer.mil@mail.mil
(717) 245-4125
Since 2007, the Lieber Society on the Law of Armed Conflict, an interest group of the American Society of International Law, has annually recognized a paper that significantly enhances the understanding and implementation of the law of war. The Richard R. Baxter Military Prize is awarded for exceptional writing in English by an active member of the regular or reserve armed forces, regardless of nationality.
The Prize. The winner will receive a certificate confirming that he or she has won the 2021 Lieber Society Richard R. Baxter Military Prize and a one-year membership in the American Society of International Law (ASIL). The judges may also recommend additional persons to receive Lieber Society Richard R. Baxter Military Prize Certificates of Merit.
Request for Assistance. Any person receiving this Call for Papers who is aware of exceptional writing that meets the qualifications of this competition is requested to nominate the paper directly to the Lieber Society and forward this Call to the author of that paper.
Definition of the Law of War. For this competition, the Law of War is that part of international law that regulates the conduct of armed hostilities. Papers may address any aspect of the law of war, including, but not limited to the use of force in international law; the conduct of hostilities during international and non-international armed conflicts; protected persons and protected objects; the law of weapons; rules of engagement; treatment of detainees, to include interrogation procedures; and occupation law. Papers addressing practical problems confronting members of armed forces are preferred.
Qualifications for entering the competition. Persons submitting papers do not have to be ASIL members. They may be citizens of any nation, but they must be an active member of a nation’s regular or reserve armed forces at both the time of the writing and the time of submission for this competition.
Papers that may be entered. Papers submitted in this competition must be in English (or translated into English if written in another language). Paper length may not exceed 35 pages if written with single line spacing or 70 pages if written with double line spacing, including footnotes. Paper size must be either 8.5 x 11 or A4, with all margins at least one inch and at least 12-point font. Both papers that have been published and papers that have not been published will be considered for the Baxter Prize. The paper should have written/published no earlier than the year prior to the award year, meaning for the 2021 Baxter Prize, papers should have been written or published in 2020.
Number/Type of Submissions. Sole and joint authored papers are eligible, but every author must meet the eligibility requirements. Authors may submit one (1) sole and one (1) joint authored paper.
Redact author information. To facilitate anonymous judging to the greatest extent possible, please ensure that the author’s name and personal identifying information are removed or redacted from the submission. In the email to which the submission is attached please provide the following author information:
Full name and military rank or rating
Current e-mail addresses and current telephone number.
If a person other than the author is making the submission, it must also contain the above data for the person submitting the paper.
Deadline for submitting papers. Papers for the 2021 competition must be received no later than 9 January 2021.
Use of email to submit papers. Electronic submission is required in Adobe format (.pdf) or Microsoft Word (.doc). Submissions should be sent to the Baxter Military Prize Coordinator, Dr. Christopher E. Bailey, at christopherbailey286@yahoo.com. The subject line should read “Baxter Prize Submission.”
Acknowledgement of submissions. All submissions will be acknowledged by e- mail.
Announcement of winner. The winner and any persons receiving Certificates of Merit will be announced at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law in Washington, DC, March 24-27, 2021.
Disclaimer. This announcement is being sent for information purposes to notify personnel of events of common interest sponsored by a non-Federal entity. This announcement does not constitute an endorsement of the Lieber Society on the Law of Armed Conflict or the American Society of International Law. Participation is completely voluntary.
The President, U.S. Naval War College, invites applications for anticipated full-time faculty openings in the Strategic and Operational Research Department (SORD) at the Center for Naval Warfare Studies in Newport, RI. These anticipated openings are available to support a number of ongoing and emergent research programs within the department.
The Naval War College is a Professional Military Education (PME) institution serving the nation, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Navy. U.S. and selected international graduates earn Master of Arts degrees in National Security & Strategic Studies or Defense & Strategic Studies accredited by the New England Commission of Higher Education. The College educates and develops future leaders through the development of strategic perspective, critical thinking, and cultural awareness, as well as enhancing the capability to advise senior leaders and policy makers. The College also helps to define the future Navy and its roles and missions; supports combat readiness; strengthens global maritime partnerships; and promotes ethics and leadership throughout the force. More information on the college can be found at www.usnwc.edu.
Strategic and Operational Research Department. The Strategic and Operational Research Department (SORD) produces innovative research and analysis for the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. interagency, and the broader national security community. It also generates new scholarship in security studies and actively participates in the broader academic community. The SORD department is one of three in the Center for Naval Warfare Studies at the Naval War College, the others being the War Gaming Department and the Stockton Center for International Law. It is home to a number of specialized centers, institutes, and advanced research groups that foster deeper levels of research, analysis, and teaching on subjects of critical interest for the Navy: the China Maritime Studies Institute, the Cyber and Innovation Policy Institute, the Russia Maritime Studies Institute, and the Halsey, Mahan, and Brodie groups. The SORD department’s faculty employ varied and multi-disciplinary approaches to national security issues, generating new knowledge for the Navy and the Department of Defense. The department’s faculty are educated in a range of social sciences, humanities, sciences, and critical languages, and the faculty consists of civilians and retired and active-duty military officers.
Advanced Research Groups (ARPs). There a number of ARPs within SORD that produce applied research and analysis on a series of regional, operational and strategic challenges facing the naval and joint force now and in the future. These research programs involve group work, individual study, faculty collaboration, wargaming, workshops, and research trips to national labs, operational commands, the Pentagon and a wide range of other DoD, academic, and private sector organizations. Most of the groups include a mix of full-time faculty and volunteer resident students from the College who contribute to the research of the ARPs for their master’s degree and JPME academic credit. From exploring emerging warfare technologies to developing operational concepts and strategy, ARPs give the student scholars practical experience that can be applied to their careers. Moreover, the ARPs provide direct input to key planners and decision-makers in the U.S. naval force, across DoD and the U.S. interagency.
Qualifications and Competencies. Candidates must have an advanced degree and experience in assessing and evaluating strategic, operational, and tactical warfare concepts. A Master’s degree is required, a Ph.D. is highly preferred. Desired attributes include: knowledge of U.S. and/or foreign naval and joint technical capabilities and concepts of operations, or equivalent practical experience in advancing technology and functional capabilities; knowledge of naval and joint warfare in all phases of operations from peace time to high-end combat; and/or a background in nuclear topics and strategic deterrence. Experience may have been gained by leading and conducting research, systems analysis, systems operation, and/or development and execution of warfighting operations, tactics, techniques, and procedures within the DoD environment. Experience on research teams, as well as war gaming experience is preferred, but not required.
Candidates must be U.S. citizens and capable of obtaining a Department of Defense TOP SECRET/SCI security clearance. The selected candidate will be subject to a pre-employment drug screening test and to random drug testing thereafter.
Salary Considerations. Salary is competitive and accompanied by a generous federal benefit package that includes health insurance and retirement saving plans, paid vacation, and sick leave, and other benefits. Rank and salary are commensurate with experience and credentials in accordance with the Department of the Navy Faculty Pay Schedule.
Applications. Applicants must reference VA#NWC-20-10 and submit their application package to: nwc-20-10@usnwc.edu. The application package must include: (1) cover letter, (2) curriculum vitae, and (3) names and contact information for three references. Applications will be accepted until 30 September 2020.
Active duty members may apply under this announcement but are subject to eligibility requirements of the Veterans Opportunity to Work Act (VOW). Active duty members must submit a statement of service printed on command letterhead and signed by the command. The statement of service must provide branch, rate/rank, all dates of service, the expected date of discharge and anticipated character of service (Honorable, General, etc.). Please note: you will be ineligible for consideration if your statement of service is not submitted with your application or it shows an expected discharge or release date greater than 120 days after being submitted with your application.
Within the Department of Defense (DoD), the appointment of retired military members within 180 days immediately following retirement dated to a civilian position is subject to the provisions of 5 United States Code 3326.
Questions should be directed to the hiring committee chair, Professor Peter Dutton, at duttonp@usnwc.edu.
The Naval War College is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
The President, U.S. Naval War College, invites applications for anticipated full-time faculty openings in the Strategic and Operational Research Department (SORD) at the Center for Naval Warfare Studies in Newport, RI.
The Naval War College is a Professional Military Education (PME) institution serving the nation, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Navy. U.S. and selected international graduates earn Master of Arts degrees in National Security & Strategic Studies or Defense & Strategic Studies accredited by the New England Commission of Higher Education. The College educates and develops future leaders through the development of strategic perspective, critical thinking, and cultural awareness, as well as enhancing the capability to advise senior leaders and policy makers. The College also helps to define the future Navy and its roles and missions; supports combat readiness; strengthens global maritime partnerships; and promotes ethics and leadership throughout the force. More information on the college can be found at www.usnwc.edu.
Strategic and Operational Research Department. The Strategic and Operational Research Department (SORD) produces innovative research and analysis for the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. interagency, and the broader national security community. It also generates new scholarship in security studies and actively participates in the broader academic community. The SORD department is one of three in the Center for Naval Warfare Studies at the Naval War College, the others being the War Gaming Department and the Stockton Center for International Law. The SORD department is home to a number of specialized centers, institutes, and advanced research groups that foster deeper levels of research, analysis, and teaching on subjects of critical interest for the Navy: the China Maritime Studies Institute, the Cyber and Innovation Policy Institute, the Russia Maritime Studies Institute, and the Halsey, Mahan, and Brodie groups. The SORD department’s faculty employ varied and multi-disciplinary approaches to national security issues, generating new knowledge for the Navy and the Department of Defense. The department’s faculty are educated in a range of social sciences, humanities, sciences, and critical languages, and the faculty consists of civilians and retired and active-duty military officers.
Responsibilities. SORD faculty conduct research and analysis across a broad spectrum of areas relating to security studies including strategy and grand strategy, military and maritime operations, conventional and nuclear deterrence, political economy, area studies, and other Navy-related topics. Duties may also include design of and participation in wargames, exercises, and workshops/conferences in support of the Navy and the DOD. SORD faculty will be expected to support student research and remain current and productive in their academic fields of study.
Qualifications and Competencies. Qualified candidates must have an advanced degree from an accredited university. A master's degree is requires. A research-oriented Ph.D. is highly preferred. Ph.D. candidates who are close to defending their dissertations (ABD) as well as practitioners with relevant and significant experience in the field will be considered. Demonstrated familiarity with the capability to analyze issues of war and the use of military force is required. Knowledge of future military technologies, capabilities, and strategies is desirable. Candidates should have ongoing research projects or be engaged with ongoing planning relating to war, security and strategy that they can continue at the Naval War College.
Candidates must be U.S. citizens and capable of obtaining a Department of Defense TOP SECRET/SCI security clearance. The selected candidate will be subject to a pre-employment drug screening test and to random drug testing thereafter.
Salary Considerations. Salary is competitive and accompanied by a generous federal benefit package that includes health insurance and retirement saving plans, paid vacation and sick leave, and other benefits. Rank and salary are commensurate with experience and credentials in accordance with the Department of the Navy Faculty Pay Schedule.
Applications. Applicants must reference VA#NWC-20-08 and submit their application package to: nwc-20-08@usnwc.edu. The application package must include: (1) cover letter, (2) curriculum vitae, and (3) names and contact information for three references. Applications will be accepted until 30 September 2020.
Active duty members may apply under this announcement but are subject to eligibility requirements of the Veterans Opportunity to Work Act (VOW). Active duty members must submit a statement of service printed on command letterhead and signed by the command. The statement of service must provide branch, rate/rank, all dates of service, the expected date of discharge and anticipated character of service (Honorable, General, etc.). Please note: you will be ineligible for consideration if your statement of service is not submitted with your application or it shows an expected discharge or release date greater than 120 days after being submitted with your application.
Within the Department of Defense (DoD), the appointment of retired military members within 180 days immediately following retirement dated to a civilian position is subject to the provisions of 5 United States Code 3326.
Questions should be directed to the search committee chair, Professor Peter Dutton, at duttonp@usnwc.edu.
The Naval War College is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
The National Security Institute (NSI) seeks a Digital Services Intern for summer 2020 with the potential to extend through the fall.
About NSI:
The National Security Institute (NSI) at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School is dedicated to finding real-world answers to national security law and policy questions. We strive to provide balance to the public discourse on the most difficult national security challenges facing the United States and its allies.
NSI also serves as a platform for research, teaching, scholarship, and policy development that incorporates a realistic assessment of the threats facing the United States and its allies as well as an appreciation of the legal and practical challenges facing our intelligence, law enforcement, border security, and cybersecurity communities.
As a Digital Services intern, you will work closely with the NSI staff to
Widen digital reach of NSI events and programs;
Promote the work of NSI’s group of experts, including its Fellows, Advisory Board, and faculty; and
Develop new media products, such as promotional and/or educational videos.
Responsibilities:
Creating social media content for platforms including Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn;
Researching technology trends to better understand digital topics and staying up to speed on the latest industry terminology;
Drafting content and updating the NSI website;
Editing and uploading videos of virtual events and NSI promotional materials;
Editing audio content of NSI’s “Fault Lines” podcast; and
Assisting with other projects as needed.
Required Qualifications:
Holds an undergraduate degree or currently enrolled in an undergraduate program;
Has a passion for the digital space and a deep understanding of digital trends and technologies;
Has deep knowledge of social media platforms;
Has Microsoft Office Suite;
Has availability to work 20 hours/week and
Has availability on some evenings and weekends.
Preferred Qualifications:
Degree or current undergraduate program in Public Relations, Marketing, Communications or a related field;
Experience with WordPress, Canva, Tweet Deck, Hootsuite, Mailchimp and/or Audacity; and
Based in the DC Metro area.
How to Apply:
If interested, please submit a resume and cover letter to nsi@gmu.edu with the subject line, “Application: NSI Digital Services Intern, [Lastname]”
The ICAP Staff Attorney 1 will bring to bear advanced legal skills and extensive litigation experience to drive ICAP' s complex litigation work, including with responsibilities (1) to pursue impact litigation in defense of constitutional rights and values and (2) to involve Georgetown Law students in such efforts. The ICAP Staff Attorney 1 will have duties that include, but are not limited to:
Engage in legal research and fact gathering, as well as draw on legal research and fact gathering provided by students, research assistants, and other ICAP attorneys, to assist in crafting constitutional impact litigation strategies in close coordination with the lnstitute's Legal Director and Executive Director.
Draw on extensive previous legal experience, will carefully draft, revise, and edit briefing materials to be filed in court pertaining to those cases; will assist in mooting the advocates presenting and arguing the cases; and may have opportunities to present and argue cases at the trial court and appellate level.
Support ICAP's leadership in overseeing a practicum seminar designed to involve Georgetown Law students in understanding the nature of constitutional impact litigation and in contributing to ICAP's work.
Responsible for conceptualizing and implementing litigation strategies and tactics in complex court cases, including cases involving multiple plaintiffs and defendants; class actions; cases involving a wide range of legal claims, potentially to include a mix of federal-law and state- law claims; and cases arising in federal courts as well as in state courts around the country.
The ICAP Staff Attorney 1 will be supervised by ICAP's Executive Director and Legal Director. The ICAP Staff Attorney 1 will work closely with ICAP's other attorneys engaged in factual development, legal research, writing, and case presentation in support of ICAP's litigation efforts. Additionally, the ICAP Staff Attorney 1 will, as circumstances dictate, interact with other Georgetown Law faculty supporting ICAP's work on particular cases and with students participating in the practicum seminar offered in connection with ICAP's work. In doing so, the ICAP Staff Attorney 1 will be critical to fulfilling ICAP's mission of harnessing the talent and expertise of Georgetown Law's faculty and students in contributing to strategically selected, complex constitutional litigation on cutting-edge issues and exposing the law school community to such work.
Qualifications
Required are a B.A. and a J.D., and 2 years of experience.
Preferred is experience as a federal court clerk, ideally to include at the district court level, as well as 2-5 years of experience in legal work after law school (including clerkship time), ideally in litigation
The ICAP Staff Attorney 2 will drive results in complex, fast-moving, high-impact litigation to defend key constitutional rights and values, as well as related legal rights. He or she will do so by employing diverse litigation experience as well as exceptional legal abilities. The ICAP Staff Attorney 2’s responsibilities will include (1) conceptualizing and effectuating high-impaction litigation in defense of constitutional rights and values and (2) ensuring that Georgetown Law students are meaningfully and materially integrated into those litigation efforts. In particular, the ICAP Staff Attorney 2 has duties that include, but are not limited to:
Engage in factual development and legal research, and will draw on legal research provided by students, research assistants, and other ICAP attorneys to assist in conceiving of and then driving constitutional impact litigation strategies in close coordination with the Institute’s Legal Director and Executive Director. This will include determining when litigation represents a promising mechanism for pursuing the defense of constitutional rights, then conceptualizing how litigation might be used in such circumstances and exploring the possibilities of filing such a suit—to include the identification of, and outreach to, potential plaintiffs and partner organizations.
Draw on high-level previous litigation and legal writing experience and the years of feedback received on it, will carefully draft, revise, and edit briefing materials to be filed in court pertaining to those cases, at times with ultimate responsibility for the filings themselves; will assist in mooting the oral advocates presenting and arguing the cases; and will present evidence and oral argument directly in courts, potentially at all levels of the state and federal court systems.
Often assume the lead role in individual cases, subject to the supervision of the Legal Director and Executive Director.
Closely support ICAP's leadership in overseeing a practicum seminar designed to involve Georgetown Law students in understanding the nature of constitutional impact litigation and in contributing to ICAP's work.
Responsible for identifying opportunities for, then developing and acting on, litigation strategies and tactics in extremely complex court cases, including cases involving multiple plaintiffs and defendants; class actions; cases involving a wide range of legal claims, potentially to include a mix of federal-law and state- law claims; and cases arising in federal courts as well as in state courts around the country.
The ICAP Staff Attorney 2 will be supervised by ICAP's Executive Director and Legal Director. The ICAP Staff Attorney 2 will work closely with ICAP's other attorneys engaged in factual development and legal research and writing in support of ICAP's litigation efforts. Additionally, the ICAP Staff Attorney 2 will coordinate directly with ICAP’s co-counsel in litigation and, moreover, will interact with other Georgetown Law faculty supporting ICAP's work on particular cases and with students participating in the practicum seminar offered in connection with ICAP’s work. All told, the ICAP Staff Attorney 2 will be essential to fulfilling ICAP's mission of harnessing the talent and expertise of Georgetown Law's faculty and students in designing and effectuating strategically selected, complex constitutional litigation on cutting-edge issues and exposing the law school community, including students in the ICAP practicum, to such work in meaningful ways.
Qualifications
Required are a B.A. and a J.D.
Preferred is experience as a federal court clerk, ideally to include at the district court level, as well as 6-10 years of experience in legal work after law school (including clerkship time).
UnLocal, a community-centered nonprofit organization providing legal representation and community education to New York City’s undocumented immigrant communities, is seeking nominations and applications for the position of Executive Director.
UnLocal is committed to a community-centered, grassroots approach to protecting the rights and enhancing the lives of undocumented immigrants in New York City and providing legal representation to clients who are typically passed over by peer organizations. UnLocal’s model of addressing the needs of immigrants at a community level has promoted its rapid expansion to meet new levels of demand as local, state, and federal policies have been enacted that result in widespread violations of immigrants’ rights. In the past two years, UnLocal’s annual budget has nearly doubled from $700,000 to $1.3 million.
As it continues to build capacity through this period of growth, UnLocal seeks a leader who will steward a shared vision that is responsive to community needs and is driven by the passion and commitment of UnLocal’s team and Board members; who will build and cultivate relationships with all external stakeholders – including community leaders, funders, and partners; and who will lead operational and programmatic oversight across the organization. Succeeding UnLocal’s well-respected founder, Michele Lampach, the new leader will support UnLocal’s dedicated and talented team and direct the organization’s continued development to best serve New York’s immigrant communities. The ED will work closely with staff across the organization and at all levels to continue to foster UnLocal’s unique culture of creativity and collaboration and identify opportunities for increased support and development.
The ideal candidate will be an inclusive, passionate leader with a deep understanding of the tools and pathways for protecting the rights of and serving undocumented immigrants by delivering the highest quality legal and community education services. She/He/They will bring leadership experience in a legal and/or nonprofit setting and a deep focus on community centered advocacy. She/He/They will be adept at fundraising and skilled in developing new relationships and deepening existing relationships with funders. The new Executive Director will be a caring manager who excels at supporting, mentoring, and motivating staff; developing structures and processes that ensure services are customer and community centered; and supporting teams that work closely with individuals experiencing trauma. A deep connection to UnLocal’s mission to support and protect the rights of New York City’s undocumented immigrant communities is necessary, and lived experience and a personal connection to impacted communities is highly preferred.
Professional Staff Member/Security Officer, The House Committee on the Judiciary
Job Description:
The House Committee on the Judiciary seeks a Professional Staff Member/Security Officer. Responsibilities include participating in a wide range of oversight projects, assisting in preparation for Committee hearings and markups, providing research assistance, and managing access to the Committee’s secure facility. Ideal candidates should be highly detailed oriented, experience handling large volumes of information, and demonstrated ability to meet precise deadlines. An active security clearance is a plus. The Committee strives to ensure that our staff reflects the diversity of the country’s population; candidates from minority backgrounds are strongly encouraged to apply. The Committee does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including marital or parental status, sexual orientation, and gender identity), disability, age, or national origin. To apply, please send a resume and cover letter to Job.JDEM@mail.house.gov. Please include in the subject line: PSM/Security Officer.
Agency: Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
Salary Range: $99,172 – $156,000/ Per Year
Series/Grade: The agency uses the Administratively Determined system in which rank is attached to the individual. The salary range for this position is statutorily capped at $156,000.
Position Information: This is an opportunity for permanent employment in the excepted service. You will be required to serve a two-year trial period.
Duty Location: Washington, DC
Who May Apply: Open to the public. U.S. citizenship required.
Security Clearance: Must have or be able to obtain a TOP SECRET – Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS-SCI) Security clearance. If you already have a TS/SCI clearance, please highlight your last investigation date in your application.
Agency Mission
The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board’s responsibilities comprise two basic functions: oversight and advice. In its oversight role, the Board is authorized to continually review the implementation of executive branch policies, procedures, regulations, and information sharing practices relating to efforts to protect the nation from terrorism, in order to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are protected. The Board is also authorized to continually review any other actions of the executive branch relating to efforts to protect the nation from terrorism, in order to determine whether such actions appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties and whether they are consistent with governing laws, regulations, and policies regarding privacy and civil liberties. In its advice role, the Board is authorized to review proposed legislation, regulations, and policies related to efforts to protect the nation from terrorism (as well as the implementation of new and existing policies and legal authorities), in order to advise the President and executive branch agencies on ensuring that privacy and civil liberties are appropriately considered in their development and implementation.
The primary purpose of this position is to perform duties as an Attorney-Advisor, working under general supervision in the form of broad policy and program guidance. Attorney-Advisors are expected to accomplish assigned functions on their own initiative, independently formulate requirements, responsibly allocate available resources, and develop, recommend, and monitor implementation of agency policies and procedures. Prior experience related to legal and policy issues implicating privacy, civil liberties, and/or counterterrorism or national security matters is strongly preferred.
Major Duties and Responsibilities
Serve as an attorney with limited supervision while gathering factual information, conducting legal and policy analysis, and providing legal expertise to the Board in complex investigations and/or reviews.
Prepare memoranda and make appropriate recommendations to the Board.
Respond in writing and orally to inquiries from Members of the Board regarding the status of investigations and/or reviews, research and analysis, and policy implications of existing and proposed programs and making recommendations to the Board.
Summarize reports received from the intelligence community and other agencies and extract essential information.
Assist the Board in reviewing and analyzing federal counterterrorism programs pursuant to its mission to ensure that both existing and proposed programs adequately safeguard privacy and civil liberties.
Advise and assist in the identification of issues and recommendations by providing policy advice, conducting research, and carrying out investigations, as required.
Analyze privacy and civil liberties-related issues, national security and counterterrorism programs and assist the Board in understanding how programs operate.
Assist in drafting Board reports evaluating efforts to protect the nation from terrorism and other Board reports to the President, Congress and the public, as well as drafting congressional testimony, letters, and other documents to carry out the Board’s responsibilities.
Represent the Board in interactions with officials from other departments and agencies of the Federal government, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations, as required.
Utilize superior oral and written communication skills, including the ability to produce clear, logical, and concise products that are targeted to and meet the needs of diverse audiences with different perspectives and objectives, while demonstrating analytical and critical thinking skills, including the ability to identify issues and to develop process improvements, and working effectively and collaboratively with team members and other agency employees.
Educational Requirements
Must possess a J.D. or LL.B. and be a member in good standing of a state bar or the District of Columbia bar.
Application Process
Please send the following required documents to jobs@pclob.gov with the title “Attorney-Advisor”: Cover letter, resume, and writing sample (10 pages or less). If you are less than 3 years out of college or law school, please also include a transcript. All submitted materials must be at the UNCLASSIFIED level. If all the materials above are not received, your application will be evaluated solely on the information available and you may not receive full consideration or may not be considered eligible. Candidates selected for an interview may be asked to provide references and undergo a writing assessment.
A candidate’s application may be considered for other eligible vacant positions at the agency. The candidate will be contacted if considered for another eligible vacant position.
Closing Date
A panel will convene to evaluate applications on a rolling basis until the position is filled. A review of your application will be made to determine whether you meet the job requirements. To determine if you are qualified for this job, your resume and supporting documentation will be evaluated. Candidates will be placed into categories of “best qualified”, “qualified”, and “not qualified”. If, after reviewing your resume and or supporting documentation, a determination is made that you have inflated your qualifications and/or experience, you may be placed in a different category. Please follow all instructions carefully. Errors or omissions may affect your categorization.
No Travel Expenses for Interview
Candidates from outside the Washington, D.C., area may be selected for a telephone or in-person interview. If selected for an in-person interview, any travel or lodging will be at the applicant’s personal expense.
Telework, Travel and Benefits
Telework may be made available per agency policy.
If you use public transportation, part of your transportation costs may be subsidized. Our budget office can provide additional information on how this program is run.
A career with the U.S. Government provides employees with a comprehensive benefits package.
For devices that are destined for momentary and infrequent use as well as battery power, some kind of power saving is pretty much a required feature. For example, when [PJ Allen] turned two ESP8266-based NodeMCU development boards into a replacement wireless remote garage door opener, a handy USB power bank ended up serving as a bit of a cheat when migrating the remote away from the workbench. Instead of moving the board from USB to battery power and implementing some kind of sleep mode or auto-off, [PJ Allen] simply plugged in a USB power bank and let it do all the work.
This is how the feature works: some USB power banks turn themselves off unless they detect a meaningful current draw. That means that if the power bank is charging a phone, it stays on, but if it’s only lighting up a few LEDs, it’ll turn itself off. This feature can be a frustrating one, but [PJ Allen] realized that it could actually be useful for a device like his garage door remote. Turning on the power bank delivers 5 V to the NodeMCU board and allows it to work, but after about fifteen seconds, the power bank turns itself off. Sure, strapping a power bank to the remote makes the whole thing bigger than it needs to be, but it’s a pretty clever use of the minimum load as an effortless auto-off feature.
The NodeMCU boards in [PJ Allen]’s DIY remote use ESP-NOW for their wireless communications, a nifty connectionless protocol from Espressif that we’ve seen used in other projects as well, such as this ESP32-based walkie-talkie.
Recently, MIRI researcher Scott Garrabrant has publicized his work on finite factored sets. It allegedly offers a way to understand agency and causality in a set-up like the causal graphs championed by Judea Pearl. Unfortunately, the definition of conditional orthogonality is very confusing. I'm not aware of any public examples of people demonstrating that they understand it, but I didn't really understand it until an hour ago, and I've heard others say that it went above their heads. So, I'd like to give an example of it here.
In a finite factored set, you have your base set S, and a set B of 'factors' of your set. In my case, the base set S will be four-dimensional space - I'm sorry, I know that's one more dimension than the number that well-adjusted people can visualize, but it really would be a much worse example if I were restricted to three dimensions. We'll think of the points in this space as tuples (x1,x2,x3,x4) where each xi is a real number between, say, -2 and 2 [footnote 1]. We'll say that X1 is the 'factor', aka partition, that groups points together based on what their value of x1 is, and similarly for X2, X3, and X4, and set B={X1,X2,X3,X4}. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to check whether this is in fact a finite factored set. Also, I'll talk about the 'value' of partitions and factors - technically, I suppose you could say that the 'value' of some partition at a point is the set in the partition that contains the point, but I'll use it to mean that, for example, the 'value' of X1 at point (x1,x2,x3,x4) is x1. If you think of partitions as questions where different points in S give different answers, the 'value' of a partition at a point is the answer to the question.
Now, we'll want to condition on the set E={(x1,x2,x3,x4)|x1+x2+x3=1}. The thing with E is that once you know you're in E, x1 is no longer independent of x2, like it was before, since they're linked together by the condition that x1+x2+x3=1. However, x4 has nothing to do with that condition. So, what's going to happen is that conditioned on being in E, X1 is orthogonal to X4 but not to X2.
In order to show this, we'll check the definition of conditional orthogonality, which actually refers to this thing called conditional history. I'll write out the definition of conditional history formally, and then try to explain it informally: the conditional history of X given E, which we'll write as h(X|E), is the smallest set of factors H⊆B satisfying the following two conditions:
For all s,t∈E, if s∼bt for all b∈H, then s∼Xt.
For all s,t∈E and r∈S, if r∼bs for all b∈H and r∼b′t for all b′∈B∖H, then r∈E.
Condition 1 means that, if you think of the partitions as carving up the set S, then the partition X doesn't carve E up more finely than if you carved according to everything in h(X|E). Another way to say that is that if you know you're in E, knowing everything in the conditional history of X in E tells you what the 'value' of X is, which hopefully makes sense.
Condition 2 says that if you want to know if a point is in E, you can separately consider the 'values' of the partitions in the conditional history, as well as the other partitions that are in B but not in the conditional history. So it's saying that there's no 'entanglement' between the partitions in and out of the conditional history regarding E. This is still probably confusing, but it will make more sense with examples.
Now, what's conditional orthogonality? That's pretty simple once you get conditional histories: X and Y are conditionally orthogonal given E if the conditional history of X given E doesn't intersect the conditional history of Y given E. So it's saying that once you're in E, the things determining X are different to the things determining Y, in the finite factored sets way of looking at things.
Let's look at some conditional histories in our concrete example: what's the history of X1 given E? Well, it's got to contain X1, because otherwise that would violate condition 1: you can't know the value of X1 without being told the value of X1, even once you know you're in E. But that can't be the whole thing. Consider the point s=(0.5,0.4,0.4,0.7). If you just knew the value of X1 at s, that would be compatible with s actually being (0.5,0.25,0.25,1), which is in E. And if you just knew the values of X2, X3, and X4, you could imagine that s was actually equal to (0.2,0.4,0.4,0.7), which is also in E. So, if you considered the factors in {X1} separately to the other factors, you'd conclude that s could be in E - but it's actually not! This is exactly the thing that condition 2 is telling us can't happen. In fact, the conditional history of X1 given E is {X1,X2,X3}, which I'll leave for you to check. I'll also let you check that the conditional history of X2 given E is {X1,X2,X3}.
Now, what's the conditional history of X4 given E? It has to include X4, because if someone doesn't tell you X4 you can't figure it out. In fact, it's exactly {X4}. Let's check condition 2: it says that if all the factors outside the conditional history are compatible with some point being in E, and all the factors inside the conditional history are compatible with some point being in E, then it must be in E. That checks out here: you need to know the values of all three of X1, X2, and X3 at once to know if something's in E, but you get those together if you jointly consider those factors outside your conditional history, which is {X1,X2,X3}. So looking at (0.5,0.4,0.4,0.7), if you only look at the values that aren't told to you by the conditional history, which is to say the first three numbers, you can tell it's not in E and aren't tricked. And if you look at (0.5,0.25,0.25,0.7), you look at the factors in {X4} (namely X4), and it checks out, you look at the factors outside {X4} and that also checks out, and the point is really in E.
Hopefully this gives you some insight into condition 2 of the definition of conditional history. It's saying that when we divide factors up to get a history, we can't put factors that are entangled by the set we're conditioning on on 'different sides' - all the entangled factors have to be in the history, or they all have to be out of the history.
In summary: h(X1|E)=h(X2|E)={X1,X2,X3}, and h(X4|E)={X4}. So, is X1 orthogonal to X2 given E? No, their conditional histories overlap - in fact, they're identical! Is X1 orthogonal to X4 given E? Yes, they have disjoint conditional histories.
Some notes:
In this case, X1 was already orthogonal to X4 before conditioning. It would be nice to come up with an example where two things that weren't already orthogonal become so after conditioning. [EDIT: see my next post]
We didn't really need the underlying set to be finite for this example to work, suggesting that factored sets don't really need to be finite for all the machinery Scott discusses.
We did need the range of each variable to be bounded for this to work nicely. Because all the numbers need to be between -2 and 2, once you're in E, if x1=2 then x2 can't be bigger than 1, otherwise x3 can't go negative enough to get the numbers to add up to 1. But if they could all be arbitrary real numbers, then even once you were in E, knowing x1 wouldn't tell you anything about x2, but we'd still have that X1 wasn't orthogonal to X2 given E, which would be weird.
[^1] I know what you're saying - "That's not a finite set! Finite factored sets have to be finite!" Well, if you insist, you can think of them as only the numbers between -2 and 2 with two decimal places. That makes the set finite and doesn't really change anything. (Which suggests that a more expansive concept could be used instead of finite factored sets.)
PostScript started out as a programming language for printers. While PostScript printers are still a thing, there are many other ways to send data to a printer. But PostScript also spawned the Portable Document Format or PDF and that has been crazy successful. Hardly a day goes by that you don’t see some kind of PDF document come across your computer screen. Sure, there are other competing formats but they hold a sliver of market share compared to PDF. Viewing PDFs under Linux is no problem. But what about editing them? Turns out, that’s easy, too, if you know how.
GUI Tools
You can use lots of tools to edit PDF files, but the trick is how good the results will look. Anything will work for this: LibreOffice Draw, Inkscape, or even GIMP. If all you want to do is remove something with a white box or make an annotation, these tools are usually great, but for more complicated changes, or pixel-perfect output, they may not be the right tool.
The biggest problem is that most of these tools deal with the PDF as an image or, at least, a collection of objects. For example, columns of text will probably turn into a collection of discrete lines. Changing something that causes a line to wrap will require you to change all the other lines to match. Sometimes text isn’t even text at all, but images. It largely depends on how the creator made the PDF to begin with.If you don’t mind using a Web-based tool, PDFEscape is free and works very well. Other options include Scribus and Okular. Both of these tools can’t really edit the file but can import them as images that you can further manipulate. For example, Okular’s review mode can add annotations like highlights and freehand lines.
Unsurprisingly, emacs can display a PDF file if it is running under X. You can use Control+C Control+C to switch to view a text representation. After all, most of the PDF file format is text and emacs can even handle binary files. So if you don’t mind working inside the PDF format — very much like PostScript — you can do your editing in emacs or even another text editor.
There are a few dedicated non-free editors out there and at least one open-source PDF-specific editor. Of course, like most things in Linux, you can also use the command line.
Hiding Text
The problem with working with PDFs as text — even in emacs — is that they are often compressed and otherwise unreadable. For example, words may appear a character at a time separated by formatting code or other data. So searching for Hackaday in the PDF may not work.
You can convert the file to use more uncompressed text, although that’s no panacea. For example, if you open up this segment from an article on ham radio and want to change the word “convention”, it is hard to tell exactly where that text is, but it is somewhere in this general area:
Good luck finding it in that soup. You want to convert it to unpacked text.
qpdf -qdf input.pdf output.txt
The resulting file is actually a PDF even though I named it .txt. However, it has everything unpacked. That’s still not great, though, but at least you could find the part you need to change:
1.2632 -1.1242 TD
0.0739 Tc
0.1263 Tw
(One potentially confusing Stamp)Tj
-1.2632 -1.1368 TD
0.026 Tc
0.1248 Tw
[(con)38.6(v)20.7(ention is that the I/O pin numbers)]TJ
0 -1.1242 TD
0.0262 Tc
0.0072 Tw
[<646f6e90>13.6(t correspond to the IC pin numbers.)]TJ
T*
Again, good luck searching for the word “convention,” for example. But it is still better than the first example. You can also find metadata even in unprocessed files using things like /Author and /Title.
Command Line Magic
The qpdf tool can convert a PDF file to another PDF file. It can optimize the output for Web serving, text editing, and it can do simple things like remove pages or merge pieces of multiple files. You can read the documentation, but here we use the QDF mode to produce a legitimate PDF file with all the objects in numerical order and with normal Unix-style line endings. This allows you to more easily edit the file with a text editor, but as you’ve seen that doesn’t always make it simple. Removing entire objects is a headache, but if you get rid of all the mentions of an object, you can run fix-qdf to recreate the proper QDF file.
Another way to make common edits to PDF files is to use PDFtk server (PDFtk without the server moniker is a GUI toolkit for Windows). Using PDFtk you can merge or split documents, rotate pages, and do many other common tasks. For example, to join two files in order:
You can also shuffle merged pages in different orders:
pdftk A=in1.pdf B=in2.pdf shuffle A B output output.pdf
Text to PDF and Back
If you want to convert text into PDF from the command line you have several options. Pandoc is an amazing tool that converts markdown to almost anything. It will not only convert markdown to PDF but just about anything else.
You can also use various combinations of ps2pdf (along with a tool to generate PostScript), pdf2text (part of poppler-utils), or Ghostscript to create PDFs or strip text out of them. Ghostscript can do a lot, including convert a PDF to a number of image formats if you want to, say, display them on a Web page as an image.
Special Printing and Other Tools
Sometimes you want to modify a PDF file so it will print a certain way. We’ve already talked about how to merge odd and even pages, for example, but there are a few other commands you might want for this purpose:
pdfxup – Uses pdflatex and Ghostscript to put multiple pages on one printed page (e.g., 2-up)
pdfjam – Uses LaTeX to put documents on different size pages or produce multiple pages on one printed page
pdfposter – Create giant output on multiple pages from a single page
If you prefer a GUI you might check out PDFsam basic. If you are interested in Java software, there is Multivalent.
Wrap Up
As usual, there are many ways to do daily tasks in Linux. Sometimes the challenge isn’t doing the work, but rather finding the tool that best fits your style of working.
Oddly enough pandoc keeps coming up for different reasons. If you prefer your documents on paper, you need a printer and bookbinding clamp.
“Innovators always seek to revitalize, extend and reconstruct the status quo in their given fields… Quite often they are the rejects, outcasts, sub-citizens, etc. of the very societies to which they bring so much sustenance.”
To create anything of beauty, daring, and substance that makes the world see itself afresh — be it a revolutionary law of planetary motion or the Starry Night — is the work of lonely persistence against the tides of convention and conformity, often at the cost of the visionary’s aching ostracism from the status quo they are challenging with their vision. Rilke recognized this when he observed that “works of art are of an infinite loneliness” and Baldwin recognized it in his classic investigation of the creative process, in which he argued that the primary distinction of the artist is the willingness to maintain the state everyone else most zealously avoids: aloneness — not the romantic solitude of the hermit by the silver stream, but the raw existential and creative loneliness Baldwin likened to “the aloneness of birth or death” or “the aloneness of love, the force and mystery that so many have extolled and so many have cursed, but which no one has ever understood or ever really been able to control.”
This love-like force — the creative force — is what fuels the perseverance necessary to usher in a new way of seeing or a new way of being. It is the life-force by which visionaries survive the aloneness of their countercultural lives.
That is what jazz legend John Coltrane (September 23, 1926–July 17, 1967) addressed in an extraordinary letter penned in the late spring of 1962, posthumously included in Cuthbert Ormond Simpkins’s excellent 1975 biography Coltrane (public library).
One June morning two years after the release of his epoch-making Giant Steps and five years before his untimely death of cancer, Coltrane opened his mailbox to discover a package from the editor of Downbeat magazine, the premier journal of jazz, containing a gift: a copy of Music and Imagination — a book of the six lectures the great composer and creativity-contemplator Aaron Copland had delivered at Harvard a decade earlier.
Coltrane’s letter of thanks for the gift unspools into one of those rare miracles when something small and seemingly peripheral prompts a sweeping yet succinct formulation of a visionary’s personal philosophy and creative credo — Coltrane’s most direct meditation on what it means to be an artist.
Millennia after Pythagoras’s revolutionary yet limited mathematics of music forked the sonic path of the modern world by laying the structural foundation of the Western canon but failing to account for the intricate unstructured musical styles of the African diaspora and my own native Balkans — a cultural irony, given Pythagoras developed his theory on the island of Samos, a thriving cross-pollinator of the Ancient Greek world perched midway between Africa and the Balkans — Coltrane observes that Copland’s lectures, while erudite and philosophically insightful, speak more to musicians in the Western tradition than they do to jazz musicians. Against Copland’s concern about how difficult it can be for artists to find “a positive philosophy or justification” for their art, Coltrane holds up jazz as living counterpoint — a musical tradition that began as an affirmation of life amid unimaginable hardship, provided a lifeline for those who conceived it and partook of it, and has thrived on the wings of this inherent buoyancy.
It is really easy for us [jazz musicians] to create. We are born with this feeling that just comes out no matter what conditions exist. Otherwise, how could our founding fathers have produced this music in the first place when they surely found themselves (as many of us do today) existing in hostile communities when there was everything to fear and damn few to trust. Any music which could grow and propagate itself as our music has, must have a hell of an affirmative belief inherent in it.
Since we read (and write) about other lives to make sense of our own, he reflects on a biography has been reading of Van Gogh — an artist who spent his short, revolutionary, tragic life negotiating between his private suffering and the irrepressible affirmative belief that forever changed art. With an eye to Van Gogh, Coltrane writes:
Truth is indestructible… History shows (and it’s the same way today) that the innovator is more often than not met with some degree of condemnation; usually according to the degree of his departure from the prevailing modes of expression or what have you. Change is always so hard to accept.
Innovators always seek to revitalize, extend and reconstruct the status quo in their given fields, wherever it is needed. Quite often they are the rejects, outcasts, sub-citizens, etc. of the very societies to which they bring so much sustenance. Often they are people who endure great personal tragedy in their lives. Whatever the case, whether accepted or rejected, rich or poor, they are forever guided by that great and eternal constant — the creative urge.
This might be the most succinct summation of my creative choice of historical figures to celebrate in Figuring. It is also what Virginia Woolf meant when she wrote of the “shock-receiving capacity” necessary for being an artist, and what Patti Smith meant when, with an eye to Coltrane, she considered the shamanistic channeling at the heart of the creative impulse.
For 15 years, I have been spending hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars each month to keep Brain Pickings going. It has remained free and ad-free and alive thanks to patronage from readers. I have no staff, no interns, no assistant — a thoroughly one-woman labor of love that is also my life and my livelihood. If this labor makes your life more livable in any way, please consider aiding its sustenance with donation.
newsletter
Brain Pickings has a free weekly newsletter. It comes out on Sundays and offers the week’s most inspiring reading. Here’s what to expect. Like? Sign up.
While recent presidents have occasionally granted pardons and commutations without recommendations from the Justice Department’s pardon attorney, President Trump turned the exception into the norm. We previously analyzed Trump’s circumvention of the pardon attorney at twopoints during Trump’s presidency. In a new essay in the Federal Sentencing Reporter, we examine how many of Trump’s 238 clemency grants were recommended by the pardon attorney. We conclude that only 25, or 11 percent, were so recommended.
As Lawfare readers likely know, the Office of the Pardon Attorney is a component of the Justice Department that, pursuant to Justice Department regulations, makes clemency recommendations to the president. When evaluating pardon petitions, the pardon attorney primarily considers the petitioner’s post-conviction behavior; the nature and recentness of the crime; the necessity of clemency relief for the applicant; and official guidance and reports related to the petition. The pardon attorney uses similar factors to evaluate commutation petitions—focusing specifically on the severity of the petitioner’s sentence, the petitioner’s age and any notable service the petitioner has provided to the U.S. government. The pardon attorney consults the sentencing judge, the U.S. attorney in the district of conviction and sometimes the assistant attorney general leading the Justice Department component that was in charge of the case. The pardon attorney’s recommendations are evaluated by the deputy attorney general before being presented to the president. The process usually takes more than a year.
In trying to figure the pardon attorney’s involvement in Trump’s clemency grants, we primarily use two sources: White House statements describing the pardons and commutations and a Justice Department database that contains records of all clemency grants issued since 1989. Through a detailed analysis that we summarize in the article, we conclude, as noted above, that of Trump’s 238 pardons and commutations, only 25 (11 percent) were recommended by the pardon attorney—a historic low. The article does not analyze this conclusion from a normative perspective. Most of Trump’s grants were self-serving in ways that we havedocumented before. But on the other hand, as we noted at the end of our piece:
[N]ot all of Trump’s clemency grants based on the informal White House process were self-serving. Some grantees—including Crystal Munoz, Tynice Hall, and Judith Negron—did not serve a Trump political agenda. Some pardon reform critics hailed these grants, and the White House process that produced them, as pointing the way to a better, more just clemency system. Whether that is so remains to be seen.
We should note, finally, that this issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter has a number of terrific essays on Trump and the pardon process:
15 Stunden Fortbildung muss ein Fachanwalt absolvieren. Pro Jahr. Als „exotisches“ Ziel für so ein Seminar war mir bisher Mallorca bekannt, wohin schon seit vielen Jahren Bildungsreisen dieser Art gehen. Aber womöglich kannte ich das Angebot der Firma SiS – Seminare im Schloss einfach noch nicht. Ich zitiere aus dem aktuellen Newsletter:
Darüber hinaus machen wir Sie jetzt bereits aufmerksam auf eine Reihe von Auslandsseminaren, bei denen Sie auf dem Fachgebiet Strafrecht Fortbildung gem. Fachanwaltsordnung absolvieren und die Reisekosten steuerlich absetzen können:
Istanbul – 11. – 15. 08. 2021
Kenia – 25. 12. – 07. 01. 2022
Florida – 25. 02. – 06.03. 2022
Namibia – 13. 04. – 24.04./ 01.05.2022
Kapstadt – 03. – 12. 06. 2022
Die Fortbildung wird so eingeplant, dass Sie – steuerlich gesehen – täglich Anlass zu der Reise haben (BFH, U v 21. April 2010, VI R 5/07)
Jetzt wisst ihr auch, warum das „exotisch“ im zweiten Satz in Anführungszeichen steht. Mir fehlt allerdings ein klein wenig der Glaube, dass die Diskussion mit dem Prüfer vom Finanzamt wirklich so schmerzfrei verläuft.
A vulnerability (just patched) in the random number generator used in the Kaspersky Password Manager resulted in easily guessable passwords:
The password generator included in Kaspersky Password Manager had several problems. The most critical one is that it used a PRNG not suited for cryptographic purposes. Its single source of entropy was the current time. All the passwords it created could be bruteforced in seconds. This article explains how to securely generate passwords, why Kaspersky Password Manager failed, and how to exploit this flaw. It also provides a proof of concept to test if your version is vulnerable.
The product has been updated and its newest versions aren’t affected by this issue.
Stupid programming mistake, or intentional backdoor? We don’t know.
More generally: generating random numbers is hard. I recommend my own algorithm: Fortuna. I also recommend my own password manager: Password Safe.
In a Lawfarepost in March, based on the public record as it existed then, we considered the Obama and Trump administrations’ approaches to pursuing evidence from reporters in leak cases and concluded that President Trump’s record “wasn’t that different compared to previous presidencies” (emphasis in original).
Consider the following a front-page correction.
This spring, three separate news organizations reported that the Justice Department had notified their journalists that, during the Trump administration, the department had authorized broad, secret demands for the phone and email records of eight reporters across the three outlets to identify confidential sources.
In one case, the administration also secured a court order gagging CNN’s general counsel from informing anyone in the newsroom of an email records demand. The order remained in force until May, months into the Biden administration.
In another, the Trump administration obtained a court order that gagged an email provider from notifying its user, the New York Times. There, the Biden administration later agreed to permit notification to the organization’s deputy general counsel and top executives, who were barred from informing the newsroom. Not until early June did the Justice Department finally drop the demand and dissolve the gag order.
Shortly after the outlet broke the story of the second gag, the Justice Department announced that it would no longer seek source information from journalists in leak cases. Attorney General Merrick Garland directed Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco to refer the media seizures to the department’s inspector general.
And, on June 14, the Justice Department met with news executives and the Reporters Committee (where both authors of this post work). Directly following that meeting, the department released a readout stating that “the department will no longer use compulsory process to obtain reporters’ source information when they are doing their jobs,” meaning that the policy change is expected to extend beyond leak matters.
While we are encouraged by these developments, there are still many unanswered questions with respect to the records seizures, all of which the Justice Department authorized in 2020.
Topmost among these questions is why the Justice Department during the Trump administration failed to notify the affected news organizations in advance. One of the most important provisions of an internal policy at the department, often called the News Media Guidelines, includes a presumption that affected journalists be notified before the department attempts to seize their records, with very limited exceptions.
This presumption can be overcome only when “the Attorney General determines that, for compelling reasons, such notice would pose a clear and substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation, risk grave harm to national security, or present an imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm.” The presumption in favor of advance notice was a central reform implemented by the Justice Department under former Attorney General Eric Holder in 2014 after twohigh-profile cases revealed that prosecutors were snooping in journalists’ communications records without their knowledge. Notice provides journalists the opportunity to challenge the department’s legal demands before the government has seized any data or documents.
Given the age of the records in question, they all date back to newsgathering in 2017, and that at least one relevant investigation had been widely reported in the press, it remains unclear how any of these exceptions could plausibly apply.
In light of these recent revelations, it is now clear that the Justice Department at the end of the Trump administration was markedly more aggressive than the Obama administration in pursuit of journalists in its leak hunts. Before diving into the details, however, it is important to put the timing of these cases in context.
The department sought records from early to mid-2017. On Aug. 4, 2017, one day after reports surfaced in the media of President Trump’s conversations with foreign leaders, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a redoubled effort to investigate and prosecute leaks. Sessions noted that the department had received nearly as many criminal leak referrals that year as in the three previous years combined. (The precise number in 2017 was 120 referrals, versus an Obama administration high of 55 in 2013.) He announced that active leak investigations at the department had tripled since January 2017.
Sessions instructed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray to “actively oversee” each case and directed that the National Security Division prioritize leak investigations. He also said that the FBI had set up a new counterintelligence unit, and announced that the department would be reviewing “policies that impact leak investigations,” though there is no indication that the Trump administration put in place any changes.
Additionally, the 2020 demands were likely authorized after Attorney General William Barr installed a new prosecutor at the National Security Division in February of that year to “revive” certain leak investigations, so the 2017 anti-leak initiative appears to have flowed into the waning days of the Trump administration.
Below, we survey what we know about the recent records seizures. As the procedural details regarding each affected outlet—the Washington Post, CNN and the New York Times—differ slightly, we discuss each separately and in the chronological order in which the Justice Department sent the relevant notifications to the affected journalists. We also note that the inspector general investigation will look into the seizure of cloud metadata related to members of Congress and Don McGahn (who was White House counsel at the time of the subpoenas) but explain how those incidents are distinct, factually, from the media seizures.
A fuller public accounting beyond what we were able to do here is essential. The public needs to know how the Justice Department attempted to comply with its guidelines, which decisions Attorney General Barr made and which escaped high-level review, and whether the guidelines were simply not up to the task of protecting press interests. The Justice Department’s recent commitments to introduce new policies and refrain from such moves in the future are promising. But full transparency is central to preventing a recurrence in the long term even if new rules are soon in place.
Washington Post
What was sought and what was obtained?
Of the records demands authorized in 2020 and disclosed this spring and summer,the Washington Post seizure was the first to be reported. In brief, perfunctory letters dated May 3, 2021, the Justice Department notified Greg Miller and Ellen Nakashima, currently at the Post, and Adam Entous, formerly at the Post and now at the New Yorker, that their phone records had been seized and that the department had tried to obtain “non-content” email records but had not actually obtained them.
There was no gag order in the Post case and, while the Post has reported that the Justice Department secured an order compelling the production of email non-content records under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) (a (d) order), for reasons that remain unclear, the government said it did not secure the records.
The phone records were likely sought using a grand jury subpoena under § 2703(c)(2) of the Stored Communications Act, though they can also be obtained with a (d) order. Courts can issue (d) orders under an intermediate standard—below probable cause but above a subpoena—that “there are reasonable grounds to believe” the records sought “are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.” Technically, § 2703(d) permits the use of (d) orders to obtain the contents of emails that are opened or have been in storage for more than 180 days, but, in practice, the department uses warrants for content seizures.
What time period was covered by the demands?
According to the department’s letters to the Post, the phone records obtained covered a three and a half month period from April 15 to July 31, 2017, which overlaps with the two-month CNN seizure (June and July 2017) and, for the two weeks between April 15 and April 30, with the New York Times seizure.
Why were the records pursued?
There is no public reporting on the reasons that the records were obtained. The Post noted that, during the relevant time period, the three reporters wrote a story “about classified U.S. intelligence intercepts indicating that in 2016 [then-Senator Jeff Sessions] had discussed the Trump campaign with Sergey Kislyak, who was Russia’s ambassador to the United States,” and that, about a month before, “the same reporters also wrote a detailed story about the Obama administration’s internal struggles to counter Russian interference in the 2016 election.”
But without a concrete, public accounting, observers can only speculate about the government’s reasons.
Who authorized the records demand?
Again, no one knows. The Justice Department confirmed to the Post that the decision to seek the records was made in 2020, during the Trump administration. The notification timeline in these cases is interesting, however.
Under the guidelines, when the presumption in favor of advance notification is overcome, the Justice Department can obtain a 45-day delay in notice and one additional 45-day delay only if the attorney general makes a separate determination that the criteria for delay continue to be met.
That clock is supposed to start to run after the department receives “any return” from the subpoena or court order at issue. Counting back 90 days from the May 3 notification letter would be Feb. 2, after President Biden’s inauguration. But, again, we still do not know the exact timing on when these subpoenas or court orders were authorized, obtained, or issued, or when the records were physically transmitted to the Justice Department.
It is also worth noting that the records seized in each of these cases are supposed to be subject to careful safeguarding rules under the guidelines laid out in additional detail in the Justice Manual, but we don’t know precisely where the records currently reside (though we have no reason to believe that the records are not being handled consistent with the guidelines and Justice Manual).
CNN
What was sought and what was obtained?
According to CNN, on May 13, 2021, the Justice Department notified Barbara Starr, its Pentagon correspondent, that it had sought and received toll records associated with multiple phone lines, including her Pentagon extension, the CNN Pentagon booth, and her home and cell numbers, as well as non-content information associated with Starr’s work and personal email accounts.
As with the Post, the toll records were likely seized pursuant to a grand jury subpoena under § 2703(c)(2) of the Stored Communications Act, while the email records were obtained using a (d) order.
The phone records would have revealed which numbers called or were called by the relevant Starr phone number, the duration of the call and when it took place. The email records would have contained the equivalent information, but, because of the nature of email metadata, could have included other details, like routing data and the size of the email. Also, because email can be “one-to-many,” its metadata is potentially more revelatory than phone records.
Because Starr’s “turner.com” email address was administered by WarnerMedia itself, WarnerMedia received the (d) order for that account’s metadata. It then notified David Vigilante, CNN’s general counsel. But (d) orders often include a “preclusion of notice” order—a gag—under § 2705(b) of the Stored Communications Act, which prohibits the service provider from notifying the subscriber of the records demand.
Vigilante was thus barred from notifying Starr of the (d) order for 10 months, during which time CNN sought to limit its scope before a magistrate judge, and then a district court judge, at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The magistrate judge initially granted CNN’s request, but, following submission of a supplemental classified declaration, he ordered CNN to comply with the initial order. On appeal to the district court judge in December 2020, the court agreed to exclude metadata for purely internal emails from the scope of the order.
On Jan. 26, 2021, following the government’s filing of a motion for reconsideration of the December 2020 order, CNN was able to negotiate a narrowing of the “turner.com” (d) order, which triggered the clock that led to the May 13 notification. Vigilante was able to inform Starr of the order on May 13, and CNN reported on the seizure on May 20.
Most of the material in that case has been unsealed. The case involved only the “turner.com” work account, not Starr’s personal account—though the reporting suggests that the Justice Department was successful in obtaining email metadata from that personal account as well.
What time period was covered by the demands?
According to CNN, the phone and email records sought covered a two-month period from June 1 to July 31, 2017. (Note that the Sessions speech happened four days later, on Aug. 4.)
Why were the records pursued?
That is a complete cipher. Starr’s beat is the Department of Defense, and she was not reporting on stories related to Russia and the 2016 election, unlike the Post reporters discussed above and the New York Times reporters discussed below. CNN noted that, during the two-month period, Starr reported on “US military options in North Korea that were ready to be presented to Trump, as well as stories on Syria and Afghanistan.”
Who authorized the records demand?
We still don’t know. Under the news media guidelines, the attorney general must approve both subpoenas and (d) orders. The “turner.com” (d) order was sent to WarnerMedia on or shortly before July 17, 2020, the day that CNN’s general counsel received the order, which aligns with Attorney General Barr’s time in office.
New York Times
What was sought and what was obtained?
According to the New York Times, on June 2, 2021, the government notified four reporters—three currently at the Times and one former Times reporter—that their phone records had been seized and email records sought but not obtained. The current Times reporters are Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman and Michael Schmidt; the former is Eric Lichtblau.
On June 4, the Times reported that the (d) order for the reporters’ email metadata included a § 2705(b) gag that initially barred Google, the Times’ email provider, from notifying anyone at the newspaper. Google apparently resisted the gag, insisting that it be able to notify the Times’s newsroom lawyer and deputy general counsel, David McCraw. On March 2, 2021, the government agreed and McCraw was then able to negotiate further notice to the Times’s publisher, chief executive and outside counsel.
The Times continued to urge the Justice Department to withdraw the (d) order entirely, arguing, among other things, that the order violated the news media guidelines, the First Amendment, and guidance from the department’s computer crime section that stipulates records should, when possible, be sought from the enterprise itself, rather than from a third-party communications provider. The Times said it was prepared to go to court to challenge the order if the Justice Department did not act on its own.
On June 2, 2021, following the revelations that records had been sought from CNN and the Washington Post, as well as President Biden’s statement that such seizures are “simply, simply wrong,” the Justice Department agreed to move to quash the (d) order. The department also notified the Times of the phone records seizure on June 2, which the Times then disclosed in a news story. The Times ran a story on the gag on June 4, the day the court signed the order quashing the email demand, ending the confidentiality obligations.
What time period was covered by the demands?
The phone and email records sought in the Times case covered the three and a half months between Jan. 14 and April 30, 2017, which, as noted, overlapped with the Post records demand for the second half of April.
Why were the records pursued?
In a March 16, 2021, letter to the Justice Department, the Times wrote it is “patently clear” that the underlying investigation in the Times case relates to the publication of allegedly classified information in an April 22, 2017, article by the four targeted reporters concerning former FBI Director James Comey’s handling of issues related to Russia and the 2016 presidential election.
The existence of that investigation had been reported by the Times and the Post in January 2020.
According to the Post, prosecutors had begun “asking questions about news reporting in 2017 about a classified document—thought to be a Russian intelligence product—that described how then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch had purportedly assured someone in Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign that the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state would not push too deep.”
That fact is directly relevant to the Times’s (d) order because the magistrate judge at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had found reasonable grounds to believe that notifying the Times would “seriously jeopardize the ongoing investigation, including by giving targets an opportunity to destroy or tamper with evidence.”
As the investigation itself was public knowledge, notification would not have increased that risk when prosecutors applied for the gag. Separately, the Justice Department has confirmed that none of the reporters at the Post, CNN or the Times were the targets of the relevant investigation, further reducing any risk that notice to the reporters or the affected news organizations could have led to evidence tampering.
Who authorized the records demand?
Again, we do not know. The initial (d) order was signed by the magistrate judge in D.C. on Dec. 30, 2020, and filed on Jan. 5, 2021, when Jeffrey Rosen was the acting attorney general. But the initial authorization for the (d) order (and both the authorization and transmittal of the phone records demand) could have come at some point before, when Attorney General Barr was still in office.
On June 8, the Times asked the court to unseal the legal filings in the (d) order case, including the application for the order, the order’s modification to permit notice to McCraw, and all related filings. That case is pending, and the government’s response to the Times’s application is due July 21.
The Public Officials’ Metadata
The inspector general investigation looking into the media records seizures was announced a day after reports that the Justice Department under the Trump administration used subpoenas to cloud communications providers to obtain subscriber information that ended up collecting metadata from public officials and their families.
These public official subpoenas are distinguishable from the media records seizures for the reasons outlined below.
On June 10, 2021, the Times reported that Apple had notified at least a dozen people tied to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, including current chair Adam Schiff of California and Rep. Eric Swalwell, also of California, as well as aides and family members (one was a minor), that their account data had been subpoenaed in 2017 and early 2018 (when Schiff was the ranking member). Three days later, the Times reported that the leak investigation prompting the subpoenas “appeared to have been primarily focused on Michael Bahar, then a staff member on” the committee.
In that story, the Times reported that Apple also notified former White House counsel Don McGahn in May, and earlier his wife, that their data had been subpoenaed in 2018. It is unclear whether the McGahn subpoenas were related to a leak investigation, though the report noted that there was a possible leak around that time that alleged President Trump had ordered McGahn in June 2017 to have Special Counsel Robert Mueller removed from the Russia probe.
Based on the public reporting, it appears that the subpoenas to Apple were for subscriber information that would help match phone numbers, email addresses or devices with their owners. In other words, investigators may have obtained the communications logs from an identified suspect and then tried to figure out who that suspect had spoken to, which swept in the congressional and McGahn data.
Further details could change this analysis. But it’s important to note that the media subpoenas and court orders were directly targeted at the reporters in a search for their alleged sources. Prosecutors were trying to peer into the newsroom and journalistic process—that was the point.
This should not diminish concern over the potential that leak investigations themselves could be misused to investigate and potentially prosecute disclosures that are merely embarrassing to public officials, or where the newsworthiness outweighs any risk to national security. That potential means that leak investigations can be unduly intrusive beyond just the press.
But turning the investigative focus directly to the reporter, which can identify confidential sources other than the specific suspect and give the government visibility into the vast web of stories about the government that the reporter might be working on, is, as the guidelines confirm, an “extraordinary” move.
* * *
The Holder-era revisions to the news media guidelines were significant because they were supposed to ensure that notice to the newsroom of a possible legal demand was the name of the game. Without it, news organizations could not avail themselves of the protections of the guidelines. The cluster of 2020 cases suggests that in the Trump administration, despite the rules, no-notice subpoenas were still a regular occurrence, undercutting the earlier reforms.
We are heartened by President Biden’s statements and encouraged by Attorney General Garland’s commitment not to use compulsory process against reporters in department cases going forward. But tension in government-press relations transcends parties, presidents and attorneys general. We need durable protections for newsgathering beyond the current administration. A full accounting of what happened in these three Trump-era cases will help both the Justice Department and the press figure out exactly what durability should look like.
There have long been some laws that, in a different universe, raise problems that really can’t be reconciled with constitutional rights. Rent control, for one example. What authority does the government have to tell a landlord what rent he can charge a tenant? Anti-discrimination is another example. While the government can’t discriminate, what authority does the government have to tell individuals they can’t do so?
Of course, we acknowledge that these laws lead to a common good and so we indulge some legal legerdemain to rationalize why it’s okay for the government to tell private individuals and businesses how to function. We hitch the wagons to things like commerce and public access, and stretch connections to their breaking point and beyond to achieve goals we find desirable. This isn’t a discussion about whether laws prohibiting discrimination are bad, but what authority the government has to dictate the terms and conditions of citizenship and commerce.
Say that the U.S. Postal Service refused to allow the mailing of KKK, Antifa, or anti-vax publications.[1] That would be unconstitutional,[2] however much we might appreciate the desire of USPS managers to refuse to participate in spreading evil and dangerous ideas. And though UPS and FedEx aren’t bound by the First Amendment, they too are common carriers[3] and thus can’t refuse to ship books sent by “extremist” publishers.[4]
Likewise for phone companies, whether land-line monopolies or competitive cell phone providers.[5] Verizon can’t cancel the Klan’s recruiting phone number, even if that number is publicly advertised so that Verizon can know how it’s being used without relying on any private information.[6] To be precise, the companies need not be common carriers as to all aspects of their operation: They can, for instance, express their views to their customers in mailings accompanying their bills, without having to convey others’ views.[7] But they are common carriers as to their function of providing customers with telephone communications services.
There are, of course, obvious distinctions between the postal service, phone companies and the internet. Yet, do those distinctions suffice to make social media off-limits as a putative “common carrier”? Eugene argues not necessarily.
A. The General Constitutionality of Compelled Hosting
I think this sort of common carrier rule would be constitutionally permissible,
on the strength of three precedents:
PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, which upheld a state law rule that
required large shopping malls to allow leafleters and signature gatherers (a
rule that has since been applied by some lower courts to outdoor spaces in
private universities);
Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC, which upheld a statute that required
cable systems to carry over-the-air broadcasters; and
Rumsfeld v. FAIR, which held that the government could require private
universities to provide space to military recruiters, alongside other recruiters.
These cases, put together, establish several basic principles.
One of the curiosities of a legal system predicated on precedent is that a step onto the slippery slope can prove the beginning of a slide into the abyss. While it’s a logical fallacy that the slide will happen, that isn’t to say it won’t. Each of these decisions reflected outcomes that many supported and the Court believed justifiable under their peculiar facts and circumstances. Yet in the process, the holdings gave us such squishy notions as this.
“Requiring someone to host another person’s speech is often a perfectly legitimate thing for the Government to do.” So wrote Justice Breyer, and the cases he cited (PruneYard and Rumsfeld), as well as Turner, fully support that view. PruneYard expressly rejected the claim “that a private property owner has a First Amendment right not to be forced by the State to use his property as a forum for the speech of others.” Turner and Rumsfeld rejected similar claims.
Notably, Eugene relies not on the rationales, but the conclusions of these decisions to make his point that a private property owner has no First Amendment right to “not to be forced by the State to use his property as a forum for the speech of others.” All that’s needed is a socially desirable result and rubric. There’s no doubt that relying on precedent is critical to maintaining a stable society, but is this a case of “remember the rubric and forget the rationale,” or have we now burned freedom on the cross of good intentions?
If social media are “the modern public square,” the law may constitutionally treat them (at least as to certain of their functions) the way physical public squares can be treated.
It’s rather surprising that Eugene has come out this way, and while he’s one voice on the issue of First Amendment law, he is an important voice. Indeed, he has a fan base that takes his every work as gospel. Is he right? Does precedent mean that private social media companies can be declared “common carriers” and compelled to do as the government bids? They are, de facto, the modern public square and it’s not as if that wasn’t their goal in the first place. Is it too much, then, to require them to assume the public function of the public square? Do they enjoy the benefit without the duty that goes with it?
Do the nuanced distinction behind the rubrics of Pruneyard, Rumsfeld and Turner render them inapposite, or has the law established that no private enterprise, no business, and, perhaps no individual, is beyond the reach of governmental mandate when there is a social good (assuming you agree that it’s a social good, even if beauty is in the eye of the beholder) to be had?
Disclaimer: I’ve never held a job for more than a year1 or been paid more than $15 an hour. Take everything I say with a grain of salt.
Many of my peers seem to make career plans like by asking things like
What am I interested in, or what do I like doing? and
How can I do something related to that?
which might lead to some of the following:
A person who likes dancing tries to work in the arts industry.
A person who likes video games tries to get into game design.
A person who is interested in healthcare policy tries to study or design healthcare policy.
The problem here, in terms of diminished performance, happiness, and satisfaction, is a conflation of the topic and the content. The topic is not the content!
The topic
In my schema, the topic is what the work is about. If you’re the manager of a pillow company, the topic is pillows. If you’re defending accused criminals in court, the topic is criminal law.
A lot of folks, it seems to me, focus a lot on the topic when deciding which subjects to study or which jobs to apply for. Someone who is interested in physics might major in physics. Someone who loves to work out might try to become a personal trainer.
I don’t think this makes much sense. Should people ignore what they’re interested in and like to do, then? Well, maybe. 80,000 Hours, perhaps the single best career planning resource out there, writes that
The bottom line
To find a dream job, look for:
Work you’re good at,
Work that helps others,
Supportive conditions: engaging work that lets you enter a state of flow; supportive colleagues; lack of major negatives like unfair pay; and work that fits your personal life.
Ok, but the term “engaging work” is doing a lot of work here (no pun intended), and seems awfully synonymous with “work that you like.” So, how do you find work that you like doing? If there’s anything my utterly negligible work experiences has taught me, it’s that it usually makes more sense to focus less on the topic and more on the content.
The content
In my schema, the content is what the work involves doing. If you’re a physics teacher, the topic is physics, but the content is (I assume) some combination of grading papers, making slideshow presentations, lecturing, doing demonstrations, and answering student questions.
Say Emma is a physics teacher. Which do you think matters more for Emma’s personal career satisfaction: being interested in physics (the topic), or enjoying grading, lecturing, presenting, and answering questions (the content)? Almost certainly, I think, the latter.
Don’t get me wrong, the topic matters too! Even if Emma likes all of these activities, I have no doubt that both she and her students would be better off if Emma were interested in physics. But someone who loves teaching but is indifferent to physics will be better off than someone who loves physics but is indifferent to teaching.
The problem
One of the fundamental issues here is that it’s way easier to discern the topic. For instance, the word “physics” in “physics teacher” is served up on a salient silver platter. Obviously, “teaching physics” involves physics. What is less obvious, though, is what “teaching” involves. The verb “teach” isn’t very descriptive—it’s just a placeholding bucket for more substantive actions like “grade papers” and “lecture.”
In fact, while I’m virtually certain that teaching physics involves physics, I recognize that my description of the content (grading, lecturing etc.) could be misleading or missing something important. In fact, I couldn’t tell you what my high school teachers spent the plurality of their time actually doing.
Me, right now
As my LinkedIn will tell you, I am a newly-minted federal employee and proud member of the economics team in the Office of Policy Analysis in the Department of the Interior (DOI). Now, take a minute to guess the topic and the content of my job. This is exactly what I had to do a few months ago when I (read: my mom) found the job, and I (read: I) decided to, write a cover letter, apply, interview, and accept the offer.
Admittedly, guessing the content from my job title is probably a bit harder than usual because DOI’s name isn’t very descriptive (unlike ‘Department of Agriculture) and is affectionately but tellingly referred to as “the Department of Everything Else.” Nonetheless, you can probably infer quite a bit even before heading to Google. Probably something along the lines of “analyzing the economic effects of DOI policies, whatever those are—maybe like nature preserves and stuff?” And you’d basically be right!
Now, take a minute to guess the content—what actual activities I do day to day. Am I using a computer? If so, which applications? Am I talking to other people or mostly working on my own? Am I producing some sort of output? If so, what does the generation process look like?
These questions are way harder to answer. Even the job description, if I recall correctly, didn’t say anything like “you will be using Microsoft Teams to have 1-3 short daily meetings, produce PowerPoints with a fellow intern, and try to figure out how to get your government-issued laptop with 16 gb of RAM to handle downloading, analyzing, and uploading 5 gb .csv files (spreadsheets) with millions and millions of rows using R” (answer: it’s hard).
And my impression is that this pattern holds true more generally. If you currently work, think about what you really spend time doing. Would a smart layperson be able to easily figure this out? I suspect not. For over a year now, my parents and I have been working under one roof. I see them in front of their computers in separate makeshift offices, and can tell they’re working hard, but I have little idea what the hell they’re actually doing on there.
I’m pretty sure they write stuff, fine, but there’s a big difference between writing poetry, drafting cease and desist letters, and manually transcribing audio. I’m pretty sure they’re not doing any of these three things, but what does “being a lawyer” actually mean, minute to minute? After 21 years, I should probably ask them.
Medicine and me
As another personal anecdote, I am genuinely fascinated by psychopharmacology. From beer and coffee to prescription psychotropics to weird grey market research chemicals, the way that substances impact the raw experience of life is, put simply, very interesting and important. So, as my family has asked me, why don’t I consider medical school or psychopharmacological research?
Well, I have considered it, and the answer is no. The topic is fascinating, but I can’t imagine myself studying for the MCAT or being a lab rat. Maybe I’m wrong, but my mind’s eye pictures memorizing lots of anatomy and basic biological information or learning about all the metabolic pathways and common diseases, or, on the research side, pipetting lots of chemicals into test tubes and stuff. If this is anywhere close to accurate, the content is something I’d abhor. Reading about the relationship between monoamine receptor activation and world modeling is one thing, but being the person who figures all this out is another.
A plea, for the world
I suspect that a mismatch between what people enjoy doing and what their work actually entails is the source of a lot of unhappiness. In part, this is because some jobs suck and the American economy depends on the threat of poverty to operate. In part, though, it’s because people place too much weight on topic and not enough on content when making career decisions
So, here are some proposals:
Replace or supplement “what do you want to be when you grow up” and “what are you interested in” with “what do you want to do when you grow up?” and “what do you like doing?”
For job advertisements, describe in granular detail what the work actually involves, minute to minute. Describe the action, not just the end product. Use verbs less like “teach” and more like “lecture” and “grade papers.”
Conclusion
I shouldn’t be getting on my high horse about all this. At the age of 21, I haven’t exactly had a long, successful career. And, like so many of my posts, I doubt my thesis is original even if it’s correct.
For all the thousands of hours we study preparing for tens of thousands of hours working, though, strikingly little is spent trying to determine what kind of career to purse, both for ourselves and for the world. And as 80,000 Hours (named for the number of working hours in a typical career) will tell you, helping others really does depend (to some extent) on doing something you’re good at and can sustain.
So, for the tenth time, the topic is not the content. Pay attention to both, but focus on the latter.
Erst im Mai haben die Archäologen der Forschungsstelle Kaiserpfalz mit ihrer diesjährigen Forschungsgrabung an der Rotweinstraße begonnen — jetzt sind sie bereits fündig geworden: Im Grab 361 tauchten nach und nach zahlreiche Eisenobjekte auf, darunter auch ein gut erhaltenes Sax. Das Schwert gehörte dem Verstorbenen zu Lebzeiten und sollte ihn auch ins Jenseits begleiten.
Übersicht der Eisenfunde aus Grab 361 in der Rotweinstraße (Foto: Detlef Bach, Restaurator)
Die Grabungen
Im Bereich von Rotweinstraße, Stevenagestraße und Kreuzbergstraße befindet sich eines der größten archäologisch erforschten Reihengräberfelder der Merowingerzeit in Rheinhessen. Die dortigen Untersuchungen sind Teil einer seit 2015 laufenden mehrjährigen Grabungskampagne, bei der u. a. die Nutzungsdauer und die Ausdehnung der Nekropole untersucht werden sollen. Mehr als 250 Gräber aus der Zeit von etwa 500 n. Chr. bis in die erste Hälfte des 8. Jahrhunderts konnten bislang dokumentiert werden. In den beiden vergangenen Jahren wurde durch gezielte Ausgrabungen das nördliche Ende des Gräberfeldes ermittelt.
Kulturdezernentin und Bürgermeisterin Eveline Breyer freut sich an den neu gewonnenen Erkenntnissen über jene Menschen, die im frühen Mittelalter in Ingelheim lebten: „Obwohl die Grabstätten ja leider meistens schon zeitgenössisch beraubt wurden, finden wir doch immer wieder Beigaben, die von den Grabräubern übersehen oder nicht beachtet wurden. Diese Funde können uns etwas über das Geschlecht, den gesellschaftlichen Status oder auch den Beruf der bestatteten Personen erzählen.“ Typische Beigaben sind Gefäße wie Töpfe aus Keramik oder Glasbecher, Schmuck wie etwa Glasperlen, aber auch Waffen und Werkzeuge, die meist aus Eisen gefertigt wurden.
Grabbeigaben aus der „Mittelschicht“ in Grab 361
Beim Freilegen von Grab 361 kamen ein Messer, eine Schere und eine vollständige, massive Gürtelgarnitur zum Vorschein. Das spektakulärste Objekt aus dem Grab ist aber das Schmalsax. Dieses kurze, einschneidige Hiebmesser, eine typische Beiwaffe fränkischer Krieger, spricht nicht nur für eine männliche Bestattung. Seine Form und die Länge von insgesamt rund 38 Zentimetern liefern außerdem einen zuverlässigen Hinweis auf die Datierung des Grabes: Mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit wurde sein einstiger Besitzer in der Zeit zwischen 550 und 600 n. Chr. bestattet. Bei dem Toten aus Grab 361 dürfte es sich um einen Mann aus der „Mittelschicht“ der damaligen fränkischen Gesellschaft in Ingelheim gehandelt haben.
Erst die Röntgenaufnahme werden die stark korrodierten Objekte wie die Schere oder das kleine Messer sichtbar (Foto: Detlef Bach, Restaurator)
Ein Röntgenbild der beigegebenen Eisenobjekte zeigt außerdem, dass unter der dicken Korrosionsschicht keinerlei Verzierungen erkennbar sind. Diese eher schlichte Gestaltung stützt auch die frühe Datierung des Grabes in die zweite Hälfte des 6. Jahrhunderts. Aufwändigere Dekorationen wie beispielsweise Bundmetalleinlagen, sogenannte Tauschierungen, sind erst in späterer Zeit häufiger zu beobachten. Tauschierte Objekte wie die mit feinen Gold- und Silberdrähten verzierte Gürtelschnalle, die 2017 an der Rotweinstraße gefunden wurde, sind in Ingelheim aber keine Seltenheit. Man darf also durchaus gespannt sein, welche Funde in den kommenden Wochen in der Rotweinstraße noch zutage treten.
Der Rhein rückte in der Zeit Karls des Großen vom Rand in das Zentrum des Reiches. Das Land zu beiden Seiten des Stroms blieb über viele Jahrhunderte die wichtigste Bühne der Macht, eine Plattform für Kaiser, Könige und Fürsten, die historische Zeichen setzten: Dome, Burgen, Pfalzen, Kirchen, Klöster und aufblühende Städte. Die Wurzeln der Macht am Rhein jedoch findet man in Spätantike und Frühmittelalter – ein weites Feld für archäologische Forschungen.
I frequently hear complains from people about individual Wikipedia pages but most of the people who complain only complain outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is inherently democratic. If you read a Wikipedia article and think it's very problematic, take five minutes and write about why it's problematic on the talk page of the article.
Wikipedia is an important part of the commons. If you think from an EA perspective those five minutes (or even more if it takes you time to search for sources) have a good chance of being time spent with a good EA return.
While recruiting people outside of Wikipedia to individual pages to engage in discussion goes against Wikipedia's rules, simply engaging on Wikipedia and voicing your opinion is helpful. It makes it more likely that consensus on the article shifts in the right direction.
Happy belated Fourth of July! This potentially-recurring column is about modern-day independence-seekers: charter cities, utopian communes, secessionist movements, and the like. I’ve always found these fascinating, and finally remembered that nobody can prevent me from talking about them.
I want to start by making it clear that, as the old saying goes, retweets ≠ endorsements. Some of these projects violate my ethical beliefs. Some of them are scams. Some of them are very nice, very earnest people, who will very earnestly all move to a godforsaken desert and then very earnestly starve to death. I’m trusting you all not to do the thing where you say “I saw it on a blog, so it hasto be a good idea!”
Maybe you've heard of the Free State Project. Some American libertarians, tired of always losing at everything, decided to all move to the same state, so they could be a substantial part of that state's population and maybe win some elections or at least be able to commiserate with each other in person. They chose New Hampshire, 5000 people moved (with 15000 more claiming they'll move eventually) and they managed to elect a dozen or so state representatives (including a friend of mine who has some amazing stories). In general the project seems to have gone well, plus or minus some bear-related snafus.
Now some Europeans are thinking: why not do the same thing in Europe? Europe has many countries, just as the US has lots of states. Libertarians always lose there too. If everyone went to the same country, maybe they could change it for the (?) better.
The "Free Society Project Europe" proposes Montenegro. It’s only got 600,000 people, it's cheap, and it's controlled by centrists (which is about as close to libertarian as Europe ever gets). Their site claims that "This project is not some abstract theory, but is already being realized by the first pioneers who have moved and begun to naturalize in Montenegro".
Problem: Montenegro isn't technically in the European Union, which makes it hard to move to (although it is expected to be accepted in soon). Also, if you did move there, you would be a resident and not a citizen, which limits your ability to influence the political process. Also, European libertarians are kind of like cryptids: often rumored to exist, rarely spotted.
And also, how real is this project? It's getting signal-boosted by some big-name libertarians, but it was announced on a Medium blog with four followers, and everything I've seen is compatible with it being one very dedicated person. There's a Discord server, but the invite has expired and I can't find it. There’s a Telegram chat, but I don’t have Telegram and don’t want to get it to check it out. So it might be more of a cool idea than an actual plan that's moving forward.
Still, it is a cool idea. Having a lot of influence in a country seems better than having a lot of influence in a US state. Montenegro has fewer people than New Hampshire. And digital nomadism and the aftereffects of the pandemic are making it increasingly easy to move places.
Also, Montenegro looks really pretty and maybe we should just take any excuse to go there.
On the other hand, countries are often associated with ethnic groups who like having their own countries. Also, if they decide you are annoying, they can just ban you from immigrating. Most likely the Free Society Project Europe never reaches a size where anyone in Montenegro notices it, but if for some reason it did they could sink it pretty easily (although it might become harder once they are EU members). FSPE notes that Montenegro is already multiethnic and maybe libertarians could slip in while everyone else is squabbling with each other, but "Balkan country with lots of ethnic squabbles" actually sounds like a pretty big turnoff.
Still, cool idea.
For a while now, the Charter Cities Institute has argued that donating to them (or to charter cities in general) might be one of the most effective things you can do with your money, maybe even orders of magnitude better than any other charity. Their argument, seen here, is based on the idea that charter cities might grow significantly faster than their home countries and lift hundreds of thousands of residents out of poverty. If a few million dollars can successfully lobby someone to start a charter city, that’s pretty cost-effective.
Now institutional effective altruism has evaluated those claims, in the form of an analysis by trusted EA think tank Rethink Priorities. They conclude that “it is unlikely that charter cities will be more cost-effective than GiveWell top charities in terms of directly improving wellbeing”.
They bring up the usual reasons to think charter cities are hard, but their most damning point is that even if a city gets successfully founded, it might not actually increase growth. There aren’t enough existing charter cities to draw firm empirical conclusions, but the closest existing analogue is Special Economic Zones. A World Bank study finds that SEZs don’t consistently grow faster than their host countries. Some very conspicuously do (eg Dubai, Shenzhen), but these are matched by a few that grow less quickly, and overall it’s kind of a wash. The study tries to analyze whether there are consistent features of SEZs which make some do better than others, but it can’t really find any.
Keep in mind potential biases - countries might make underperforming regions SEZs to fix their underperformance, or might make especially promising regions SEZs because they’re best placed to take advantage of better regulations.
It then fine-tunes some of CCI’s models, incorporating the sort of pessimistic assumptions about growth that make sense in the context of the World Bank study, and finds that although they are nice, they don’t reach the same level of cost-effectiveness as other GiveWell top charities, even on time scales of decades.
But they add a caveat: this is just the really direct, easy-to-model effects from the people in the city getting richer. There are still potential indirect effects from charter cities serving as “laboratories of government” (eg one of them might try a new policy, it might be great, and then bigger countries might adopt it). The obvious example is that the Shenzhen special economic zone did well enough that it convinced the Chinese leadership to try capitalism more generally, with world-changing results.
Mark Lutter of CCI broadly supports the research, but argues that the World Bank study might underrate CCI’s work. The study only investigated SEZs between 0.5 and 10 square kilometers. This is more like a neighborhood than like a real city (Central Park is 3.5 square kilometers, Manhattan is 87, Shenzhen is 320). But Lutter thinks that “a city is the smallest unit that can support economic development”. He also thinks the SEZs were comparatively weak - slightly lower taxes or something boring like that, compared to the total overhaul involved in charter cities. He comes up with a reference class that includes Shenzhen, but not a lot of SEZs that don’t work, and says this is the proper comparison.
The Rethink Priorities analysis is a great mathematical model, and a good counterbalance to inflated estimates of charter city donation cost-effectiveness. But like all models, it’s only as good as the assumptions that go into it and the degree to which desirable effects can be easily quantified, and right now both of those are iffy enough that I doubt it’s the final word on the matter.
Model cities are usually associated with libertarians, but that doesn't have to be true. Anyone can make a model city. You just have to try hard and believe in yourself! Well past the point where it becomes delusional!
Black Hammer believes in themselves. They are a US group which describes themselves as "a symbol of hope for the colonized working class". Their enemies describe them as "a cross between racial reparations and multi-level marketing", which is a heck of a thing to describe people as, but, well, see their website:
Are you white? Do you want to help? Do you want to be a good person, on the right side of history?
The only way you can wash the blood off your hands is through following the leadership of African, Indigenous, and Colonized people and paying reparations for all that’s been stolen in your name.
Right now, Black Hammer Organization is offering several ways to pay reparations […]
Mao Level – $199 minimum
Sign up for the entire 8-week bootcamp and get fully certified as someone who is united under Colonized leadership. By completing this level, you’ll get the chance to provide your skills to the organization and be an active recruiter to make sure that other people are continuing to pay reparations and support the masses of poor and working class Colonized people. Upon completion, you will also receive a Reparations Corps uniform!
Mao Level + : Pay an additional 25% in reparations and receive an exclusive piece of Black Hammer gear!
Sankara Level – $99 minimum
Sign up for the 4-week bootcamp and get halfway there to falling under the leadership of Colonized people. Although you won’t be able to contribute to the organization at this level, you will still receive valuable skills necessary to help advance anti-colonialism and organize people to return and liberate the land of Colonized people around the world. If you wish to continue the full 8-week bootcamp, simply pay reparations for another Sankara Level bootcamp.
Sankara Level + : Pay an additional 25% in reparations and receive an exclusive piece of Black Hammer gear!
Che Level – $40
Sign up for a single session of the bootcamp and get a view of the experience and work it takes in order to disunite with your people’s worldwide acts of genocide and terror. Take that first step into creating a world where no one lives at the expense of another and show others that you have what it takes to make a material, not just ideological, difference in the lives of others.
The next 8-week bootcamp will begin on March 12th, 2021! That means you need to sign up today to claim your spot and begin YOUR journey.
GROUP PRICE – Does your organization/company, activist group, or group of friends want to pay reparations and learn about anti-colonialism or anti-racism in the world and in the workplace? Contact us directly at reparationscorps@protonmail.com for pricing options!
What are they going to do with this money? One of their projects is Hammer City, a city with “Jobs, housing, food, healthcare, no cops, no rent, no Coronavirus, and no white people.” The plan is to locate it in Colorado and pay for it with crowdfunding (so far they have $90,000 of their $500,000 goal). Here are some pictures of how it could look:
And here’s its proposed constitution, which is big on denunciations of things but short of details on how anything will actually be governed - the closest I can find is “the council and residents of Hammer City will establish a method for elections”.
The latest progress report is this tweet:
…but there are continuing requests for donations from as recently as last week on their Twitter account, which incidentally is a work of art:
I am sure they will rule their new domain peacefully and with great sagacity.
I mean, of course he would say that, it’s his job. But hidden in between the platitudes is a bit of a warning.
In his response to Rethink Priorities (mentioned above), Lutter said the World Bank’s study on SEZs wasn’t applicable because charter cities were going to be bigger and better than SEZs’ 0.5 - 10 km^2. But two of the most promising existing charter city projects, Prospera and Ciudad Morazan, are starting on land of 0.25 km^2 (though they could get larger). Lutter is suitably concerned:
Both Próspera and Ciudad Morazán are closer to charter towns than charter cities. Their medium-term target populations are in the thousands. The benefits of charter cities come from both the charter/governance, and the city/agglomeration. The benefits scale quadratically. One charter city with 100,000 residents is better than 10 comparable charter cities with 10,000 residents each […]
Paul Romer’s original case for charter cities included the fact that cities are the smallest unit which can have sustained economic growth. Will Ciudad Morazán with 10,000 residents be a better place to live than San Pedro Sula? Probably! Will it generate widespread economic development for Honduras? Probably not.
He goes on to express optimism that at least Ciudad Morazan can scale (Prospera seems to be trying to attract remote workers, and it’s harder to see how to leverage that into agglomeration effects).
Ciudad Morazan is aiming at a more down-to-earth and scaleable kind of development than the snazzy high-tech island city of Prospera.
But also:
Broadly speaking, [charter city] governance can be split into the propertarian camp and the state capacity camp. The propertarians define the relationship with the government and residents in a contract, clearly defining the rights and responsibilities of both. The state capacity followers believe that property rights are important, but a strong state is also crucial for building a successful city and generating sustained economic growth […]
The state capacity approach defines the rights and responsibilities of both residents and the government but offers a wider range of flexibility in dealing with unforeseen challenges. The emphasis is not on the state as a contractual service provider, but instead on the state as a positive actor in the development of the city. The Singaporean government, for example, plays an active role in Singapore’s development, building industrial parks, attracting investment, and focusing on the growth of specific industries.
The propertarian approach gives residents and businesses more security. The hands of the state are tied. This security comes at the expense of flexibility. I tend to lean towards the state capacity approach. Aligning the incentives of the city government with the residents can minimize the risk of government action harming the residents while preserving the possibility of positive government action.
I’ve been thinking about this after reading How Asia Works. If Studwell is right, financial hubs are a completely different thing from large-scale development. The great charter city success stories - Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong - are all stories of cities that became financial hubs. These are great, but you can only have so many financial hubs in a certain region before it gets kind of saturated. If eg Prospera becomes a financial hub for Central America, that’s great and they can be really proud of themselves - but it wouldn’t necessarily be a scaleable plan to lift all of Latin America out of poverty.
Lots of charter cities want to be Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore. But could a charter city be Park Chung-Hee’s Korea? Sounds like a harder problem, especially since it won’t be immediately profitable (and in fact will be actively less profitable than doing other things in the short-term). Still, it might turn out that that’s what you need if you want to end poverty at scale.
Holger Klein und ich haben wieder über Wissenschaft geplaudert. Über die desaströse Lage der Medien und der Politik in Österreich. Über den Drachenmann und Astra Zeneca. Übers Abnehmen und über DNA-Fresser. Über Weltraumwetter und Algen-Asteroiden. Über Stratosphärenschrumpfung, UFOs und jede Menge andere Themen. Hört es euch an!
Wenn ihr regelmäßig auf dem laufenden gehalten werden und keine der zukünftigen Folgen verpassen wollt, dann könnt ihr natürlich gerne den Feed unserer Wissenschafts-Plauderreihe abonnieren: https://feeds.feedburner.com/Wrint_Wissenschaft. Das ganze gibt es natürlich auch bei iTunes. Eine Liste mit den bisher erschienen Folge der Serie findet ihr hier.
Granted, any Supreme Court opinion that begins, “JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court,” is presumptively going to be bad. And the hot commentary that followed on the heels of the issuance of Brnovich v. DNC certainly saw it that way. At Vanity Fair, Cristian Farias wrote that it was “devastating,” and put the Voting Rights Act on “life support.” In the New York Times, prawf Rick Hasen wrote that it put “democracy at risk.”
Yesterday, in a Supreme Court case called Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, Justice Samuel Alito told conservatives how to defeat the Voting Rights Act, once and for all. White supremacists don’t have to storm the Capitol to hoard political power anymore. They just have to follow Alito’s instructions.
Did the decision justify this extreme level of outrage? Much of the counter-focus has been on the nature of the Arizona voting rules at issue, requiring people to vote in their designated precincts and prohibiting ballot harvesting. Both rules are fairly common and can be found in “blue” as well as “red” states, even if the particular grievance in Arizona is that it presents problems for people on reservations due to bad mail service and not having cars with which to get to the polls or a mail box. While this seems to be a postal service problem more than a voting problem, their complaint is understandable.
But that’s not really the problem here. Rather, the concern comes after Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was held unconstitutional in Shelby County v. Holder, which provided that states must obtain federal pre-clearance of any laws affecting voting of minorities, using a formula to determine whether they gave rise to disparate impact. The Court held that state sovereignty precluded a requirement that they get federal bureaucratic permission. Or, from the other perspective, whether states with a history of voter suppression could make rules that enhanced voter suppression without federal interference.
In Brnovich, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was in issue.
In 1982, Congress amended the language in §2 that had been interpreted to require proof of discriminatory intent by a plurality of the Court in Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55. In place of that language, §2(a) now uses the phrase “in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right . . . to vote on account of race or color.” Section 2(b) in turn explains what must be shown to establish a §2 violation. Section 2(b) states that §2 is violated only where “the political processes leading to nomination or election” are not “equally open to participation” by members of the relevant protected group “in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” (Emphasis added.)
So what did Justice Alito have to say about it?
But the Supreme Court sapped much of Section 2’s juice in Brnovich by erecting a complicated and not exactly intuitive list of “important circumstances” that judges must take into consideration when weighing challenges to voting rules. Alito’s multifactor test goes on for a few pages and runs the gamut: the “size” of the burden on voters, whatever that means; whether “a challenged rule has a long pedigree or is in widespread use in the United States”; how significantly different racial groups are affected by a voting rule; whether a state provides “other available means” of voting outside of the challenged restrictions; and the strength of the justification for the voting restriction—such as preventing fraud, which Alito describes as a “strong and entirely legitimate state interest.”
Cristian makes it sound pretty awful by characterizing Alito’s listing of considerations to be used by a court when reviewing a voting law. Essentially, it provides factors to consider in a balancing test of whether the impact on different racial groups is justified by the legitimacy of the need for the restriction, and whether there are other means available to accomplish the goal that wouldn’t have such a disparate impact.
Hasen points to a more concrete problem.
Thanks to Brnovich, a state can now assert an interest in preventing fraud to justify a law without proving that fraud is actually a serious risk, but at the same time, minority voters have a high burden: They must show that the state has imposed more than the “usual burdens of voting.” Justice Alito specifically referred to voting laws in effect in 1982 as the benchmark, a period when early and absentee voting were scarce and registration was much more onerous in many states.
It is hard to see what laws would be so burdensome that they would flunk the majority’s lax test. A ban on Sunday voting despite African American and other religious voters doing “souls to the polls” drives after church? New strict identification requirements for those voting by mail? More frequent voter purges? All would probably be OK under the court’s new test as long as there are still some opportunities for minority citizens to vote — somewhere, somehow.
And Elie is, well, Elie.
This country has lived under a regime of voting inconveniences before: It was called the Jim Crow South. Trying to guess which day the election was on (time) when the authorities would lie to you was pretty inconvenient. Having to walk halfway across the county to get to the one, barely advertised polling site (place) was pretty inconvenient. And having to prove clairvoyance and guess the number of jellybeans in a jar (manner) was sho’ nuff inconvenient to American citizens trying to exercise their right to vote. It was the Voting Rights Act that tried to put a stop to all that, but now the six conservatives on the court have tried to put a stop to the Voting Rights Act.
The VRA battle is somewhat disingenuous on all sides. Republicans don’t want to expand the opportunity for minorities to vote because, as was conceded at oral argument, it’s bad for them. Democrats, on the other hand, do because it presents an opportunity to get votes from people who wouldn’t otherwise be bothered if they make it easy enough and apply a little pressure.
And so the Voting Rights Act is less a battle about how easy voting should be or whether ordinary and longstanding voting rules suppress minority voting. For the most part, the rules would be largely uncontroversial as fair and reasonable, and the point is made by noting that the same rules exist in many other states without challenge. It would be one thing if a state instituted a poll tax or test before allowing people to vote, but this battle is being waged over whether it’s too much to ask of a voter to vote in the proper precinct, or whether their ballots can be picked up by a neutral party but not harvested by partisans, who are also not allowed to give gifts to voters within 150 feet of the polling place.
This isn’t the end of voting as we know it. Indeed, voting today is far easier than it has ever been in the history of this nation. And yet, the battle rages on because it’s not about voting rights at all, but about winning elections.
Trans women are women is a fine mantra, but it comes with some baggage. When the issue was perceived as who gets to use what bathroom, some of the baggage was shrugged off. After all, women’s bathrooms have stalls, and stalls have doors, and who cares anyway? Fair enough. But it was never about women’s bathrooms, which unsurprisingly eluded some people. That doesn’t make it righter or wronger, but more unclear, as a woman learned at Wi Spa in Los Angeles.*
A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law.
“He is a man,” the woman can be heard saying. “He is not a female. There are girls down there, other women who are highly offended by what they just saw and you did nothing. You sided with him.”
Wi Spa defended its policy in a statement to Los Angeles Magazine.
“Like many other metropolitan areas, Los Angeles contains a transgender population, some of whom enjoy visiting a spa,” the statement said. “Wi Spa strives to meet the needs of all its customers.”
The spa defended its policy in a statement to Fox LA, saying that California law “prohibits discrimination against transgender and gender non-conforming people.”
“As a spa located in Los Angeles, Wi Spa complies with California law prohibiting discrimination by a business, including the Civil Code provision set forth above. Like many other metropolitan areas, Los Angeles contains a transgender population, some of whom enjoy visiting a spa,” the statement said.
Who is “transgender” may be a sticky subject, particularly when a person physically presents as a man but identifies as a woman. Some women will find this offensive. Some girls will find it traumatizing, as will their parents who do not want their children to be exposed to a penis and who do not want to expose themselves to a person with a penis.
Again, you may shrug at their concern or, if you’re more dedicated to the cause, express outrage at their discrimination against women with penises because it’s fine with you and so therefore must be acceptable to others. Or more bluntly, too bad for those who discriminate between women with vaginas and women with penises.
And again to be fair to the spa, their efforts to accommodate the transgender population is commendable provided their policy is understood by their cis patrons and they are aware that this “women only” spa may mean that they and their children may be exposed to penises.
But that was clearly not understood by the woman complaining, such that she could choose not to patronize the spa and risk potential exposure to penises if that was her choice. Then again, if California law forbids discriminating against people who identify as women but have a penis, there will be no spa where they can be assured that no patron’s penis will come into view.
Whether trans women are women is an ideological choice, but penises are not vaginas. Perhaps the complaint is that we ought to get past genitalia and not make a big deal about being exposed to body parts we don’t possess. But that, too, is a separate issue from discrimination against transgender people. Would “get over it” be the same reaction if the person exposing his penis made no claim to being transgender, and he was just showing his man penis to young girls?
More to the point, we’ve yet to scratch the surface of where this is heading. After Congress enacted Title IX, a regulation made clear that schools “may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex” without engaging in sex discrimination. This was not only not controversial, but any other reg would have been considered outrageous and absurd. Of course that wasn’t what Title IX meant. Then.
But then, the word “sex” was universally understood to mean the binary of male and female. Now that it has morphed into gender identity, a law enacted for one purpose has similarly morphed into a law prohibiting discrimination that it was never intended to prohibit, and would never have been enacted had it been realized at the time that by redefining a key word, “sex,” the law would take on an entirely different meaning.
The point isn’t to take a side in the “trans women are women” debate, but rather to note that the ramifications have never been made clear and transparent. By focusing the debate on bathrooms, consideration has largely gotten caught up in the nuts and bolts of toilet stalls and urinals rather than the far broader issues of how this will effect societal change and create social conflicts that nobody considered.
My imagination is inadequately fertile to anticipate all potential issues arising from the prohibition against transgender discrimination, though I had suggested one potential problem back in 2016.
So, if we accept that gender identity discrimination is sex discrimination, and that it applies to all entities subject to Titles VII and IX, consider this hypothetical:
Joe meets Lola, and they take a shine to each other. Joe asks Lola on a date, and Lola affirmatively consents. Joe goes back to his dorm, and is subtly informed by his roommate, Enrique, that Lola is quite the excellent sweeper on the college’s men’s curling team.
Joe is confused. He’s a bit slow. So Joe texts Lola and asks, “Lola, are you on the men’s curling team?” Lola responds, “you bet I am. Can’t wait to see you tonight, dreamboat.” Joe, never one to miss a trick, replies, “I didn’t know you were a dude. Sorry, but I’m not into that sort of thing.”
Lola is crushed. Joe was so adorable. Lola is now hurt, angry and offended that Joe refused to go on the date solely because Lola was a biological male who identified as a woman. There was no other reason for Joe’s cancelling the date. That’s sex discrimination.
This will assuredly not be the only issue that could potentially arise, and there are likely a great many more banal problems, such as what happened at Wi Spa to women who did not accept the premise that their “women’s only” privacy would include children’s exposure to male genitalia. I get it, You think they’re wrong, stupid, discriminatory and their feelings about such exposure are unworthy of recognition. Why their sensibilities don’t matter while others’ sensibilities must be respected no matter what is where this dives down the irrational rabbit hole of ideology.**
*Some will reacts poorly because the video was posted by Ian Miles Cheong, but your feelings toward Cheong have nothing to do with the content of the video, which speaks for itself.
**Unsurprisingly, the next day protesters showed up. Anti-trans religious protesters were met by black-clad (but are they Antifa?) counter-protesters who demonstrated their cause of tolerance in their own curiously selective way.
Detailed story of Volodymyr Kvashuk, a Microsoft insider who noticed a bug in the company’s internal systems that allowed him to create unlimited Xbox gift cards, and stole $10.1 million before he was caught.
Laacher-See-Vulkaneruption fand vor 13.077 Jahren statt – Neues Datum liefert entscheidende Erkenntnisse über Klimaschwankungen am Ende der letzten Eiszeit
Der Ausbruch des Laacher-See-Vulkans in der Eifel zählt zu den größten Eruptionen, die sich in Mitteleuropa ereignet haben. Der Vulkanausbruch förderte rund 20 Kubikkilometer Asche zutage und die Eruptionswolke reichte über 20 Kilometer in die Höhe, vergleichbar mit dem Ausbruch des Pinatubo auf den Philippinen im Jahr 1991. Technische Fortschritte und Funde von Baumresten, die im Zuge der Eruption begraben wurden, ermöglichen nun eine genaue Datierung des Ereignisses mit einer nur sehr geringen Unsicherheit. Demnach ist der Ausbruch des Laacher-See-Vulkans vor 13.077 Jahren erfolgt und damit 126 Jahre früher als bisher angenommen. Dies wirft ein neues Licht auf die Klimageschichte des gesamten nordatlantischen und europäischen Raums und erfordert eine Anpassung der europäischen Klimaarchive. „Wir können damit einen Temperatursturz am Ende der letzten Kaltzeit genau datieren, sodass sich die Angaben jetzt mit denen von Bohrkernen aus dem Grönlandeis decken“, sagt Dr. Frederick Reinig, Dendrochronologe an der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz (JGU). An dem Projekt war ein internationales Forschungsteam aus der Archäologie, Klimatologie, Ökologie, Radiokarbondatierung und Vulkanologie beteiligt. Die Forschungsergebnisse wurden in der renommierten Wissenschaftszeitschrift Nature publiziert.
Konserviert durch die Ablagerungen des Laacher-See-Vulkans, ist in der Osteifel und im Neuwieder Becken eine ganze Landschaft aus der Zeit vor mehr als 13.000 Jahren überliefert. Archäologische Fundplätze, die vom MONREPOS Archäologischen Forschungszentrum und Museum für menschliche Verhaltensevolution in Kooperation mit der Generaldirektion Kulturelles Erbe, in den 1980er bis frühen 2000er Jahren untersucht worden, dokumentieren die Anpassungen späteiszeitlicher Menschen an eine sich zunehmend bewaldende Umwelt. Die guten Erhaltungsbedingungen haben nicht nur fünf Siedlungsplätze überdeckt, die teils auch wiederholt aufgesucht wurden. Auch flüchtige Spuren der Nutzung der Landschaft, die sich gewöhnlich nicht erhalten, wie isolierte, kurzzeitig betriebene Feuerstellen, sind überliefert. Einzelne, mit Schnittspuren versehende Tierknochen oder eine verschossene Pfeilspitze belegen die flächige Durchdringung der Landschaft durch die Menschen, die in kleineren Trupps nun ganzjährig Territorien von der Größe des Neuwieder Beckens nutzen. Mit Pfeil und Bogen stellten sie Elch, Rothirsch und Reh und gelegentlich auch Pferden und Wildschweinen nach. Die Befunde belegen, dass das Leben in den späteiszeitlichen Wäldern eine gänzlich andere Lebensweise erforderte, als in den vorausgegangenen eiszeitlichen Steppen.
Sicher ist davon auszugehen, dass in unmittelbarer Nähe zum Ausbruchszentrum auch Menschen und Tiere umgekommen sind. Weiter entfernt, nahe Mertloch, etwa 17 km südlich des Laacher Sees, haben sich Trittsiegel von Tieren und Fußabrücke von Menschen in einer feinen Ascheschicht erhalten, die sich während einer Eruptionspause gebildet hatte. Wahrscheinlich war die Osteifel nicht gänzlich entvölkert, und vielleicht hatten einzelne Gruppen Obhut bei befreundeten oder verwandten Gruppen in benachbarten Regionen gefunden. Der bislang einzig erhaltene Fundplatz, der unmittelbar nach das Laacher-See-Ereignis datiert liegt rund 13 km nord-nordöstlich der Ausbruchszentrums. „Er belegt, dass späteiszeitliche Jäger und Sammler bereits verhältnismäßig kurz nach dem Vulkanereignis ihr Leben in der Region neu organisierten und sich hier wieder etablierten“, so Dr. Olaf Jöris, Mitautor der Studie und Archäologe am MONREPOS Archäologischen Forschungszentrum und Museum.
Mit Beginn der Jüngeren Dryaszeit, dem letzten, rund 1.300 Jahre dauernden eiszeitlichen „Intermezzo“, stellten sich rund 200 Jahre nach dem Laacher-See-Ausbruch erneut neue Lebensbedingungen ein. Das neue Alter für den Ausbruch des Laacher-See-Vulkans lässt die zeitliche Folge und Dynamik der nötigen Anpassungen an die sich verändernden Lebensbedingungen nun besser verstehen.
Die Pressemeldung der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität finden Sie hier
Das könnte Sie auch interessieren!
Welt im Wandel. Das Leben am Ende der letzten Eiszeit
Das Leben am Ende der letzten Eiszeit veränderte sich für die Menschen gleich mehrmals drastisch. Nach einem eiszeitlichen Kältehöhepunkt stiegen die Temperaturen bald an. Etwa 2.000 Jahre später zogen Rentier- und Pferdeherden durch Mitteleuropa, die für Jäger- und Sammlergruppen der jüngeren Altsteinzeit die Lebensgrundlage bildeten. Wie die Menschen sich den wandelnden Umweltbedingungen anpassten, nimmt dieser Band in den Blick. Er beleuchtet die Grundlagen unserer heutigen Zivilisation archäologisch und veranschaulicht beispielsweise, wie dabei die erste Kunst der Menschheit entstand. Ausgewiesene Experten berücksichtigen neueste archäologische wie naturwissenschaftliche Fragestellungen und Methoden und zeichnen so ein differenziertes Bild dieses Wendepunkts der Menschheitsgeschichte.
Meine Serie über die neuen Klimamythen möchte ich mit einem Thema beginnen, das mit Sicherheit in der Diskussion auftauchen wird. Und um nicht jedes Mal neu darüber diskutieren zu müssen, steht es eben nun ganz am Anfang. Es geht um das Argument, dass in fast jeder Debatte über den Umgang mit der Klimakrise früher oder später irgendwo eingebracht wird: “Jede Maßnahme zum Klimaschutz die wir jetzt setzen können, ist langfristig sinnlos weil die Zahl der Menschen auf der Erde immer weiter wächst. Das einzige was wirklich etwas ändert ist eine Reduktion der Weltbevölkerung. Die wichtigste Klimaschutzmaßnahme ist also dafür zu sorgen, dass die Geburtenrate sinkt.”
Diese Aussage ist ein Mythos. Die Menschen, die mit dem Bevölkerungswachstum der Menschheit argumentieren, tun das entweder aus Unwissenheit über die Fakten. Oder um von dem abzulenken, was wirklich getan werden müsste. Letzteres ist verwerflich; die Unwissenheit in dem Fall dagegen verständlich. Man muss sich die Situation ein wenig genauer ansehen, um zu erkennen, warum der Hinweis auf das Bevölkerungswachstum hier die falsche Strategie ist. Ich habe dazu schon vor einiger Zeit einen langen Artikel geschrieben und möchte mich nicht wiederholen. Deswegen fasse ich das, was dort steht, nur kurz zusammen (und im vorhin verlinkten Artikel finden sich auch Quellen zu den Aussagen):
Wir Menschen sind für die aktuelle Klimakrise verantwortlich. Mit ein Grund dafür ist selbstverständlich auch die Tatsache, dass wir SEHR viele Menschen sind und darum auch zu viele Ressourven verbrauchen. Weniger Menschen auf der Erde wären also definitiv klimafreundlicher.
Aber: Die Geburtenrate sinkt schon. Sie sinkt weltweit. Momentan liegt die globale Geburtenrate bei circa 2,4 Kindern pro Frau und es braucht nicht mehr viel, um den Wert von 2,1 Kindern pro Frau zu erreichen. Dann käme das Wachstum zum Stillstand.
Trotz der seit Jahrzehnten global sinkenden Geburtenrate wächst die Weltbevölkerung. Der Grund ist vor allem die immer höhere Lebenserwartung. Es werden in Zukunft nicht mehr Menschen dazu kommen, als sterben. Aber die, die jetzt noch nicht tot sind, werden länger leben als ihre Vorfahren. Vor allem die Kinder, die jetzt leben oder geboren werden, werden noch ein (hoffentlich!) langes Leben vor sich haben.
Die Kinder, die jetzt leben, leben noch lange. Wenn sie erwachsen sind, können sie sich fortpflanzen. Die Kinder, die vor ein paar Jahren geboren wurden, können sich in ein paar Jahren ebenfalls fortpflanzen. Oder anders gesagt: Es dauert ein paar Jahrzehnte, bis sich die sinkende Geburtenrate auch in einem Sinken der Weltbevölkerung niederschlägt. Sie wird noch bis circa zum Jahr 2100 weiter wachsen und erst danach weniger werden (vielleicht sinkt sie auch schon ein bisschen früher).
Wir können/brauchen also nicht dafür sorgen, dass die Geburtenrate sinkt; das tut wir schon und sie sinkt schon lange. Wenn wir die Weltbevölkerung tatsächlich zeitnah reduzieren wollen, gäbe es dafür eigentlich nur einen Weg: Wir müssten aktiv jetzt lebende Menschen zu Tode bringen. Das allerdings ist völlig absurd und kein auch nur irgendwie ernsthafter Vorschlag, um mit der Klimakrise umzugehen! Globaler Massenmord taucht vielleicht in Verschwörungsmythen auf; hier hat das Thema nichts zu suchen!
Wir müssen vor allem auch nicht irgendwelche neokolonialistischen “Erziehungsmethoden” gegenüber Ländern in Afrika und Asien einsetzen, in der Art von “Entwicklungshilfe/Handel/etc gibt es nur, wenn ihr zuerst brav alle weniger Kinder kriegt”. Erstens sinkt die Geburtenrate auch dort. Zweitens sind WIR im globalen Norden für die Klimakrise verantwortlich: Das CO2, das jetzt für einen Treibhauseffekt sorgt, haben WIR in die Atmosphäre gepustet und nicht die Länder in Afrika oder sonstwo, wo wir es gerne hätten. Und drittens gibt es einen erwiesenermaßen funktionierenden Weg, um für eine sinkende Geburtenrate zu sorgen: Bildung und Emanzipation! Je mehr Frauen Zugang zu Bildung haben; je mehr Rechte die Frauen bekommen: Desto weniger Kinder kriegen sie auch. Dafür kann und soll man sich einsetzen!
Wenn die Bevölkerung aber auf jeden Fall noch bis zum Ende des Jahrhunderts wachsen wird, dann erübrigt sich jede Verknüpfung mit der Klimakrise. Denn die müssen wir JETZT lösen. Wir können aber JETZT nichts tun, um die Weltbevölkerung zu verringern. Wir müssen – und können! – aber jede Menge tun, um zu verhindern, dass immer mehr Treibhausgase in die Atmosphäre gelangen. Der Versuch, die Debatte über sinnvolle Klimaschutzmaßnahmen auf das Bevölkerungswachstum zu konzentrieren, ist ein Scheinargument und lenkt von dem ab, auf das wir uns konzentrieren müssen.
Selbstverständlich ist es wichtig darauf zu achten, dass die Geburtenrate nicht wieder ansteigt. Es ist klar, dass die Erde überbevölkert ist und wir langfristig hier ein gutes Gleichgewicht finden müssen. Mit den akut nötigen Klimaschutzmaßnahmen hat das aber nichts zu tun. Es gibt allerdings einen Zusammenhang zwischen den beiden Themen, der es wert ist, erwähnt zu werden. Ich bin darauf in dem lesenswerten Buch “Zieht euch warm an, es wird heiß!: Wie wir noch verhindern können, dass unser Wetter immer extremer wird”* von Sven Plöger gestoßen. Die Weltbevölkerung wird, wie vorhin erklärt, irgendwann gegen Ende dieses Jahrhunderts ihr Maximum erreichen. Auch die negativen Auswirkungen der Klimakrise werden im Laufe der Zeit zuerst einmal schlimmer werden, bevor (hoffentlich!) eine Besserung eintritt, weil wir das mit dem Klimaschutz doch noch auf die Reihe bekommen haben. Je mehr Menschen auf der Erde leben, desto mehr sind von diesen Auswirkungen betroffen und desto schwierige wird es für uns, damit umzugehen. Das bedeutet: Der schlimmste Fall wäre der, bei dem das Maximum der Weltbevölkerung mit dem Maximum der negativen Klimaeffekte zusammenfällt. Das sollten wir dringend vermeiden und der einzige Weg besteht darin, die Klimakrise zu lösen, BEVOR die Weltbevölkerung ihren höchsten Wert erreicht hat. Wir müssen jetzt damit anfangen, damit wir in den nächsten paar Jahrzehnten das schlimmste überstanden haben. Das macht die Lösung der Klimakrise nämlich auch nachhaltiger: Alles was wir tun, um das Klima zu schützen, wird uns leichter fallen, wenn weniger Menschen auf der Erde leben. Die gegen Ende des Jahrhunderts dann sinkende Weltbevölkerung trägt dann also dazu bei, dass das Klima weiterhin geschützt wird.
Also: Der Klimaschutz muss JETZT stattfinden. Dann haben wir eine Chance, die Tatsache der später sinkenden Weltbevölkerung zu nutzen, um das Problem mit dem Klima langfristig zu lösen. Wer die steigende Weltbevölkerung als Argument gegen dringend nötige Klimaschutzmaßnahmen verwendet, hat entweder die Mechanismen des Bevölkerungswachstums nicht verstanden. Oder will dieses Scheinargument dafür benutzen, um vom Einsatz genau dieser dringenden Maßnahmen abzulenken.
Happy Fourth of July! This is the weekly visible open thread. Odd-numbered open threads will be no-politics, even-numbered threads will be politics-allowed. This one is odd-numbered, so be careful. Otherwise, post about anything else you want. Also:
1: There's another online ACX meetup next Sunday, special guest Bram Cohen, inventor of BitTorrent and the Chia cryptocurrency. Fill in this form to get an invite.
2: Comment of the week is Gene Smith on polygenic screening, especially the attempt to calculate cost-effectiveness. "My overall conclusion is that if we somehow end up banning pre-implantation genetic testing it will be one of the worst decisions we have ever made. The impact would be on-par with a worldwide ban on vaccines or sewage systems. It would likely cost the average person around 5 years of healthy life." And many people brought up this anti-screening New England Journal of Medicine article that came out the same day as my post, although I can't find a good unpaywalled link.
3: In my review of PIHKaL a long time ago, I mention that Ann Shulgin claimed to, as a child, have a very odd series of specific visions almost every time she went to sleep - and also claimed to have met other people with similar experiences. I asked if any readers had this, and nobody spoke up. I recently met a friend who had done jhana meditation, and says that some aspects of Shulgin’s experience remind her of that. I’ve heard things about kids potentially experiencing jhanas when falling asleep, though most of them seem to grow out of it, so I consider this a pretty satisfying solution to this weird mystery.
4: I should have book review contest winners up later this week - sorry for the delay.
The American flag flies in paint on the side of Peter Treiber Jr.’s potato truck, a local landmark parked permanently on County Route 48, doing little more, he thought, than drawing attention to his family’s farm.
Until he tried to sell his produce.
The American flag is now “owned” in the minds of some as a symbol of conservatism, if not Trumpism. Others have simultaneously abandoned it, whether because they don’t want to be pegged as a Trumpkin or they see it as a symbol of a nation perpetually mired in “systemic racism,” and they are not racists. But Treiber’s flag had been there before this shift in perception happened and he’s no Trump supporter. What’s a guy to do?
“She said, ‘Oh, whew. You know, I wasn’t so sure about you, I thought you were some flag-waving something-or-other,’” Mr. Treiber, 32, recalled the woman saying and citing his potato truck display. “That’s why she was apprehensive of interacting with me.”
He paused: “It was a little sad to me. It shows the dichotomy of the country that a flag can mean that. That I had to think, ‘Do I need to reconsider having that out there?’”
The woman, whoever she may be, wanted to buy some veggies from a farm stand, but was “apprehensive.” It’s unclear whether she was afraid of buying cukes from some MAGA nut because he would infest her with his Trumpiness just by coming close to him, or that she wouldn’t support the farm stand by transacting business there if she believed the person tilling the soil held a political view she found anathema. Maybe she feared that the purchase of a bouquet of sunflowers came with a harangue about how Trump really won “by a lot”?
Last summer, the drive at Casa de SJ needed to be redone. It’s oil and stone, and it gives the feel of a country house rather than the more formal feel of asphalt, It was done by a guy named Steve, who drove a red Ford pickup with an American flag on a pole in a hole in the truck bed. It was a pretty prominent feature and I asked him about it.
Steve told me he’s done that since he left the Marines. To him, its meaning was that he was willing to sacrifice his life for his country. He loved his country. Then he told me that he thought he lost some jobs because of it, because people ascribed a political meaning to his flag. As it turned out, he voted for Trump, not so much because he loved the guy, although he didn’t hate him either, but because the alternative was worse. I told him I was not a fan of Trump, but that none of this had anything to do with him redoing my drive. I also told him that I didn’t see anything wrong with his flag. He got the job. He did it really well. Not that it matters, but he wasn’t a white guy.
When I bought Casa de SJ, I found a very old flag in a closet, left behind by its former owners. It was the flag that came with the house, and had been flown at the house on occasions like today. As long as it’s not raining, I plan to put it out today, to fly the American flag to celebrate Independence Day. Maybe someone going past will see it and ascribe some political motive to the flag. I don’t care. They don’t define me or the flag. My choices aren’t influenced by whatever crap floats through the heads of others.
My family didn’t step off the Mayflower. My family didn’t amass wealth off the backs of others. My family didn’t amass wealth at all. For membership in a “privilege” race, they really sucked at being privileged. But I’ve done pretty well and thank my lucky stars that America gave me that opportunity. I will fight for that opportunity for everyone. And one of the reasons I love America is that, for all its warts, anyone can succeed with a little luck and a lot of effort.
We can’t make our sins of the past disappear, even if we aren’t the ones who committed them, but we can give every person the opportunity to make the most of himself or herself possible. From many, one, and the one is a people who live in a miraculous land of opportunity if we choose to take advantage of it. You can see it otherwise, and that’s fine, but this is how I see it. And I will proudly fly our flag today in honor of what’s great about America and to reflect the opportunity it gave me and gives everyone.
Happy Fourth of July, America. Thank you for all you’ve given me.
Archäologen der Universität Turku haben in Zusammenarbeit mit der Finnish Heritage Agency und Forschern der Universität Helsinki einen steinzeitlichen hölzernen „Stab“ in Form einer Schlange freigelegt.
Die Entdeckung des „Stabes“ in Form einer Schlange wurde an der prähistorischen Stätte Järvensuo 1 gemacht, einem alten Feuchtgebiet an den Ufern des Rautajarvi-Sees im Südwesten Finnlands. Järvensuo 1 wurde in den 1950er Jahren zufällig von Grabengräbern entdeckt und ist Gegenstand laufender Ausgrabungen, die 2019 begonnen haben.
a) Die Schlangenfigurine in situ; b) das ausgegrabene Artefakt von oben fotografiert (Fotos: S. Koivisto).
Schlange, Menschen und Schamanismus
Aufgrund der anaeroben Bedingungen des Bodens wurden bereits bei früheren Untersuchungen mehrere perfekt erhaltene hölzerne Artefakte freigelegt, darunter eine hölzerne Schaufel mit einem Griff in Form eines Bärenkopfes. Der jüngste „Stab“-Fund misst einen halben Meter in der Länge und hat die Form einer naturalistischen Schlange mit Schlangenkopf. Archäologen stellen fest, dass der Fund mit keinem anderen hölzernen Artefakt aus dem neolithischen Nordeuropa vergleichbar ist, obwohl Schlangen manchmal in zeitgenössischen Felszeichnungen aus der Pit-Comb-Ware-Kultur (auch Kamm-Keramik-Kultur genannt) dargestellt werden, wo sie von menschenähnlichen Figuren gehalten werden.
Möglicherweise wurde der „Schlangenstab“ von einem steinzeitlichen Schamanen für rituelle Zwecke verwendet. Dr. Antti Lahelma von der Universität Helsinki sagte: „Es scheint eine gewisse Verbindung zwischen Schlangen und Menschen zu geben, das erinnert an den nördlichen Schamanismus der historischen Periode, wo Schlangen eine besondere Rolle als Geist-Helfer-Tiere des Schamanen hatten.“
Feuchtgebiete als gute Konservatoren
Bei den jüngsten Ausgrabungen wurden auch mehrere hölzerne Artefakte freigelegt, darunter hölzerne Utensilien, strukturelle Überreste und viele Teile der Fischereiausrüstung. Dr. Satu Koivisto, Leiterin der Järvensuo-Forschung an der Universität Turku und Hauptautorin der Studie, sagte: „Gut erhaltene Funde aus Feuchtgebieten helfen uns, die alten Völker und die Landschaft zu verstehen, in der sie sowohl weltliche als auch heilige Tätigkeiten ausübten.“ Die Forscher betonen, dass Järvensuo 1 bedroht ist, da Entwässerungsarbeiten und Umweltveränderungen, die durch den Klimawandel verschärft werden, die Stätte und die darunter liegende Archäologie in Gefahr bringen. „Die Zeichen der Zerstörung durch umfangreiche Entwässerungsarbeiten sind an der Stätte bereits deutlich zu erkennen, und ihre organischen Schätze sind nicht mehr sicher“, fügt Dr. Koivisto hinzu.
a) Lageplan; b) Untersuchungsgebiet in Järvensuo; c) Luftbild des Standorts (Höhendaten: National Land Survey of Finland; Foto: V. Laulumaa; Abbildung: S. Koivisto).
Die Gletscher schmelzen – und bringen auf der ganzen Welt archäologisch interessante Objekte zum Vorschein, die während Jahrzehnten, Jahrhunderten oder Jahrtausenden im Eis lagerten. Denn schon seit der Urgeschichte hinterlassen Menschen Spuren im Hochgebirge. Der kulturhistorische Wert solcher Eisfunde ist bedeutsam. Sie erzählen Geschichten aus der Vergangenheit und tragen bei zur Klärung von Forschungsfragen. Weshalb waren Menschen in den Alpen und auf Gletschern unterwegs? Mit welcher Ausrüstung? Was wissen wir über ihren Alltag, ihr Wirtschaften, ihr Zusammenleben? Ein internationales Team von Archäologen, Historikern, Geographen und Experten aus weiteren Disziplinen beleuchtet diese und weitere Fragen aus unterschiedlichen Blickwinkeln. Die zurückgehenden Gletscher sind eine große Herausforderung für die junge Disziplin. Denn organisches Material zerfällt schnell, wenn es mit Luft in Kontakt kommt.
Im Südosten Polens ist eine 30 m lange Holzstraße aus dem 18. Jh. entdeckt worden. Die im Zentrum der Stadt Jarosław freigelegten Überreste, die als eine der längsten erhaltenen Straßen im heutigen Polen beschrieben werden, hätten einst zum Stadttor in Richtung Krakau und Rzeszów geführt.
Perhaps there is a sound reason why athletes who test positive for marijuana are not allowed to compete in the Olympics. It’s not a performance enhancing drug. If anything, it would seem to be counterproductive to athletic competition. It could be argued that it relieves pain, but so do other drugs that aren’t banned. It’s likely just that pot has been illegal and so found its way on the list of banned substances. More along the lines of “Olympic athletes don’t use illegal drugs,” even if it really isn’t germane to their being athletes or winning.
Now that it’s legal to use, at least in some places, it might be time to revisit whether it should remain a banned substance. But until the rules change, marijuana remains a banned substance, and there is no Olympic-level competitor who does not know what the rules under which they compete are, and what violation of those rules means. So complain about how dumb the rule is all you want, and it is, but there is nothing unfair, and certainly nothing racist, about the rules being enforced.
Sha’Carri Richardson, the 21-year-old American sprinter whose breakout victory in the 100-meter dash at the U.S. track and field Olympic trials in Oregon last month transformed her into an overnight star, posted a plaintive message on Twitter on Thursday afternoon: “I am human.”
I feel terrible for Richardson. I can well appreciate the effort she’s put into training, the sacrifices she made to become the best. I feel the pain of her glorious triumph as an Olympian lost. I can also feel the pain she felt at the loss of her mother. To err is human, and she erred. I cannot condemn her for taking comfort in some weed.
But she knew, after all that training, all that sacrifice, even enduring the death of her mother, what the rules were.
Sometimes it seems that way. The best athletes in the world are already under extraordinary pressure to perform — but we require extraordinary conduct from them in parts of their lives that have nothing to do with their sports.
Yes, there are extraordinary expectations of people who seek to accomplish extraordinary things. That’s why they get gold medals. That’s why they get their faces on a box of Wheaties. That’s why children put their posters on the wall of their bedrooms, motivating them to work harder so they may someday be extraordinary too.
We don’t just expect our Olympians to be incredible athletes. We expect them to be role models and to adhere to impossibly high levels of self-discipline, work ethics, and sportsmanship that have nothing to do with their actual job. Women, especially women of color, face even higher expectations.
Are women, “especially women of color,” less capable of controlling themselves than other Olympic athletes? Is this to suggest that women, “especially women of color,” find smoking weed so irresistible that expecting them to adhere to the rules, to not get high, is too much to ask of them?
Gwen Berry, a track and field Olympian who is facing criticism from conservative lawmakers for turning away from the American flag on the medal podium during the national anthem at the Olympic Trials, told me Ms. Richardson was being held to an impossible standard.
“When you are a young Black athlete, and when you come from hardship, the first thing you need is people to support you, and not just capitalize off you, off your potential,” Ms. Berry said. “She made a bad decision because of pain, because of trauma, and she’s a girl — she still needs help. Instead she’s being punished.”
This is where the very sad story of Richardson’s fall from grace goes down the bullshit rabbit hole. There’s nothing “impossible” about expecting an Olympic athlete not to smoke pot if they want to compete. Even if “she’s a girl,” she can manage to pull it off just as so many girls before her have miraculously done. It’s understandable that she made a bad decision because of pain. It’s just as understandable that bad decisions have consequences. We can empathize with Richardson and hope she gets help if that’s what she needs, but that doesn’t mean that she gets a pass for violating the rules.
Most importantly, she is not being punished for her pain and trauma. She isn’t being “punished” at all. She is being held to the standard she accepted when she decided to go for the gold, just as would any other athlete, regardless of race or gender.
For Black athletes, Ms. Berry said, the pressure to be “perfect” is intense. “If we aren’t, we get everything taken from us,” she said. “We have to work twice as hard in society and in athletics, we’re not respected otherwise. … We have no room for error. We have no room to grieve. We are not supported. And that’s the problem. It’s because we are not equal.”
The person who runs the fastest and crosses the finish line first wins the race, provided they comply with the rules that apply to all runners. If that’s too much of a burden to be “perfect,” then you have no business in the Olympics. There is nothing more equal than athletics, where no one’s skin color or ancestry adds or subtracts from the speed with which you finish 100 meters. Your “right” to smoke pot isn’t inequitable, even if the rule is dumb and irrelevant, unless your contention is that black people are prone to get stoned and break rules. And if that’s the point, then this is as racist as it gets.
I wish Richardson was able to compete. It’s a dumb rule. But it’s a rule that she knew about, that she violated and that would preclude competition for any runner. The only inequity would be to give her a pass on a rule that applies to everyone, dumb as that rule may be.
Das Wissen um das genaue Gewicht eines Objekts bietet eine objektive Möglichkeit, um Waren auf dem Markt in ihrem Wert bewerten zu können. Aber gab es in der Bronzezeit überhaupt einen selbstregulierenden Markt? Und was können uns Gewichtssysteme darüber verraten? Ein Forscherteam der Universität Göttingen hat die Verbreitung von Gewichten in Westeurasien in der Zeit zwischen etwa 3000 und 1000 v. Chr. untersucht.
Ihre Simulation deutet darauf hin, dass die bloße Interaktion von Händlern, ohne wesentliches Eingreifen von Herrschern oder Institutionen, die Verbreitung der neuen bronzezeitlichen Technologie von Waagen und Gewichten erklären kann. Die Ergebnisse sind in der Fachzeitschrift Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) erschienen.
Um herauszufinden, wie unterschiedliche Gewichtseinheiten in verschiedenen Regionen entstanden sind, verglichen die Forscher alle Gewichtssysteme, die in der genannten Zeitspanne zwischen Westeuropa und dem Indus-Tal in Gebrauch waren. Die Analyse von 2.274 Gewichten aus 127 Fundorten ergab, dass neue und sehr ähnliche Gewichtseinheiten allmählich westlich von Mesopotamien verbreitet wurden. Die Forscher modellierten die Entstehung von 100 neuen Einheiten, um herauszufinden, ob die Entstehung dieser Systeme auf eine Fehlerfortpflanzung beim Kopieren von Gewichten aus einem einzigen Gewichtssystem zurückzuführen sein könnte. Unter Berücksichtigung von Faktoren wie Messfehlern legt die Simulation einen einzigen Ursprung aller Gewichtssysteme zwischen Mesopotamien und Europa nahe. Es zeigte sich dabei aber auch, dass im Indus-Tal wahrscheinlich ein unabhängiges Gewichtssystem entwickelt wurde. Die Forschung demonstriert, dass, wenn der Informationsfluss im eurasischen Handel frei genug war, um ein im Ursprung gemeinsames Gewichtssystem zu generieren, es wahrscheinlich auch ausreichend war, um auf lokale Preisschwankungen zu reagieren.
Die Gewichtssysteme, die sich zwischen Mesopotamien und Europa herausbildeten, waren sehr ähnlich. Das bedeutete, dass ein einzelner Händler zum Beispiel von Mesopotamien in die Ägäis und von dort nach Mitteleuropa reisen konnte, ohne dass er sein eigenes Gewichtssystem ändern musste. Der Kaufmann konnte mit ausländischen Partnern Handel treiben und sich dabei einfach auf die Angleichung der Gewichte verlassen. Es gab eben keine internationale „Behörde“, welche die Genauigkeit der Gewichtssysteme über ein so großes Gebiet und über eine so lange Zeitspanne hätte regeln können. In Europa, außerhalb der Ägäis, gab es zu dieser Zeit auch keine staatsähnlichen Gebilde. Die Forscher schlussfolgern, dass die Entstehung von genauen Gewichtssystemen das Ergebnis eines globalen Netzwerks gewesen sein muss, das sich von unten nach oben regulierte.
Globalisierung in der Bronzezeit
„Mit den Ergebnissen unserer statistischen Analyse und den experimentellen Tests ist es nun möglich, die lange gehegte Hypothese zu belegen, dass freies Unternehmertum bereits in der Bronzezeit ein Hauptmotor der Weltwirtschaft war“, erklärt Prof. Dr. Lorenz Rahmstorf vom Seminar für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Göttingen. Kaufleute konnten interagieren, profitable Partnerschaften eingehen und die Chancen des Fernhandels nutzen. „Die Vorstellung eines sich selbst regulierenden Marktes, der vor rund 4.000 Jahren existierte, wirft einen neuen Blick auf die globale Wirtschaft der Neuzeit“, sagt Erstautor Dr. Nicola Ialongo.
„Versuchen Sie, sich all die internationalen Institutionen vorzustellen, die heute unsere moderne Weltwirtschaft regulieren: Ist der globale Handel dank dieser Institutionen möglich oder trotz ihnen?“
Dr. Nicolo Ialongo
Dr. Raphael Hermann, Prof. Dr. Lorenz Rahmstorf, Dr. Nicola Ialongo (von links) (Foto: Felix Lennart Rösch).
Die Studie ist ein Ergebnis des durch die EU geförderten Projekts „Weight and Value“.
Die Alpen bedeuteten für den Menschen schon immer eine Herausforderung. Angelockt hat das an sich recht menschenfeindliche Gebiet aber schon Jäger und Sammler in der Altsteinzeit, die hier auf Beute aus waren. Später drangen Bauern und Hirten in klimatisch begünstigte Alpentäler vor, um im 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr. dann fast den gesamten Alpenraum zu besiedeln. Wie man sich den schwierigen Landschaftsverhältnissen bestens anpasste, um 4000 v. Chr. bereits Hochweiden nutzte und diese sukzessive in eine funktionierende Almwirtschaft einband, zeigen neueste Forschungen. Beachtlich waren seit dem 4. Jahrtausend auch die technischen Leistungen bei der Gewinnung und Verarbeitung von alpinen Bodenschätzen wie Feuerstein, Erz und Salz. Damit verband sich ein umfangreicher Fernhandel, der u.a. den transalpinen Verkehrswegen schon in der Bronzezeit große Bedeutung verlieh und manchem Alpental recht früh einen gewissen Wohlstand bescherte.
Rewilding the landscape of possibility for the poetry of being.
“In each of us two powers preside, one male, one female,” Virginia Woolf wrote in 1929, epochs before we had our ever-expanding twenty-first-century vocabulary of identities, as she celebrated the “androgynous mind” as the mind most “resonant and porous… naturally creative, incandescent and undivided.” Given Woolf arrived at her exquisite epiphany about what it means to be an artist while walking amid her blooming garden, she might have been pleased to know that the botanical term for the blossoms of androgenous plants, also known as bisexual plants — plants that contain both the male pollen-producing stamen and the female ovule-producing pistils, and can therefore self-pollinate — is perfect flowers.
Lily from Flora von Deutschland, 1903. (Available as a print, benefitting The Nature Conservancy.)
Among the most common perfect flowers are lilies, roses, irises, snapdragons, flax flowers, morning glories, petunias, and the flowers of the coffee plant, the apple tree, and the tomato (which was once known as love apple).
Tomato, or Love-Apple, from A Curious Herbal — the illustrated encyclopedia of medicinal plants, which the young Elizabeth Blackwell published in 1737 to bail her husband out of debtor’s prison. (Available as a print, benefitting The Nature Conservancy.)
Plants that contain only one set of gametes — among them begonias, squash, asparagus, and cottonwood — are termed imperfect. Curiously, there are sets of seemingly similar species that fall into opposite categories: the almond tree blooms a perfect flower (which inspired literature’s lushest metaphor for strength of character), while the walnut and the hazelnut do not; soy is perfect, while corn is not.
Coffee plant by Étienne Denisse from Flore d’Amérique, 1843. (Available as a print, benefitting The Nature Conservancy.)
In one sense, perfect flowers are less evolutionarily helpless, not having to rely solely on pollinators to deliver the essential fertilizing material from another plant’s gene pool. But they are also more vulnerable — a single disease can vanquish a species with a self-contained gene pool, while a cross-pollinated plant is more likely to contain genes susceptible to the disease as well as genes resistant to it. Lest we forget, diversity is the wellspring of resilience — in the evolution of nature, as in the ever-evolving conservatory of human nature we call society.
“It has always pleased me to exalt plants in the scale of organised beings,” Charles Darwin wrote in his autobiography. Long before he developed his theory of evolution, his grandfather — the physician, poet, slave-trade abolitionist, and scientist-predating-the-coining-of-scientist Erasmus Darwin — composed a book-length poem titled The Botanic Garden, using scientifically accurate poetry to enchant the popular imagination with the scandalous new science of sexual reproduction in plants. Published in 1791, the wildly popular book was deemed too explicit for unmarried women to read.
Iris from A Curious Herbal by Elizabeth Blackwell, 1737. (Available as a print, benefitting The Nature Conservancy.)
Half a century after The Botanic Garden, the young Emily Dickinson, who was a gardener before she was a poet, approached this dual reverence of the botanical and the poetic from a different angle in her herbarium — a meticulously composed collection of 424 New England wildflowers, including hundreds of perfect flowers, arranged with a stunning sensitivity to scale and visual cadence across the pages of the large album, with slim paper labels punctuating the specimens like enormous dashes inscribed with the names of the plants, sometimes the common and sometimes the Linnaean.
The herbarium was Emily Dickinson’s first formal work of composition, each flower a stanza in the poetry of landscape and life, deliberately placed to radiate a particular feeling-tone. Her poems were never published in book form in her lifetime, but this book of flowers remained with her and now survives her.
On the cover of the first edition of her posthumously published poetry is a painting of one of her favorite wildflowers — the perfect flower Monotropa uniflora, commonly known as Indian Pipe for its shape when in bloom, or Ghost Flower for its lack of chlorophyll, which she considered “the preferred flower of life.” Once pollinated, the translucent white plant turns dark and dries up before releasing its resilient seeds into the living world.
Cover of the first edition of Emily Dickinson’s poems, 1890, featuring a painting of Indian Pipes by Mabel Loomis Todd.
When Emily Dickinson died at fifty-five, without a single white in her dark auburn hair, Susan — the great love of her life — wrapped her in a white robe and rested alongside her in the small white casket a single pink lady’s slipper — a rare orchid associated with Venus, beautiful and savage, a living Georgia O’Keeffe painting. Into the neck of the white shroud she tucked a small posy of violets — the flower Emily cherished above all others for its “unsuspected” splendor, to which she had dedicated the most dramatic page of her herbarium. “Still in her Eye / The Violets lie,” she had written in one of her earliest and most intense poems dedicated to Sue, which ends with the declamation “Sue — forevermore!”
Living when she lived and loving whom she loved, in an imperfect world too small for her genius or her love, Emily Dickinson dreamt of lusher landscapes of possibility, leaping beyond her biology and the limiting binaries of her culture with her bold, subversive verses:
Amputate my freckled Bosom!
Make me bearded like a Man!
She never lived to see the human world live up to nature’s nonbinary botany of desire.
But she had her love and all the perfect flowers.
donating = loving
For 15 years, I have been spending hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars each month to keep Brain Pickings going. It has remained free and ad-free and alive thanks to patronage from readers. I have no staff, no interns, no assistant — a thoroughly one-woman labor of love that is also my life and my livelihood. If this labor makes your life more livable in any way, please consider aiding its sustenance with donation.
newsletter
Brain Pickings has a free weekly newsletter. It comes out on Sundays and offers the week’s most inspiring reading. Here’s what to expect. Like? Sign up.
Die Sommerferien stehen vor der Tür und auf alle Kinder, die nicht mit ihren Eltern in den Urlaub fahren, warten spannende Abenteuer: Das Archäologische Museum Hamburg stellt Daheimgebliebenen Fahrkarten für die spannende Welt der Archäologie aus – und los geht es auf eine Zeitreise in die Welt der alten Römer. Am 3. und 4. August können alle Ferienkinder an einem Schreibworkshop teilnehmen: Mit Papyrus, Schreibrohr und Tinte und werden sie zum Rasenden-Rom-Reporter!
Ferienspaß für kleine Römer im AHM. Foto: AHM
Auf der Entdeckungsreise durch das Archäologische Museum Hamburg wird die Zeit der alten Römer wieder lebendig. Direkt aus dem Kolosseum und als rasende Reporter berichten die Teilnehmer beim Ferienworkshop „Tumult im Kolosseum!“ am 3. und 4. August, jeweils von 10 bis 14 Uhr. Für die älteste Zeitung der Welt, die römische „Acta Diurna“, schreiben sie ihre Reportage direkt vom Ort des Geschehens und nutzen dafür Papyrus, Schreibrohr und Tinte. Anregungen dafür erhalten sie beim Besuch der Ausstellung „Gladiatoren – Helden des Kolosseums“. Als Quintus, Claudia, Aurelia oder Caius berichten sie von dort für die über 2000 Jahre alte Zeitung des Römischen Reichs von einem außergewöhnlichen Ereignis in der Arena. Die römischen Kampfarenen waren einst die größten Bühnen der Antike. Allein das Kolosseum in Rom fasste bis zu 50.000 Menschen, die dort die Kämpfe der Gladiatoren bejubelten. Diese galten zu ihrer Zeit als Helden, trainierten in speziellen Schulen wie heutige Spitzensportler und wurden mit aufwendigen Rüstungen ausgestattet. Aufregend ist es im Kolosseum daher immer, aber an diesem Tag muss etwas sehr Ungewöhnliches dort passiert sein – das Publikum ist besonders laut. Was ist da los? Das Erlebte können die Ferienkinder in einer fantastischen Reportage direkt weiterspinnen.
Alle Berichte werden auf echtem Papyrus festgehalten und auf einer Anschlagtafel zu einer gemeinsamen Zeitung. Wie im alten Rom sind alle Geschichten willkommen: sie können von Klatsch und Tratsch, sportlichen Rekorden, lustigen Pannen oder dramatischen Kettenreaktionen handeln. Die Schienbeinschoner, Federhelme und Kettenhemden der Ausstellung werden zu Requisiten der Geschichten. Selbstverständlich können die Papyri im Anschluss mit nach Hause genommen werden.
Informationen zum Workshop
· Schreibworkshop für Kinder von 10 bis 12 Jahren
· Termine: 3.8. und 4.8. 2021, jeweils 10 bis 14 Uhr
· Ort: Archäologisches Museum Hamburg, Harburger Rathausplatz 5, 21073 Hamburg
Geschichte boomt in den Medien. Doch im Unterricht ist davon – zumal nach Änderungen der Bildungspläne – nicht viel zu erkennen. Geschichts- und Archäologieverbände in Deutschland bemängeln zunehmend den Rückgang der dafür vorgesehenen Schulstunden. Eine Analyse aller deutschen Länder und Schularten hinsichtlich der verpflichtenden Bildungspläne zwischen 2011 und 2018 ergibt Beunruhigendes: Die föderale Struktur führte in den vergangenen Jahren verstärkt zu unterschiedlichen Lehrplänen.
Two reports this week. The first is from Microsoft, which wrote:
As part of our investigation into this ongoing activity, we also detected information-stealing malware on a machine belonging to one of our customer support agents with access to basic account information for a small number of our customers. The actor used this information in some cases to launch highly-targeted attacks as part of their broader campaign.
The second is from the NSA, CISA, FBI, and the UK’s NCSC, which wrote that the GRU is continuing to conduct brute-force password guessing attacks around the world, and is in some cases successful. From the NSA press release:
Once valid credentials were discovered, the GTsSS combined them with various publicly known vulnerabilities to gain further access into victim networks. This, along with various techniques also detailed in the advisory, allowed the actors to evade defenses and collect and exfiltrate various information in the networks, including mailboxes.
Beim Berliner Schwertträger handelt es sich um eine ursprünglich durch Artkreuzung hervorgebrachte Zuchtform, die später durch Verdrängungszucht dem Aussehen von Schwertträgern angeglichen wurde. Bei roten und gelben Zuchtstämmen des Platys (Xiphophorus maculatus) treten gelegentlich als Folge einer spontanen Mutation schwarzgefleckte Tiere auf. Diese Farbmutation ist geschlechtsgebunden und kommt nur bei weiblichen Platys vor. Durch Kreuzung solcher schwarzgefleckter Platyweibchen mit roten Männchen des Schwertträgers erhält man Hybriden, bei denen auch die Männchen die schwarze Fleckung tragen können. Diese Hybriden stehen, wie alle bislang bekannt gewordenen Kreuzungen verschiedener Xiphophorus-Arten, intermediär zwischen den Elternarten. D.h., sie haben bezüglich des Aussehens etwas von beiden Elternteilen abbekommen. Die Hybridmännchen sind größer als normale Platys, doch so hochrückig und gedrungen wie diese. Von dem Schwert des hellerii-Vaters ist meist kaum etwas zu erkennen. Erst durch konsequente Weiterkreuzung der schwarzgefleckten Hybridmännchen auf rote Schwertträgerweibchen erhielt man schließlich Berliner Schwertträger.
Berliner Schwertträger müssen nicht zwingend rot sein, hier ein sehr hübsches, weißes Weibchen. Gut zu sehen: die schwarzen Flecken im Rückenbereich irisieren bei typischen Berlinern.
Leider stellte man bald fest, dass gerade die schönsten Tiere mit hohem Schwarzanteil kaum lebensfähig waren, denn sie entwickelten Krebs aus den schwarzen Farbzellen. Was schlecht für die Fische war, ist ein Segen für die Menschheit, denn mit diesen Berliner Schwertträgern hatte man die ersten Modellorganismen, die eine Erforschung von Krebserkrankungen erst möglich machten. Unzählige an Krebs erkrankten Menschen verdanken ihre Heilung unmittelbar den Ergebnissen, die sich aus der Forschung an Berliner Schwertträger-Stämmen mit Farbkrebs ergaben.
Bei diesem Männchen ist der Schwarzanteil in der Schwanzflosse bedenklich hoch.
Züchter müssen jedoch darauf achten, keine Tiere mit zu hohem Schwarzanteil zu züchten, damit die Fische keinen Krebs bekommen! Das sind wir aus ethischen Gründen unseren Tieren schuldig. Um das Auftreten von Farbkrebs zu vermeiden muss man immer wieder einmal einfarbige Schwertträger einkreuzen, meist wird man dazu rote Tiere nehmen, es gibt aber auch sehr hübsche Berliner auf andersfarbigem Grund.
Leicht zu verwechseln sind Berliner Schwertträger übrigens mit Güntheri-Schwertträgern und heutzutage sind wohl auch beide Formen stark miteinander verkreuzt. Es gibt nämlich auch in freier Wildbahn schwarz gefleckte Schwertträger. Einer der berühmtesten Ichthyologen aller Zeiten, Albert Carl Ludwig Gotthilf Günther (1830-1914), hat sie 1866 als erster der Wissenschaft vorgestellt. Er hielt sie für eine Farbvariante des gewöhnlichen Schwertträgers aus dem Rio Chisoy (Einzug des Rio Usumacinta) in Guatemala. Etwas später, 1896, beschrieben David Starr Jordan und Barton Warren Evermann in ihrem Klassiker „The fishes of North and Central America“ auf der Basis der Beschreibung und Abbildungen von Günther diesen Schwertträger als eigenständige Art Xiphophorus guntheri (Achtung, sie schrieben wirklich guntheri und nicht guentheri, diese ursprüngliche Schreibweise bleibt auch für alle Zeiten gültig!). Spätere Autoren werteten aber den „guntheri“ nur als Farbvariante oder als Unterart von X. hellerii. Diese Frage ist wissenschaftlich bis heute ungeklärt, in der Aquaristik bezeichnen die Liebhaber die schwarz gepunkteten Schwertträger aber fröhlich als “Güntheris”.
Auf der Basis dieser Abbildung wurde der Xiphophorus guntheri beschrieben.
Kürzlich führte uns der Weg übrigens wieder einmal nach Berlin, es ist ja immer eine Reise wert. Und wenn ich in Berlin bin, muss ich auch in den Zoo. Berlin hat bekanntlich zwei Zoos, den ehemaligen West-Berliner Stadtzoo mit dem Aquarium und den ehemaligen Ost-Berliner Tierpark Friedrichsfelde. Beide haben ihren Reiz und Charme, ich liebe Friedrichsfelde wegen der fantastischen zoologischen Sammlung. Hier kann man z.B. im Dickhäuterhaus nicht nur Elefanten und Nashörner, sondern auch Seekühe, genauer: Amazonas-Manatis (Trichechus inunguis) bewundern, die in einem riesigen Aquarium leben. Naja, sie machen ja auch einen Haufen Dreck, da braucht man viel Wasser für die Verdünnung. In dem Manati-Becken schwimmen auch unzählige Guppys, sehr hübsche Quetzal-Buntbarsche (Vieja melanura, früher V. synspila), einige Schilderwelse und – tatah – Schwertträger! Besonders hat mich gefreut, dass ein feinsinniger Pfleger einige Berliner Schwertträger mit eingesetzt hat. Selbstverständlich ist das nicht, an jeder Ecke bekommt man solche Berliner Schwertträger nicht. Und wer das kleine Video von den Manatis (Aufnahmeort: natürlich Tierpark Berlin) genauer ansieht, der bemerkt auch, dass hier ein Berliner Männchen (es ist stets das gleiche, es ist rot und hat ein pechschwarzes Schwert) gleich drei Cameo-Auftritte hat – herrlich!
Über Bewertungen und Kommentare freue ich mich auf allen Kanälen.
————————————————— Sternengeschichten Folge 449: Die Chromosphäre der Sonne
Am 12. Mai 1706 befand sich der britische Kapitän Henry Stanyan gerade in Bern. Er beobachtete etwas, was man nicht oft beobachten kann: Eine totale Sonnenfinsternis. Mehr als vier Minuten verdunkelte sich der Himmel komplett. Und als die Sonne danach gerade wieder sichtbar wurde, sah Stanyan einen “blutroten Streifen” aus Licht, der von der linken Seite der Sonne ausgehend 6 bis 7 Sekunden lang sichtbar war. Das Licht war heller als die Venus, wie Stanyan bemerkte; er konnte sehen wie die Dinge dadurch einen Schatten warfen. Er wusste nicht, worum es sich dabei handelt – aber er schrieb sofort einen Brief an John Flamsteed, den königlichen Astronom an der Sternwarte in Greenwich um zu fragen, was das seltsame Licht gewesen sein konnte. Eine Antwort auf seine Frage erhielt er nicht; Flamsteed schrieb zwar sehr ausführlich zurück um zu erklären, wie man genau bestimmen können, welche Ortszeit in Bern zum Zeitpunkt der Finsternis geherrscht hatte. Zum roten Licht hatte er aber nichts zu sagen.
Heute geht man im Allgemeinen davon aus, dass Henry Stanyan die erste konkrete Beobachtung des Teils der Sonne gemacht hat, die wir die “Chromosphäre” nennen. Wir haben es nicht mit dem Inneren unseres Sterns zu tun; es geht um die Atmosphäre der Sonne. Was man sich aber nicht so vorstellen darf, wie die Atmosphäre hier auf der Erde. Unser Planet ist ein Objekt aus Metall und Gestein, mit einer festen Oberfläche, die von einer Hülle aus diversen Gasen umgeben ist. Die Sonne ist ein Himmelskörper, der komplett aus Gas besteht. Fast ausschließlich Wasserstoff und Helium; im Kern 15 Millionen Grad heiß. Sie hat keine feste Oberfläche im eigentlichen Sinn. Aber man kann durchaus von einer “Sonnenoberfläche” sprechen und wenn man das tut, dann meint man damit die sogenannte “Photospäre”. Das bedeutet “Lichthülle” und wenn man die Sonne betrachtet – was man ohne entsprechende Vorkehrungen natürlich nicht so einfach tun sollte, wenn man keine Augenschäden riskieren will – dann ist es genau das, was man dort sieht. Die Photosphäre ist die Gasschicht der Sonne, aus der das Licht stammt, das wir beobachten können.
In den Kern der Sonne, in ihre tief liegenden Schichten können wir nicht blicken. Die Lichtteilchen, die von dort zu uns kommen, werden in alle Richtungen gestreut, weil das Gas dort extrem dicht ist. Erst dort, wo genügend Platz ist, kann sich Licht mehr oder weniger ungehindert direkt nach außen bewegen und es ist dieses Licht, dass wir auf der Erde sehen. Bei der Sonne ist die Photosphäre ungefähr 400 Kilometer dick und an ihrem Ende ist noch lange nicht Schluss. Das da noch etwas ist, wusste man schon lange. Bei einer totalen Sonnenfinsternis schiebt sich ja der Mond von der Erde aus gesehen genau vor die Sonnenscheibe. Da beide Objekt für uns zufällig annähernd gleich groß erscheinen, kann der Mond die Sonne auch komplett bedecken. Sobald er das tut, werden rund um ihn herum aber leuchtende, wabernde, strahlenförmige Lichter sichtbar. Dieser wie eine Krone aussehende Struktur wird darum auch “Korona” genannt und stellt die äußerste Schicht der Sonnenatmosphäre dar. Ich hab über sie schon ausführlich in Folge 134 der Sternengeschichten gesprochen; wir können sie deswegen normalerweise nicht sehen, weil das Gas dort zwar enorm heiß ist, aber auch extrem dünn. Das Licht, das davon ausgeht ist viel zu schwach, als das wir es sehen könnten. Es wird vom Licht aus der Photosphäre komplett überstrahlt und nur wenn diese bei einer Finsternis durch den Mond verdeckt ist, können wir das Leuchten der Korona wahrnehmen.
Die unterste Schicht der Sonnenatmosphäre ist also die Photosphäre. Ganz außen ist die Korona. Und dazwischen? Da ist das, um das es heute gehen soll: Die Chromosphäre. Sie schließt sich an die Photosphäre an und ist bei der Sonne circa 2000 Kilometer dick. Die Dichte des Gases nimmt stark ab; an der Grenze zur Photosphäre findet man noch circa 100 Billiarden Atome pro Kubikzentimeter. Das klingt viel, ist aber das, was man hier auf der Erde als “Grobvakuum” bezeichnen würde. Also das, was man in “vakuumverpackten” Lebensmitteln finden würde beispielsweise, wo die Dichte nur circa 100 mal niedriger ist als bei normalem Luftdruck in der Erdatmosphäre. An der äußeren Grenze der Chromosphäre ist die Dichte aber mehr als eine Million mal geringer geworden. Auch die Temperatur nimmt ab, von ungefähr 5500 Grad Celsius an der Grenze zur Photosphäre, auf circa 3500 Grad an der äußeren Grenze.
Die Chromosphäre besteht aus Gas, was auch sonst. Und ebenfalls wenig überraschend aus Wasserstoff und Helium, die beiden Hauptbestandteile der Sonne. Interessant wird es aber, wenn man sich die Spektrallinien anschaut. Ich hab die bis jetzt ja immer vereinfacht so erklärt: Wenn Licht durch Gas hindurch strahlt, dann können die Atome aus denen das Gas besteht, ein paar dieser Lichtteilchen absorbieren. Schaut man sich das Licht dann ganz genau an, spaltet es also in seine Bestandteile auf, was so viel heißt wie: Man misst ganz genau, wie viel Licht bei den unterschiedlichen Wellenlängen vorhanden ist, dann sieht man, dass bei bestimmten Wellenlängen sehr viel weniger Licht vorhanden ist als bei anderen Wellenlängen. Oder anders gesagt: Man sieht das ganze bunte Licht des in die Regenbogenfarben aufgespaltenen Sonnenlichts, mit ein paar dunklen Linien dazwischen. Und das ist ja auch so. Es gibt aber zwei verschiedene Arten von Spektrallinien, nämlich Absorptionslinien und Emissionslinien. Die dunklen Linien im Sonnenlicht sind Absorptionslinien. Jedes Atom hat eine ganz charakteristische Anordnung von Elektronen in seiner Hülle. Je nachdem wie diese Teilchen angeordnet sind, können sie nur Licht mit ganz bestimmten Wellenlängen aufnehmen und deswegen kann man aus dem Muster dunkler Linien herausfinden, um welche Atome es sich handelt.
Umgekehrt geht es aber auch: Wenn man von außen Energie in die Elektronen steckt – zum Beispiel durch Kollisionen der Atome oder durch die Bestrahlung mit Licht – dann geben sie diese Energie irgendwann auch wieder ab. Auch das tun sie nur bei einer ganz charakteristischen Wellenlänge. Und anstatt einer dunklen Linie kriegt man nun eine helle, farbige Linie, eine Emissionslinie. Die Details sind kompliziert; was genau man kriegt hängt – sehr vereinfacht gesagt – davon ab, ob man eine Lichtmischung hat, die von heißem Material ab- und durch kühles Material gestrahlt wird oder umgekehrt. Wir sehen normalerweise nur Absorptionslinien im Sonnenlicht, weil wir normalerweise auch nur das Licht des heißen Sonneninneren sehen, das durch die kühlere Photosphäre strahlt. Ist das aber bei einer Finsternis blockiert, können wir auch die Emissionslinien sehen, die vom kühleren, dünnen Gas der Chromosphäre ausgesandt werden. So hat man übrigens das chemische Element Helium entdeckt, von dem ich in Folge 141 mehr erzählt habe. Bei einer Sonnenfinsternis im Jahr 1868 hat man die Emissionslinien der Chromosphäre beobachtet und darin Linien gefunden, die von keinem damals bekannten chemischen Element verursacht worden sein konnten. Also hat man dieses neue Element nach dem Ort seiner Entdeckung “Helium” genannt, vom griechischen Wort “helios” für Sonne. Erst später konnte man es dann auch auf der Erde nachweisen.
Aber von Kapitän Stanyan im Jahr 1706 bis 1868 ist es ein großer Sprung; schauen wir also kurz nochmal zur Geschichte. Nach Stanyan haben auch andere Forscher immer wieder dieses seltsame rote Leuchten beobachtet, das bei einer Finsternis am Rande der Sonne kurz sichtbar wurde. Edmund Halley war zum Beispiel einer davon und 1851 hat der britische Astronom George Airy sie das erste Mal detailliert beschrieben. Er sah eine “gezackte” Struktur in der er Berge zu erkennen glaubte, die auf der Sonnenoberfläche wären. Weswegen er der Schicht auch den Namen “Sierra” gab, also eine geografische Bezeichnung für ein Gebirge. Ein schöner Name, der sich allerdings nicht durchgesetzt hat. Das Wort “Chromosphäre” stammt vom Astronom Joseph Lockyer, der gemeinsam mit und unabhängig vom Franzosen Jules Janssen die vorhin erwähnte Entdeckung des Heliums im Jahr 1868 gemacht hat. Er nahm die rötliche Farbe der Gasschicht zum Anlass, sie “Chromosphäre”, also “Farbhülle” zu taufen.
Diese rote Farbe sagt uns auch, aus was sie besteht. Wasserstoff kann verschiedene Emissionslinien erzeugen, eine der hellsten liegt bei einer Wellenlänge von 656,3 Nanometern. Sie wird auch “H-Alpha-Linie” genannt und befindet sich im roten Teil des Lichtspektrums. Und da die Chromosphäre rötlich leuchtet, muss dort jede Menge Wasserstoff sein. Die H-Alpha-Linie ist auch praktisch, wenn man die Chromosphäre beobachten will, wenn gerade mal keine Finsternis stattfindet. Dann kann man einen Filter verwenden, der nur Licht mit der H-Alpha-Wellenlänge durchlässt und kriegt einen guten Blick auf die Chromosphäre. Dort kann man dann auch gleich die “Berge” bewundern, die Airy zu sehen glaubte. Heute nennen wir sie allerdings “Spikulen”. Entdeckt und halbwegs vernünftig beschrieben hat diese Strukturen der italienische Astronom Angelo Secchi im Jahr 1877. Er hat sie mit Flammen verglichen, die wie bei einem Feuer ständig aus der darunter liegenden Schicht der Sonne empor zündeln. Womit er nicht ganz unrecht hatte. Erstens sieht es genau so aus und zweitens stammen die Spikulen tatsächlich aus der Photosphäre. Sie entstehend dort, wo in der Photosphäre auch Sonnenflecken auftreten, also dort, wo die Magnetfelder gerade besonders stark sind. Diese Magnetfelder sind auf der Sonne ständig in Bewegung, sie werden von dem heißen, elektrisch geladenen Material quasi mitgerissen. Und entlang solcher Magnetfelder kann sich heißes Material auch ausbreiten. Die Spikulen tun das in eine Höhe von bis zu 10.000 Kilometer und können bis zu 1000 Kilometer dick sein. Das Material schießt mit mehr als 100 Kilometer pro Sekunde in die Chromosphäre; nach höchstens fünf Minuten fällt alles wieder zurück zur Sonne. Es ist also tatsächlich ein wenig so, wie Flammen oder noch besser: Wie Spritzer aus heißem Gas die aus der brodelnen Sonnenoberfläche nach oben schießen. Wie sie genau entstehen und sich ausbreiten ist einerseits kompliziert, andererseits noch nicht völlig klar. Es kommt auf die Wechselwirkung der Magnetfelder an, aber auch auf Stoßwellen im sich bewegenden Material der Sonne selbst. Sie sind die “Gischt des wogenden Photosphären-Ozeans”, wie es der deutsche Astronom Otto Kiepenheuer sehr poetisch genannt hat.
Ebenfalls in der Chromosphäre beobachten kann man Filamente und Protuberanzen. Wobei Protuberanzen eigentlich nichts anderes sind, als Filamente die man von der Seite betrachtet. Und beides ist Material von der Sonne, das mit enorm hoher Geschwindigkeit extrem hoch hinaus geschleudert werden kann. Sie entstehen – sehr vereinfacht gesagt – durch magnetische Kurzschlüsse, bei denen sehr viel Energie frei wird. Es sind quasi enorme Explosionen, die das heiße Gas wegschleudern, dass sich dann entlang der Magnetfeldlinien in Bögen weit durch die Chromosphäre hinauf und wieder zurück bewegt. Genau so eine Protuberanz hat vermutlich auch Kapitän Stanyan damals im Jahr 1706 beobachtet.
Es gibt noch diverse andere dynamische Phänomene im Gas der Chromsophäre zu sehen und wir sind immer noch dabei, alles zu verstehen. Was wir auf jeden Fall noch nicht verstehen, ist der Zusammenhang zwischen Chromosphäre und der weiter außen liegenden Korona. Eigentlich sollte man ja davon ausgehen, dass es einfach so weiter geht, wie bisher. Das Gas wird immer weniger dicht und die Temperatur sinkt immer weiter. Was die Dichte angeht, stimmt das auch. Die Temperaturen steigen aber jenseits der Chromosphäre wieder an. Und das durchaus heftig: Bis auf ungefähr eine Million Grad! Das ist viel, auch wenn man berücksichtigt, dass so weit außen kaum noch Gas vorhanden ist, das heiß werden kann. Aber das, was da ist, IST heiß. Und irgendwo muss die Energie dafür herkommen. Es kann sein, dass diese Energie aus den weiter unten liegenden Magnetfeldern kommt; es kann auch sein dass sie durch Schallwellen übertragen wird, die im heftigen Gebrodel der Sonnenoberfläche entstehen. Aber wie es genau ist, wissen wir nicht.
Die Chromosphäre markiert also quasi auch die Grenze unseres Verständnis der Sonne. Was wir sehen können – die Photosphäre – und was darunter liegt – das Sonneninnere – verstehen wir halbwegs gut. Aber je weiter wir nach außen gehen, desto unklarer werden die Dinge. Zum Glück haben wir mittlerweile Teleskope mit passenden Filtern, wir haben Weltraumteleskope die sich fast innerhalb der Korona aufhalten können – wir müssen also nicht auf eine Sonnenfinsternis warten um einen nur sekundenlangen Blick auf das rötliche Leuchten der Chromosphäre zu haben. Die Sonne ist der Stern, der die Grundlage des Lebens auf der Erde ist und der mit seinem Verhalten das ganze Sonnensystem dominiert. Wir sollten alle Teile der Sonne verstehen und ganz besonders die Chromosphäre!
1.) Three things stick out here. Firstly, Studwell vastly overstates how damaging land reform has to be to landlords. Taiwan and Japan both bought out landlords with bonds. The bonds became worth less because since government bonds grew more slowly than the economy. But there are still a fair number of wealthy old families around in both countries. The important thing is not the destruction of landlords as a class: it's putting land into the hands of people (whether smallholding peasants or professional farmers) who own the land, have an incentive to improve it, and whose primary income is gained not by owning land but by producing agricultural products. The two are ultimately equivalent at equilibrium. How you get there is not especially important and paying off the landlords is fine if it works. Likewise, giving land to collectives or to peasant groups (as opposed to individual peasants) doesn't work very well because it keeps it out of the power of enterprising farmers.
Secondly, he completely ignores the many times land reform failed. East Asia is not unique in its attempts at land reform. It was fairly common in Africa, Eastern Europe, etc. Ukraine and Romania had incredibly fertile soil and it's hard to think of regimes that eliminated their landlords harder. Yet they haven't really seen similar effects.
Thirdly, he ignores that peasants will vote for land reform overwhelmingly in any democratic system. His focus on outside institutions is horribly misguided. From the CCP to 19th century Japan, peasant ability to make demands of the political system lead directly to land reform. If land reform is no longer viable in nations where the peasantry is still common, the question I'd ask is why that is. Are they all dictatorships? If so, it's a problem of democratization. Have they got other political goals? Then that's a separate issues.
2.) There are some countries which are increasingly skipping directly to service export. However, an industrializing country has a huge internal market for industrial goods (roads, bridges, telecommunication infrastructure, etc) which in turn creates a construction/manufacturing boom even when the primary export paying for the imported machinery is (for example) software development services. This is the case in some of the wealthier Indian provinces. But on the whole, manufacturing is still a pretty good bet.
Another thing: the importance of export markets. These countries need to have markets willing to purchase their goods. If they don't, export lead industrialization fails. Big imperial nations have options that modern nations don't. Where do these nations export their goods? To the US. Korea had special deals with the US. So did Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore. And even China got special deals (enough to cause Russian complaints). This may be changing, especially for big countries like China with internally developed markets. But this advocacy for ELI should mention the politics of finding places to sell their goods. Otherwise the idea of "protected at home competing abroad" fails.
In Malaysia, Studwell veers into the shaky ground of being against capital per se. Letting partners get equity in firms is not an issue. Did you know huge percentages of Korean companies were owned by Americans? South Korea was not just stealing their technology, they were moving up the value chain. In partnerships where it didn't make sense, by learning through transfer deals where it didn't. There is, of course, an issue with letting companies offshore high tech work and using your people only as menial labor. But this is an issue of structuring the deals and regulations. But of the successful cases, only China broadly prevents you from owning minority stakes in companies. The rest, at most, limited the percentage of foreign ownership. Which is still admittedly not a full free market policy.
3.) Again, he's ignoring the US here. South Korea's "crazed" borrowing was underwritten by the US for security reasons. The US actually used its might to get SK cheaper debt at some points. Malaysia was on its own.
Also, he doesn't mention how this method leads to huge problems in the last stage. Japan's lost decade was in part due to heavily controlled and underdeveloped financial markets.
Overall, I'm sympathetic to the idea of Export Led Industrialization including tariffs. Though it's worth pointing out the IMF has a better track record than it's critics want to admit. You just have to realize first it's primarily a firefighter: you call the IMF when things have gone wrong. (As, indeed, many of these countries did in the late 1990s and then saw bumper growth.) However, this argument ignores (imo) a lot of factors and tells a story of economic destiny being primarily about internal decisions. Which are necessary but insufficient. It's right there in the idea of export lead industrialization: you are exporting to OTHER COUNTRIES which means they matter for your internal story.
Good comment. I came here to point out the dreaded counterexample of Latin America, which tried to do a number of things the East Asian countries did, but mostly failed. Mexico basically carried out the greatest land reform initiative known to man outside of Communism, but did not get the benefits Studwell describes. Argentina & Chile also carried out large-scale land reform, to lesser effect. More importantly, Latin America is very protectionist and has been trying to nurture infant industries for decades- Argentina's still working on that car industry after 30+ years, not exactly to great results....
I also agree with your point about the asymmetry of 'free trade'. The US tolerated a number of these countries being highly protectionist while also importing their goods here- developing countries get a special dispensation. Arguably the US still does with China, incredibly! And even India, which is now approaching being the world's 5th largest economy. I'm not sure that this combination of 'we tariff foreigners but they accept our goods pretty freely' can necessarily be replicated.
I greatly enjoyed Studwell's book, I just think that the East Asian countries simply executed on their plans much better than a number of other countries have
I mentioned in the post how Japan used to be known for shoddy manufacturing, but is now considered a paragon of high-quality manufacturing like Germany. Jack C adds:
At one point German manufacturing was known for shoddy quality, hence the phrase "on the fritz".
I’m a sucker for cool etymologies, but the experts are skeptical of this one, since Fritz didn’t become a nickname for Germany until a decade or so after the phrase was first used.
Studwell’s discussion of industrial policy is broadly convincing but he massively overstates his case rhetorically. The anti IMF position is probably his least defensible point. In the 50s-80s, the IMF indeed recommended free market policies, generally. But the anti IMF position then was Industrial Substitution Industrialization. Their belief was that to develop, newly independent countries should cut themselves off entirely from world trade, to develop new industries behind their own borders. Pretty much everyone agrees now that this approach was a disaster. Even if Studwell were 100% correct in every sentence of the book, it would prove that the IMF critics were totally wrong, and the IMF only needed a change of emphasis.
Then we get the question on how widely his advice could be adopted. He briefly mentions in the Philippines section that, citing from memory, “Some people think they can do nothing, but condemning millions to poverty is no option at all” Well in some moral sense sure, but in a policy sense doing nothing is obviously an option. Elites have almost never pursued industrial policy for altruistic reasons: The success stories are all cases where elite interest lined up with the public interest. For example, South Korea was racially and ideologically homogeneous. Marshall Park in other words required industrialists to make SK rich and defended but didn’t care who they were. Studwell mentions that industrial policy failed in Malaysia in part because of affirmative action, and then ignores that point entirely. The East Asian countries that succeeded only did so because of their homogeneity allowing focus purely on industrialization, plus the fact that the US leaned heavily on them. It’s very unclear that a country could implement the Studwell program against the will of its elites. It isn’t the case that where there’s a will there’s a way. Finally, all of this requires a high quality bureaucracy, which East Asia has a long history of and the rest of the world lacks.
For finance, once again Studwell has a good narrow point but greatly oversells his case. There are two market failures that have been identified with international finance: First, that if developing countries take on debt in foreign currency they will be bankrupted en masse if the exchange rate changes. Second, that banks might pursue unproductive loans (real estate and consumer debt, basically). These could be fixed with narrow laws targeting these problems directly and individually. There isn’t very good evidence that the financial repression associated with East Asian development had a very large impact and it’s likely that you couldn’t convince many countries to adopt it anyway. When it comes to industrial loans, there are tons of studies showing that private banks are much more efficient at making loans than the state. The East Asian approach also leaves tons of overhang, for example in China there are tons of state run banks that are riddled in debt and low quality loans. SK and Japan have had this problem with their banks and massive corporations to a significant but lesser degree.
Studwell believes that since the East Asian approach is good we must convince the entire world to adopt all of it. I would tend to think that since there is very little chance of convincing the world to adopt it, and since it comes with major drawbacks over the long term, we should amend the current system. Developing countries should likely support exporting more and implement a few rules to prevent financial crises. The discussion of the IMF is the most dishonest part of the book: he deals so nicely and only by insinuation towards the IMF economists because if he had to defend the position that the international financial system bankrupted the world, it would be obvious that he is wrong. In fact the current international economic system is exceptionally generous - WTO rules explicitly allow poor countries to subsidize industrialization but forbid rich countries from doing the same. The current system likely needs amendment, but not replacement.
Pseudonymous economic historian Pseudo-Erasmus, who I mentioned in the article as somebody I usually trust on these kinds of topics but who hadn’t weighed in specifically, kindly contributed his thoughts:
India is probably the best counter-example to what Studwell is talking about.
For decades, India practiced a variant of socialism in which (among other things) industries were sheltered from international and even national competition for reasons that basically line up with the infant industry argument. The resulting companies weren't even bad, but when they were eventually exposed to world competition, they collapsed, and others took their place.
Similarly, India had (and still has) a robust set of national banks. The problem was that when the government does get them to give unprofitable loans, it wasn't to subsidize industrial learning but also to support small farmers, weavers etc. It was as much redistribution as investment.
The argument seems to be "there are knowledge externalities generated when firms start manufacturing" but it's hard for countries to actually implement this insight (assuming it's correct) because they don't know which sectors will generate them, what the right policies are to generate them, and when to stop protecting the firms and expose them to global competition.
(Land reforms are amazing, and the closest thing to a consensus that I can think among developmental economists. It's one of the few policies that don't have the "equity-efficiency trade-offs" that one learns about in Econ 101.)
Studwell doesn’t really talk about India, but I think his answer here (which several commenters bring up) would be that India didn’t have “export discipline” (ie force companies to manufacture for the external market in order to make sure they can compete in non-captive markets) and internal competition.
Polscistoic also brings up Esping-Andersen’s “Three Laws Of Sociology”, which are:
1. Some do and some don't
2. It is always different in the South
3 It never works in India
Nicholas Weininger brings up the counterexample of Britain, which had a kind of anti-land-reform - kick peasants out and give land to wealthy landlords - but then industrialized very successfully. Eric Rall speculates:
I also thought about the Enclosure movement and the Highland Clearances in Britain as counterexamples to the Land Reform as a precondition to Industrialization thesis. But after considering a bit, I think we can salvage a variation of the thesis if we conclude that Studwell misunderstood the active ingredient of Land Reform here.
Studwell seems to arguing that the active ingredients are 1) breaking the power base of the great landlords, allowing a durable shift away from a feudal social model, and 2) converting peasants into more productive and more economically-empowered yeoman farmers. But this clearly doesn't apply to British "Land Reform", and @Erusian's earlier comment argues that #1 at least doesn't apply to Japan, either. My proposed modification of the hypothesis is that the active ingredient is actually replacing traditional systems of land tenure with Freehold tenure or something like it (Fee Simple, Allodium, etc).
Pre-reform land tenures in most places probably resembled the utterly illegible traditional land tenure systems James Scott described in "Seeing Like a State", where the landlord might "own" the property, but the tenants had a complex mix of vested rights to the land and obligations to the landlord. These systems probably worked decently well within the context of the societies in which they developed, but they tend lock those involved into the social and economic structure whose assumptions are baked into the land tenure system, and their illegibility means nobody has the power or the incentives to improve or restructure them for the better.
Freehold tenure, on the other hand, gives whoever the freeholder is both the power and the incentives to maximize the economic value of the land. It also makes the land title much, much more legible. Contra James Scott, legibility doesn't just benefit the State: it also benefits the owner by allowing them to engage in transactions with distant strangers, i.e. to buy, sell, or mortgage land rather than just making static traditional use of it or at most handing it off to a relative or neighbor.
The Enclosures at least (I'm less familiar with the Highland Clearances) fit the bill under this hypothesis. When the primary direct beneficiaries of Enclosures were generally the landlords, the Enclosures still served to convert illegible feudal tenure into legible Freehold tenure.
Among the Asian countries under discussion, I think China's the closest to a counterexample to my hypothesis, since China reformed first to collectivized agriculture (which is legible to the state, but lacks the non-state benefits of the legibility of freehold tenure, and which terminally diffuses the power and incentive of the owner to improve the land), and then to something more like Leasehold tenure than Freehold. But China's economic expansion came after collectivization was deemphasized, and the modern system of very long-term leases from the State still has a lot of the advantages of freehold: as with freehold, the leaseholder can make improvements and benefit from them for decades at a time, and the leaseholder can buy, sell, or mortgage leased property.
A negative outlook for the South Asian foils (Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines) seems unjustified considering how quickly they are growing at present despite not following the book's advice. Also they are still richer than their historically more-centrally-planned neighbors Vietnam and Cambodia. In the past 20 years, all the foils have increased their GDP per capita by at least 2.8x, which is a CAGR of at least 5.2%.
Yeah, this depends a lot on how you look at it. Here’s OWID on absolute GDP growth since 1950:
Here’s relative GDP growth (ie as a percent of starting point) since 1950:
And here’s relative GDP growth with the starting point in 1990:
And here’s relative GDP growth with the starting point in 2005:
Because China, Vietnam, and Laos started so late, they don’t look great on the 1950 plot. They look a lot better on the 1990 plot, and it seems justified putting them in a separate “winner” category compared to “losers" Philippines/Indonesia/Malaysia/etc (South Korea, Taiwan, etc are already too rich to be able to grow fast by this point). If you switch the start date to 2005, then a lot of the gap closes.
I’m not really sure what to do with this. My impression is that the period since 2005 has been a pretty good one for most developing countries, so this might just be the “everyone’s a genius in a bull market” phenomenon. Or it might be that whatever Studwell was picking up on either wasn’t true, or was only true for a certain period.
I should add that including Laos and Vietnam in the same category as Studwell’s other “winners” is my own inference, and not really mentioned in the book, so Studwell would be entirely within his rights saying that China, South Korea, Taiwan, etc had already done well, and Malaysia/Indonesia etc haven’t caught up with them, and nothing that’s happened since 2005 changes that.
There’s a discussion of IQ that retraces all the expected talking points. For example, Alvaro de Menard:
Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Japan all have national IQs >=105
Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, etc. are in the 85-90 range.
There's an extremely simple theory to explain the development differences we observe. Even if we accept the arguments about industrial policy and land reform, can it really be a coincidence that these policies were only "correctly" applied in the high-IQ countries?
Slight correction - the first list of countries are very high but not quite >105. But more important, Lietadlo asks:
Or is it that developed countries are able to afford better environment for their children and thus produce populations with higher IQ? European IQ scores improved by something like 15 points since WW2. I would guess that Korean IQ scores were abysmal in 1950s as well.
Followed by some examples of this working or not working. Alvaro brings up Gulf states, which got very rich without this changing their national IQ much. Somehow people missed bringing up Ireland, which is the best example of a country whose measured IQ changed a lot after it developed.
Probably the best thing to do is just to check if IQ changed a lot in East Asian countries during their rise to success. The Japanese data (and valiant attempts to extend it to Korea) suggests yes. I don’t think we have the very fine-grained data it would take to try to see how much of these gains are “hollow” vs. important, but in their absence I think it’s fair to speculate that most of the northern vs. southern Asian IQ difference is just that northerners are more Flynn-ified.
On the other hand, if you compare PISA scores (probably an okay proxy for IQ here) to GDP per capita, you get this:
All East Asian countries are way above the line of best fit, and Vietnam (GDP per capita of like 500) does better than Switzerland (GDP per capita of like 60,000). Meanwhile, Thailand/Malaysia/etc are all much richer than Vietnam and do much worse.
Also of note - if you look at those popular List of Countries By IQ pages, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam all come out about the same! Plausibly PISA is picking something up that whatever terrible methods people use to make those rankings aren’t (or Vietnam cheats on its PISA scores somehow - plausibly China does!) I don’t know if the statistics we use to prove that Japan etc had a Flynn Effect are more like PISA or more like those lists.
Noah Smith is overall a big fan of How Asia Works, but took this review as an opportunity to write about What Studwell Gets Wrong. His first point:
Studwell views South Korea as the development success par excellence. Though he holds up Taiwan’s land reform program (the “land to the tiller” policy) as the world’s best, he believes that Korea executed export discipline more effectively. This, he argues, is why South Korea sits ahead of Taiwan in the per capita GDP rankings.
But those rankings are calculated at market exchange rates. When you instead adjust for purchasing power parity, it turns out that Taiwan is about $6700 richer than South Korea in per capita terms, and that this disparity has existed for quite some time:
I don’t know enough about PPP to have an opinion on this. What I find most interesting is that Taiwan was about 10% richer than South Korea in 1920, and in the past century, as both economies have grown by 3000%, the entire time Taiwan has stayed about 10% richer than South Korea (except maybe a blip around 1942,
Noah then mentions the same thing some commenters did - that southern Asian economies seem to be doing better since How Asia Works got published - and asks:
What should we conclude if this continues for another decade or two? We might look at the particulars of Southeast Asian industrial policy, and how it changed since earlier times, and ascribe its success to those changes.
…Or, we might start to wonder if successful development policies simply determine countries’ place in a queue. My longtime readers will also know that in addition to How Asia Works, I love Krugman, Fujita, and Venables’ The Spatial Economy. And in the final section of that (highly technical) book, the authors turn what was a humble theory of urbanization into a grand theory of global development. And the upshot of that grand theory is that countries have to basically wait in line to get rich. There’s just no way for them to all hop on the rapid industrialization train all at once. Better policy can let you cut to the front of the line, but then the countries you cut in front of are out of luck.
To be sure, this is a highly stylized, pretty speculative theory, which is even harder to prove than Studwell’s. But it kinda-sorta fits the observed pattern in Asia — first Japan and Hong Kong and Singapore grew quickly, then Taiwan and South Korea, then China, now Vietnam and Indonesia. Malaysia and Thailand got a head start on China but then slowed down after the financial crisis of ‘97, while China accelerated — perhaps because China “cut in line” in front of the Southeast Asian tigers. But now, with China slowing down, perhaps Malaysia is back at the front of the line.
Anyway, this would be a depressing, fatalistic sort of world, where development is a zero-sum-game in the short term. Hopefully it’s not true — I’d much rather believe in a Studwellian world where the right smart growth policies can boost lots of countries at once. But we may never know which is right.
This is something I’ve wondered about before, in an even more disturbing way. How much of US wage stagnation has been that we “exported” our potential wage growth to China (or other developing countries)? Relocating a lot of US factories to China is surely good for Chinese factory workers and bad for US factory workers. Then once China becomes less attractive, those same factories relocate to Vietnam or Ethiopia or somewhere.
In a sense, this would be good - it means that everywhere in the world will get rich eventually, free markets are doing their job, and US wage stagnation is (in some sense) nothing to worry about. It would be bad if - well, if people learned it was true and then everyone started demanding tariffs to keep all their country’s wage growth for themselves.
But this is extremely unsupported speculation off of Noah’s already pretty unsupported speculation, and probably some economist will show up to tell me why it’s definitely not true.
But what about the Middle Eastern countries who tried very similar policies in the 60s and 70s, and it didn't help them at all?
You can't just pick successful countries who all have X in common and write a Just-So story about how X is the cause. You have to look at all countries with X.
You can find more about the specific Middle Eastern countries and what they did on the thread and in the resources recommended there.
One possible defense of Studwell’s “cherry picking” is that, as per Wikipedia, “Since 1960, only 15 economies have escaped the middle income trap, including Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea and Japan”. So Studwell is picking a pretty decent fraction of the limited number of cherries that exist.
I tried tracking down the original source, and I think it’s this paper, although it lists only 13 countries: Equatorial Guinea, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Mauritius, Portugal, Puerto Rico, South Korea, Singapore, Spain, Taiwan.
Equatorial Guinea struck oil. Puerto Rico is not a country. Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and Greece are European countries that missed the general First Worldification of Europe for various reasons which then went away. Israel is chosen by God. That leaves just the East Asian countries and Mauritius (which sounds fascinating, and which I should try to learn more about).
The one thing I know about Mauritius. I guess a rising tide does not lift all boats.
As ransomware becomes more common, I’m seeing more discussions about the ethics of paying the ransom. Here’s one more contribution to that issue: a research paper that the insurance industry is hurting more than it’s helping.
However, the most pressing challenge currently facing the industry is ransomware. Although it is a societal problem, cyber insurers have received considerable criticism for facilitating ransom payments to cybercriminals. These add fuel to the fire by incentivising cybercriminals’ engagement in ransomware operations and enabling existing operators to invest in and expand their capabilities. Growing losses from ransomware attacks have also emphasised that the current reality is not sustainable for insurers either.
To overcome these challenges and champion the positive effects of cyber insurance, this paper calls for a series of interventions from government and industry. Some in the industry favour allowing the market to mature on its own, but it will not be possible to rely on changing market forces alone. To date, the UK government has taken a light-touch approach to the cyber insurance industry. With the market undergoing changes amid growing losses, more coordinated action by government and regulators is necessary to help the industry reach its full potential.
The interventions recommended here are still relatively light, and reflect the fact that cyber insurance is only a potential incentive for managing societal cyber risk.They include: developing guidance for minimum security standards for underwriting; expanding data collection and data sharing; mandating cyber insurance for government suppliers; and creating a new collaborative approach between insurers and intelligence and law enforcement agencies around ransomware.
Finally, although a well-functioning cyber insurance industry could improve cyber security practices on a societal scale, it is not a silver bullet for the cyber security challenge. It is important to remember that the primary purpose of cyber insurance is not to improve cyber security, but to transfer residual risk. As such, it should be one of many tools that governments and businesses can draw on to manage cyber risk more effectively.
Basically, the insurance industry incents companies to do the cheapest mitigation possible. Often, that’s paying the ransom.
Vor vier Jahren habe ich hier im Blog eine lange Serie über den Klimawandel geschrieben. Ich habe mich mit den “Klimamythen” beschäftigt, also mit den falschen oder irreführenden Aussagen, mit denen diverse Menschen versuchen, die Gewässer der Debatte zu trüben. Damals musste man sich tatsächlich noch ernsthaft mit Leuten beschäftigen, die behaupten, dass der Mensch das Klima gar nicht beeinflussen könne, nicht der Mensch sondern die Sonne Schuld am Klimawandel sei oder das es in Grönland früher mal warm war und deswegen die ganze Klimasache Quatsch sei. Das hat sich geändert und das ist gut. Mittlerweile ist so gut wie allen Menschen klar, dass die Klimakrise real ist und dass wir Menschen dafür verantwortlich sind. Es wird immer Leute geben, die sich standhaft weigern, die Erkenntnisse der Wissenschaft zu akzeptieren; die irgendwelchen Verschwörungsmythen anhängen oder aus dem Irrsinn ihrer rechtsextremen politischen Ideologie die Realität leugnen.
Dass wir uns mittlerweile einig sind, dass sich das Klima der Erde verändert und wir Menschen mit unseren Treibhausgasemissionen der Grund dafür sind, hat aber nicht dazu geführt, dass kein Unsinn mehr über Klima und Klimakrise verbreitet wird. Ganz im Gegenteil: Denn wenn wir akzeptieren, dass es eine Klimakrise gibt und dass sie für uns Menschen negative Folgen haben wird, dann folgt daraus, dass wir etwas dagegen tun müssen. Und genau hier setzen die “neuen Klimamythen” ein: Hier geht es nicht mehr darum, die Tatsachen zu leugnen. Sondern um Ablenkung, um “Whataboutism”, um Verzögerungstaktiken und andere Maßnahmen mit denen sichergestellt werden soll, dass der Status Quo so lange wie möglich erhalten bleibt. Veränderungen sind nicht immer leicht und es fühlt sich oft besser an, wenn alles so bleiben kann, wie bisher. Wer den Menschen verspricht, dass sie so weiter machen können wie bisher, kann sich ihrer Wählerstimmen sicher sein. Oder ihnen weiterhin Autos und Flugreisen verkaufen. Man muss keine Kohlekraftwerke schließen, wenn man den Menschen verspricht, dass in naher Zukunft eine “Wundertechnologie” kommen wird, die uns saubere und unbegrenzte Energie verspricht. Wer den Menschen einredet, man selbst müsse nichts tun, weil anderswo viel schlimmere “Klimasünder” sitzen, die doch bitte zuerst mal etwas machen müssen, wird vielleicht eine wohlwollendere Aufmerksamkeit finden als im Fall der Forderung nach umfassenden Veränderungen, auch im persönlichen Bereich.
Kurz gesagt: Die “neuen Klimamythen” sind viel komplexer, viel schwieriger kurz und übersichtlich darzustellen und bieten jede Menge Potenzial für kontroverse Diskussionen. Ich habe vor zwei Jahren schon einmal einen kurzen Überblick über diese Mythen verfasst und angekündigt, dass ich mich in Zukunft ausführlicher damit beschäftigen werde. Das ist jetzt der Fall. Im kompletten Juli wird es hier im Blog um die “neuen Klimamythen” gehen. Ich habe eine Reihe von Texten (und Podcastfolgen) vorbereitet, die in den nächsten Wochen veröffentlicht werden.
Eine thematische Übersicht über das kommende folgt am Ende; zuerst möchte ich noch die ernstgemeinte, aber vermutlich schwer zu befolgende Bitte äußern: Wenn ihr über die Texte diskutiert, seid nett zueinander! Haltet euer Gegenüber nicht für Idioten oder wenn doch, dann lasst die Diskussion bleiben (denn es bringt nichts, mit Idioten zu diskutieren). Lest die Artikel komplett, bevor ihr beginnt, darüber zu diskutieren oder mir vorzuwerfen, ich hätte dieses oder jenes nicht geschrieben. Ich werde den Juli zum Teil offline verbringen; was aber nicht heißt, dass ich kein Auge auf die Kommentare haben werde; ebensowenig habe ich Hemmungen, Kommentare zu löschen.
Vermutlich wird sich schon jetzt der eine oder die andere bemüßigt fühlen, die Überschriften der noch nicht veröffentlichten Texte aufzugreifen und zu diskutieren. Woran ich euch nicht hindern kann – aber sinnvoller wäre es, zu warten, bis die Artikel auch wirklich online sind
Ein bisschen spoilern kann ich aber schon: Die Lage ist ernst; die Klimakrise IST ein großes Problem. Sie ist das größte Problem, dem wir uns als Menschheit in Zukunft stellen müssen. Unser aktuelles Verhalten lässt nicht darauf schließen, dass wir ernsthaft versuchen, etwas gegen die uns drohenden negativen Auswirkungen der Klimakrise zu unternehmen. Aber! Reiner Alarmismus und Panikmache sind aber weder angebracht, noch hilfreich. So ernst die Lage ist: Sie ist nicht hoffnungslos! Es ist durchaus noch möglich, die Erwärmung der Erde so weit einzuschränken, dass wir halbwegs gut durch die Krise kommen. Dazu müssen wir aber JETZT anfangen zu handeln. Und deswegen sind die neuen Klimamythen auch so gefährlich: Ihr Ziel ist es nicht mehr, die Klimakrise zu leugnen. Sie bemühen sich aber sehr intensiv darum, die nötigen Maßnahmen zu verzögern. Und irgendwann wird es tatsächlich zu spät sein…
Zur Einstimmung könnt ihr euch auch gerne heute (1. Juli 2021) um 18 Uhr eine Online-Diskussion zum Thema (Irr-)Wege aus der Klimakrise ansehen:
Hurra! Der Juni ist vorbei. Das freut mich nicht unbedingt deswegen, weil der Juni so doof war. Der war eh ganz ok. Aber im Juli ist endlich Urlaub! Nach mehr als einem Jahr ohne Urlaub und jeder Menge Arbeit wird es langsam wirklich Zeit für etwas Erholung! Bis dahin kommt aber der übliche Rückblick auf das, was im Juni hier im Blog stand.
Lokalpolitik und globale Krise
Der meistdiskutierte Artikel im Juni war einer, der sich mit der Lokalpolitik meiner Heimatstadt beschäftigt hat:
Im Juni hat meine Kolumne bei Spektrum.de ihren fünfjährigen Geburtstag gefeiert und der Podcast “Das Universum” seinen ersten Geburtstag. Reich bin ich aber immer noch nicht.
“There is only one solitude, and it is large and not easy to bear… People are drawn to the easy and to the easiest side of the easy. But it is clear that we must hold ourselves to the difficult.”
“You are born alone. You die alone. The value of the space in between is trust and love,” artist Louise Bourgeois wrote in her diary in her seventy-seventh year as she looked back on a long and lush life to consider the central role of solitude in creativity.
A generation before her, recognizing that “works of art arise from an infinite aloneness,” Rainer Maria Rilke (December 4, 1875–December 29, 1926) explored the relationship between solitude, love, and creativity in his stunning correspondence with the nineteen-year-old Franz Xaver Kappus — an aspiring poet and cadet at the same military academy that had nearly broken Rilke’s own adolescent soul.
Posthumously published in German, these letters of uncommonly penetrating insight into the essence of art and love — that is, the essence of life — now come alive afresh as Letters to a Young Poet: A New Translation and Commentary (public library) by ecological philosopher, Buddhist scholar, and environmental activist Joanna Macy, and poet and clinical psychologist Anita Barrows: two women who have lived into the far reaches of life — Macy was ninety-one at the time of the translation and Barrows seventy-three — and who have spent a quarter century thinking deeply about what makes life worth living in translating together the works of a long-ago man who barely survived to fifty and who was still in his twenties when he composed these letters of tender and timeless lucidity.
1902 portrait of Rilke by his brother-in-law, Helmuth Westhoff
Anticipating the illuminations of twentieth-century psychology about why a childhood capacity for “fertile solitude” is essential for creativity, self-esteem, and healthy relationships later in life, Rilke writes to his young correspondent in the short, dark, lonesome days just before the winter holidays:
What (you might ask yourself) would a solitude be that didn’t have some greatness to it? For there is only one solitude, and it is large and not easy to bear. It comes almost all the time when you’d gladly exchange it for any togetherness, however banal and cheap; exchange it for the appearance of however strong a conformity with the ordinary, with the least worthy. But perhaps that is precisely the time when solitude ripens; its ripening can be painful as the growth of a boy and sad like the beginning of spring… What is needed is only this: solitude, great inner solitude. Going within and meeting no one else for hours — that is what one must learn to attain. To be solitary as one was as a child. As the grown-ups were moving about, preoccupied with things that seemed big and important because the grown-ups appeared so busy and because you couldn’t understand what they were doing.
If one day one grasps that their busyness is pathetic, their occupations frozen and disconnected from life, why then not continue to see like a child, see it as strange, see it out of the depth of one’s own world, the vastness of one’s own solitude, which is, in itself, work and status and vocation?
And yet the crucial, exquisite creative tension that Rilke so singularly harmonizes is the essential interplay between solitude and love — each enriching the other, each magnifying the totality of the spirit from which all art springs. In another letter penned the following spring, he writes:
Don’t let your solitude obscure the presence of something within it that wants to emerge. Precisely this presence will help your solitude expand. People are drawn to the easy and to the easiest side of the easy. But it is clear that we must hold ourselves to the difficult, as is true for everything alive. Everything in nature grows and defends itself in its own way and against all opposition, straining from within and at any price to become distinctively itself. It is good to be solitary, because solitude is difficult, and that a thing is difficult must be even more of a reason for us to undertake it.
To love is good too, for love is difficult. For one person to care for another, that is perhaps the most difficult thing required of us, the utmost and final test, the work for which all other work is but a preparation. With our whole being, with all the strength we have gathered, we must learn to love. This learning is ever a committed and enduring process.
Two decades before Kahlil Gibran offered his abiding poetic wisdom on the difficult balance of intimacy and independence in true love, Rilke calls for shedding the ideological shackles of our culture’s conception of love as a melding of entities. “No human experience is so rife with conventions as this,” he observes with an eye to those who have not yet befriended their sovereign solitude and instead “act from mutual helplessness” to “simply surrender to love as an escape from loneliness.” He offers the liberating alternative that still requires as much countercultural courage in our day as it did in his:
To love is not about merging. It is a noble calling for the individual to ripen, to differentiate, to become a world in oneself in response to another. It is a great, immodest call that singles out a person and summons them beyond all boundaries. Only in this sense may we use the love that has been given us. This is humanity’s task, for which we are still barely ready.
[…]
This more human love (endlessly considerate and light and good and clear, consummated by holding close and letting go) will resemble that love that we so arduously prepare — the love that consists of two solitudes that protect, border, and greet each other.
In another letter, Rilke adds the complexity of physical intimacy to this realm of transcendent difficulty, formulating his advice on how to best harness eros as a creative force:
Yes, sex is hard. But anything expected of us is hard. Almost everything that matters is hard, and everything matters… Come to your own relationship to sex, free of custom and convention. Then you need not fear to lose yourself and become unworthy of your better nature.
Sexual pleasure is a sensory experience, no different from pure seeing or pure touch, like the taste of a fruit. It is a great, endless experience given to us, a natural part of knowing our world, of the fullness and brilliance of every knowing. And nothing we receive is wrong. What’s wrong is to misuse and spoil this experience and to use it to excite the exhausted aspects of our lives, to dissipate rather than connect.
Seeing the beauty in animals and plants is a form of love and longing; and we can see the animal, as we see the plant, patient and willing to come together and increase — not out of physical lust, not out of suffering, but bowing to necessities that are greater than lust and suffering and more powerful than will and resistance.
Oh that humans might humbly receive and earnestly bear this mystery that fills the earth down to the smallest thing, and feel it as part of life’s travail, instead of taking it lightly. If they could only be respectful of this fertility, which is undivided, whether in spiritual or physical form. For this spiritual creativity stems from the physical, derives from that erotic essence, and is but an airier, more delightful, more eternal iteration of its lush sensuality.
So too with the role of the erotic in creative work:
The art of creating is nothing without the vast ongoing participation and collaboration of the real world, nothing without the thousandfold harmonizing of things and beings; and the creator’s pleasure is thereby inexpressibly rich because it contains memories of the begetting and bearing of millions. In a single creative thought dwell a thousand forgotten nights of love, which infuse it with immensity. And those who come together in the night, locked in thrusting desire, are gathering nectar, generating power and sweetness for some future poetic utterance that will sing the rapture.
For 15 years, I have been spending hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars each month to keep Brain Pickings going. It has remained free and ad-free and alive thanks to patronage from readers. I have no staff, no interns, no assistant — a thoroughly one-woman labor of love that is also my life and my livelihood. If this labor makes your life more livable in any way, please consider aiding its sustenance with donation.
newsletter
Brain Pickings has a free weekly newsletter. It comes out on Sundays and offers the week’s most inspiring reading. Here’s what to expect. Like? Sign up.
“We are our memory… that chimerical museum of shifting shapes, that pile of broken mirrors.”
It is already disorienting enough to accept that our attention only absorbs a fraction of the events and phenomena unfolding within and around us at any given moment. Now consider that our memory only retains a fraction of what we have attended to in moments past. In the act of recollection, we take these fragments of fragments and try to reconstruct from them a totality of a remembered reality, playing out in the theater of the mind — a stage on which, as neuroscientist Antonio Damasio has observed in his landmark work on consciousness, we often “use our minds not to discover facts, but to hide them.”
We do this on the personal level — out of such selective memory and by such exquisite exclusion, we compose the narrative that is the psychological pillar of our identity. We do it on the cultural level — what we call history is a collective selective memory that excludes far more of the past’s realities than it includes. Borges captured this with his characteristic poetic-philosophical precision when he observed that “we are our memory… that chimerical museum of shifting shapes, that pile of broken mirrors.” To be aware of memory’s chimera is to recognize the slippery, shape-shifting nature of even those truths we think we are grasping most firmly.
Nearly a century after Nietzsche admonished that what we call truth is “a movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms… a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished,” the great Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa (March 23, 1910–September 6, 1998) created an exquisite cinematic metaphor for the slippery memory-mediated nature of truth in his 1950 film Rashomon, based on Ryunosuke Akutagawa’s short story “In a Grove” — a psychological-philosophical thriller about the murder of a samurai and its four witnesses, who each recount a radically different reality, each equally believable, thus undermining our most elemental trust in truth.
As researchers in the second half of the twentieth century came to shed light on the foibles of memory, Kurosawa’s masterpiece lent its name to the amply documented unreliability of eyewitness accounts. The Rashomon effect, detailed in this wonderful animated primer from TED-Ed, casts a haunting broader nimbus of doubt over our basic grasp of reality — we only exist, after all, as eyewitnesses of our own lives.
All of these psychological perplexities arise from the basic neurophysiological infrastructure of how memories form and falter in the brain — something the great neurologist Oliver Sacks explored in his classic medical poetics of memory disorders, and something South African biomedical scientist Catharine Young explores in another TED-Ed episode, animated by the prolific Patrick Smith:
For 15 years, I have been spending hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars each month to keep Brain Pickings going. It has remained free and ad-free and alive thanks to patronage from readers. I have no staff, no interns, no assistant — a thoroughly one-woman labor of love that is also my life and my livelihood. If this labor makes your life more livable in any way, please consider aiding its sustenance with donation.
newsletter
Brain Pickings has a free weekly newsletter. It comes out on Sundays and offers the week’s most inspiring reading. Here’s what to expect. Like? Sign up.
Quiet courage and improbable redemption under the sycamore tree.
She has mounted fifty pounds of photography equipment on her bicycle and is pedaling along the shore to the Staten Island ferry, headed for Manhattan. Photography is only a generation old and Alice Austen (March 17, 1866–June 9, 1952) is twenty-nine. She is about to take photographs of the proper technique for mounting, dismounting, riding, and carrying a bicycle for her friend Maria’s trailblazing manifesto-manual for cycling, inciting Victorian women to embrace the spoked engine of emancipation: “You are at all times independent. This absolute freedom of the cyclist can be known only to the initiated.”
Alice — artist, athlete, banjo player, sailor, founder of the Staten Island Garden Club, the first woman to own a car in the borough — has come as close to absolute freedom as a woman of her era could come, transcending the narrow roadways of her time with her wheels, her lens, and her love.
As the ferry traverses the East River, Alice is watching the Statue of Liberty rise imperturbable over Ellis Island, where she has just photographed people at New York Harbor’s immigrant quarantine stations — something she did every year for a decade, returning to that crucible of humility and hope to document those tender and terrifying moments when lives are begun afresh with little more than wordless daring and a fragile dream.
Soldiers at the Statue of Liberty docks, August 1887. (Alice Austen House archive.)
As a girl, abandoned by her father before her birth and raised by her mother in a cottage by an enormous sycamore rising strong despite the blackened interior hollowed out by lightning, Alice had watched Lady Liberty being built, part emblem and part promise. The statue was dedicated the year Emily Dickinson died and Alice turned ten — the year her uncle, a sea-captain, gave her a dry-plate camera from England as a birthday present.
Alice Austen. Self-portrait, age nineteen. (Alice Austen House archive.)
Turning a closet into a darkroom, Alice proceeded to teach herself the art of photography, taking meticulous process notes to refine her technique. Not yet out of her teens and already one of the most accomplished photographers in America, she ventured out into world to document its vibrant life, dedicating hers to her art. In an era when almost no women practiced photography — an activity both intensely physical and intensely delicate, given the size, weight, and fragility of early cameras and glass plates — she became the first American woman known to work outside the studio, creating what we now know as street photography.
Young bicycle messenger, part of Alice Austen’s 1896 series Street Types of New York. (Alice Austen House archive.)
Riding the Manhattan-bound ferry that day in her youth, Alice didn’t yet know — for we never know these things — that she was soon to meet the love of her life.
Formal seated portrait of Alice Austen by Dunn Portrait Studios of New Brunswick, New Jersey, June 30, 1887. (Alice Austen House archive.)
In the final months of the nineteenth century, Alice Austen took a summer vacation in the Catskill Mountains, where she met Gertrude Tate, six years her junior — a vivacious dance instructor and kindergarten teacher from Brooklyn, who wore a wig over her buzz-cut hair and with whom Alice would spend the remaining fifty-three years of her life.
Gertrude Tate dancing in the sun in 1899, the summer she and Alice met in the Catskills. (Alice Austen House archive.)Gertrude Tate. (Alice Austen House archive.)Gertrude with and without wig, Catskill Mountains, 1899. (Alice Austen House archive.)
So began the other great Gertrude-and-Alice love story — far less fabled than the one of Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas a generation later, but also one in which two people, joined together, become themselves.”
Over her long life, Alice Austen took more than 8,000 photographs, turning her sensitive and daring lens toward the lives of immigrants, child laborers, New York “street types,” and people for whom Victorian culture had neither terms nor tenderness and whom we might call LGBT today.
Alice Austen’s friend Maria Ward, who went by Violet, with partner, circa 1890. (Alice Austen House archive.)
A generation before Berenice Abbott, another trailblazing lesbian photographer, created her iconic series Changing New York, Alice Austen captured the changing face of the city — this ever-changing emblem of a city — during its most rapid period of transformation as modernity was finding its sea legs and America was becoming America.
Postman collecting the day’s mail at 56th Street and Madison Avenue, part of Alice Austen’s 1896 series Street Types of New York. (Alice Austen House archive.)Newsboy at Grand Central Depot, part of Alice Austen’s 1896 series Street Types of New York. (Alice Austen House archive.)Organ-grinder with wife at 48th Street and Broadway, part of Alice Austen’s 1896 series Street Types of New York. (Alice Austen House archive.)Street-cleaner at 34th Street, New York City, part of Alice Austen’s 1896 series Street Types of New York. (Alice Austen House archive.)Two working children at City Hall Park, part of Alice Austen’s 1896 series Street Types of New York. (Alice Austen House archive.)
When the stock market crashed in 1929, Alice was flung into financial struggle. By the end of WWII, she and Gertrude were evicted from the home they had shared for three decades and thrust into the hands of their respective extended families, none of whom approved of their lifelong relationship. Without means and without options, they were separated. Gertrude was taken to Queens. At eighty, Alice ended up at the Staten Island Farm Colony — the euphemistic name for the local poorhouse. Gertrude, who continued teaching dance well into her seventies, visited weekly.
Alice (seated) and Gertrude in their late years. (Alice Austen House archive.)
Like Vivian Maier — another visionary photographer who also captured the street life of the city and who also, by the scant surviving evidence, was very probably queer — Alice Austen lived out her life without artistic recognition. Like Maier’s work, Austen’s was brought to light by a man who chanced upon it and knew he had chanced upon greatness. Unlike Maier, Austen was still alive.
In 1950, while working on his book The Revolt of American Women, Oliver Jensen — a thirty-six-year-old former Life magazine editor and writer — discovered 3,500 of Alice’s glass-plate negatives in the basement of the Staten Island Historical Society and was instantly taken with their uncommon genius. Leafing through phone books, he was staggered to realize that Alice was still alive, then doubly staggered to learn that she was living at a poorhouse.
Drawing on his magazine connections, he secured publication of Alice’s work in Life, which raised enough funds to migrate her to a nursing home. He then built on the initial visibility to organize an exhibition of her work at a local museum in 1951 — the first and only in her lifetime. When the show opened on October 7, now celebrated as Alice Austen Day, Alice was there with Gertrude by her side.
A friend’s young sons in what Alice called her “express wagon,” May 1889. (Alice Austen House archive.)Six women, Staten Island, 1895. (Alice Austen House archive.)
Shortly after the opening, Alice suffered a stroke. By spring, she was dead. Gertrude survived her by a decade, living to ninety. The couple had expressly wished to be buried together — a wish Gertrude’s family bluntly refused in one final act of assault on their lifelong devotion.
Today, the Staten Island home the couple shared for most of their life, the cottage in which Alice grew up and mastered her art, survives as Alice Austen House — part museum and part memorial, celebrating Alice’s trailblazing art and the totality of being from which it sprang, including her lush love for Gertrude. The sycamore tree — one of the sylvan marvels in Benjamin Swett’s wonderful book New York City of Trees (public library), from which I first learned of Alice Austen’s story — still rises by the house, still charred and hollowed, still growing and lush with life.
donating = loving
For 15 years, I have been spending hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars each month to keep Brain Pickings going. It has remained free and ad-free and alive thanks to patronage from readers. I have no staff, no interns, no assistant — a thoroughly one-woman labor of love that is also my life and my livelihood. If this labor makes your life more livable in any way, please consider aiding its sustenance with donation.
newsletter
Brain Pickings has a free weekly newsletter. It comes out on Sundays and offers the week’s most inspiring reading. Here’s what to expect. Like? Sign up.
Die absolute Perfektion in Sachen Landgang haben die Schlammspringer entwickelt. Schlammspringer gehören zu den Grundeln, der erfolgreichsten Fischfamilie der Gegenwart. Mit aktuell 1.843 bekannten Arten – und das sind höchstens die Hälfte der existierenden Arten! – sind die Grundeln auch eine der artenreichsten Fischfamilien überhaupt.
Schlammspringer (Periophthalmodon septemradiatus)
Schlammspringer – sie gehören in die Unterfamilie Oxudercinae innerhalb der Familie der Grundeln (Gobiidae) – haben das Aquarium lange vor dem Menschen erfunden. Denn anders als alle bisher erwähnten Landgänger unter den Fischen haben die Schlammspringer kein Hilfsatmungsorgan, mit dem sie atmosphärische Luft atmen können. Sie sind vollständig auf Kiemenatmung angewiesen. Wie machen sie das bei ihren Landgängen? Nun, wie gesagt: mit einem Aquarium. Schlammspringer können ihre Kiemendeckel so fest anpressen, dass ein wasserdichter Behälter entsteht. Den füllen sie mit Wasser. Und genau wie wir Aquarianer mittels Sprudelstein Luft ins Aquarium pumpen, so durchmischen die Schlammspringer das Wasser in ihrem Kiemenraumaquarium immer wieder mit frisch aufgenommener Luft und reichern es so mit Sauerstoff an.
Schlammspringer – es gibt zwei Gattungen, Periophthalmus und Periophthalmodon, die sich durch die Bezahnung unterscheiden – orientieren sich ganz überwiegend optisch. Auch das ist eine Anpassung an das Land. Unter Wasser, das haben wir in den beiden vorhergehenden Teilen erfahren, ist der Gesichtssinn von stark untergeordneter Bedeutung. „Normale“ Fische, die erblinden, kommen auch ohne Augen ganz gut zurecht, da sie zahlreiche weitere Sinnesorgane haben, die ihnen im Wasser eine perfekte Orientierung ermöglichen. An Land funktionieren diese Sinne aber nicht oder nur schlecht. Vor allem die lorenzinischen Ampullen (Elektrorezeptoren) und das feinste Druckveränderungen anzeigende Seitenliniensystem sind im Medium „Luft“ unbrauchbar. Nur der Gesichts- und der Geruchssinn funktionieren gut, aber beides auch nur, wenn die Oberflächen der Sinnesorgane feucht gehalten werden. Bei den Augen haben normale Landwirbeltiere dazu das Augenlid erfunden. Durch fortwährendes wimpernklimpern wird das Auge feucht gehalten und bleibt somit funktionstüchtig. Lediglich die Schlangen sind einen anderen Weg gegangen. Bei ihnen ist das Auge mit einer durchsichtigen Hornhaut bedeckt, unter der sich ausreichend Feuchtigkeit befindet. Die Hornhaut über dem Schlangenauge wird bei jeder Häutung mit gehäutet; eine Schlange kurz vor der Häutung ist darum praktisch blind, man erkennt das an einer weißlich-milchigen Trübung des Auges.
Man beachte die Gruben unter den Augen…
Fische haben keine Augenlider. Wie lösen also die Schlammspringer das Problem? Mit einem zweiten Aquarium! Unter dem Auge haben die echten Schlammspringer, also die, die auch wirklich an Land gehen, eine Vertiefung, die stets mit Wasser gefüllt ist. Zum Befeuchten klappen die Schlammspringer die hoch oben am Kopf angesetzten Augen in diese Vertiefungen.
Die Befeuchtung der Riechschleimhäute funktioniert bei Schlammspringern genau wie bei uns: sie legen im Körperinneren in Höhlungen, wo sie nicht so leicht austrocknen. Die Befeuchtung der Riechorgane bei den von den Schlammspringern regelmäßig durchgeführten Bädern reicht völlig – die Körperoberfläche der Schlammspringer ist zugunsten einer großen Beweglichkeit nur mit sehr kleinen Schuppen bedeckt, die keinen guten Austrocknungsschutz darstellen, je nach Witterung müssen Schlammspringer darum häufig kurze Bäder nehmen.
Apocryptes bato
Die schrittweise Anpassungen an den Landgang kann man bei der Unterfamilie der Oxudercinae wunderbar beobachten. Die primitivsten, noch vollständig wie normale Grundeln lebenden Schlammspringerverwandten Apocryptes bato; die Gattung Apocryptes enthält nur diese eine Art. Die schönen Grundeln mit den ausdruckstarken Augen leben im Bereich der Flussmündungen. Darum haben sie bereits eine große Anpassung an unterschiedlichen Salzgehalt des Wassers erworben. Schlammspringer müssen diesbezüglich anpassungsfähig sein, denn sie leben im Bereich der Gezeitenzone. Während der Flut leben Schlammspringer im Wasser, während der Ebbe an Land. Da kann es bei einem heftigen Platzregen, wie er in den Tropen allgegenwärtig ist, ganz schnell passieren, dass die Fische plötzlich mit reinem Süßwasser klarkommen müssen und kurz darauf, wenn die Flut hereinkommt, wieder mit dem vollem Salzgehalt des Meerwassers.
Pseudapocryptes elongatusSo ähnlich wie diese beiden Periophthalmodon septemradiatus schauen manchmal auch Pseudapocryptes aus dem Wasser heraus.
Enge Verwande von Apocryptes sind Pseudapocryptes. Diese drolligen Grundeln – es gibt zwei Arten – sind bereits an flaches Wasser angepasst, das sie aber nie freiwillig verlassen. Im Aquarium pflegt man sie am besten bei einem Wasserstand von 8-15 cm. Dann kann man sehr schön beobachten, wie sich die Tiere gelegentlich in S- oder C-förmiger Haltung auf die Schwanzflosse stellen und gerade so die Augen über den Wasserspiegel erheben, wodurch sie die Umgebung und das Land beobachten können. Dieses Verhalten dient vermutlich der Feindabwehr, denn die meisten Fressfeinde der Pseudapocryptes machen – von ihnen aus gesehen – von oben Jagd auf sie.
Scartelaos hispidusBoleophthalmus boddarti
Noch einen Schritt weiter Richtung Land gehen Scartelaos (4 Arten) und Boleophthalmus (6 Arten). Deren Bewegungsablauf ähnelt schon sehr dem der echten Schlammspringer: ihre Brustflossen sitzen an (wenn auch sehr kurzen) arm-artigen Stielen und die Unterseite der Schwanzflosse hat derbe Strahlen, die ähnlich den Schwanzfedern eines Spechtes als Widerhalt genutzt werden. Wenn es sein muss, schnellen sich die Fische damit mit großer Geschwindigkeit nach vorne. Aber sowohl Scartelaos wie auch Bolephthalmus verlassen das Wasser nie vollständig, wenigstens einen dünnen Wasserfilm unter dem Bauch wollen sie haben. Die Vertreter beider Gattungen ernähren sich vorwiegend von Kleinstpartikeln, die sie aus dem Spülsaum fischen.
Schlammspringer-Männchen (dies ist Periophthalmus barbarus) nutzen ihre prächtigen Rückenflossen zur Kommunikation.Die besondere Struktur der Schwanzflosse ist bei diesem Periophthalmodon septemradiatus gut zu erkennen.
Die richtigen Schlammspringer, also Periophthalmus (19 Arten) und Periophthalmodon (3 Arten), sind hingegen richtige Landgänger, die die Zeit des Wasserlebens kaum noch richtig nutzen, außer zur Flucht. Ihre Beute – Schlammspringer sind opportunistische Allesfresser, am liebsten fressen sie kleine Tiere – machen sie an Land, hier findet auch das Sozialleben statt. Die Schlammspringer-Arten unterscheiden sich optisch voneinander vor allem durch die auffällig gefärbten Rückenflossen der Männchen. Diese werden wie bunte Flaggen eingesetzt und signalisieren Kampfbereitschaft, Brautwerbung usw. Sie stützen sich auf kräftige Arme und benutzen ihre Brustflossen wie Füße; es steht außer Frage, dass die Schlammspringer besser als jedes andere Wirbeltier an die Gezeitenzone der Mangroven der Tropen angepasst sind. Wer weiß, vielleicht entwickelt sich ja in ein paar Millionen Jahren aus ihnen ein zweite Linie landlebender Wirbeltiere, eine neue Klasse, gleichwertig zu der heute lebenden Klassen der Säugetiere, Vögel, Reptilien, Amphibien und Fische…
Das ist sie wohl, die Antwort auf die eingangs gestellte Frage, warum die Fische an Land gingen: einfach um der Veränderung willen. Der Sinn allen Lebens besteht darin, sich einerseits zu erhalten und sich andererseits weiter zu entwickeln. Das funktioniert nur durch den ewigen Kreislauf von Geburt und Tod, denn ohne Ende kann es keinen Neuanfang geben. So ist der Landgang der Fische, dem auch wir letztendlich unsere Existenz verdanken, nichts weiter als die Umsetzung des Prinzips, dem alles Leben auf der Erde folgen muss.
Am 24. Juni 2021 hat der Generalanwalt (GA) am EuGH in der Rs. C-102/20 seine Schlussanträge vorgestellt. Sollte der EuGH der Begründung des GA folgen, würde dies eine Einwilligungspflicht auf für Inbox-Werbung bedeuten. Hintergrund Der BGH legte dem EuGH mit Beschluss vom 30.1.2020 (Az. I ZR 25/19) einige interessante Fragen zur Anwendung der strengen Anforderungen […]
This week on my podcast, my latest short story, Inside the Clock Tower, science fiction for Consumer Reports that paints a picture of how tech platforms might work if the ACCESS Act passes and the big companies have to allow others to interoperate with them.
Bereits im Rahmen des Abschlusses der noch geltenden SCC war die Frage nach der Haftungsbegrenzung zwischen Exporteur und Importeur ein praktisch relevantes Thema. Zum Teil wurden SCC selbst angepasst, zum Teil wurde auf die Haftungsklausel in Hauptverträgen verwiesen. Fraglich und meines Erachtens diskutabel ist, ob die nun von der EU-Kommission veröffentlichten Standardvertragsklauseln nach Art. 46 […]
Vergangene Woche waren die lebenden Fossilien, altertümliche Fische mit Lungenatmung, derben Schuppen und gliedmaßenartigen Flossen oder Flossenstielen Gegenstand der Betrachtung. Keine der heute noch existierenden Arten zeigt eine ernsthafte Tendenz zu Landgängen, sie geben also keine Antwort auf die Frage, warum die Fische einst an Land gingen. Geben uns vielleicht moderne Fischarten eine Antwort?
Europäischer Aal, Anguilla anguilla
Unter den in Mitteleuropa heimischen Fischarten gibt es nur eine, die mit einiger Regelmäßigkeit über Land wandert, nämlich den Aal, Anguilla anguilla. Sein schlangenförmiger Körper kann an Land genau so eingesetzt werden, wie es die Repilien tun: schlängelnd. Der Aal wandert nur dann über Land, wenn es nass ist. Er tut es auf seinen Wanderungen; bekanntlich laichen die Aale im Meer. Die jungen Aale wandern ins Süßwasser ein, bleiben dort einige Jahre oder Jahrzehnte und wandern anschließend wieder ins Meer zurück. Während der Wanderungen werden auch abgeschlossene Gewässer, also solche ohne Zu- oder Abfluss besiedelt. Das geht logischerweise nur auf dem Landweg. Dass Aale das können, ist unbestritten und offensichtlich, wie sie dabei allerdings die Gewässer finden, völlig unbekannt. Es muss einen geheimnisvollen Sinn geben, der die Fische Wasser finden lässt. Die Sterberate bei dem Versuch auf gut Glück über Land zu gehen, bis ein Gewässer erreicht ist, wäre sonst ungeheuer hoch. Wasserfrösche (Pelophylax) verfügen ebenfalls über diesen geheimnisvollen Wasserortungs-Sinn. Es ist ziemlich wahrscheinlich, dass es sich bei diesem Sinnesorgan um eine Möglichkeit der Tiere handelt, das Magnetfeld der Erde wahrzunehmen (Magnetsinn); aber wie das funktioniert, ist noch unerforscht.
Asiatische Kletterbarsche (Anabas)
Die Besiedlung und Erschließung neuer Lebensräume ist also wohl ganz grundsätzlich die Antwort auf die Frage, warum Fische an Land gingen. Darin können sie, sehr zum Leidwesen des Menschen, ziemlich erfolgreich sein. Die bekanntesten Landgänger dieses Typs unter den Fischen sind die Kletterbarsche (Anabas) Asiens, enge Verwandte aus Afrika (Ctenopoma gabonense, C. multispine, C. nigropannosum, C. pellegrinii) tun es ebenso. Diese Fische haben ein Hilfsatmungorgan (Labyrinth genannt), mit dessen Hilfe sie atmosphärische Luft veratmen. Sie ertrinken sogar, wenn man sie daran hindert regelmäßig an der Wasseroberfläche Luft zu schöpfen. Während des Landganges spreizen diese Fische ihre Kiemendeckel weit ab; am unteren Ende der Kiemendeckel sind Stacheln, die als Widerlager dienen, ähnlich wie Spikes an den Schuhen von Leichtathleten. Kletterbarsche krümmen den Körper beim Laufen S-förmig, die Stachelstrahlen der Afterflosse schieben beim Seitenwechsel das Tier sehr effektiv nach vorn. Fängt man Kletterbarsche mit einem Netz aus sehr feinen Maschen (was sich empfiehlt, da sie sich in groben Maschen heillos verheddern können) aus einem Aquarium, so klettern sie oft wieselflink wieder aus dem Kescher heraus.
Kletterbarsche besiedeln auf diese Art und Weise sehr effektiv stehende Gewässer aller Art und gehören dort zu den sehr häufigen und weit verbreiteten Fischen. Der Trieb, neue Gewässer zu besiedeln, ist bei diesen Arten enorm. Während eines Hochwassers in Kalkutta, das nur wenige Tage dauerte, wurden die Straßen überflutet. Als das Wasser zurückging, konnte man im abfließenden Wasser Kletterbarsche fangen! Andere Arten, nämlich Schlangenkopffische (Channa) und Kiemensackwelse, (Clarias) wandern auf ganz ähnliche Art und Weise über Land. Beide Gattungen verfügen ebenfalls über Luftatmungsorgane. Schlangenkopffische laufen, indem sie ihre breiten Brustflossen zum Abstützen verwenden, Kiemensackwelse benutzen dazu ihre kräftigen Brustflossenstacheln. Ansonsten schlängeln beide Gruppen während des Landgangs. In vielen Teilen der Welt wurden Schlangenkopffische und Kiemensackwelse als Speisefische ausgesetzt. Sie haben ein schmackhaftes Fleisch, erreichen eine ordentliche Größe (je nach Art zwischen 15 cm und gut einem Meter) und bleiben aufgrund ihrer Hilfsatmung lange am Leben, was ihre frische Vermarktung in heißen Landern sehr erleichtert. Aber beide Gruppen sind (übrigens ebenso wie Aale und Kletterbarsche) reine Fleischfresser. Und dank ihrer Fähigkeit, über Land zu gehen, bleiben sie nicht dort, wo man sie aussetzt. So sind heute Schlangenkopffische und Kiemensackwelse gefürchtete invasive Arten geworden, deren teils rasante Ausbreitung zum Aussterben vieler wasserlebender Kleintiere führt.
Kiemensackwelse (Clarias)Schlangenkopffische (Channa) benutzen bei ihren Landgängen die großen Brustflossen als Stabilisatoren.Channa gachua, eine relativ kleine Art (ca. 15 cm) wandert oft über Land.
An Land frisst keine der bisher genannten Arten. Soweit man weiß können sie das auch gar nicht. Für Fische ist es sehr kompliziert, an Land überhaupt Beute zu finden. Die Sinnesorgane der Fische taugen nicht dafür, sie sind dafür gemacht, unter Wasser zu funktionieren. Man muss bezweifeln, dass die genannten Fische an Land viel sehen, der Gesichtssinn ist bei ihnen auch unter Wasser ohne große Bedeutung. Erblindete Exemplare sind jedenfalls gegenüber sehenden Artgenossen nicht sonderlich im Nachteil und überleben ganz gut. Die elektrischen und Seitenlinien-Organe funktionieren an Land nicht, ebenso ist der Geruchsinn an der Luft eingeschränkt. Immerhin können Aale unter Wasser noch Verdünnungen riechen, die einem Tropfen einer riechenden Substanz auf die Gesamtwassermenge des Bodensees verteilt entspricht! Und dann ist da noch das Problem, wie ein Fisch an Land eine potentielle Beute überhaupt verschlingen soll. Unter Wasser geht das mit Saugschnappen, aber Luft ist viel weniger – 800 mal weniger! – zäh als Wasser, da ist es kaum möglich, genug Saugwirkung durch Maulaufreißen zu erzeugen.
Channalabes apus aus dem Kongo, weiße Farbform.
Und doch: es gibt einen sehr speziellen Kiemensackwels, der es fertigbringt, an Land zu jagen! Er heißt Channalabes apus. Der Körper dieser sehr besonderen, etwa 20-30 cm langen Art ist aalförmig. C. apus stammt aus dem Kongo. Er lebt oft an Bachufern, aber auch in nassem Laub am Gewässerrand. Seine Nahrung besteht vorwiegend aus Insekten, meist Landinsekten. Lange Zeit dachte man, er fräße diese Tiere, wenn sie ins Wasser fallen und ertrinken, aber eine belgische Forschergruppe konnte zeigen, dass Channalabes aktiv an Land jagt! Für Einzelheiten siehe http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7086/full/440881a.html. Das entscheidende Detail ist, dass der Wels in der Lage ist, seinen Kopf nach unten abzuwinkeln. Er kriecht also zunächst eher ungerichtet am Ufer umher, berührt er eine potentiele Beute, nickt er, der Rücken wird also etwas in die Höhe gehoben; jetzt schnappt der Wels wiederholt, ganz ähnlich, als ob er unter Wasser wäre. Dabei erfasst der Fisch die Beute mit dem Kiefer und kann sie fressen. Hier sind wir Zeuge einer ungeheuer interessanten evolutionären Entwicklung. So oder so ähnlich wird es nämlich zum ersten Landgang der Wirbeltiere vor rund 397 Millionen Jahren gekommen sein!
Eng mit Channalabes apus verwandt sind die aus Nigeria stammenden Channalabes alvarezi (obere drei Bilder) und Gymnallabes typus (untere drei Bilder)
Im nächsten und letzten Teil betrachten wir die spezialisierten Landgänger unter den Fischen: die Schlammspringer.
Ein meinen Bloglesern vertrauter Serienabmahner im Bereich Creative Commons-Abmahnungen muss eine weitere Niederlage verkraften: Eine Mandantin hatte ein belangloses Foto beinahe rechtskonform genutzt. So hatte sie 2019 zwar Werktitel und Fotograf zutreffend angegeben und einen Link auf die Quelle bei flickr gesetzt, nicht aber die Lizenz genannt (die man auf der verlinkten Seite bei Interesse hätte recherchieren können).
Der Fotograf ließ anwaltlich abmahnen und forderte Lizenzschaden, wobei die Anwaltsrechnung mehr als doppelt so hoch als die Lizenzforderung ausfiel. Die Abgemahnte unterschrieb die Unterlassungsverpflichtungserklärung und bezahlte. Allerdings entfernte sie das Bild nur von der Homepage, nicht ahnend, dass die Bilddatei auf dem Server verblieb und nach wie vor aufgerufen werden konnte – ein klassischer Fehler. Daraufhin forderte der Abmahner Zahlung einer Vertragsstrafe iHv 2.500,- € sowie weitere Anwaltskosten, die nunmehr den „Lizenzschaden“ um das dreieinhalbfache überstiegen. Die Mandantin zahlte erneut.
Erst nachträglich wurde ihr bekannt, dass diese Abmahnungen doch sehr zweifelhaft waren.
Das Amtsgericht Hamburg hat nunmehr den Abmahner verurteilt, sowohl den Lizenzschaden, die Vertragsstrafe als auch die Anwaltskosten zurückzuerstatten. Außerdem muss der Abmahner die Kosten meiner vorgerichtlichen Tätigkeit sowie die gesamten Prozesskosten zahlen.
Einen höheren Lizenzschaden als 0,- € vermochte das Amtsgericht Hamburg nicht zu erkennen. Die Abmahnung war möglicherweise rechtsmissbräuchlich, jedenfalls aber hatte sie Mängel im Sinne des § 97a Abs. 2 UrhG. Entgegen einer umstrittenen Rechtsprechung bewertete das Amtsgericht Hamburg das versehentliche Belassen der Datei auf dem Server im Ergebnis nicht als Verstoß, der eine Vertragsstrafe rechtfertigt. Anders als in Fällen, bei denen man etwa per Google das Bild hätte finden können, benötigte man vorliegend die praktisch nur dem Abmahner bekannte URL.
Das Rückfordern einer gezahlten Vertragsstrafe ist eine sehr aufwändige Angelegenheit, die auch bei mir Ressourcen blockiert. Generell gilt: Das Recht ist mit den Wachen. Lieber früher als später einen spezialisierten Anwalt fragen! Gerade gegen Vertragsstrafen im Bereich von Fotoabmahnungen gibt es viele höchst aussichtsreiche Abwehrstrategien.
Amtsgericht Hamburg, Urteil vom 10.06.2021 – 32 C 480/19 (nicht rechtskräftig).
Das Landgericht Mühlhausen hat die Eröffnung des Hauptverfahrens im Hinblick auf eine fahrlässige Tötung abgelehnt (Aktenzeichen 3 Qs 43/21). Der Beschuldigte war nachts auf einer unbeleuchteten Landstraße mit dem Auto unterwegs und überfuhr einen dunkel gekleideten Mann, der mitten auf der Straße lag. Der Mann erlag seinen Verletzungen.
Das Landgericht argumentiert, es sei für den Beschuldigten nicht vorhersehbar gewesen, dass ein Fußgänger auf der Straße liegt bzw. liegen könnte. Zwar müsse man im Straßenverkehr mit – teilweise auch grober – Unachtsamkeit anderer Verkehrsteilnehmer rechnen. Dies gelte aber nicht für ein solch selbst gefährdendes Verhalten wie das Hinlegen auf eine befahrenen Straße. Hinzu komme, dass sich das Geschehen im Winter abspielte, es geschneit hatte und sehr kalt war. Im Prozess kam raus, dass der Getötete unter Alkoholeinfluss und Einfluss von MDMA stand.
Interessant ist, dass das Oberlandesgericht Hamm in einem ähnlichen Fall entgegengesetzt entschied: Das Liegen einer Person auf der Fahrbahn sei vorhersehbar gewesen. Einer der Unterschiede war jedoch, dass zu diesem Zeitpunkt gutes Wetter war. Der Kollege Burhoff berichtet über beide Fälle.
Bei Fahrlässigkeitsdelikten besteht die Gefahr eines sogenannten Rückschaufehlers. Psychologisch neigen Menschen nämlich dazu, im Nachhinein überhöhte Anforderungen an normgerechtes Verhalten und an die Vorhersehbarkeit des Eintritts des tatbestandsmäßigen Erfolgs zu stellen. Dann war auf einmal Vieles vorhersehbar und sorgfaltspflichtwidrig, obwohl die betroffene Personen die konkrete Situation, die sich häufig in Sekundenbruchteilen abspielt, in dem Moment gar nicht überblicken und danach handeln und erst recht nicht die eingetretenen Folgen vorhersehen konnte.
Diesem Fehler ist das Gericht hier nicht unterlegen. Alles andere wäre wohl auch lebensfremd: Dass bei Dunkelheit, Schneetreiben und kalten Temperaturen ein Mensch mitten auf der Straße liegt, ist alles andere, aber nicht vorhersehbar. Erstaunlich erscheint mir hingegen das die Entscheidung des Oberlandesgericht Hamm; denn allein der Umstand, dass in diesem Fall gutes Wetter war, rechtfertigt meines Erachtens keine andere Betrachtung.
This week on my podcast, my latest Medium column, The Rent’s Too Damned High, about the long con of convincing Americans that they will grow prosperous through housing wealth, not labor rights.
Is it possible to transfer data to third countries without concluding SCC as long as the GDPR applies to processing by the recipient? A closer look at recital 7 of the new SCC decision by Philipp Quiel & me. Sentence 2 and 3 of recital 7 of the European Commissions’ newly released SCC (Decision (EU) […]
Es gibt den Spruch, dass alles, was man tun kann, auch irgendwann getan werden wird, ungeachtet dessen, ob das sinnvoll ist oder nicht. In der Natur ist es ähnlich. Was geht, wird gemacht und dann: „schaun mer mal“.
Die vergleichende Anatomie zeigt, dass alle existierenden Tiere gemeinsame Vorfahren haben, da die Natur in Bezug auf einmal gemachte „Erfindungen“ extrem konservativ ist. Wir Menschen haben ein Merkmal – die Wirbelsäule – das auch alle anderen Säugetiere sowie die Vögel, Reptilien, Amphibien und Fische haben. Darum gehören wir zu den Wirbeltieren. In der Organisationsstufe stehen die Fische dabei am Anfang der Entwicklung, waren also die ersten Wirbeltiere. Aus Fischen entwickelten sich die Amphibien, aus denen sich die Reptilien entwickelten. Die Reptilien waren die Vorfahren sowohl der Vögel als auch der Säugetiere. Dass wir Menschen an Land leben, verdanken wir letztendlich Fischen, die aus irgendwelchen Gründen in einem Zeitraum, der viele Millionen Jahre dauerte, begannen, an Land zu gehen. Dass sie das taten, ist unumstritten. Warum sie es taten, unbekannt. Und tun sie es heutzutage auch noch? Das ist das Thema des heutigen und kommender “Franky Friday” Blogs.
Dies ist ein moderner Salamander der Art Ambystoma marvortium, aber so arg unähnlich sahen wohl die ersten Landwirbeltiere nicht aus.
Die ersten fossilen Fußspuren eines vierfüßigen Landwirbeltieres sind etwa 397 Millionen Jahre alt. Das dazugehörige Tier kennen wir nicht. Das erste Tier, das an Land gehen konnte und das wir auch kennen, war ein Amphib, ein Salamander-ähnliches Tier mit einem massiven Schädel, das man Ichthyostega bezeichnet. Seine bekannten Überreste sind etwa 370 Millionen Jahre alt. Amphibien unterscheiden sich von den Reptilien u.a. dadurch, dass Amphibien ihre Eier ins Wasser legen müssen, da den Eiern eine schützende Schale fehlt. Es gibt grundsätzlich keine Amphibienart, die im Meer laicht, auch wenn manche Arten eine gewisse Salztoleranz aufweisen. Alle Arten tun das in Süßwasser. Darum geht man davon aus, dass es Süßwasserfische waren, die die Vorfahren der Landwirbeltiere sind. Welche genau, das weiß man nicht mit Sicherheit zu sagen. Die vergleichende Anatomie zeigt, dass ausgestorbene Fische der Gruppe der Rhipidistia die Vorfahren der heute noch existierenden Lungenfische und Quastenflosser und auch des Ichthyostega waren.
Latimeria chalumnae (präpariertes Exemplar), der Komoren-Quastenflosser
Der Quastenflosser (Latimeria), eines der berühmtesten „lebenden Fossilien“, lebt im Meer, üblicherweise in Tiefen zwischen 150 und 700 Metern, auch wenn sie schon bis zu 15 Metern aufgestiegen sein sollen. An Land gehen sie jedenfalls nicht. Trotzdem ist die Beobachtung lebender Quastenflosser (es gibt zwei Arten, den Komoren-Quastenflosser, L. chalumnae, und den Indonesischen Quastenflosser, L. menadoensis) unglaublich spannend und gibt interessante Hinweise in der unter Evolutionsbiologen immer noch heiß geführten Diskussion, ob die Quastenflosser oder die Lungenfischen den Vorfahren der landlebenden Vierfüßler näher stehen. Leider werden Quastenflosser in keinem Zoo oder Aquarium der Welt gepflegt, im Handel findet man sie schon gleich gar nicht, so dass wir bei der Beobachtung des seltsamen Kreaturen auf Filmmaterial angewiesen sind, wie man es z.B. hier findet: http://www.arkive.org/coelacanth/latimeria-chalumnae/ Die Schwimmbewegungen sind schon sehr speziell, das muss man sagen und die Beweglichkeit der auf Stielen sitzenden Flossen erstaunlich. Aber so ganz dem vierfüßigen Gang entsprechen sie dann doch nicht, soweit man das erkennen kann. Die Quastenflosser sind übrigens nicht die einzigen Fische, deren Flossen auf Stielen sitzen. Das ist bei den Flösselhechten (Polypterus) auch so. Die sind ebenfalls „lebende Fossilien“ und leben im Gegensatz zu den Quastenflossern im Süßwasser. Etliche Arten der Flösselhechte werden gegenwärtig für die Aquaristik regelmäßig gezüchtet, andere sind als Wildfang erhältlich, ebenso der eng verwandte Flösselaal (Erpetoichthys calabaricus). Die können wir also im Aquarium studieren.
Polypterus endlicherii, eine Flösselhecht-Art, Jungtier, bei dem noch die äußeren Kiemen sichtbar sind.
Dann stellt man fest, dass weder Flösselhechte noch Flösselaale ihre Gliedmaßen wie Landtiere gebrauchen. Es sind vielmehr elegante Schwimmer, wenn sie nicht gerade ausruhen (was sie allerdings die meiste Zeit tun). Flösselhechte und der Flösselaal zeigen keinerlei Tendenzen zum Landgang obwohl sie alle Voraussetzungen dazu hätten. Sie atmen nämlich ohnehin zum großen Teil über Lungen, die Sauerstoffversorgung an Land, die für einen Kiemenatmer ein Problem ist, weil das zarten Kiemengewebe an Land zusammenfällt und verklebt, ist für Flösselhechte und den Flösselaal schon mal keine Schwierigkeit. Des Weiteren haben diese Fische keine normalen Schuppen, sondern so genannte Ganoidschuppen, wodurch ihr Körper wie mit einem Panzer eingehüllt ist. Auch das könnte bei einem potentiellen Landgang nur nützlich sein. Und Flösselhechte und der Flösselaal können zum Fressen den Kopf nach unten, zum Boden hin neigen. Das muss ein Fisch können, um an Land fressen zu können, denn das unter Wasser übliche Saugschnappen funktioniert an Land wegen der erheblich geringeren Dichte der Luft (verglichen mit Wasser) nicht.
Portrait eines Schlammspringers (Periophthalmodon septemradiatus), eines modernen landgehenden Fisches. Mehr über Schlammspringer in einem der nächsten Blogs.
Flösselhechte sind eine wirklich altertümliche Fischgruppe, erste fossile Belege sind rund 100 Millionen Jahre alt. Doch obwohl sie exklusive Süßwasserfische sind und auch in Sümpfen leben, gibt es keinerlei Hinweise dafür, dass sie je versuchten, an Land zu gehen. Warum? Ist es, weil der Lebensraum „Land“ bereits besetzt ist? Wohl kaum. Denn es gibt auch hochmoderne Fische, wie sehr wohl an Land gehen und damit ziemlich erfolgreich sind, wie die Schlammspringer (Periophthalmus), über die in einem der kommenden Blogs ausführlich berichtet wird. Heute bleiben wir noch mal bei den altertümlichen (der Fachausdruck lautet: ancestrale) Fischen, nämlich den Lungenfischen. Es gibt heutzutage nur noch sechs Arten auf drei Kontinenten. In Australien der Australische Lungenfisch (Neoceratodes forsteri), in Afrika die Gattung Protopterus mit vier Arten und in Südamerika eine weitere Art, der Südamerikanische Lungenfisch, Lepidosiren paradoxus. Keine dieser Arten geht an Land. Aber gibt es in ihrem Verhalten Indizien dafür, dass sie den Landgängern nahestehen? Beim Australier nicht. Wir haben erst kürzlich in einem Blog darüber berichtet, wie er schwimmt (siehe https://www.aqualog.de/blog/von-lungenfischen-sechsstreifensalmlern-und-klapperschlangen/). Aber die Afrikaner, die bewegen sich wirklich besonders. Ihre Brust- und Afterflossen sind zu fadenartigen Gebilden umgewandelt. Wozu sie überhaupt dienen, ist unbekannt. Aber die Fische bewegen sie, als wären es Arme oder Beine! Protopterus aethiopicus und P. annectens schreiten förmlich durch das Aquarium, wobei sie teilweise die „Arme“ bewegen, wie ein Kraul-Schwimmer. Der Vortrieb durch die „Ärmchen“ ist dabei sicher vernachlässigbar. Bei Protopterus dolloi, einem weiteren Afrikaner, habe ich etwas beobachten können, was ich bei keiner der beiden schon genannten Arten sah (leider hatte ich noch nie die Gelegenheit die vierte afrikanische Art, P. amphibius, zu pflegen). Afrikanische Lungenfische haben überall am Körper, besonders aber in der Kopfregion, so genannte Lorenzinische Ampullen. Das sind Sinnesorgane, die ganz schwache elektrische Reize wahrnehmen können, so wie sie entstehen, wenn sich ein Muskel bewegt. Äußerlich sehen die Reihen Lorezinischer Ampullen aus wie die Nähte bei Frankensteins Monster. Mit Hilfe dieser Lorenzinischen Ampullen kann P. dolloi einen vergraben Tubifex-Wurm aufspüren, sobald sich der Wurm bewegt. P. dolloi steckt bei der Suche nach dem vergrabenen Wurm den Kopf tief in den Sand – und streckt dabei die „Ärmchen“ straff nach hinten! Ein ganz eigenartiges Bild! Der Südamerikaner benutzt seine Arme und Beine, die denen der Afrikaner ähnlich sind, während der Australier breite, flache Flossenpaddel hat, nach meinen Beobachtungen kaum. Allerdings muss ich zugeben, dass mir zu eingehenden Beobachtungen des Südamerikaners bisher die Gelegenheit fehlte.
Zwei junge Exemplare von Protopterus annectens brieni aus dem Kongo.
Obwohl die jetzt lebenden (rezenten) Lungenfische eigentlich ganz gut gerüstet wären, um auch an Land voran zu kommen – sie atmen durch Lungen, haben derbe Schuppen und können den Kopf abknicken – gibt es keinerlei Hinweise darauf, dass sie diese Fähigkeiten dafür nutzen, um an Land zu gehen. Noch nicht einmal im Falle der Austrocknung der Wohngewässer tun sie das, sondern graben sich ein und bilden einen Kokon, in dem sie abwarten, bis es wieder regnet. Selbstverständlich sind die rezenten Lungenfische nicht identisch mit den Vorfahren der Vierfüßler und ebenso selbstverständlich können wir darum nur recht bedingt aus dem Verhalten der rezenten Arten auf das Verhalten der ausgestorbenen Arten schließen. Aber fest steht auch: es ist bei den gegenwärtig lebenden Lungenfischen keine Tendenz zu beobachten, dass sie zum Landleben übergehen.
Quastenflosser, Flösselhechte und Lungenfische, dieser uralte Fischadel, diese lebenden Fossilien, geben uns keine Antwort auf die Frage, warum die Fische einst an Land gingen, obwohl sie die nächsten lebenden Verwandten der vor 397 Millionen Jahren ausgestorbenen Arten sind, die das zuerst taten. Ihre Bewegungsmuster und ihre Anatomie zeigen uns, dass die Voraussetzungen für den Landgang auch vorhanden sein können, ohne dass es tatsächlich zum Landgang kommt. Nächste Woche schauen wir uns moderne Landgänger unter den Fischen an. Ob sie uns bessere Antworten geben können?
In Idstein wurde ein Mann von der Polizei fixiert. Zuvor war es zu einer körperlichen Auseinandersetzung gekommen, über deren Ursache gestritten wird. Der Mann hat während der Fixierung gerufen, dass er keine Luft bekomme. Das Ganze spielte sich vor der Polizeiwache in Idstein ab, dieser Bereich wird videoüberwacht. Nun ist nur leider angeblich versäumt worden, dass unstreitig mal vorhandene Überwachungsvideo dauerhaft zu sichern.
Der betroffene Mann wollte das nicht auf sich sitzen lassen. Er zeigte die für die Sicherung des Videos verantwortlichen Beamten wegen Unterdrückung beweiserheblicher Daten und Strafvereitelung im Amt an. Wegen des Verhaltens der Einsatzkräfte selbst wird wegen Körperverletzung im Amt und Freiheitsberaubung ermittelt. Gegen den Betroffenen laufen Ermittlungen wegen Körperverletzung und tätlichem Angriff auf Vollstreckungsbeamte.
Interessant ist, dass der Anwalt des Betroffenen extra bei der Polizei anrief, um das Video sichern zu lassen. Am Telefon wurde ihm dies zugesichert. Aus der Akte ergibt sich zudem, dass das Video einen Tag nach dem Vorfall angesehen wurde. Es ist kaum zu glauben, dass es dann fahrlässig versäumt wurde, das Video zu sichern. Einer der verantwortlichen Beamten hat sich auf andere Aufgaben berufen, die zu einer Verzögerung geführt hätten. Er sei außerdem irrtümlich davon ausgegangen, die Videos würden sieben bis acht Wochen zur Verfügung stehen – und nicht nur 21 Tage.
Zum Glück waren noch weitere Personen vor Ort, die den Vorfall mit mit ihren Handys aufzeichneten. Auf den Videos ist zu sehen, wie drei Beamte den Betroffenen zu Boden drücken, und man hört auch, dass er ruft, dass er keine Luft mehr bekomme und Panik kriege. Allerdings ist das Vorgeschehen nicht zu sehen. Die Beamten sagen, der Betroffene habe versucht, ihnen das Pfefferspray zu entreißen.
Die Staatsanwaltschaft hat die Ermittlungen gegen den verantwortlichen Polizeibeamten für die Sicherung wohl bereits abgeschlossen. Der Beamte habe „zweifelsfrei nicht vorsätzlich“ gehandelt; deshalb liege kein strafbares Verhalten vor.
Ohne das Video wird man nun nicht aufklären können, was tatsächlich im Vorfeld passiert ist. Im Zweifel steht dann Aussage gegen Aussage. Gerichte neigen in solchen Situationen dazu, den Polizeibeamten und -beamtinnen zu glauben, deren Aussagen auch häufig nicht voneinander abweichen. Der Vorwurf gegen die Beamten wird sich ohne die Bilder von der Vorgeschichte daher kaum nachweisen lassen. Insgesamt keine schöne Situation für den Betroffenen, aber auch nicht für seinen Verteidiger. Ich hoffe, das Gericht findet wenigstens passende Worte zum wundersamen Verschwinden eines wichtigen Beweismittels.
Heute zeigt die ARD „Die Auserwählten“. Der an Originalschauplätzen gedrehte Film thematisiert den sexuellen Missbrauch an der Odenwaldschule.
Ein Betroffener, der ein Buch hierüber geschrieben und sich insoweit der Öffentlichkeit geöffnet hatte, ist als Vorbild für die zentrale Filmfigur zu erkennen. Der Mann, der eine Zusammenarbeit mit dem Filmprojekt abgelehnt hatte, sah seine Persönlichkeitsrechte verletzt und klagte erfolglos an den Hamburger Gerichten. Auch der Bundesgerichtshof wies die Revision mit Urteil vom 18. Mai 2021 – VI ZR 441/19 ab:
Der Kläger kann sein Unterlassungsbegehren nicht auf sein Recht am eigenen Bild stützen. Der Senat hat eine insoweit in Rechtsprechung und Literatur umstrittene Rechtsfrage dahin entschieden, dass eine als solche erkennbare bloße Darstellung einer realen Person durch einen Schauspieler in einem Spielfilm kein Bildnis der dargestellten Person i.S.d. § 22 Satz 1 KUG ist. Dieser Schutz steht im Falle der als solche erkennbaren bloßen Darstellung einer Person durch einen Schauspieler dem Schauspieler zu, der in diesem Fall auch in seiner Rolle noch „eigenpersönlich“ und damit als er selbst erkennbar bleibt. Als Bildnis der dargestellten Person ist die Darstellung dagegen (erst) dann anzusehen, wenn der täuschend echte Eindruck erweckt wird, es handele sich um die dargestellte Person selbst, wie dies etwa bei dem Einsatz eines Doppelgängers oder einer nachgestellten berühmten Szene oder Fotographie der Fall sein kann.
Der Anspruch ergibt sich bei der gebotenen kunstspezifischen Betrachtungsweise auch nicht aus dem allgemeinen Persönlichkeitsrechts des Klägers (§ 1004 Abs. 1 Satz 2 analog, § 823 Abs. 1 BGB i.V.m. Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG). Zwar ist der Kläger durch die ausgeprägten Übereinstimmungen zwischen seinem Schicksal und der Darstellung der entsprechenden zentralen Filmfigur in seinem Persönlichkeitsrecht betroffen. Auch verstärkt die in der besonderen Intensität der visuellen Darstellung liegende suggestive Kraft eines Spielfilms diese Betroffenheit. Doch wiegt diese Betroffenheit im Ergebnis und unter maßgeblicher Berücksichtigung der von dem Kläger in der Vergangenheit praktizierten Selbstöffnung nicht so schwer, dass die zugunsten der Beklagten streitende Kunst- und Filmfreiheit zurücktreten müsste.
Im Fall des tödlichen Autorennens von Moers bekommt der Hauptangeklagte eine deutlich niedrigere Freiheitsstrafe. Statt dem ursprünglichen Mordurteil (lebenslänglich) sind es nun vier Jahre Freiheitsstrafe. Die Neuverhandlung war notwendig geworden, weil der Bundesgerichtshof die erste Entscheidung aufhob.
Der 22-Jährige war am Ostermontag 2019 mit bis zu 167 Stundenkilometern durch ein Wohngebiet in Moers gefahren. Und zwar mit einem 600 PS starken Auto. Er soll sich mit einem anderen Autofahrer ein Rennen geliefert haben. Als eine unbeteiligte Frau mit ihrem Kleinwagen aus einer Seitenstraße kam, konnte er nicht mehr bremsen. Die Frau erlitt beim Zusammenstoß tödliche Hirnschäden.
Der Angeklagte hatte sich damit verteidigt, er sei auf einer gut einsehbaren Vorfahrtsstraße unterwegs gewesen. Deshalb habe er darauf vertraut, dass es nicht zu einem Unfall kommt. Diese Angabe, die gegen einen Tötungsvorsatz sprechen könnte, hätte laut dem Bundesgerichtshof stärker berücksichtigt werden müssen. Dem ist das Landgericht Kleve nun in der Neuauflage des Prozesses nun gerecht geworden.
Das letzte Wort ist allerdings noch nicht gesprochen. Nun geht die Staatsanwaltschaft in Revision. Das Urteil gegen den anderen Beteiligten am Autorennen ist mittlerweile rechtskräftig. Er bekam drei Jahre und neun Monate Haft.
Warum heißt ein so wunderschöner und – für Buntbarschverhältnisse – friedlicher Fisch übersetzt „dämonischer Teufelsbarsch“? Und warum gibt man ihr den deutschen Namen „Teufelsangel“? Ganz genau weiß das niemand, nur wie es zu den Namen kam. Und diese Geschichte geht so: Johann Natterer entdeckte für Europa diesen Fisch im Rio Negro in Brasilien. Das war zwischen 1817 und 1835. Er übergab seine gesammelten Exemplare an das Naturhistorische Musem in Wien, wo Friedrich Heckel sie 1840 wissenschaftlich beschrieb. Leider sind von Natterer keine Tagebuchaufzeichnungen erhalten geblieben, er schrieb auch nie einen Expeditionsbericht über seine Brasilienreise, aber er wird in der Erstbeschreibung von Heckel wie folgt zitiert: „Dieser schöne Geophagus, der mit den Farben der Meeresfische prangt, kommt häufig im Rio Negro vor, sein in Marabitanas üblicher Name Jurùpari oder Schurùpari pampé bedeutet in der Lingua gerat Teufels-Klaue.“
Satanoperca daemon, Wildfang aus Kolumbien, halbwüchsiges Männchen
Das war zu Natterers Zeiten sicher alles richtig; Jurupari wurde allerdings erst zur Zeit der katholischen Missionare in Brasilien (ab dem 16. Jahrhundert) zum Namen des Teufels. Vorher war es der Name einer Ordnung bringenden Gottheit. Der Legende nach aß ein Mädchen namens Ceuci, die Tochter der obersten, allmächtigen Gottheit, eine verbotene Frucht, Mapati genannt, die den erwachsenen Frauen vorbehalten war. Ceuci schlief ein und wurde vom Saft der Frucht schwanger. Aus dieser Schwangerschaft wurde ein Sohn geboren, Jurupari. Im Verständnis der Tupi-Indianer war Jurupari ein Sohn der Sonne, ein Ordnungsbringer und sein Kult war weit in Brasilien verbreitet. Die christlichen Missionare taten nun, was sie überall taten: sie setzten den verbreitetsten heidnischen Gott mit dem Teufel gleich und heutzutage gilt Jurupari ganz allgemein in Brasilien als Synonym zum Teufel.
Nun gut, aber was hat der Sohn der Sonne mit einem Buntbarsch zu tun? Folgt man den Etymologen, so bedeutet das Wort „Jurupari“ in etwa „mit dem Mund empfangen“ oder „Vom Mund übergeben“ – zumindest ist das eine mögliche Deutung (siehe https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurupari_(mitologia)). Das macht auch Sinn, schließlich erfolgte die Zeugung Juruparis durch den Mund Ceucis, indem sie die Frucht aß.
Und nun dämmert es dem kundigen Buntbarschfreund: eine zweite Satanoperca-Art des Rio Negro, ebenfalls von Natterer entdeckt, heißt S. jurupari. Und diese Art ist Maulbrüter! Das ist den Tupi-Indianern, die ja zu einem sehr großen Teil von Fisch leben, ganz sicher bekannt gewesen. Also erklärt sich der Tupi-Name jurupari eigentlich ganz zwanglos für S. jurupari, er wurde gewählt, weil dieser Fisch, genau wie der Gott, im Mund gezeugt wird.
Satanoperca jurupari, eine maulbrütende Teufelsangel. Die Art ist weit verbreitet, dieses Exemplar stammt aus dem Rio Tocantins.
Satanoperca daemon hingegen ist kein Maulbrüter. Er legt Gruben im Boden an, in die er laicht; anschließend bedecken die Elterntiere den Laich mit Steinchen und Blättern, die sie erst wieder forträumen, wenn die Jungtiere schwimmfähig sind. Warum nun also „Teufels-Klaue“? S. daemon ist nicht stacheliger als andere Buntbarsche auch. Ich denke, der Name bezieht sich auf die langen, freien Flossenfilamente der Rückenflosse, die für S. daemon artcharakteristisch sind. Männchen und Weibchen haben sie gleichermaßen. Mit etwas Fantasie sehen die meist drei (selten bis fünf) Filamente aus wie dürre Finger, eine Klaue eben. Und demnach bedeutet der Tupi-Namen für S. daemon “der Fisch, der wie der Mundgezeugte aussieht, aber dessen Rückenflosse hinten wie eine Klaue wirkt”.
Satanoperca daemon
Der Gattungsname „Satanoperca“, also Teufelsbarsch, wurde 1862 von Albert Günther vom British Museum of Natural History (heute Natural History Museum) vergeben. Günther erklärt den Namen nicht, doch gliedert er in seine neue Gattung die Arten daemon und jurupari ein, darum ist selbsterklärend wie er auf den Namen verfiel.
Gegenwärtig werden neun Satanoperca-Arten unterschieden: S. daemon ist die Typusart, hinzu kommen S. acuticeps, S. curupira, S. jurupari, S. leucosticta, S. lilith, S. mapiritensis, S. pappaterra und S. rhynchitis. Abgesehen von S. daemon und S. jurupari wurden sie mit „normalen“ Artnamen ausgestattet, die sich auf das Aussehen oder die Herkunft beziehen. Nur für die 1988 von Kullander und Ferreira beschriebene Art S. lilith griff man noch einmal das teuflische Motiv auf. Es handelt sich dabei um die Schwesterart zu S. daemon. S. lilith unterscheidet sich von S. daemon in erster Linie durch nur einen Flankenfleck (zwei bei S. daemon). Lilith war, der Mythologie des Nahen Ostens folgend, die erste Frau Adams, aber im christlichen Volksglauben wurde aus ihr die Braut Satans, ein weiblicher Dämon. Die Beschreiber wählten den Artnamen „lilith“, um die verwandtschaftliche Nähe zu S. daemon herauszustellen.
Satanoperca lilith
Und auch die zuletzt beschriebene Art, S. curupira (man kannte sie zuvor als Satanoperca sp. “Jaru” im Hobby), greift das Thema nochmal auf. Diese Art, die S. jurupari ziemlich ähnlich ist, wurde nach einem Waldgeist benannt. Die Autoren (Ota et al.) schreiben dazu: “Der spezifische Name Curupira bezieht sich auf ein mythologisches Wesen der brasilianischen Folklore, das den Wald und seine Bewohner schützt und diejenigen bestraft, die zum Vergnügen jagen oder brütende Weibchen oder wehrlose Jungtiere töten (Pereira 1994). Die Curupira-Legende offenbart die Beziehung zwischen den Indigenen und dem Wald: Es geht nicht um Erkundung und wahllose Nutzung, sondern um Respekt vor dem Leben.” (Übersetzung FS)
Satanoperca curupira kannte man im Hobby vor der wissenschaftlichen Beschreibung als Satanoperca sp. “Jaru”. Photo: Uwe Werner
So lebt also eine untergegangene Religion in einem schönen Fisch weiter. Die wissenschaftliche Bezeichnung und der deutsche Gebrauchsname wurden in Unwissenheit der wahren Umstände vergeben. Ist es nicht ein schöner Gedanke, dass Satanoperca daemon eigentlich ein Kind der Sonne ist?
Wie heute bekannt wurde (Pressemitteilung der Berliner Behörde, PDF), führen die deutschen Aufsichtsbehörden gemeinsam abgestimmte Kontrollen zur Einhaltung datenschutzrechtlicher Vorgaben zu internationalen Datenübermittlungen mithilfe von fünf verschiedenen Fragebögen in fünf Themenkomplexen durch. Jede Behörde entscheidet individuell, in welchen dieser Themenfelder sie durch Versenden der Fragebögen tätig wird und an welche Unternehmen sie herantritt. Daher kann […]
Am 20. Mai hat der Bundestag bekanntlich das neue „Gesetzes zur Regelung des Datenschutzes und des Schutzes der Privatsphäre in der Telekommunikation und bei Telemedien“ (TTDSG) in der Fassung des federführenden Ausschusses für Wirtschaft angenommen. Die Beschlussempfehlung mit dem angenommenen Gesetzestext findet sich hier (PDF). Das neue TTDSG tritt zum 1. Dezember 2021 in Kraft. […]
Vorab: Für ein politisches Amt benötigt man keinen formalen Bildungsabschluss, weitaus wichtiger sind Auffassungsgabe, Teamfähigkeit und Charakter. Ich kenne Volljuristen, die zugleich auch Vollpfosten sind.
Wer aber mit einer geflunkerten Ausbildung renommiert, muss sich der Kritik stellen. Der Vorwurf, Kritik hieran sei perfide oder geschlechtsspezifisch, leuchtet nicht ein.
Annalena Baerbock gab 2013 auf dem Wahlzettel als Profession „Völkerrechtlerin“ an, auf der Website „Politik- und Jurastudium, Universität Hamburg (2000-2004)“. Dies erweckt den Eindruck einer beruflichen Tätigkeit oder akademischen Laufbahn, was schon deshalb beeindruckend wäre, weil Völkerrecht nicht zum regulären Prüfungsstoff gehört. Auch eine Promotion soll begonnen worden sein, die zumindest bei Rechtswissenschaftlern normalerweise ein Prädikatsexamen voraussetzt – Frau Baerbock hat keines der beiden Staatsexamina, die ein Volljurist benötigt.
Wenn eine „Völkerrechtlerin“ allerdings die UN-Charta als das wichtigste Gremium eigentlich international bezeichnet, also einen Gründungsvertrag für ein „Gremium“ hält, darf man schon die Frage nach der Qualität des „Politik- und Jurastudiums“ stellen.
Die Diskussion lenkt allerdings von einer weitaus größeren Fehlleistung ab: So bezeichnet die „Völkerrechtlerin“ als Inspiration Joschka Fischer – jenen grünen Außenminister, der Deutschland in einen völkerrechtswidrigen Krieg führte.
Man kann es natürlich auch wie Volker Beck machen, jener abgebrochene Philosophie-Student, der von den Medien unkritisch als Rechtsexperte akzeptiert wurde. Oder wie Anna Gallina, die ohne Jurastudium die Justizsenatorin gibt und ebenfalls mit fachlichen Fehlleistungen auffällt.
Was mich am meisten irritiert: 2012 wurde die Piratenpartei von den Medien in einer Weise seziert, als säßen sie bereits in der Bundesregierung. Jeder Tweet von Provinzpiraten wurde zu einem „Gate“ skandalisiert, man gewann beinahe den Eindruck, Querulanten und Quartalsirre seien ein Alleinstellungsmerkmal der neuen Partei. Jeden Tag wurde 2012 eine neue Sau durchs Dorf getrieben, bis niemand mehr etwas von den Piraten hören wollte, im Wahlkampf 2013 hatten sie keine Airtime mehr. Nicht einmal ein Jahrzehnt später nun soll Wahlkampf im Safespace stattfinden.
Der Staatsanwaltschaft stehen mehrere Möglichkeiten zur Verfügung, ein Ermittlungsverfahren wieder vom Tisch zu bekommen. Manchmal verursacht die ausgewählte Variante jedoch Nachfragen.
Der Richtervorbehalt ist eigentlich ein unverzichtbares Korrektiv im rechtsstaatlichen Verfahren. In der Praxis wird jedoch mehr als oft darauf verzichtet. Ein klassisches Beispiel für die fehlende richterliche Kontrolle ist das Strafbefehlsverfahren.
Aktuell macht in den Blogs der Fall einer Foto-Abmahnung aus Österreich die Runde. Nutzer in Deutschland hatten offenbar rechtswidrig ein Lichtbild eines Urhebers aus Österreich verwendet, erhielten eine Abmahnung (Lizenzschadensforderung iHv 242,- € und Anwaltskosten iHv 1.128,42 €) und gerieten an eine Rechtsanwältin, die mit urheberrechtlichen Abmahnungen aus Österreich offenbar unerfahren war. Deren Abwehrschreiben provozierte im Gegenteil eine Klage in Österreich mit einer gegnerischen Kostenforderung iHv 3.448,40 € sowie weiteren Kosten für einen eigenen Rechtsanwalt in Österreich. Die Kollegin hat also aus einem kleinen Problem ein großes gemacht.
Im Blog netzpolitik.org wird der Fall zum Anlass für eine Fundamentalkritik am Abmahnsystem genommen, was auf vielen Ebenen unschlüssig ist.
1. Die Forderung eines „Ende des Abmahn-Unwesens“ betrifft in diesem Fall allein Österreich, was im Artikel nur indirekt anklingt. In Deutschland ist das Abmahnunwesen vielfach entschärft worden.
2. Die Abmahnung war vorliegend gar nicht das Problem, sondern die Klage, was in Österreich nun einmal mit absurd hohen Streitwerten einhergeht. Die haben da ein gänzlich anderes Prozessrecht (was das eigentliche Aufreger-Thema gewesen wäre). Was hat das mit der Abmahnung zu tun? Nichts – außer, dass eine akzeptierte Abmahnung eine Klage vermieden hätte und selbst bei akzeptierten Kosten nur ein Bruchteil der Kosten verblieben wäre.
3. Der Kollegin unterlief ein anwaltlicher Kunstfehler: Eine qualifizierte Reaktion wäre gewesen, sofort in Deutschland eine negative Feststellungsklage zu erheben und damit einer Klage zuvorzukommen. Denn eine solche „Torpedoklage“ hätte den Gerichtsort gebunden, damit eine Klage in Österreich ausgeschlossen und Prozesskosten auf deutsches (ungleich günstigeres) Gebührenrecht beschränkt.
Wie man auf Abmahungen aus Österreich professionell reagiert, habe ich mal hier beschrieben.
Während sich heute am Tag der Pressefreiheit konventionelle Medienmacher im jährlichen Ritual gegenseitig auf die Schulter klopfen, hält sich die Laune einiger Blogger und YouTuber in Grenzen. Seit einigen Wochen bekommen sie blaue Briefe von Landesmedienanstalten, die politisch unerwünschte Inhalte beanstanden und Fristen zur Änderung setzen.
Die ursprünglich für den privaten Rundfunk aufgebauten Landesmedienanstalten sind nämlich mit Inkrafttreten des Medienstaatsvertrags vom 07.11.2020 zur Qualitätsaufsicht über Anbieter auch quasi-journalistischer Internetinhalte zuständig, sofern diese in Deutschland ansässig sind und sich nicht dem von der Verlegerlobby organisierten Deutschen Presserat angeschlossen haben. Wer nach dem äußeren Erscheinungsbild ein journalistisch-redaktionell gestaltetes Telemedium betreibt, fällt unter § 19 MStV – gleichgültig, ob kommerziell oder nicht.
Solche Anbieter sollen angeblichen journalistischen Mindeststandards unterworfen sein. Nach Meinung der Landesmedienanstalten müssen daher u.a. die folgenden Grundsätze beachtet werden:
– Inhalte dürfen nicht billigend aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen werden.
– Werden nicht unerhebliche Teile von Fremdinhalten aus einer Drittquelle übernommen, so ist die Quelle zu benennen. Gleiches gilt für Zitatsammlungen.
– Anonyme Quellen sind als solche zu kennzeichnen.
– Zitate müssen unverfälscht aus Drittquellen übernommen werden.
– Die Grundsätze der Verdachtsberichterstattung sind einzuhalten.
– Bei Meinungsumfragen ist anzugeben, ob sie repräsentativ sind.
Die Landesmedienanstalten belassen es allerdings nicht bei diesen rührenden Appellen, sondern beanstanden ganz konkrete Texte der Blogger, deren journalistischen Gehalt sie anzweifeln. So verlangen Landesmedienanstalten in mehreren Fällen von Bloggern die Angabe von Quellen für unerwünschte Beiträge. Auch das restliche Angebot sollen die Betreiber auf Einhaltung journalistischer Standards überprüfen. Für den Fall, dass die Anbieter nicht innerhalb der gesetzten Frist wunschgemäß reagieren, drohen die Landesmedienanstalten u.a. mit Sperrverfügungen.
Das ist neu in der deutschen Medienlandschaft. Seit Inkrafttreten des Grundgesetzes am 23.05.1949 galt Artikel 5 Abs. 1 GG:
„Jeder hat das Recht, seine Meinung in Wort, Schrift und Bild frei zu äußern und zu verbreiten und sich aus allgemein zugänglichen Quellen ungehindert zu unterrichten. Die Pressefreiheit und die Freiheit der Berichterstattung durch Rundfunk und Film werden gewährleistet. Eine Zensur findet nicht statt.“
Daraus leiteten Verfassungsjuristen das Prinzip ab, dass sich der Staat aus Angelegenheiten der Presse möglichst herauszuhalten hat. Abgesehen von Fragen des Jugendschutzes oder strafrechtlich verbotener Volksverhetzung usw. hatte der Staat gegenüber Medienhäusern inhaltlich nichts zu melden. Anders als bei den meisten Berufen gibt es für Printjournalismus keine Aufsichtsbehörde wie etwa eine berufsständische Kammer usw. Wer sich auf den Schlips getreten fühlt, kann privat die Gerichte bemühen, nicht aber der Staat.
Ein weiteres Prinzip war die Sicherung von Meinungsvielfalt durch ein möglichst breites Spektrum an Meinungsführern und Angeboten. Dem wurde insbesondere bei der Organisation des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunks Rechnung getragen, der keinen staatlichen Weisungen untergeordnet ist und von bunt gemischten Rundfunkräten indirekt kontrolliert wird.
Im Adenauer-Deutschland verhinderten klüngelnde Verleger den Erlass eines angedachten Ehrenschutzgesetzes, indem sie 1956 den Deutschen Presserat gründeten, der Missständen branchenintern auf dem Parkett eines privaten Lobbyvereins mit Gentlemen’s Agreements entgegenwirken soll.
Als man dann Ende der 1980er Jahre den privaten Rundfunk zuließ, baute man nach dem Vorbild der angeblich staatsfernen Rundfunkräte die Landesmedienanstalten auf, um die Medienlandschaft auf mögliche politische Einseitigkeit und Meinungsmonopole zu überprüfen.
Die junge Generation unserer Tage allerdings kauft keine gedruckten Zeitungen mehr und sieht auch kaum noch lineares Fernsehen. Dass Influencer Einfluss auf das Wahlverhalten ausüben, bewies 2019 eindrucksvoll das Rezo-Video (Die Rezo-zialisierung der CDU).
Im Super-Wahljahr 2021 sowie im Streit über die Deutungshoheit über COVID-19-Themen rasseln die Landesmedienanstalten nun mit den Ketten, an die sie die Blogger legen wollen. Das Wahlvolk soll sich gefälligst an den konventionellen Medien orientieren – die den Klimawandel vier Jahrzehnte krass unterberichteten, weder den Brexit noch eine Trump-Regierung für realistisch hielten und Kriegsverbrechern Kränze flechten (Auf den Hund gekommen).
Wie sich § 19 MStV mit dem Zensurverbot aus Art. 5 Abs. 1 Satz 3 GG in Einklang bringen lassen soll, sowie mit dem Verbot willkürlicher Ungleichbehandlung aus Art. 3 GG, wird eine spannende Frage. Insbesondere also haben diese öffentlich-rechtlichen Organisationen nicht nur die Macht, einzelne Beiträge nachträglich zu beschneiden, sondern sie können per § 109 MStV die gesamten Websites und Kanäle sperren. Befremdlich ist das Verlangen nach Quellenangaben, denn konventionelle Journalisten beanspruchen Quellenschutz und dürfen sogar vor Gericht das Zeugnis verweigern.
Die Medienaufseher jedoch fordern in ihren Schreiben sogar das Einhalten von journalistischen Sorgfaltspflichten ein, insbesondere die Prüfung der Aussagen mit der nach den Umständen gebotenen Sorgfalt auf Inhalt, Herkunft und Wahrheit. Das Einhalten journalistischer Sorgfaltspflichten müssen konventionelle Medien allerdings nur nachweisen, wenn ein konkret Betroffener sie wegen einer Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzung durch unwahre Verdachtsberichtserstattung verklagt. Nunmehr also maßen sich die Landesmedienanstalten die Rolle einer allzuständigen Spanischen Inquisition wegen aller möglichen Themen an und legen an Privatleute Maßstäbe an, denen häufig selbst professionelle Journalisten nicht genügen.
Medienjuristen haben erhebliche Zweifel an der Vereinbarkeit von § 19 MStV mit Europa- und Verfassungsrecht. Mit der Aufforderung zur Angabe von Quellen für offenbar unerwünschte Information begeben sich die Landesmedienanstalten in das Zeitalter vor dem Reichspreßgesetz von 1874, das die Presse vor der Polizei schützte. Stattdessen maßen sich die Medienaufseher die Rolle eines Orwellschen Wahrheitsministerium an.
Ob ausgerechnet die Landesmedienanstalten als Politkommissare fachlich taugen oder wenigstens Kompetenz für rechtsstaatliche Verfahren erwarten lassen, darf man mit Blick auf deren Personal herzlich bezweifeln. Nur einige der Landesmediendirektoren verfügen über die Befähigung zum Richteramt, durchweg allerdings beweisen sie ideologisches und machtpolitisches Talent. In Rheinland-Pfalz konnte sich ein strafrechtlich aufgefallener Politiker mit drittklassig überstandenem Doktortitelaberkennungsverfahren ins Amt klüngeln (Der Fall Marc Jan Euman). Der Landesmediendirektor von NRW fiel mit einem spannenden Verhältnis zur Meinungsfreiheit auf (Rezo-Fallout: „Wir brauchen Regeln gegen Desinformation“). Etliche Landesmediendirektoren sind Ex-Politiker und daher nicht wirklich unabhängig.
Wer sich dem Zugriff der forschen Medienaufseher entziehen möchte, muss entweder seinen Sitz ins Ausland verlegen oder sich, wie es § 19 MStV als Ausweg vorsieht, dem Pressekodex des Deutschen Presserats unterwerfen. Wer eine solche Selbstverpflichtungserklärung abgibt und vom Presserat akzeptiert wird, kann sich mit einem nach Reichweite gestaffelten „Jahresentgelt“ zwischen 100,- € und 100.000,- € aus der Zuständigkeit der Landesmedienanstalten freikaufen.
Zu einem solchen Ablaßhandel wäre Bloggern dringend zu raten, denn anders als die Landesmedienanstalten verfügt der Presserat nicht über scharfe Waffen, sondern kann bei Verstößen gegen den Pressekodex gerade einmal Flüche ausstoßen wie „Beanstandungen“ und „Rügen“. Im noblen Presserat sitzen außerdem nur Gesandte von Verlagshäusern und Journalistenvereinigungen, die sich einander nur selten ein Auge aushacken. Der Deutsche Presserat ist ein schlechter Witz und spielt im realen Medienrecht keine messbare Rolle.
Dennoch ist es ein fragwürdiger Eingriff in die Medienfreiheit, wenn der Staat Blogger quasi zum Coteau gegenüber dem Presserat nötigt und ihnen eine indirekte Abgabe auferlegt. Mit der Unterwerfung unter den Pressekodex ist übrigens keine Vereinsmitgliedschaft im Presserat mit irgendwelchen Mitspracherechten verbunden. Mitglied im Presserat sind nur große Verlagshäuser und gesalbte Journalisten. Und die verwalten dann demnächst ein Monopol – also genau das, was mit Konzept der Medienvielfalt vermieden werden sollte.
Theoretisch sieht § 19 MStV auch die Möglichkeit vor, sich alternativen „freiwilligen“ Selbstkontrollorganisationen anzuschließen, wenn es solche eines Tages geben sollte. Die allerdings müssten von den Landesmedienanstalten anerkannt werden – die damit ihre seltsamen Auffassungen von Anfang an induziert. Spannend wäre es ja schon, wenn sich der Papiertiger „Deutscher Presserat“ einer Konkurrenz stellen müsste, die das Thema Qualitätsjournalismus zur Abwechslung mal ernst nähme. Wenn sich alternative Presseräte formieren, besteht allerdings das Risiko, als Medium zweiter Klasse eingestuft zu werden, oder gar einer Stigmatisierung durch Assoziation mit „Schmuddelkindern“.
Ob die Medienregulierung des § 19 MStV wirklich überzeugend ist, darf man unterschiedlich bewerten. Langfristig wird sich das Bundesverfassungsgericht mit diesen Konstrukten beschäftigen. Die ersten Blogger und YouTuber stehen bereits in den Startlöchern nach Karlsruhe. Für das Superwahljahr 2021 jedoch wird § 19 MStV voraussichtlich halten.
Ein Verteidiger, der die Interessen seines Mandanten nicht wahrnimmt, sondern ihn verrät, gehört eigentlich aus dem Verkehr gezogen. Sowohl das Berufsrecht, als auch das Strafrecht stellen die dazu notwendigen Instrumente zur Verfügung.
Auch für das Ergebnis eines Ermittlungsverfahrens gilt die alte Züchterweisheit: Erst am Ende werden die Schweine fett. Zwischenergebnisse spielen für das Finale keine Rolle. Über das glückliche Ende eines Drogenhandels.
Was taugen also diese Antigen-Tests die für Schnell- und Selbsttests eingesetzt werden? Prof. Drosten hat ja in seinem gestrigen Podcast auch auf die hohe Fehlerquote des Tests verwiesen. Hier lohnt es sich genau hin zu schauen …
Antigen- oder Lateral-Flow-Tests bekommen eine Probe eines Nasen/Rachenabstriches vorgelegt, die dann in einer Lösung langsam den Teststreifen entlang kriecht (das ist der lateral flow). In zwei Querstreifen befinden sich Farbstoffe, die an Sensormoleküle gebunden sind. Der weiter entfernte Querstreifen reagiert auf das Lösungsmittel und zeigt somit an, dass der Test korrekt benutzt wurde. Am eigentlichen Test-Querstreifen ist der Farbstoff an Antikörper gebunden, die spezifisch auf bestimmte Viruseiweiße reagieren. Derartige Antikörper sind auch Bestandteil des Immunsystems, sie dienen der Erkennung schädlicher Eindringlinge.
Problemfelder
Was kann dabei schief gehen?
Zunächst mal könnte es ein anderes Material geben, dass den Farbstoff zum Leuchten bringt. Säuren sind da beispielsweise geeignet. Deswegen sollte man einige Zeit vor einem Test nichts trinken (außer Wasser). Andere Krankheitserreger lösen den Antikörper nicht aus. Es ist jedoch denkbar, dass nahe Verwandte des SARS-CoV2 ebenfalls eine Reaktion hervor rufen. Praktisch bekannt sind solche Fälle bisher nicht.
Ist wenig Virusmaterial vorhanden, so gibt es nur eine sehr schwache oder gar keine Verfärbung des Teststreifens. Man könnte also eine schwache Linie für fälschlich negativ halten. Dass kein oder zu wenig Material vor liegt kann nicht nur daran liegen, dass die Person virenfrei ist, sondern auch an einem fehlerhaften Abstrich. Wer also nur kurz durch die Nase huscht, riskiert eine zu geringe Probenentnahme. Auch kann die Nase gerade frisch gereinigt worden (Nasenspray etc.) und so evtl. vorhandenes Virenmaterial beseitigt sein.
Darüber hinaus variiert die Virenmenge in den oberen Atemwegen während des Krankheitsverlaufs. So steigt die Virenlast erst einige Tage an (und der Test erkennt nichts), dann ist man infektiös (und der Test schlägt an). bekommt evtl. Symptome, weil sich das Virus in die Lunge verlagern (der Test schlägt nicht mehr an). Insbesondere die ersten Tage stellen ein Problem dar, denn obwohl der Test (gerade noch) negativ ist, ist man einige Zeit später schon infektiös.
Aber auch Umgebungseinflüsse können den Test beeinträchtigen. Ist es zu warm oder zu kalt, erfolgt die notwendige Nachweisreaktion nicht in der benötigten Stärke, der Test wird so unbrauchbar. Natürlich können auch Proben vertauscht werden. Und man sollte die Teststäbchen auch nicht mehrfach benutzen.
Fazit
Summiert man all diese Fehlermöglichkeiten auf, so stellt sich heraus, dass in der Praxis ein positiver Schnelltest fast immer auch eine positive PCR Bestätigung bekommt. Die Fälle in denen der Test falsch positiv ist, sind meist durch Fremdeinwirkung (z.B. Trinken von Cola oder Fruchtsaft) zurück zu führen. Andererseits sagt ein negativer Test wenig aus, denn an drei von acht Tagen des typischen Infektionsverlaufs bleibt er aufgrund der niedrigeren Virenlast negativ. Schlechte Abstriche und falsche Handhabung dazu, kann eine infizierte Person in 40% der Fälle fälschlich als negativ bewertet werden.
Kürzlich hat das RKI davon geschrieben, dass Geimpfte genauso angesehen werden sollen, wie negativ Getestete. Das ist in Anbetracht der gerade vorgenommen Ausführungen völlig verständlich: Geimpfte können sich zwar wieder infizieren und diese Infektion auch weiter geben, aber die Wahrscheinlichkeit dafür ist mit höchstens 10% deutlich kleiner als die 40% false-negative Wahrscheinlichkeit eines Schnelltests.
Das ist deutlich weniger als die Politik aus der Aussage heraus zu lesen versucht: Geimpfte sind also ebenso wenig wie negativ Getestete garantiert ungefährlich, sondern übertragen in einer vergleichbaren Größenordnung das Virus trotzdem weiter.
Der Krux mit den Prozenten
Nehmen wir ein Beispiel: In einer größeren Stadt wurden 10000 Schnelltests an einem Tag durchgeführt. Dabei wurden 20 positive Tests ermittelt. Die Inzidenz in der Gegend liegt bei 150.
Mit einer unbekannten Dunkelziffer (die die Anzahl der Infizierten nach oben treiben würde) und einer Vorselektion auf komplett symptomfreie Nutzer der Schnelltests (was die Anzahl nach unten treibt) ist es eine mögliche Annahme, dass sich diese beiden Effekte neutralisieren. Man kann also die Inzidenz direkt auf die Testmenge anwenden und würde somit 15 Infizierte unter den 10000 Test-Kandidaten erwarten.
Von den 15 Infizierten haben 40% ein falsch-negatives Ergebnis: 6 Personen bekommen also einen negativen Befund, obwohl sie aktive Virenträger sind. Die restlichen 9 Infizierten werden korrekt erkannt. Da aber 20 positive Tests vorliegen, sind elf Personen mit falsch-positiven Resultaten dazu gekommen.
Wenn man selbst zum Testen geht, interessiert man sich natürlich nur für die Wahrscheinlichkeit die der Test bei einem persönlich hat. Ob man infiziert ist oder nicht, weiß man ja nicht. Also gehört man zur Gesamtheit der getesteten Personen. Und da hat der Test also:
11 von 10000 = 0,11% falsch-positive Wahrscheinlichkeit
6 von 10000 = 0,06% falsch-negative Wahrscheinlichkeit
Hat man dann wirklich einen positiven Test (was erst mal unwahrscheinlich ist), dann kann der zu über 50% falsch-positiv sein. Diese massive Vergrößerung ist als bedingte Wahrscheinlichkeit bekannt und der menschlichen Intuition fremd.
Dieses Verschätzen der Intuition ist in die andere Richtung noch viel extremer. Aus der Angabe 40% nimmt man einfach an, dann 4000 Virenträger unerkannt durch die Tests kommen! Real sind es aber nur sechs Personen, also 1,5 Promille der intuitiven Vorstellung.
Schnelltests filtern also Infizierte aus der Masse heraus, verringern aber die Anzahl der Infizierten nicht ausreichend.
Die Verwendung von Schnelltests als Freigabe für Öffnungen und Treffen ist bei hohen Infektionszahlen schlicht fahrlässig. Nur bei niedrigen Inzidenzwerten eignen sich Schnelltests für diesen Zweck. Sie dienen dann dem Auffinden von noch unbekannten Infektionsclustern in einer fast komplett virenfreien Umgebung.
Aus aktuellem Anlass hier nochmal ein Hinweis auf die Auswirkung der Testanzahlen. Wesentlich ist dabei zunächst der Fakt, dass die Infektionen völlig unabhängig von der Teststrategie sind. Die Leute bekommen und haben das Virus auch dann, wenn man nicht testet. Mit Tests kann man sich der Infektionslage annähern, indem man möglichst viele Personen ermittelt, die infiziert sind. Man leuchtet also das Dunkelfeld aus.
Die Infektionen geschehen auch, wenn man nicht testet.
Dabei gibt es vier Gruppen von Personen:
Menschen, deren Infektion schon bekannt ist (aus einem früheren Test). Diese werden regelmäßig wieder getestet, um zu erkennen, wann die Gefahr vorbei ist. Die Positivquote dieser Tests ist sehr hoch: Viele von denen, die bekanntermaßen infiziert sind, bleiben es auch noch für eine ganze Weile. Die Infektion verschwindet nur langsam aus dem Körper, auch wenn die ansteckende Phase schon lange vorbei ist.
Menschen, die typische Covid19-Symptome haben. Diese werden hoffentlich schnell getestet, um Klarheit über ihren Zustand zu erhalten. Meist sind diese Personen noch ansteckend oder haben vor kurzem andere Menschen anstecken können. Auch hier ist die Positivquote der Tests hoch.
Menschen, die durch Kontakte zu als infiziert bekannten Personen (aus Gruppe 2) sich angesteckt haben können. Diese Personen möglichst vollständig zu ermitteln ist Aufgabe des Gesundheitsamtes. Hier ist Geschwindigkeit so ziemlich das Wichtigste. Binnen 24h sollten alle potentiellen Kontaktpersonen benachrichtigt sein, egal ob es gerade Wochentag oder Wochenende ist. Digitalisierung hilft hier massiv. Diese Menschen sind zu testen, um weitere Ansteckungswege zu erkennen. (Zum Verhindern reicht Quarantäne.) Die Positivquote dieser Tests ist ziemlich niedrig, weil (Achtung Überschlag) eine Person zwar 40 Kontakte in zwei Wochen gehabt, aber nur einen oder zwei angesteckt hat (Positivquote bei 3%). Besonders heimtückisch sind Superspreader-Events, bei denen eine Person sehr viele andere angesteckt hat, beispielsweise bei einem längeren, lautstarken Aufenthalt mit vielen Personen in Innenräumen.
Menschen, die sich auf noch unbekannten Wege angesteckt haben. Diese zu finden, ist sehr schwer. Hier kommen Schnelltests zur Vorselektion zum Einsatz, um schnell größere Menschengruppen auf verdächtige Virenausscheidungen zu überprüfen. Die Verdachtsfälle werden dann durch PCR-Tests validiert. Es kommt also bei Schnelltests auf den preiswerten Durchsatz an, nicht auf absolute Genauigkeit. Natürlich sollte der Schnelltest nicht zu viele falsch-negative Ergebnisse bringen, weil das die Ausbreitung der Infektion begünstigt. Eine zu hohe falsch-positiv Quote ist dagegen mehr ein Problem der Akzeptanz des Tests. Da der Schnelltest in einem Umfeld mit wenigen Fällen (niedrige Prävalenz) angewendet wird, ist seine erwartete Positivquote sehr niedrig (0,2% in Jena). Es ist also sinnvoll, Verdachtsgruppen mit höherer Prävalenz (z.B. Reiserückkehrer) komplett mit Schnelltests zu überprüfen.
Wenn also eine Positivquote an Tests von ca. 5% gemeldet wird, sind ausschließlich die Gruppen 1 bis 3 dafür verantwortlich. Positive Tests aus Gruppe 4 spielen fast keine Rolle. Vergrößert man jetzt die Anzahl der Tests in die Gruppe 4 hinein, so erhöht sich die Anzahl der gefundenen Infektionen nur sehr wenig.
Liegt die Positivquote bei höheren Werten, vielleicht sogar über 7% oder gar 10%, dann hat man die Gruppe 3 (Kontakte) nicht ausreichend untersucht. Mehr Tests führen also in dem Fall zu echt mehr gefundenen Infektionen, was aber auch dringend notwendig ist.
Liegt die Positivquote bei niedrigen Werten, vielleicht sogar unter 1%, dann hat man ein sehr umfassendes Bild der Infektionslage (unter der aktuellen Prävalenz). Dazu muss man vermutlich mehr als die Hälfte der Bevölkerung testen, denn die Positivquote kann nicht niedriger sein als die Prävalenz in der Bevölkerung. Alle gefundenen Fälle stecken keine neuen Menschen mehr unkontrolliert an, so dass das Virus sich nicht mehr ausbreiten kann. Dies ist die #NoCovid-Strategie. Erfolgreich durchgeführt kann man dann auch Millionen Menschen testen, ohne einen positiven Fall zu haben. Das Virus ist dann faktisch verschwunden.
Wenig erfreulich sind die Meldungen der letzten Tage, die in einer bedauerlichen Entscheidung Gestern mündeten. Ein Impfstoff wurde ausgesetzt, so dass sehr viel Unsicherheit in die aktuellen Impfvorgänge kommt (Impfungen fallen aus, auch notwendige Zweitimpfungen). Der Grund für diese Vorsichtsmaßnahme sind ein ungewöhnliche Häufung einer sehr speziellen Erkrankung (Sinusvenenthrombose).
Der Normalfall (ohne Impfung) wird so beschrieben: Die genaue Häufigkeit von Sinusthrombosen ist unbekannt. Es wird geschätzt, dass jährlich 3–5 Neuerkrankungen pro 1 Million Einwohner auftreten. Frauen sind im Verhältnis 3:1 häufiger als Männer betroffen. Das mittlere Erkrankungsalter liegt bei 30–40 Jahren.
Die aktuelle Beobachtung (nach Impfung mit AstraZeneca) spricht von 7 Neuerkrankungen pro 1 Million Einwohner. Es sind 6 Frauen und 1 Mann betroffen. Das Erkrankungsalter liegt bei 25–40 Jahren. Kurz gesagt liegt das gleiche Bild vor, wie bei dem Fall ohne Impfung (auch das gleiche Verhältnis und die Altersgruppe) Allerdings halt in den Wochen, in denen geimpft wird, nicht übers ganze Jahr. Es kann natürlich auch daran liegen, dass man sich als Geimpfter etwas genauer selbst beobachtet und damit bislang unentdeckte Thrombosen zum Arzt gelangen. Ein Faktor zehn, der hier auftritt wäre so leicht zu erklären.
Wenn über Spätfolgen oder Langzeitfolgen von Impfungen gesprochen wird, ist genau das gemeint: Sehr selten auftretende Effekte kann man nur beobachten, wenn man sehr viele Personen impft. Der Effekt tritt also erst spät und lange nach Impfbeginn ein, für den betroffenen Einzelfall allerdings binnen weniger Tage. Wer eine Woche nach einer Impfung beschwerdefrei ist, hat nichts mehr zu befürchten, der Impfstoff ist dann nicht mehr im Körper und das Immunsystem ist trainiert. Das unterscheidet eine Impfung (einmalige Aktion) von einem Medikament (häufige, dauerhafte Anwendung). Impfungen haben keine individuellen Langzeitfolgen, wenn man von der erreichten Immunität gegen die Krankheit absieht.Kleiner Einschub: Wenn man noch etwas länger beobachtet, wie in Großbritannien, dann verschwinden die Auffälligkeiten im statistischen Mittel wieder. Es wird interessant sein, ob eine Nachprüfung dort etwas findet.
Soweit zum wissenschaftlichen Teil der Geschichte und damit zur Überlegung des Paul-Ehrlich-Institutes, die für die Impfstoffsicherheit zuständig sind. Man beobachtet ein Verstärktes Auftreten einer sehr seltene Krankheit und vermutet einen Zusammenhang mit einem Impfstoff. So hatte man schon länger von Thrombosen nach Impfungen (bei allen Impfstoffen) gehört und sich beim PEI sicher gedacht: "Das ist immer noch um den Faktor 1000 weniger Risiko als ein Urlaubsflug nach Malle." Erst als es die doch sehr seltenen Sinusthrombosen wurden, war es Zeit zum Handeln.
Aus rein wissenschaftlicher Sicht ist es jetzt an der Zeit, zu untersuchen, ob überhaupt eine Zusammenhang besteht, also ob die Sinusthrombosen AN oder MIT der Impfung auftraten. Dazu braucht man einige Tage. Es ist im Sinne eines wissenschaftlichen Experimentes nun sinnvoll, diese paar Tage mit dem Impfen aufzuhören und das Ergebnis (AN oder MIT) abzuwarten. Möglicherweise handelt es sich um eine hormonelle Abhängigkeit, die für ältere Männer gar nicht zu treffen kann. Man könnte dann also die entsprechende Risikogruppe (junge Frauen, die hormonell verhüten) mit einem anderen Impfstoff impfen. Solche spezifischen Empfehlungen für bestimmte Gruppen sind völlig normal. So ist beispielsweise der BioNtec Impfstoff nicht für schwere Allergiker geeignet.
Und wenn man schon mal dabei ist die Gruppe der hormonell verhütenden jungen Frauen anzuschauen, dann ist dort die Sinusthrombose-Wahrscheinlichkeit bei 30 pro Million und Jahr, was so ziemlich genau der Beobachtung mit dem Impfstoff entspricht. Dann wäre der Impfstoff nicht mal schuld. Er wäre nur das Auswahlkriterium bei der Betrachtung der sowieso erfolgten Krankheitsfälle. Muss man halt untersuchen.
Apropos BioNtec: Lust auf die Liste der beobachteten Auffälligkeiten AN oder MIT Impfstoffen? Hier lang (und dann den Rest des Blogs)
Jetzt aber zur politischen Diskussion, die das eigentliche Ärgernis darstellt. Bekommt ein Gesundheitspolitiker die Information aus der Wissenschaft, dass das was auffällig ist und man besser mal ein paar Tage zurück tritt, dann kann man durchaus einen generellen Impfstopp anordnen. Diese Entscheidungen sind aber immer eine politische Abwägung von verschiedenen Auswirkungen. Würde dei Politik wirklich auf die Wissenschaft hören, hätten wir schon Ende September einen harten, kurzen Lockdown gehabt und wären in ein glückliches virenfreies Weihnachtsgeschäft Anfang Dezember gegangen, die wir mit unbeschwerten Feiern in der Familie gekrönt hätten.
Zur politischen Entscheidung gehört also die Abwägung. Wie viel und welchen Schaden richtet diese Entscheidung, das Impfen auszusetzen an? Schließlich ist Impfstoff generell knapp und die 3. Welle nimmt richtig Fahrt auf. Bereits geimpfte Personen werden von der 3. Welle verschont (sowohl als Infektionstreiber als auch als Kranke). Und man macht einen Impfstoff, den man schon mehrfach durch fragwürdige Kommunikation grundlos in ein schlechtes Licht gerückt hat, für größere Teile der Bevölkerung völlig kaputt. Und das wegen ein paar Tagen?
Hier kommt ein zweiter Faktor ins Spiel, der ebenso ärgerlich ist. Die Medien (nicht nur die sozialen). Quotengeil und aufmerksamkeitshaschend bauscht unsere Medienlandschaft jeden Einzelfall zu einer nationalen Katastrophe auf, anstatt ihrem journalistischen Anspruch gerecht zu werden: Fakten recherieren, Gefahren in ein Gesamtbild einsortieren und die Bevölkerung aufzuklären.
PS: Wer Verschwörungstheorien kommentieren will, schaut sich bitte zuerst die Preispolitik von AstraZeneca an und dann die Sponsorenliste der großen Parteien, die über die Gesundheit maßgeblich entscheiden.
Ein immer wieder geäußerter Verdacht besagt, dass man umso mehr positive Fälle bekommt, je mehr man mehr testet. Das klingt zunächst einleuchtend, ist aber nicht korrekt.
Modellierung
Zur Modellierung beziehe ich mich auf ein paar wohl fundierte Voraussetzungen:
Es gibt eine reale Inzidenz, d.h. ein bestimmter Prozentsatz der Bevölkerung ist aktuell infiziert.
Betrachtet wird ein Schnappschuss des Infektionsgeschehens, weitere Ansteckungen während dieser Zeit bleiben außen vor.
20% der Infizierten hat Symptome.
Jeder Infizierte hat 3,2 weitere Menschen angesteckt.
40% der Menschen, die Symptome haben, sind tatsächlich infiziert.
5% der nachverfolgten Kontakte sind infiziert.
Der Test wirkt zu 100%, er erkennt eine Infektion zweifelsfrei.
Dies bedeutet, dass es einen unentdeckten Rest an Infektionen gibt, der nicht zu den 20% Symptomatischen oder den 64% angesteckten Kontakten gehört. 16% sind also ohne erkennbaren Bezug infiziert. In diesem Modell nehme ich eine Stadt mit 100000 Einwohnern, so dass die Anzahl der positiven Tests und die Inzidenzzahlen identisch sind. So setzen sich 1% Infizierte somit aus 200 Symptomatischen, 640 infizierten Kontakten und 160 unentdeckten Fällen zusammen. Insgesamt ist das eine reale Inzidenz von 1000.
Das Testregime geht strikt vor:
Zuerst werden symptomatische Personen getestet.
Sind noch Kapazitäten frei, so werden Kontaktpersonen getestet.
Sind dann noch Kapazitäten frei, so werden weitere Personen getestet.
Beginnt man mit wenigen Tests, so reicht die Testkapazität nicht aus, alle symptomatischen Personen zu testen. Aber nicht alle Tests sind auch positiv.
Die Anzahl der entdeckten Fälle steigt also linear mit der Anzahl der Tests an, wobei die Positivquote sich bei 40% einpegelt. Das ist genau der Wert, der für den Anteil der Infizierten unter den Symptomatischen vorgegeben war.
Erst, wenn alle 500 symptomatischen Personen auch getestet wurden, um die 200 (40%) Infizierten zu finden, kommen die Kontaktpersonen an die Reihe und die Positivquote sinkt. Man erreicht einen Inzidenzwert von 200, der um den Faktor 5 zu niedrig ist. Ja, das ist genau die gern bemühte Dunkelziffer vom Frühjahr 2020.
Auch jetzt muss wieder viel getestet werden, um alle Kontaktpersonen zu überprüfen. Wiederum steigt die Inzidenz mit den Tests linear an, diesmal aber langsamer, denn man liegt oft (zu 95%) falsch. Dabei werden aber schon die ersten Fälle entdeckt, die nichts mit den ursprünglichen Ansteckungsverhältnissen zu tun haben.
Hat man alle Kontaktpersonen durch stabilisiert sich die Inzidenz bei 840 (von real 1000). Die Positivquote ist inzwischen auf ca 7% gefallen. Die Dunkelziffer beträgt nach der Ausleuchtung der Kontakte nur noch bei 1,2. Man ist also schon ziemlich nahe dran.
Weitere Tests hellen das Dunkelfeld immer weiter auf, die Positivqoute sinkt weiter, bis sie die realen 1% der Infektionsrate erreicht hat.
Fazit
Die Erhöhung der Tests führt zu erhöhten Inzidenzzahlen, indem die noch unentdeckten Fälle aufgedeckt werden. Die Anzahl der positiven Tests überschreitet dabei niemals die realen Fälle, es wird nur das Maß der Unbestimmtheit verringert.
Das geschieht in drei Stufen: Nach der Aufdeckung der symptomatischen Fälle kommt es zur ersten Stagnation, eine Erhöhung der Tests führt nicht mehr im gleichen Maße zu einer Erhöhung der positiven Fälle. Die Positivquote sinkt.
Nach der Aufdeckung der Kontakte kommt es zu einer weiteren Stagnation, eine Erhöhung der Tests führt nicht mehr im gleichen Maße zu einer Erhöhung der positiven Fälle. Die Positivquote sinkt weiter. Dabei ist schon fast das ganze Infektionsgeschehen sichtbar. Es sind dafür fast 10% der Bevölkerung zu testen.
Die restlichen 90% der Bevölkerung zu testen, führt zur Aufdeckung der restlichen 16% der Fälle und damit zum Erliegen der Ausbreitung. Bis zur nächsten Einschleppung.
Es ist nicht möglich, durch mehr Tests beliebig hohe Inzidenzen zu erreichen. Man kann eine Pandemie nicht herbei testen!
Ein realistischeres Beispiel
Ganz offensichtlich sind 1% Infektion in der Bevölkerung extrem viel. Dies würde bedeuten, dass in Folge dieses Geschehens ca. 20 Personen versterben (2% Tödlichkeit). Eine Inzidenz von 1000 ist weit mehr, als wir hier real erleben und hoffentlich auch nicht erleben müssen.
In Jena (ca. 100000 Einwohner) werden ca. 70 Leute in einer Woche positiv getestet. Dies entspricht in dem Modell einem Schnappschuss, weil es etwa der Zeit der Kontaktnachverfolgung entspricht. Die Positivquote ist ca, 5% (Durchschnitt in Deutschland). Damit wurden 1400 Tests durchgeführt.
Durch Ausprobieren komme ich damit auf eine realen Infektionsrate von 0,085%, d.h. 85 Infizierte (17 mit Symptomen, 54 in den Kontakten und 14 sonstige). Davon werden bei 1400 Tests alle Symptomatische und alle Kontakte gefunden, jedoch kein weiterer Fall. Die beobachtete Inzidenz liegt somit bei 71. Real wären es 85.
Steigert man die Zahl der Tests, so findet man erst bei ca. 4000 Tests den nächsten, bis dahin völlig unbekannten Fall. Man kann auch bis 1200 Tests zurück gehen, ohne einen Fall zu übersehen. Die Anzahl der Tests spielt also keine Rolle mehr für die ermittelte Inzidenz. Nur die Positivquote wandert von 2% zu 6%. Dazu sind nur etwas mehr als 1% der Bevölkerung zu testen.
Mit den 1400 Tests bei einer Inzidenz von 70 liegt Jena also nur knapp über der Schwelle, die notwendig ist, um das Kontaktumfeld auszuleuchten.
Zum Abschluss nochmal das volle Bild für diesen Fall: Jena, gemessene Inzidenz 70 bei 5% Positivquote, reale Inzidenz 85 (= 0,085% Infizierte)
Eine Inzidenz von 70 bedeutet aber auch, dass es in den nächsten drei bis sechs Wochen ein bis zwei weitere Todesfälle geben wird, die auf genau diese Woche zurück gehen. Noch mehr Personen werden nach schwerem Verlauf lange Schäden davon tragen. Und dann kommt schon wieder die nächste Woche.
Wir müssen die Dimension Infektionsschutz und die Dimension Auswirkungen desselben in ein Konzept zu kriegen. Ob es uns gefällt oder nicht, wir brauchen einen härteren Lockdown. Damit das funktioniert, brauchen wir Konzepte, wie dieser Lockdown erträglich wird. … so schreibt Josef Dietel. Aber wie geht das?
Josef schlägt Gruppenbildung und die Umsetzung des ZeroCovid-Konzeptes vor.
Der Kerngedanke ist folgender:
SARS-CoV2 hat eine Inkubationszeit von ein bis zwei Wochen. Die Ansteckungszeit liegt bei ein bis zwei Wochen. In Summe ist man i.d.R. nach der dritten Woche nach einem Risikokontakt nicht mehr ansteckend oder deutlich krank.
SARS-CoV2 verbreitet sich über engen Kontakt mit Austausch von Aerosolen aus den oberen Atemwegen. I.d.R. ist also eine Ansteckung nur möglich, wenn sich Leute treffen und einige Zeit zusammen verbringen.
Isoliert man also eine kleine Gruppe von Menschen über vier bis acht Wochen, so ist hinterher keiner mehr ansteckend, wenn es keine Krankheitsfälle gibt. Je größer die Gruppe umso länger dauert es, weil es interne Infektionswege geben kann.
ZeroCovid macht nun aus diesem Fakten ein Konzept:
Jede beliebige kleine Gruppe von (möglicherweise infizierten) Menschen kann durch eine kurze, harte Quarantäne frei von SARS-CoV2-Viren werden.
Größere Gruppen kann man durch mehrfache Tests aller Mitglieder als virenfrei überprüfen. Da die Krankheit einen zeitlichen Verlauf hat, genügt nicht ein einziger Test, sondern man muss alle Stadien der Virenentwicklung abdecken.
Hat man einen virenfreie Gruppe, so kann diese sich ohne ernsthafte Schutzmaßnahmen frei bewegen.
Tritt wieder ein Fall auf, so muss das Infektionsgeschehen vollständig nachvollzogen werden. Alle möglicherweise in Frage kommenden Kontakte müssen in Quarantäne und kommen nur durch mehrfache Tests wieder raus.
Gibt es auch nur den leisesten Zweifel an der Nachvollziehbarkeit der Infektion, so wird im Sinne der frühzeitigen Brandbekämpfung die gesamte mögliche Umgebung komplett getestet und geht solange in Quarantäne.
Gibt es keinen positiven Test im gesamten Gebiet, ist die Quarantäne aufgehoben.
Gibt es einen positiven Test, wird das Gebiet zurück gestuft und bleibt in Quarantäne und es gibt neue Massentests.
Quarantäne heißt dabei: Kein Verlassen der Wohnung, auch keine Einkäufe. Nur Homeoffice und Homeschooling. Arzt und Essen kommen bei Bedarf ins Haus.
Auf diese Weise bekommt man Städte und Dörfer virenfrei. Sie bekommen eine grünen Kennung und können zum normalen Leben zurück. Aus Vorsicht sind Kontakte in nicht-grünen Bereichen zu vermeiden und wenn überhaupt dann mit Rückkehrquarantäne versehen. Das setzt auch eine hohe Motivation für die Bewohner grüner Bereiche: Wer die Vorsichtsmaßnahmen verletzt, riskiert eine regionale Quarantäne und sogar eine Rückstufung des Gebiets, was mit Verlust der offenen Läden, Clubs, Sportstätten und Restaurants einher geht.
Das klingt hart? Ist es auch.
Das klingt unmöglich? Richtig, weil man nicht weiß, wo man anfangen soll. Man kann ja nicht wie in China einfach virenfreie Menschen aus anderen Regionen ankarren, damit die das öffentliche Leben aufrecht erhalten.
Was also tun? Josef hat da eine Idee. Er schlägt vor, die Einheiten kleiner zu fassen.
Man kann sich freiwillig zu Gruppen zusammen finden, innerhalb derer man sich frei bewegen kann. Man darf keinen Kontakt zu anderen Menschen außerhalb seiner Gruppe haben. Alle Mitglieder einer Gruppe werden einheitlich behandelt und bekommen eine Einstufung von grün, gelb oder rot.
grün: Die Gruppe ist nachweislich virenfrei. Sie unterliegt keinen Einschränkungen.
gelb: Die Gruppe ist wahrscheinlich virenfrei. Infizierte Einzelfälle haben lückenlos aufgeklärte Infektionsketten, die sich in Quarantäne befinden. Mögliche Spreaderevents sind unzulässig.
rot: Die Gruppe ist teilweise durchseucht. Es ist unklar, welche Personen aktuell infiziert und infektiös sind. Die Gruppe ist auf das nötigste beschränkt.
Gruppen gleicher Einstufung können sich zusammen schließen oder trennen. Jede Person ist genau einer Gruppe zugeordnet. Die Zuordnung ist behördlich und im Umfeld der Gruppe bekannt. Dies ermöglicht eine Kontrolle der Gruppenzuordnung. Damit ist es möglich, zumindest innerhalb einer Gruppe, sich sinnvoll zu betätigen und Kontakte zu pflegen. Das macht es leichter.
Die Idee ist nun:
Das Gesundheitsamt nimmt die Umstufung einer Gruppe mit Hilfe von Tests und Gruppen-Quarantäne vor.
Einzelfallquarantäne wird nur in gelben Gruppen angeordnet. Nur hier erfolgte eine Kontaktnachverfolgung, diese dafür intensiv.
Bei Auftreten von neuen Fällen geht die gesamte betroffene Gruppe in die Stufe rot, bis das Gesundheitsamt die gesamte Gruppe komplett getestet hat.
Bereits nach wenigen Tagen das Gesundheitsamt die Gruppe aufteilen in eine gelbe (negative Tests) und eine rote Gruppe (positive Tests plus alle möglichen Kontaktpersonen)
Die gelbe Gruppe kann nach einem zweiten Massentest nach einer Woche in die Stufe grün zurück fallen.
Die rote Gruppe wird schrittweise verkleinert, wobei neue gelbe Kleingruppen entstehen.
Da sich grüne Gruppen zu immer größeren Einheiten zusammen schließen können, kann der Bewegungsfreiraum deutlich erweitert werden. Auch Reisen zwischen diesen Gruppen ist möglich (u.a. auch weltweit zu anderen Ländern mit ZeroCovid-Strategie), solange vor und nach der Reise ein Schnelltest vorgenommen wird.
Die Gruppen entscheiden selbst über ihr Verhalten. Es gibt also einen sozialen Druck, nicht negativ auszuscheren. Es gibt einen sichtbaren Ansporn, sich um eine bessere Gruppeneinstufung zu bemühen. Es gibt klare und überschaubare Intervalle in denen eine Statusänderung möglich ist.
Betriebe - die momentan am meisten unterschätzten Treiber der Pandemie - können Mitarbeiter verschiedener Gruppen im Schichtsystem ins Haus holen, oder selbst durch eigene betriebliche Maßnahmen für eine niedrigere Einstufung ihrer Mitarbeiter beitragen. Es gibt somit eine Motivation der Unternehmen, sich aktiv um besseren Arbeitnehmerschutz vor Ansteckungen zu kümmern.
Wie man erkennen kann, ist die Zeitschiene dieses Verfahrens ziemlich kurz, weil man auch initial kleine Gruppen binnen Monatsfrist auf einen grünen Status bekommt. Dies wäre auf größeren Einheiten, wie Landkreise, nicht möglich.
Menschen, die sich nicht an die Regeln halten wollen, landen in Gruppen mit Gleichgesinnten. Sie gefährden damit nicht länger die Entwicklung der anderen Gruppen mit denen sie aktuell noch zusammen erfasst werden.
Die aufzuwendenden Ressoucen wie Tests und Kontaktnachverfolgung werden wesentlich effektiver eingesetzt.
astralcodexten.substack.com: Lockdown Effectiveness: Much More Than You Wanted To Know
Sometimes you want to modify a PDF file so it will print a certain way. We’ve already talked about how to merge odd and even pages, for example, but there are a few other commands you might want for this purpose:
Das ist die Transkription einer Folge meines Sternengeschichten-Podcasts. Die Folge gibt es auch als MP3-Download und YouTube-Video. Und den ganzen Podcast findet ihr auch bei Spotify.
View on my website
View on my website
