Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Peter Boumgarden, Professor of Family Enterprise, Washington University in St. Louis

Imagine it’s April 2025 and you’re the owner of a small but fast-growing e-commerce business. Historically, you’ve sourced products from China, but the president just announced tariffs of 145% on these goods. Do you set up operations in Thailand – requiring new investment and a lot of work – or wait until there’s more clarity on trade? What if waiting too long means you miss your chance to pull it off?

This isn’t a hypothetical – it’s a real dilemma faced by a real business owner who spoke with one of us over coffee this past spring. And she’s not alone. As of 2023, of those U.S. companies that import goods, more than 97% of them were small businesses. For these companies, tariff uncertainty isn’t just frustrating – it’s paralyzing.

As a family business researcher and a former deputy administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration and entrepreneur, we hear from a lot of small-business owners grappling with these challenges. And what they tell us is that tariff uncertainty is stressing their time, resources and attention.

The data backs up our anecdotal experience: More than 70% of small-business owners say constant shifts in trade policy create a “whiplash effect” that makes it difficult to plan, a recent national survey showed.

Unlike larger organizations with teams of analysts to inform their decision-making, small-business owners are often on their own. In an all-hands-on-deck operation, every hour spent focusing on trade policy news or filling out additional paperwork means precious time away from day-to-day, core operations. That means rapid trade policy shifts leave small businesses especially at a disadvantage.

Planning for stability in an uncertain landscape

Critics and supporters alike can agree: The Trump administration has taken an unpredictable approach to trade policy, promising and delaying new tariffs again and again. Consider its so-called “reciprocal” tariffs. Back in April, Trump pledged a baseline 10% tariff on imports from nearly everywhere, with extra hikes on many countries. Not long afterward, it hit pause on its plans for 90 days. That period just ended, and the administration followed up with a new executive order on July 31 naming different tariff rates for about 70 countries. The one constant has been change.

This approach has upended long-standing trade relationships in a matter of days or weeks. And regardless of the outcomes, the uncertainty itself is especially disruptive to small businesses. One recent survey of 4,000 small-business owners found that the biggest challenge of tariff policies is the sheer uncertainty they cause.

This isn’t just a problem for small-business owners themselves. These companies employ nearly half of working Americans and play an essential role in the U.S. economy. That may partly explain why Americans overwhelmingly support small businesses, viewing them as positive for society and a key path for achieving the American dream. If you’re skeptical, just look at the growing number of MBA graduates who are turning down offers at big companies to buy and run small businesses.

But this consensus doesn’t always translate into policies that help small businesses thrive. In fact, because small businesses often operate on thinner margins and have less capacity to absorb disruptions, any policy shift is likely to be more difficult for them to weather than it would be for a larger firm with deeper pockets. The ongoing tariff saga is just the most recent example.

Slow, steady policies help small-business owners

Given these realities, we recommend the final negotiated changes to trade policy be rolled out slowly. Although that wouldn’t prevent businesses from facing supply chain disruptions, it would at least give them time to consider alternate suppliers or prepare in other ways. From the perspective of a small-business owner, having that space to plan can make a real difference.

Similarly, if policymakers want to bring more manufacturing back to the U.S., tariffs alone can accomplish only so much. Small manufacturers need to hire people, and with unemployment at just over 4%, there’s already a shortage of workers qualified for increasingly high-skilled manufacturing roles.

Making reshoring a true long-term policy objective would require creating pathways for legal immigration and investing significantly in job training. And if the path toward reshoring is more about automation than labor, then preparing small-business owners for the changes ahead and helping them fund growth strategically will be crucial.

Small businesses would benefit from more government-backed funding and training. The Small Business Administration is uniquely positioned to support small firms as they adjust their supply chains and manufacturing – it could offer affordable financing for imports and exports, restructure existing loans that small businesses have had to take on, and offer technical support and education on new regulations and paperwork. Unfortunately, the SBA has slashed 43% of its workforce and closed offices in major cities including Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, New Orleans and Los Angeles. We think this is a step in the wrong direction.

Universities also have an important role to play in supporting small businesses. Research shows that teaching core management skills can improve key business outcomes, such as profitability and growth. We recommend business and trade schools increase their focus on small firms and the unique challenges they face. Whether through executive programs for small-business owners or student consulting projects, universities have a significant opportunity to lean into supporting Main Street entrepreneurs.

Thirty-five million small businesses are the engine of the U.S. economy. They are the job creators in cities and towns across this country. They are the heartbeat of American communities. As the nation undergoes rapid and profound policy shifts, we encourage leaders in government and academia to take action to ensure that Main Streets across America not only endure but thrive.

The authors would like to thank Gretchen Abraham and Matt Sonneborn for their support.

Dilawar Syed is a board member of Small Business Majority, a nonprofit organization.

Peter Boumgarden does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. For America’s 35M small businesses, tariff uncertainty hits especially hard – https://theconversation.com/for-americas-35m-small-businesses-tariff-uncertainty-hits-especially-hard-262306

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Jill Lens, Professor of Law, University of Iowa

About 60 pregnancies per day in the U.S. end in stillbirth.

The best way to find out why a stillbirth occurred is a fetal autopsy – yet these procedures are performed in only 1 in 5 of the over 20,000 stillbirths that occur each year. As I explain in my recent book, “Stillbirth and the Law,” the fact that so few fetal autopsies are performed after stillbirths is actually a driver of the disproprotionately high number of stillbirths in the U.S.

One major exception to the rarity of fetal autopsies is when pregnancy loss ends with criminal arrest. Arrests after pregnancy loss are not new, but according to data compiled by the nonprofit group Pregnancy Justice, they have increased since the Supreme Court overturned the federal constitutional right to abortion in 2022.

As a legal scholar who studies pregnancy loss and its potential legal implications, I’m struck by this disparity: Autopsies are rare when the goal is general medical insight about the causes of stillbirth and pregnancy loss more generally, but they are seemingly routine when criminal consequences are possible.

Stillbirth and the inevitability myth

In the U.S., pregnancy loss before 20 weeks is called miscarriage, and pregnancy loss after 20 weeks is called stillbirth. Miscarriage is much more common, with some studies estimating it occurs in as many as 1 in 4 pregnancies. Stillbirth is rarer, but the incidence is still surprisingly high. Currently, about 1 in 170 births in the U.S. is a stillbirth, a rate higher than in many other high-income countries.

Moreover, that number masks a dramatic racial disparity. Black women in the U.S. face double the risk of stillbirth compared with white women.

Doctors – and, consequently, their patients – widely assume that pregnancy losses are inevitable. That’s relatively accurate for miscarriages, especially those before 12 weeks, which researchers believe are usually caused by chromosomal abnormalities. But it’s not accurate for stillbirths: Research shows that abnormalities account for fewer than 8% of stillbirths after 28 weeks.

In the U.S., at least 1 in 4 stillbirths are preventable – and that rate is closer to 50% for stillbirths at term, meaning after 37 weeks of pregnancy. Yet there’s been little movement toward prevention. According to a 2020 UNICEF report, the U.S. ranks 185th out of 195 countries in reductions to stillbirth rates from 2000-2019.

The U.S. outpaces other high-income countries in maternal mortality – rates that continue to rise dramatically – and in infant and child mortality. It’s also worth noting that the number of stillborn babies every year in the U.S. consistently exceeds the number of infant deaths from all causes.

The rarity of fetal autopsies

There is no one solution to reducing the U.S.’s stillbirth rate, but gathering data about its causes is a necessary step. A fetal autopsy is widely considered the gold standard for determining the cause of death after stillbirth. The autopsy procedure is extensive, with X-rays, external evaluations of the baby and examinations of internal organs and tissue sampling.

Not only are fetal autopsies extremely rare, but the data from fetal autopsies that do occur is likely not representative. Women with higher levels of education are more likely to get a fetal autopsy after stillbirth. Women with lesser income, however, have double the risk of stillbirth.

One barrier is cost. Many hospitals will not cover the costs of a fetal autopsy. Medicaid does not cover the exam either, and neither do many private insurance companies. Out-of-pocket costs range from $1,500 to $5,000. Stillbirth is surprisingly expensive, and many families understandably choose to use their funds to cover other costs.

The way that doctors bring up the subject of fetal autopsy can also influence whether parents decide on one. Research suggests that parents often do not receive compassionate counseling on this issue. Some parents reported feeling that providers actively discourage them from having one. Providers often lack knowledge about the benefits of fetal autopsy and of the process itself. Doctors’ reactions to stillbirth as a rare, freak event dissuades parents from exploring the cause of their child’s stillbirth and conveys that nothing would be gained from a fetal autopsy.

Finally, there simply aren’t enough qualified pathologists who have expertise in stillbirth evaluation in the U.S. Fetal autopsies are complex. Performing them requires synthesizing knowledge about birth defects, genetic syndromes, maternal effects, fetal development and more. Pathologists must evaluate the placenta and the umbilical cord and factor in maternal health. According to a 2019 report, only 268 out of more than 21,000 pathologists in the U.S. had specialized training in pediatric pathology. And even those pathologists are not guaranteed to have expertise in evaluating fetal or neonatal deaths.

Fetal autopsies’ misuse as criminal evidence

In my view, the rarity of fetal autopsies feeds a sort of vicious cycle. If the cause of a stillbirth is unknown, it opens the doors to suspicion that the pregnant person caused their pregnancy loss.

Overwhelmingly, the women who have been arrested after their pregnancy loss have been from marginalized communities, suggesting that bias also plays a strong role in these arrests. And in these cases, fetal autopsies are common. For instance, authorities conducted one on the fetus of Selena Chandler-Scott in April 2025, when she was arrested after having a miscarriage at 19 weeks. A pathologist concluded from the autopsy that Chandler-Scott did not cause the miscarriage.

More often though, autopsies in such cases are used to conclude that the pregnant person was at fault. There’s every reason, however, to question those conclusions. Fetal autopsies help identify underlying causes of pregnancy loss only when performed by pathologists specifically qualified to perform them. And in many high-profile criminal cases, it’s clear that pathologists lacked the required expertise to assess fetal deaths.

Consider, for example, Rennie Gibbs, who experienced a stillbirth in Mississippi when she was 16. Her baby girl was born with the umbilical cord wrapped around her neck, yet the de facto state medical examiner at the time – who was not a certified pathologist and therefore clearly lacked the needed specialization – concluded she had died due to Gibbs’ cocaine use. Chelsea Becker of California had at least three infections that increase the risk of stillbirth, yet the pathologist, who also lacked the needed specialization, concluded the baby died due to Becker’s methamphetamine use – and later admitted he had never even looked at her medical history.

But it’s hard to rebut these conclusions without building a foundation of research on why stillbirths are happening. Fetal autopsies performed by qualified pathologists to systematically assess the causes of death are a key component of that research – which, I believe, will both help prevent stillbirths and decrease the inclination to blame people who experience pregnancy loss.

Jill Lens is on the Board of Directors of PUSH for Empowered Pregnancy, a nonprofit group.

– ref. Fetal autopsies could help prevent stillbirths, but too often they are used to blame mothers for pregnancy loss – https://theconversation.com/fetal-autopsies-could-help-prevent-stillbirths-but-too-often-they-are-used-to-blame-mothers-for-pregnancy-loss-253898

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Tanner Ethan Walker, Assistant Professor of Religion, Wesleyan University

The biblical figure of Samson has long been understood as a man of brute strength, a warrior on the margins of society whose story is often defined by violence and destruction. Yet alongside his strength, Samson is known for his entanglements with women.

Samson’s story is told in the Book of Judges, Chapters 13-16. In the biblical context, judges were not legal authorities but leaders meant to rescue the Israelites from oppression. Samson is one such judge, chosen by the deity before birth to deliver the Israelites from Philistine rule.

With his enormous strength, Samson performs extraordinary feats, including slaying a lion with his bare hands and massacring a Philistine army with a donkey’s jawbone.

He is feared by both Israelites and Philistines; he engages in acts of destruction without clear goals. He often acts against the Philistines not in defense of the Israelites, but due to personal grievances. He eventually dies alongside his enemies, the Philistines.

Many scholarly and theological interpretations highlight his impulsive nature. Even as a heroic, superhuman and legendary figure, Samson is not often viewed as a role model, but as someone driven by unchecked appetites and poor judgment.

But the story of Samson is defined also by Samson’s failed search for companionship. Samson attempts to marry a Philistine woman who betrays his trust. Later, he famously falls in love with Delilah, a woman who learns the secret of his strength and has his hair cut, robbing him of his power and leading to his capture.

In my work as a Hebrew Bible scholar, I read the text through the lens of intimacy. I argue that the text, as much as it emphasizes Samson’s violence, also emphasizes his emotional depth and search for romantic connection.

Stronger than a lion

Spurning social norms and the wishes of his parents, Samson, who was born to an Israelite mother, decides to marry a Philistine woman. At the wedding, he poses a seemingly lighthearted riddle to those gathered. He wagers 30 linen and festal garments with the guests that they won’t be able to solve it.

Prior to the wedding, Samson had encountered a lion on the road and, through sheer strength, killed it with his bare hands.

Later, he found something equally remarkable: Bees had made honey within the lion’s remains. Rather than sharing this discovery with others, Samson kept it to himself, eating the honey in silence.

This hidden act provides the foundation for the riddle he presents to the Philistines: “Out of the eater came something to eat, out of the strong came something sweet.”

Because Samson has told no one about this act, the Philistines cannot solve Samson’s riddle. Not wanting to lose the wager, they coerce his bride into betraying Samson’s trust. Under threat, she pushes for Samson to reveal the answer to her.

Seeing her distress and need for the answer to his riddle, Samson gives her the key to understanding his riddle. She then conveys theses “answers” to the Philistines, who then presumably repeat the words he had spoken to her back to him: “What is sweeter than honey? What is stronger than a lion?”

Samson’s intimacy and betrayal

These “answers” are odd. Not only are they questions, they are only a partial answer to Samson’s original riddle. Additionally, rather than being rhetorical questions, which both Samson’s bride and the Philistines assume them to be, both questions have definite answers.

Samson himself is stronger than a lion – he proved this when he killed one with his bare hands. And the question of “what is sweeter than honey?” should not be viewed as rhetorical either. While biblical texts sometimes liken honey to wisdom or divine instruction, these explanations do not fully align with Samson’s context. He is not asking about abstract virtues or knowledge; his riddle was spoken to his bride in an intimate setting.

Ancient Akkadian love poetry, written in ancient Mesopotamia potentially alongside many of the stories in the Hebrew Bible, repeatedly describes love and intimacy as being “sweeter than honey.” Lovers describe their passion in this way to evoke both physical pleasure and emotional connection.

With this in mind, I argue that Samson is attempting to express something personal and meaningful to his bride. When she pushes him for the answer to his riddle, he instead poses a new riddle to her alone: Two questions with definite answers – answers she should know if she is going to be his bride.

In effect, he’s saying, “I am stronger than a lion, and our love will be sweeter than honey.” His use of language is not that of a brute but of a man trying to forge a connection through poetic expression.

Yet his bride cannot answer the questions. She immediately betrays him, repeating the same questions he presented to her back to the Philistines who had threatened her. When the Philistines repeat his words back to him, they strip them of their intimacy, turning them into public mockery.

The narrative, then, does not present Samson as merely a violent strongman but as a thoughtful figure who uses language to seek connection.

Vulnerability and intimacy

Unlike other judges in the Hebrew Bible, Samson does not lead an army, unite Israel, or receive divine commands in the traditional sense. Instead, he operates in near-total isolation, a figure alienated by his divine strength.

This isolation is mirrored in his relationships. After the incident with the riddle, Samson leaves and his Philistine bride is married to another man. This first attempt at marriage is overshadowed by secrecy, betrayal and coercion. His bride is manipulated by the Philistines, forced to extract the answer to his riddle under the threat of violence.

Even in his final relationship with Delilah, Samson displays a striking willingness to trust after a lifetime of betrayal.

In Judges 16, Delilah asks Samson repeatedly to reveal the secret of his strength, and each time he gives her the wrong answer. This back-and-forth seems to be a game between them. He tells her a false answer and she uses it against him, attempting to have him captured by the Philistines.

After three such attempts, each one ending with an ambush, Samson still remains with her. Eventually, he reveals that his strength is tied to his uncut hair. The deity had ordered that Samson not cut his hair, and here Samson reveals that it is the source of his divine strength.

This moment of confession following clear signs of manipulation from Delilah, in my reading, is not foolishness – it is a final act of vulnerability, a deliberate choice to seek intimacy despite the cost. His relationships are not simply careless indulgences; they reflect a deep desire to be known and loved for more than his strength, even in the face of danger.

Rethinking Samson’s story

By reevaluating the Samson narrative, readers can move beyond the one-dimensional portrayal of him as an overly masculine, violent brute.

His story is not just one of strength but also of longing, intimacy and deep emotional vulnerability. His riddle may not be a challenge meant to humiliate his enemies, but an expression of personal connection, one that is ultimately betrayed.

Tanner Ethan Walker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Beyond brute strength: A fresh look at Samson’s search for intimacy in the Hebrew Bible – https://theconversation.com/beyond-brute-strength-a-fresh-look-at-samsons-search-for-intimacy-in-the-hebrew-bible-248820

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Bill Smith, Ph.D. Candidate in Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University

Black holes are massive, strange and incredibly powerful astronomical objects. Scientists know that supermassive black holes reside in the centers of most galaxies.

And they understand how certain stars form the comparatively smaller stellar mass black holes once they reach the end of their life. Understanding how the smaller stellar mass black holes could form the supermassive black holes helps astronomers learn about how the universe grows and evolves.

But there’s an open question in black hole research: What about black holes with masses in between? These are much harder to find than their stellar and supermassive peers, in size range of a few hundred to a few hundred thousand times the mass of the Sun.

We’re a team of astronomers who are searching for these in-between black holes, called intermediate black holes. In a new paper, two of us (Krystal and Karan) teamed up with a group of researchers, including postdoctoral researcher Anjali Yelikar, to look at ripples in space-time to spot a few of these elusive black holes merging.

Take me out to the (gravitational wave) ball game

To gain an intuitive idea of how scientists detect stellar mass black holes, imagine you are at a baseball game where you’re sitting directly behind a big concrete column and can’t see the diamond. Even worse, the crowd is deafeningly loud, so it is also nearly impossible to see or hear the game.

But you’re a scientist, so you take out a high-quality microphone and your computer and write a computer algorithm that can take audio data and separate the crowd’s noise from the “thunk” of a bat hitting a ball.

You start recording, and, with enough practice and updates to your hardware and software, you can begin following the game, getting a sense of when a ball is hit, what direction it goes, when it hits a glove, where runners’ feet pound into the dirt and more.

Admittedly, this is a challenging way to watch a baseball game. But unlike baseball, when observing the universe, sometimes the challenging way is all we have.

This principle of recording sound and using computer algorithms to isolate certain sound waves to determine what they are and where they are coming from is similar to how astronomers like us study gravitational waves. Gravitational waves are ripples in space-time that allow us to observe objects such as black holes.

Now imagine implementing a different sound algorithm, testing it over several innings of the game and finding a particular hit that no legal combination of bats and balls could have produced. Imagine the data was suggesting that the ball was bigger and heavier than a legal baseball could be. If our paper was about a baseball game instead of gravitational waves, that’s what we would have found.

Listening for gravitational waves

While the baseball recording setup is designed specifically to hear the sounds of a baseball game, scientists use a specialized observatory called the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, or LIGO, to observe the “sound” of two black holes merging out in the universe.

Scientists look for the gravitational waves that we can measure using LIGO, which has one of the most mind-bogglingly advanced laser and optics systems ever created.

In each event, two “parent” black holes merge into a single, more massive black hole. Using LIGO data, scientists can figure out where and how far away the merger happened, how massive the parents and resultant black holes are, which direction in the sky the merger happened and other key details.

Most of the parent black holes in merger events originally form from stars that have reached the end of their lives – these are stellar mass black holes.

The black hole mass gap

Not every dying star can create a stellar mass black hole. The ones that do are usually between about 20 to 100 times the mass of the Sun. But due to complicated nuclear physics, really massive stars explode differently and don’t leave behind any remnant, black hole or otherwise.

These physics create what we refer to as the “mass gap” in black holes. A smaller black hole likely formed from a dying star. But we know that a black hole more massive than about 60 times the size of the Sun, while not a supermassive black hole, is still too big to have formed directly from a dying star.

The exact cutoff for the mass gap is still somewhat uncertain, and many astrophysicists are working on more precise measurements. However, we are confident that the mass gaps exist and that we are in the ballpark of the boundary.

We call black holes in this gap lite intermediate mass black holes or lite IMBHs, because they are the least massive black holes that we expect to exist from sources other than stars. They are no longer considered stellar mass black holes.

Calling them “intermediate” also doesn’t quite capture why they are special. They are special because they are much harder to find, astronomers still aren’t sure what astronomical events might create them, and they fill a gap in astronomers’ knowledge of how the universe grows and evolves.

Evidence for IMBHs

In our research, we analyzed 11 black hole merger candidates from LIGO’s third observing run. These candidates were possibly gravitational wave signals that looked promising but still needed more analysis to conclusively confirm.

The data suggested that for those 11 we analyzed, their final post-merger black hole may have been in the lite IMBH range. We found five post-merger black holes that our analysis was 90% confident were lite IMBHs.

Even more critically, we found that one of the events had a parent black hole that was in the mass gap range, and two had parent black holes above the mass gap range. Since we know these black holes can’t come from stars directly, this finding suggests that the universe has some other way of creating black holes this massive.

A parent black hole this massive may already be the product of two other black holes that merged in the past, so observing more IMBHs can help us understand how often black holes are able to “find” each other and merge out in the universe.

LIGO is in the end stages of its fourth observing run. Since this work used data from the third observing run, we are excited to apply our analysis to this new dataset. We expect to continue to search for lite IMBHs, and with this new data we will improve our understanding of how to more confidently “hear” these signals from more massive black holes above all the noise.

We hope this work not only strengthens the case for lite IMBHs in general but helps shed more light on how they are formed.

Bill Smith receives funding from an NSF Research Trainee Grant called EMIT.

Karan Jani is a member of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

Krystal Ruiz-Rocha receives funding from an NSF research grant called EMIT.

– ref. Meet ‘lite intermediate black holes,’ the supermassive black hole’s smaller, much more mysterious cousin – https://theconversation.com/meet-lite-intermediate-black-holes-the-supermassive-black-holes-smaller-much-more-mysterious-cousin-259976

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Christopher Palma, Teaching Professor of Astronomy & Astrophysics, Penn State

During a solar eclipse, astronomers who study heliophysics are able to study the Sun’s corona – its outer atmosphere – in ways they are unable to do at any other time.

The brightest part of the Sun is so bright that it blocks the faint light from the corona, so it is invisible to most of the instruments astronomers use. The exception is when the Moon blocks the Sun, casting a shadow on the Earth during an eclipse. But as an astronomer, I know eclipses are rare, they last only a few minutes, and they are visible only on narrow paths across the Earth. So, researchers have to work hard to get their equipment to the right place to capture these short, infrequent events.

In their quest to learn more about the Sun, scientists at the European Space Agency have built and launched a new probe designed specifically to create artificial eclipses.

Meet Proba-3

This probe, called Proba-3, works just like a real solar eclipse. One spacecraft, which is roughly circular when viewed from the front, orbits closer to the Sun, and its job is to block the bright parts of the Sun, acting as the Moon would in a real eclipse. It casts a shadow on a second probe that has a camera capable of photographing the resulting artificial eclipse.

Having two separate spacecraft flying independently but in such a way that one casts a shadow on the other is a challenging task. But future missions depend on scientists figuring out how to make this precision choreography technology work, and so Proba-3 is a test.

This technology is helping to pave the way for future missions that could include satellites that dock with and deorbit dead satellites or powerful telescopes with instruments located far from their main mirrors.

The side benefit is that researchers get to practice by taking important scientific photos of the Sun’s corona, allowing them to learn more about the Sun at the same time.

An immense challenge

The two satellites launched in 2024 and entered orbits that approach Earth as close as 372 miles (600 kilometers) – that’s about 50% farther from Earth than the International Space Station – and reach more than 37,282 miles (60,000 km) at their most distant point, about one-sixth of the way to the Moon.

During this orbit, the satellites move at speeds between 5,400 miles per hour (8,690 kilometers per hour) and 79,200 mph (127,460 kph). At their slowest, they’re still moving fast enough to go from New York City to Philadelphia in one minute.

While flying at that speed, they can control themselves automatically, without a human guiding them, and fly 492 feet (150 meters) apart – a separation that is longer than the length of a typical football stadium – while still keeping their locations aligned to about one millimeter.

They needed to maintain that precise flying pattern for hours in order to take a picture of the Sun’s corona, and they did it in June 2025.

The Proba-3 mission is also studying space weather by observing high-energy particles that the Sun ejects out into space, sometimes in the direction of the Earth. Space weather causes the aurora, also known as the northern lights, on Earth.

While the aurora is beautiful, solar storms can also harm Earth-orbiting satellites. The hope is that Proba-3 will help scientists continue learning about the Sun and better predict dangerous space weather events in time to protect sensitive satellites.

Christopher Palma does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. 2 spacecraft flew exactly in line to imitate a solar eclipse, capture a stunning image and test new tech – https://theconversation.com/2-spacecraft-flew-exactly-in-line-to-imitate-a-solar-eclipse-capture-a-stunning-image-and-test-new-tech-259362

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Frank and Bethine Church Endowed Chair of Public Affairs, Boise State University

President Donald Trump is again attacking the American press – this time not with fiery rally speeches or by calling the media “the enemy of the people,” but through the courts.

Since the heat of the November 2024 election, and continuing into July, Trump has filed defamation lawsuits against “60 Minutes” broadcaster CBS News and The Wall Street Journal. He has also sued the Des Moines Register for publishing a poll just before the 2024 election that Trump alleges exaggerated support for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and thus constituted election interference and fraud.

These are in addition to other lawsuits Trump filed against the news media during his first term and during his years out of office between 2021 and 2025.

At the heart of Trump’s complaints is a familiar refrain: The media is not only biased, but dishonest, corrupt and dangerous.

The president isn’t just upset about reporting on him that he thinks is unfair. He wants to redefine what counts as libel and make it easier for public officials to sue for damages. A libel suit is a civil tort claim seeking damages when a person believes something false has been printed or broadcast about them and so harmed their reputation.

Redefining libel in this way would require overturning the Supreme Court’s 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, one of the most important First Amendment legal rulings in American constitutional history

Trump made overturning Sullivan a talking point during his first campaign for president; his lawsuits now put that threat into action. And they raise the question: What happened in Sullivan, and why does it still matter?

What Sullivan was about

As chair of a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I have written two books about the media and the presidency, and another about media ethics. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and why healthy democracies rely on free expression.

In 1960, The New York Times published a full-page advertisement titled “Heed Their Rising Voices”. The ad, which included an appeal for readers to send money in support of Martin Luther King Jr. and the movement against Jim Crow, described brutal and unjust treatment of Black students and protesters in Montgomery, Alabama. It also emphasized episodes of police violence against peaceful demonstrations.

The ad was not entirely accurate in its description of the behavior of either protesters or the police.

It claimed, for instance, that activists had sung “My Country ’Tis of Thee” on the steps of the state capitol during a rally, when they actually had sung the national anthem. It said that “truckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear-gas” had “ringed” a college campus, when the police had only been deployed nearby. And it asserted that King had been arrested seven times in Alabama, when the real number was four.

Though the ad did not identify any individual public officials by name, it disparaged the behavior of Montgomery police.

That’s where L.B. Sullivan came in.

As Montgomery’s police commissioner, he oversaw the police department. Sullivan claimed that because the ad maligned the conduct of law enforcement, it had implicitly defamed him. In 1960 in Alabama, a primary defense against libel was truth. But since there were mistakes in the ad, a truth defense could not be raised. Sullivan sued for damages, and an Alabama jury awarded him US$500,000, equivalent to $5,450,000 in 2025.

The message to the press was clear: criticize Southern officials and risk being sued out of existence.

In fact, the Sullivan lawsuit was not an isolated incident, but part of a broader strategy. In addition to Sullivan, four other Montgomery officials filed suits against the Times.

In Birmingham, public officials filed seven libel lawsuits over Times reporter Harrison Salisbury’s trenchant reporting about racism in that city. The lawsuits helped push the Times to the edge of bankruptcy. Salisbury was even indicted for seditious libel and faced up to 21 years in prison.

Alabama officials also sued CBS, The Associated Press, the Saturday Evening Post and Ladies’ Home Journal – all for reporting on civil rights and the South’s brutal response.

The Supreme Court decision

The jury’s verdict in favor of Sullivan was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in 1964.

Writing for the court, Justice William Brennan held that public officials cannot prevail in defamation lawsuits merely by showing that statements are false. Instead, they must prove such statements are made with “actual malice”. Actual malice means a reporter or press outlet knew their story was false or else acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

The decision set a high bar.

Before the ruling, the First Amendment’s protections for speech and the press didn’t offer much help to the press in libel cases.

After it, public officials who wanted to sue the press would have to prove “actual malice” – real, purposeful untruths that caused harm. Honest mistakes weren’t enough to prevail in such lawsuits. The court held that errors are inevitable in public debate and that protecting those mistakes is essential to keeping debate open and free.

Nonviolent protest and the press

In essence, the court ruling blocked government officials from suing for libel with ulterior motives.

King and other civil rights leaders relied on a strategy of nonviolent protest to expose injustice through public, visible actions.

When protesters were arrested, beaten or hosed in the streets, their goal was not chaos – it was clarity. They wanted the nation to see what Southern oppression looked like. For that, they needed press coverage.

If Sullivan’s lawsuit had succeeded, it could have bullied the press away from covering civil rights altogether. The Supreme Court recognized this danger.

Public officials treated differently

Another key element of the court’s reasoning was its distinction between public officials and private citizens.

Elected leaders, the court said, can use mass media to defend themselves in ways ordinary people cannot.

“The public official certainly has equal if not greater access than most private citizens to media of communication,” Justice Brennan wrote in the Sullivan ruling.

Trump is a perfect example of this dynamic. He masterfully uses social media, rallies, televised interviews and impromptu remarks to push back. He doesn’t need the courts.

Giving public officials the power to sue over news stories they dislike could well create a chilling effect on the media that undermines government accountability and distorts public discourse.

“The theory of our Constitution is that every citizen may speak his mind and every newspaper express its view on matters of public concern and may not be barred from speaking or publishing because those in control of government think that what is said or written is unwise,” Brennan wrote.

“In a democratic society, one who assumes to act for the citizens in an executive, legislative, or judicial capacity must expect that his official acts will be commented upon and criticized.”

Why Sullivan still matters

The Sullivan ruling is more than a legal doctrine. It is a shared agreement about the kind of democracy Americans aspire to. It affirms a press duty to hold power to account, and a public right to hear facts and information that those in power want to suppress.

The ruling protects the right to criticize those in power and affirms that the press is not a nuisance, but an essential part of a functioning democracy. It ensures that political leaders cannot insulate themselves from scrutiny by silencing their critics through intimidation or litigation.

Trump’s lawsuits seek to undo these press protections. He presents himself as the victim of a dishonest press and hopes to use the legal system to punish those he perceives to be his detractors.

The decision in the Sullivan case reminds Americans that democracy doesn’t depend on leaders who feel comfortable. It depends on a public that is free to speak.

Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The case that saved the press – and why Trump wants it gone – https://theconversation.com/the-case-that-saved-the-press-and-why-trump-wants-it-gone-261821