Prince Andrew stripped of all titles after Virginia Giuffre’s memoir. Her family declares ‘victory’

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Kate Cantrell, Senior Lecturer, Writing, Editing and Publishing, University of Southern Queensland

Content warning: this article includes graphic details about sexual assault some readers may find distressing.

Prince Andrew will be stripped of his royal titles, including prince, and will move out of his home, Royal Lodge, to a private residence. Buckingham Palace issued a statement today that King Charles has initiated a formal process to remove the “style, titles and honours of Prince Andrew”, who “will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor”.

The decision comes in the wake of Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir Nobody’s Girl, published this fortnight. The memoir includes an inside account of the two years Giuffre spent as a “sex slave” working for Jeffrey Epstein and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. Giuffre died by suicide in April this year, aged 41, on her farm in Western Australia.

Three weeks before she died, she emailed her co-author, journalist Amy Wallace, and longtime publicist Dini von Mueffling: “In the event of my passing, I would like to ensure that Nobody’s Girl is still released.”

“Today,” Giuffre’s family said, “she declares a victory. She has brought down a British prince with her truth and extraordinary courage”.

British historian and author Andrew Lownie (author of a book about Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, called Entitled), told Sky News earlier this month, “the only way the story will go away is if [Andrew] leaves Royal Lodge, goes into exile abroad with his ex-wife, and is basically stripped of all his honours, including Prince Andrew”. Sarah Ferguson will also move out of Royal Lodge.

As a trauma memoir, Nobody’s Girl forces us to bear witness to an uncomfortable truth: Giuffre’s abuse was hidden in plain sight.

“Don’t be fooled by those in Epstein’s circle who say they didn’t know what Epstein was doing,” she writes. “Anyone who spent any significant amount of time with Epstein saw him touching girls.” She continues: “They can say they didn’t know he was raping children. But they were not blind.”


Review: Nobody’s Girl: A memoir of surviving abuse and fighting for justice – Virginia Roberts Giuffre (Doubleday)


Four days before the memoir was published, Prince Andrew announced he would no longer use the titles conferred upon him, including Duke of York. Three days later, leaked emails from 2011 suggested he gave Giuffre’s date of birth and social security number to one of his protection officers, hours before the infamous photograph of him with her was published.

Maxwell’s brother, Ian Maxwell, published an article in the Spectator today, headlined “Don’t take Virginia Giuffre’s memoir at face value”. The memoir keeps his sister, who was convicted of charges including sex trafficking of a minor, in world headlines – at a time Donald Trump has said he will “take a look” at pardoning her. Earlier this year, Maxwell was moved to a lower security prison to continue her 20-year sentence.

Allegations of parental abuse

Giuffre writes that her father began molesting her at the age of seven. He “strenuously” denies this. While the memoir makes this public for the first time, Giuffre’s older brother Danny Wilson told ABC’s 7.30 he first heard the allegations years before the memoir was published – and confronted his father about it.

Giuffre regularly wet her pants at school – earning her the cruel nickname “Pee Girl”. She recalls: “I began to get painful urinary tract infections. My infections were so severe, I couldn’t hold my urine.”

After one (of several) medical examinations, a doctor told her mother her primary school aged daughter’s hymen was broken. Giuffre writes of this moment:

My mother didn’t hesitate. ‘Oh, she rides horses bareback,’ she explained. That was the end of that. I didn’t even know what a hymen was.

Later, she recalls her mother raising suspicions about her involvement with Epstein and “apex predator” Maxwell, questioning “what this older couple wanted with a teenage girl who had no credentials”.

Giuffre writes: “I guess I was glad she cared enough to have suspicions, but at the same time, wasn’t it a little late for that? I knew she couldn’t save me; she’d never saved me before.”

Around the time of her doctor’s visit, the memoir alleges, Giuffre’s father began “trading” his daughter to a friend – a tall, muscular man with “a military bearing” who was also abusing his own stepdaughter. In 2000, the man was convicted of molesting another girl in North Carolina. He spent 14 months in prison and a decade as a registered sex offender.

Giuffre writes that she was abused by these men for five years, from ages seven to eleven; it only stopped when she began menstruating.

Heartbreakingly, Giuffre discloses that at one point she imagined Maxwell (or “G-Max” as she wanted to be known) as her mother: “While I was hardly equipped to judge, it often seemed to me that Epstein and Maxwell behaved like actual parents.” Among other things, the pair gave Giuffre her first cell phone, whitened her teeth, and taught her how to hold a knife and fork “just so”.

‘The younger, the better’

Giuffre’s memoir is a courageous and clear-eyed account of what trauma takes – and what recovery demands.

Told in four chronological parts – “Daughter”, “Prisoner”, “Survivor” and “Warrior” – the memoir meticulously records the “sexual assaulting, battering, exploiting, and abusing” Giuffre endured throughout her life, most notably at the hands of Epstein and Maxwell.

The result is a devastating exposé of the fetishisation and abuse of girls – “the younger, the better”, Epstein said – and society’s failure to protect the most vulnerable.

It is also a damning indictment of everyone who knew and looked away.

‘Please don’t stop reading’

Giuffre was 16 and working as a locker-room attendant at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort when Ghislaine Maxwell recruited her to “service Epstein”, under the pretence of training as a masseuse. (In October 2007, Trump – who is portrayed favourably in the memoir – reportedly banned Epstein from his resort after Epstein hit on the teenage daughter of another member.)

Over the next two years, and roughly 350 pages, Giuffre tells how she was trafficked to “a multitude of powerful men”, including Prince Andrew, French modelling agent Jean-Luc Brunel, a prominent psychology professor and a respected United States senator.

Giuffre’s original memoir manuscript was titled “The Billionaire’s Playboy Club”.

In one of the most distressing scenes, Giuffre describes how she was trafficked to “a former minister”, who raped her so “savagely” she was left “bleeding from [her] mouth, vagina, and anus”. When Virginia told Epstein about the brutal attack, which made it hurt to breathe and swallow, he said, “You’ll get that sometimes.”

Eight weeks later, he returned Giuffre to the politician, who this time abused her on one of Epstein’s private jets. In the US version of the memoir, the politician is described not as a “former minister”, but as “a former Prime Minister”.

“I know this is a lot to take in,” Giuffre writes. “The violence. The neglect. The bad decisions. The self-harm. But please don’t stop reading.”

One of the most devastating revelations comes toward the end of the memoir. Giuffre – now in her forties – receives a phone call from a confidant claiming to have evidence that Epstein paid off her father when she was a girl. In 2000, when Epstein and Maxwell started abusing the teenager at El Brillo Way, it is alleged that her father accepted “a sum of money” from the paedophile.

According to Giuffre, when she confronted her father, there was “a brief silence” before “he started yelling at [her] for being an ungrateful daughter”.

Of all the betrayals she endured, this one stands alone: “I will never get over it”.

Girls no one cared about

“When a molester shows his face,” Giuffre writes, “many people tend to look the other way.”

In chapter 11, Giuffre describes how Epstein’s personal chef, the celebrity cook Adam Perry Lang, made her her favourite food – pizza. This, apparently, became something of a tradition – Lang feeding Giuffre, but never “ogl[ing]”, “even if I was standing naked in front of him, which was not unusual”. She wrote: “When I’d finished attending to Epstein or one of the other guests, Lang would have a cheesy hot pie waiting.”

In 2019, Lang issued a statement about working for Epstein: “My role was limited to meal preparation. I was unaware of the depraved behavior and have great sympathy and admiration for the brave women who have come forward.”

In another scene, Giuffre reveals that Epstein “never wore a condom”. After falling pregnant at the age of 17, she suffered an ectopic pregnancy.

On this day, Giuffre recalls how Epstein and Maxwell (“two halves of a wicked whole”) – with the help of Epstein’s New York butler – drove her to hospital after she woke in “a pool of blood”. Epstein lied to the doctor about her age, Giuffre alleges, and the two men seemed to enter “a gentlemen’s agreement” in which “whatever was going on between this middle-aged man and his teenage acquaintance […] would be kept quiet”.

“We were girls who no one cared about, and Epstein pretended to care,” Giuffre writes. “At times I think he even believed he cared.” She describes how Epstein “threw what looked like a lifeline to girls who were drowning, girls who had nothing, girls who wished to be and do better.” As a self-described “pleaser” who “survived by acquiescing”, Giuffre writes that Epstein and Maxwell “knew just how to tap into that same crooked vein” her childhood abusers had: abuse cloaked in “a fake mantle of ‘love’.”

Sex as birthright

In March 2001, at Maxwell’s upscale townhouse in London’s Belgravia – where Prince Andrew was famously pictured with his arm around the teenager – Giuffre recalls how Maxwell invited Andrew to guess her age. When the prince correctly guessed 17, he reportedly told her, “My daughters are just a little younger than you.”

Later that night, she writes, Prince Andrew bought the teenager cocktails at Tramp – an exclusive London nightclub – where she and the prince danced awkwardly and the prince “sweated profusely”. In the car, on the way home, Maxwell instructed Giuffre “to do for [Andy] what you do for Jeffrey”.

In November 2019, in his calamitous interview with BBC’s Newsnight, Prince Andrew denied any wrongdoing, claiming he had “no recollection of ever meeting this lady”. He told presenter Emily Maitlis he could not have danced sweatily at Tramp because he had “a peculiar medical condition” that prevented perspiration, caused by what he described as “an overdose of adrenaline” in the Falklands War.

In that interview, Andrew admitted his decision to stay at Epstein’s New York home in December 2010 – months after Epstein was released from jail for soliciting and procuring minors for prostitution – was “the wrong thing to do”. However, the prince claimed his decision was “probably coloured by [his] tendency to be too honourable”.

In her memoir, Giuffre describes Andrew as “friendly enough but entitled” – “as if he believed having sex with [her] was his birthright.” She alleges she had sex with the prince on two more occasions.

The last word

Publishing a book posthumously can be an ethical minefield. Critics often question whether posthumous publication is what the author would have wanted. They point to the author’s right to protect their work and their literary reputation – a right that cannot survive them.

However, Giuffre left no space for speculation. In the email she sent her co-author and publicist before her death, she made her wishes clear:

It is my heartfelt wish that this work be published, regardless of my circumstances at the time. The content of this book is crucial, as it aims to shed light on the systemic failures that allow the trafficking of vulnerable individuals.

As the memoir progresses, Giuffre’s health spirals. The physical, emotional and mental toll of trauma closes in on her. Epstein is dead. Maxwell is in prison. But Giuffre is still “trapped in an invisible cage”.

“From the start,” she says, “I was groomed to be complicit in my own devastation. Of all the terrible wounds they inflicted, that forced complicity was the most destructive.”

Before she died, Giuffre made a promise to her husband and children that she would try with “all her might” to believe her life mattered. Her final goal was to prevent “the emotional time-bomb” inside her from detonating.

While Giuffre may at last be beyond harm, the truth remains. She – like the hundreds of girls abused by Epstein and his associates – was wronged.

Her fight, like theirs, transcends death: release the Epstein files; hold abusers and their enablers accountable; expose the systems that protect predators; abolish statutes of limitations for the sexual abuse of minors. Ensure no other child suffers. This is what Giuffre wanted.

By publishing her memoir, she ensured the fight would survive her. She made certain her voice would outlast her pain.

In this way, she got the last word.


If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

The National Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Line – 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) – is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault.

The Conversation

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

ref. Prince Andrew stripped of all titles after Virginia Giuffre’s memoir. Her family declares ‘victory’ – https://theconversation.com/prince-andrew-stripped-of-all-titles-after-virginia-giuffres-memoir-her-family-declares-victory-267751

90 years of Monopoly: how the ‘new craze’ morphed from socialist critique to capitalist dream

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Lisa J. Hackett, Senior Lecturer, Sociology & Criminology, University of New England

© Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images

Monopoly is the best-selling licensed board game of all time, popular since its 1935 release when “the new craze” swept the world.

It has remained a staple, with over 390,000 copies sold in Australia to date.

Its transformation from an economic critique to a capitalist icon highlights its historical evolution and adaptability.

A game with a message

Monopoly’s roots trace back to The Landlord’s Game (1903), created by Elizabeth Magie to critique monopolistic land ownership.

It featured two sets of rules – one emphasising wealth accumulation, the other wealth distribution. The aim was to demonstrate how different policy levers, taxing income versus taxing land, affect economic outcomes of players.

It was based on economist Henry George’s proposition for a “land value tax” or “single tax”. Under this regime, people would keep all they earned, with public funds raised from land ownership instead.

An old board game.
The board for Elizabeth Magie’s 1906 version of The Landlord’s Game.
Wikimedia Commons/LandlordsGame.Info

The two sets of rules in the Landlord’s Game demonstrate how wealth is either concentrated in the hands of landlords (taxing income) or is more fairly distributed across society (taxing land).

In 1935, a man named Charles Darrow removed the game’s socialist critique (the version that taxed land), renamed it Monopoly and sold it to Parker Brothers. The game was now focused on the accumulation of real estate until one player remained, having bankrupted their fellows.

The game thrived during the Great Depression, offering an escapist fantasy of financial success.

Photograph of an old man with a Monopoly board.
In 1935, Charles Darrow reworked the game to become Monopoly.
The Salem News Historic Photograph Collection, Salem State University Archives and Special Collections, CC BY

In 1935, Parker Brothers paid Magie US$500 (US$11,800 today) for the rights to her game, ensuring their ownership of Monopoly was unchallenged. As part of the deal, they released her original game, but it failed to gain traction with players.

Not everyone welcomed its capitalist themes – Fidel Castro famously ordered all Monopoly sets in Cuba destroyed in 1959

Playability and house rules

Philip Orbanes, former vice president of research at Parker Brothers, argued a good board game must have clear rules, social interaction and an element of luck. Monopoly ticks all three boxes.

Despite this, Monopoly is notorious for causing arguments. Hasbro (who bought out Parker Brothers in 1991, acquiring Monopoly in the process) found that nearly half of Monopoly games end in disputes, often over rule interpretations. Monopoly is the game most likely to be banned, or see a particular player banned, on game nights.

Four men around the board.
A group of sunbathers having a smoke and playing a game of monopoly at an open air pool, 1939.
Fox Photos/Getty Images

Monopoly’s rules have been adjusted and manipulated as players have sought to overcome the inequities in the game. Another of Hasbro’s surveys found 68% of players admitting to not having read the rules in their entirety, and 49% said they had made up their own rules.

These “house rules” include things like cash bonuses on Free Parking or modifying auctions to make the game more engaging.

Identity and nostalgia

Monopoly’s use of real-world locations makes it adaptable to local markets.

The original version reflected Atlantic City’s socio-economic hierarchy. When Waddingtons released the English version in 1936 under license (the same version which would go on to be released in Australia in 1937), Atlantic City’s wealthy Boardwalk and working class Mediterranean Avenue became London’s Mayfair and Old Kent Road, respectively.

The game can also serve as a bridge to former geographies. The 1980s Yugoslav edition remains a link to the past for those who lived through that era, recording changing political geographies and cultural shifts.

People at tables on train platforms.
More than 240 players compete for the British Monopoly title at Fenchurch street station, London, in 1975.
WATFORD/Mirrorpix/Mirrorpix via Getty Images

Monopoly is a flagship brand for Hasbro, worth an estimated US$272m in 2018. Part of Monopoly’s success lies in its licensing strategy. The board layout is extremely flexible, allowing for localised adaptations to be made to suit different markets, without any substantial change to the game play.

There are believed to be over 3,400 different versions of Monopoly issued, from classic city street layouts to popular culture imaginings.

It is this aspect that attracts collectors; world record holder Neil Scanlon owns 4,379 sets of Monopoly (he is still searching for the Cronulla Sharks set).

Monopoly reflects the world’s economic systems, embodying both the dream of wealth and the realities of financial inequality.

It has been studied by economists and educators as a tool for understanding capitalism, wealth accumulation and market control.

The game originally meant to critique monopolistic practices became a celebration of them. Each player has the opportunity to accumulate vast wealth, reflecting the promise of capitalism: where anyone can enjoy riches as long as they work hard enough.

Magie’s message was leveraged by Federal MP Andrew Leigh in his 2023 critique of the growing concentration of business monopolies in Australia. Leigh noted how monopolies affected Australian families and how the Albanese government had “increased penalties for anti-competitive conduct, and banned unfair contract terms” with the aim of creating a fairer society.

Enduring popularity

In 2025, Hasbro introduced digital banking versions – though many players lament the feel of physical wads of cash.

The game continues to be a favourite, ranking as the top childhood game among Baby Boomers, Gen X and Millennials – and fourth for Gen Z. The sense of nostalgia was strong among all groups, not surprising as board games were found to be an integral part of family bonding.

Monopoly has evolved from an anti-capitalist critique into a commercial juggernaut. While it has faced criticism for erasing its socialist origins and its reliance on luck, its ability to reinvent itself has ensured its lasting appeal.

As both a cultural artefact and a competitive game, Monopoly remains firmly embedded in board game culture.

The Conversation

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

ref. 90 years of Monopoly: how the ‘new craze’ morphed from socialist critique to capitalist dream – https://theconversation.com/90-years-of-monopoly-how-the-new-craze-morphed-from-socialist-critique-to-capitalist-dream-252738

Sex with 1,000 men in 12 hours: why Bonnie Blue is neither a feminist nor a monster

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Lexi Eikelboom, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Religion and Critical Inquiry, Australian Catholic University

Stan

The documentary, 1,000 Men & Me: The Bonnie Blue Story, has made Tia Billinger – stage name Bonnie Blue – a household name.

Famous for her sexual stunts, including one in which she has sex with more than 1,000 men in 12 hours, Bonnie Blue fascinates us because we do not understand her.

Billinger claims to be an embodiment of feminism. She points out she is rich and independent, and says she has taken control of her sexualisation. Yet it is difficult to imagine how sleeping with 1,000 men in a day could lead someone to feel empowered rather than degraded.

Some have offered personality-based explanations for Billinger’s choices, saying she may simply be an opportunistic sociopath.

But explanations like these relegate her to the status of a social oddity, or a monster. And this discounts the social conditions that produce someone like Billinger – the same social conditions all women face.

The contradiction Bonnie Blue embodies reveals just how fraught a woman’s relationship to power and influence is. Women who seek power often encounter a double bind that leads them to use their power in a way that also curtails it.

Power through subservience

Power requires two ingredients. It involves autonomy and self-determination. It also requires being embedded in society so as to exert influence within it.

These two aspects of power work in tandem for men, and especially white men. But for women, and people with other marginalised identities, they often pull in opposite directions.

US feminist writer Andrea Dworkin described this situation in her 1978 book Right-wing Women: for women, power comes through subservience to male values.

For a woman, to be embedded in society is, by definition, to have her autonomy and self-determination restricted. As a result she is forced to choose: do what you want or have influence.

The reward for protecting men’s access to women

Billinger’s business model is striking. She makes enormous amounts of money by offering sex for free. The fact the sex itself is free enables her to turn around and sell a desirable commodity through subscription-based platforms such as Fansly – namely, the fantasy of female availability.

After her 1,000 men stunt, Billinger told her documentary film makers

I loved […] seeing how many men had wedding rings on. I just loved knowing I was doing something their wives should’ve done.

She tells men not to “feel guilty for doing something you deserved and you was, well, you was owed”. Despite appearances, then, Billinger is not autonomous at all. Her power is the result of subservience to male entitlement.

There have always been women who gain power by protecting men’s access to women. Consider, for example, US conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly (1924–2016). While Billinger is famous for her extreme sexual stunts, Schlafly could be considered the original tradwife.

Initially an expert in foreign policy, Schlafly was unable to gain political traction through her expertise, so she built a career opposing women’s liberation on behalf of housewives. She got the political power she wanted, but not in the field she really cared about.

A black and white photo shows US conservative political activist Phyllis Schafly in a winter coat, and a badge fastened to it that reads 'stop ERA'. Her hair is done up and she is smiling at something out of view.
Conservative activist Phyllis Schafly wearing a Stop ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) badge in front of the White House, Washington DC, in February 1977.
Library of Congress

Womanliness as a masquerade

Both Schlafly’s and Billinger’s personas map squarely onto one side or the other of what psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud called the Madonna-whore complex, in which a misogynistic society categorises women according to the kind of service they offer men – either as a saintly mother figure or as a sexual object.

Each of these roles also deflects attention by attacking the opposite side of the dichotomy.

Billinger positions herself as a rival to men’s wives, claiming her critics simply want to turn her into a housewife. Schlafly positioned herself as a housewife opposing equal rights because she considered such rights to be bound up with sexual promiscuity.

In reality, each stance relies on the other. And we’re beginning to see this manifest in the emergence of tradwife Onlyfans content.

In 1929, psychoanalyst Joan Riviere wrote about a tendency in her female patients she called “womanliness as a masquerade”.

Riviere notes how women who exhibited traits socially coded as “masculine”, or who occupied positions historically reserved for men, attempted to hide this masculinity through a performance of femininity. She wrote:

women who wish for masculinity may put on a mask of womanliness to avert anxiety and the retribution feared from men.

To undertake a “masculine” pursuit of power, both Schlafly and Billinger uphold a particular ideal of femininity. And both women’s careers are logical – if misguided – responses to the messages women receive about where their value lies.

A never-ending tradeoff

Our systems punish women for wanting things such as power, money, or visibility, requiring them to turn against other women, give up their expertise, or make themselves infinitely available to men.

If women were allowed to pursue power without these sacrifices, it might curtail the harms other women face as a result of the masked pursuit of power.

Women should not have to choose between power, money and visibility on one hand, and community and liberation on the other. They should not have to choose between Madonna and the whore.

Yet as political gains continue to shrink around the world, many women are starting to feel this double-bind more forcefully. There may be more Bonnie Blues and Phyllis Schlaflys on the horizon.

The Conversation

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

ref. Sex with 1,000 men in 12 hours: why Bonnie Blue is neither a feminist nor a monster – https://theconversation.com/sex-with-1-000-men-in-12-hours-why-bonnie-blue-is-neither-a-feminist-nor-a-monster-267982

If the US resumes nuclear weapons testing, this would be extremely dangerous for humanity

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Tilman Ruff, Honorary Principal Fellow, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne

US President Donald Trump has instructed the Pentagon to resume nuclear weapons testing immediately, “on an equal basis” with other countries’ testing programs.

If Trump is referring to the resumption of explosive nuclear testing, this would be an extremely unfortunate, regrettable step by the United States.

It would almost inevitably be followed by tit-for-tat reciprocal announcements by other nuclear-armed states, particularly Russia and China, and cement an accelerating arms race that puts us all in great jeopardy.

It would also create profound risks of radioactive fallout globally. Even if such nuclear tests are conducted underground, this poses a risk in terms of the possible release and venting of radioactive materials, as well as the potential leakage into groundwater.

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty has been signed by 187 states – it’s one of the most widely supported disarmament treaties in the world.

The US signed the treaty decades ago, but has yet to ratify it. Nonetheless, it is actually legally bound not to violate the spirit and purpose of the treaty while it’s a signatory.

What testing is used for, and why it stopped

In earlier years, the purpose of testing was to understand the effects of nuclear weapons – for example, the blast damage at different distances, which provides confidence around destroying a given military target.

Understanding the consequences of nuclear weapons helps militaries plan their use, and to some extent, protect their own military equipment and people from the possible use of nuclear weapons by adversaries.

But since the end of the second world war, states have mostly used testing as part of the development of new weapons designs. There have been a very large number of tests, more than 2,000, mostly seeking to understand how these new weapons work.

The huge environmental and health problems caused by nuclear testing prompted nations to agree a moratorium on atmospheric testing for a couple of years in the early 1960s. In 1963, the Partial Test Ban Treaty banned nuclear tests in all environments except underground.

Since then, nuclear-armed states have stopped explosively testing at different times. The US stopped in 1992, while France stopped in 1996. China and Russia also aren’t known to have conducted any tests since the 1990s. North Korea is the only state to have openly tested a nuclear weapon this century, most recently in 2017.

These stoppages came in the 1990s for a reason: by that time, it became possible to test new nuclear weapon designs reliably through technical and computer developments, without having to actually explode them.

So, essentially, the nuclear states, particularly the more advanced ones, stopped when they no longer needed to explosively test new weapon designs to keep modernising their stocks, as they’re still doing.

Worrying levels of nuclear proliferation

There is some good news on the nuclear weapons front. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has now been signed by half the world’s nations. This is a historic treaty that, for the first time, bans nuclear weapons and provides the only internationally agreed framework for their eventual elimination.

With the exception of this significant development, however, everything else has been going badly.

All nine nuclear-armed states (the US, China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel) are investing unprecedented sums in developing more accurate, stealthier, longer-range, faster, more concealable nuclear weapons.

This potentially lowers the threshold for their use. And it certainly gives no indication these powers are serious about fulfilling their legally binding obligations to disarm under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Moreover, multiple nuclear-armed states have been involved in recent conflicts in which nuclear threats have been made, most notably Russia and Israel.

Worryingly, we have also seen the numbers of nuclear weapons “available for use” actually start to climb again.

This includes those in military stockpiles, those that have been deployed (linked to delivery systems such as missiles), and those on high alert, which are the ones most prone to accidental use because they can be launched within minutes of a decision to do so. All of these categories are on the increase.

Russia, in particular, has weapons we haven’t seen before, such as a nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile that President Vladimir Putin said on Sunday his country has successfully tested. China, too, is embarking on a rapid build-up of nuclear weapons.

And the US has just completed assembling a new nuclear gravity bomb.

A new START treaty also not moving forward

Nearly all of the hard-won treaties that constrained nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War have been abrogated.

There’s now just one remaining treaty constraining 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, which are in the hands of the US and Russia. This is the New START Treaty, which is set to expire in February next year.

Putin offered to extend that treaty informally for another year, and Trump has said this is a good idea. But its official end is just four months away, and no actual negotiations on a successor treaty have begun.

The US has also said China needs to be involved in the successor treaty, which would make it enormously more complicated. China has not expressed a willingness to be part of the process.

Whether anything will be negotiated to maintain these restraints beyond February is unclear. None of the nuclear-armed states are negotiating any other new treaties, either.

All of this means the Doomsday Clock – one of the most authoritative and best-known assessments of the existential threats facing the world – has moved forward this year further than it has ever done before.

It’s really an extraordinarily dangerous time in history.

The Conversation

Tilman Ruff is affiliated with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and the Medical Association for Prevention of War.

ref. If the US resumes nuclear weapons testing, this would be extremely dangerous for humanity – https://theconversation.com/if-the-us-resumes-nuclear-weapons-testing-this-would-be-extremely-dangerous-for-humanity-268661

4 urgent lessons for Jamaica from Puerto Rico’s troubled hurricane recovery – and how the Jamaican diaspora could help after Melissa

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Ivis García, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University

Hurricane Melissa’s 185 mph winds and storm surge tore apart buildings and left streets strewn with debris in Black River, Jamaica, on Oct. 28, 2025. Ricardo Makyn/AFP via Getty Images

Across Jamaica, streets are littered with torn-off roofs, splintered wood and other debris left in the wake of Hurricane Melissa. Downed power lines have left communities in the dark, and many flooded and wind-damaged homes are unlivable.

Recovering from the devastation of one of the Atlantic’s most powerful storms, which struck on Oct. 28, 2025, will take months and likely years in some areas. That work is made much harder by the isolation of being an island.

As a researcher who has extensively studied disaster recovery in Puerto Rico after Hurricane María in 2017, I know that the decisions Jamaica makes in the days and weeks following the disaster will shape its recovery for years to come. Puerto Rico’s mistakes hold some important lessons.

An aerial view of a business district shows buildings and homes with roofs and siding shredded, with mud covering the streets.
An aerial view shows some of the widespread damage caused by Hurricane Melissa’s storm surge and powerful winds in Black River, Jamaica.
Ivan Shaw/AFP via Getty Images

Why island recovery is different

Islands face obstacles that most mainland communities don’t experience. Geographic isolation compounds every problem in ways that make both the emergency response and the long-term recovery fundamentally harder.

Communities can easily be cut off by damaged roads, particularly in rugged areas like Jamaica’s Blue Mountains. Every damaged port facility, every closed airport, every blocked road multiplies isolation in both the short and long term.

People push shopping carts on a muddy street with tangled power lines and damaged homes and vehicles.
Power was out in communities across Jamaica after Hurricane Melissa, and several coastal communities were caked with mud. On the U.S. mainland, surrounding states will send fleets of repair trucks and linemen to rebuild power infrastructure quickly, but on an island, that kind of fleet isn’t available, and the damage is often widespread.
Ricardo Makyn/AFP via Getty Images

As Puerto Rico saw after Hurricane Maria, in the early days after a disaster, basic emergency supplies like tarps, batteries, fresh food and water and generators can become scarce.

Weeks and months later, reconstruction materials can still take a long time to arrive, extending the recovery time far beyond what most mainland communities would experience. This isn’t just a price-gouging ploy; it’s the reality of island supply chains and shipping infrastructure under stress.

Research on Hurricane Maria’s impact on Puerto Rico has shown how an island’s isolation, limited port capacity and dependence on imports create unique vulnerabilities that slow disaster recovery.

Local organizations: From response to recovery

One of the most important lessons I saw in Puerto Rico is that local nonprofits and community organizations are essential first responders in the emergency phase and then transition into recovery leaders.

These organizations know their communities intimately: who is elderly and homebound, which neighborhoods will have the greatest need, and how to navigate local conditions.

Two people put a piece of metal in place on a roof with a view of mountains in the background.
People use sheet metal to cover a home after Hurricane Melissa tore the roof off. Getting supplies for many repairs will take time on an island with so much damage.
Ricardo Makyn/AFP via Getty Images

Right now, Jamaican churches, community groups and local organizations are in emergency response mode — checking on residents, distributing water and providing shelter. For example, the Jamaica Council of Churches, which has extensive disaster response experience, has started to coordinate relief efforts though its community networks.

Over the long term, my research shows that local organizations are crucial for helping families recover. They help to navigate insurance claims, organize rebuilding efforts, provide mental health support, and advocate for community needs in recovery planning, among many roles.

However, many disaster recovery funding sources favor larger, international nonprofits over local groups, even for distribution once supplies have arrived. In Puerto Rico after Hurricane María, only 10% of the nearly US$5 billion in federal contracts went to Puerto Rico-based groups, while 90% flowed to mainland contractors.

Several houses covered with blue tarps to keep the rain out
In Puerto Rico, blue tarps covered homes with damaged roofs for months after Hurricane Maria, as owners waited for the supplies and repair help. Even the tarps were hard to come by at times.
AP Photo/Carlos Giusti

Jamaica will face similar dynamics as international funding arrives from sources such as the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank. Ensuring the recovery funding goes through established Jamaican organizations can help the recovery.

The diaspora: Urgent help, long-term support

When institutional systems such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the government of Puerto Rico could not offer aid fast enough after Hurricane Maria, diaspora communities became crucial lifelines. Puerto Ricans in Chicago, New York and Florida organized relief efforts, raised funds and shipped supplies within days.

Months later, Puerto Ricans living on the U.S. mainland continued providing financial support. They hosted displaced family members and advocated for federal aid. As my co-author Maura I. Toro-Morn and I document in our book “Puerto Ricans in Illinois,” diaspora communities that mobilized statewide in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria demonstrated how Puerto Ricans supported the island during crisis.

The Jamaican diaspora in London, Toronto, New York and Miami represents a massive potential resource for both immediate relief and long-term recovery.

A map shows where millions of Jamaicans live overseas, led by the U.S. (1.1 million), United Kingdom (400,000) and Canada (300,000).
Where Jamaicans lived outside their homeland in the early 2020s.
Maps Interlude/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

In the hours after Melissa made landfall, these communities were already trying to reach family members and organize help. In Florida, Jamaican American student associations at several universities set up a GoFundMe page for relief efforts in Jamaica. In Connecticut, Caribbean social groups were gathering their communities to send support.

Jamaica’s government has multiple diaspora engagement platforms, such as JA Diaspora Engage, the Global Jamaica Diaspora Council and JAMPRO. But these primarily focus on economic development and investment rather than disaster response coordination. In contrast, Haiti established the Haitian Diaspora Emergency Response Unit in 2010 specifically for disaster coordination. After the 2021 earthquake, it coordinated relief efforts across more than 200 organizations, raising $1.5 million within weeks.

A worker gestures for more supplies while filling a cardboard box with package snacks.
Volunteers assemble relief packages to help Jamaica in the aftermath of Hurricane Melissa at the Global Empowerment Mission headquarters in Miami. Foreign-based organizations can coordinate large quantities of supplies, but distribution on the ground can be more efficient when run by local organizations that know where people are in need.
Chandan Khanna/AFP via Getty Image

Jamaica could adapt its existing diaspora infrastructure to include an emergency response component. It could provide regular updates on community needs during disasters, verify trusted local partners for aid distribution, and facilitate logistics for shipping supplies over the years of recovery.

The out-migration risk: When emergencies becomes permanent

Perhaps the most devastating long-term impact of Hurricane María was massive population loss — a recovery failure that began with emergency response decisions.

Of Puerto Ricans who applied for federal assistance, approximately 50% had new addresses on the U.S. mainland. Their displacement that began as a temporary evacuation became permanent when Puerto Rico couldn’t restore viable living conditions quickly enough.

Without housing, employment or basic services for months, families had little choice but to leave. About a quarter of Puerto Rico’s schools were closed by the storm damage. I saw similar patterns in Maui, Hawaii, as it recovered from devastating wildfires in 2023. Limited lodging and high costs made it impossible for many displaced residents to stay.

Researchers estimated that of the nearly 400,000 people who left Puerto Rico in 2017 and 2018 after María, maybe 50,000 had returned by 2019.

Jamaica faces similar risks. The out-migration crisis doesn’t happen all at once – it’s a slow bleed that accelerates as emergency response transitions into prolonged recovery.

The time to prevent that pressure to leave is now. The government can help by communicating realistic timelines for service restoration and prioritizing school reopening. Every week increases the risk that temporary displacement becomes permanent emigration.

Building back better: Recovery, not just response

Disasters create opportunities to build back better, but that requires thinking about the future rather than simply recreating what existed before.

Jamaica can prioritize speed in emergency response by rebuilding the old system, or it can invest in a recovery that also builds resilience for the future. Climate change is fueling more intense and destructive hurricanes, leaving Caribbean islands at growing risk of damage.

Hurricane Maria revealed serious infrastructure vulnerabilities as the aging power grid collapsed under Category 4 winds. Puerto Rico could have rebuilt with more modern, resilient infrastructure. However, RAND Corporation research found that reconstruction largely restored the old, vulnerable centralized power system, rather than transforming it with distributed renewable energy, hardened transmission lines and microgrids that could withstand future storms.

Solar panels on roofs and apartment balconies
Many businesses and homeowners in Puerto Rico added solar panels after Hurricane Maria to help manage frequent power grid outages. Rebuilding the U.S. territory’s grid and power system was slow, and it continued to rely on fossil fuels.
Ricardo Arduengo/AFP via Getty Images

Water systems, roads, schools and hospitals could also be rebuilt to better withstand storms and with redundancy – such as backup power sources and distributed water systems – to help the island recover faster in future hurricanes.

These improvements are expensive, and Jamaica will need international donors to help fund the recovery, not just the immediate emergency response.

The decisions made today will echo for years. Jamaica’s recovery doesn’t have to repeat Puerto Rico’s mistakes.

The Conversation

Ivis García receives funding from National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Ford Foundation, National Academy of Sciences, Fundación Comunitaria de Puerto Rico, UNIDOS, Texas Appleseed, Natural Hazard Center, Chicago Community Trust, American Planning Association, and Salt Lake City Corporation.

ref. 4 urgent lessons for Jamaica from Puerto Rico’s troubled hurricane recovery – and how the Jamaican diaspora could help after Melissa – https://theconversation.com/4-urgent-lessons-for-jamaica-from-puerto-ricos-troubled-hurricane-recovery-and-how-the-jamaican-diaspora-could-help-after-melissa-268631

How the physics of baseball could help Kevin Gausman and the Blue Jays win the World Series

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Patrick Clancy, Assistant Professor, Physics & Astronomy, McMaster University

There are few sports more exciting than playoff baseball, but behind every pitch there is also a fascinating story of physics. From gravity to spin, the science shaping the game can be just as compelling as the action on the field.

When the World Series returns to Toronto for Game 6, right-handed pitcher Kevin Gausman will take the mound. Gausman’s best pitch is the splitter, an off-speed pitch that looks like a conventional fastball but travels more slowly and drops more sharply before it crosses the plate.

Physicists consider the flight of a baseball as an example of projectile motion. The trajectory of the ball depends on several forces: the force of gravity (pulling the ball downwards), the drag force (slowing the ball as it moves through the air), and the Magnus force (which causes the ball to curve if it spins as it travels).

Why splitters are so hard to hit

So why is the splitter so difficult to hit? Start with speed. The average speed of Gausman’s fastball is 95 miles per hour (or 42.5 meters a second). Since the distance from the pitcher’s mound to home plate is 18.4 meters, this means that it takes 430 milliseconds, or less than half a second, for Gausman’s fastball to reach the batter.

In contrast, the splitter, which travels at an average speed of 85 mph (or 38.0 m/s), takes 490 milliseconds. That 60 millisecond-difference may seem small, but it can be enough to separate a strike from a base hit.

For context, a typical swing for a major league batter takes approximately 150 milliseconds. This includes time for the batter’s eye to form a picture of the ball leaving the pitcher’s hand, for their brain to process this information and send signals to the muscles in their arms, legs and torso, and for their muscles to respond and swing the bat.

This means a batter has roughly a quarter of a second to judge the trajectory of a pitch and decide whether to swing. Considering that it takes approximately 100 milliseconds for a blink of the human eye, it’s remarkable that batters can hit any major league pitch at all.

The importance of the drop

The second secret to the splitter is the drop. All baseball pitches drop as they travel towards home plate due to the force of gravity, which causes a baseball (or any object in freefall) to accelerate downwards.

If there were no other forces acting on the ball, this would cause Gausman’s fastball to drop by about 92 centimetres on the way to home plate, and his splitter to drop by approximately 115 centimetres.

In practice, however, there is another important force that acts on the ball to oppose the effect of gravity — the Magnus force. The Magnus force arises from the rotation or spin of an object (like a baseball) as it passes through a fluid (like air).

The ball’s rotation makes air move faster over one side than the other. On the side spinning in the same direction as the airflow, air speed increases; on the opposite side, it slows down. This difference in air speed creates a pressure imbalance, generating a force that acts perpendicular to the ball’s path.

This is an example of Bernoulli’s Principle, the same phenomenon that generates lift as air passes around the wing of an airplane.

In the case of a fastball, the pitcher creates a strong backspin by pulling back with their index and middle fingers as they release the ball. This rotation results in an upwards force, which causes the ball to drop far less than it would under the effect of gravity alone. The faster the rotation, the stronger this lift force becomes.

Gausman’s signature pitch

Gausman’s fastball typically drops 25 to 30 centimetres on the way to home plate — less than one third of the drop experienced by a “dead ball” without spin.

On the splitter, he changes his grip to dramatically reduce the amount of backspin, weakening the Magnus force and allowing the ball to fall much farther, about 50 to 75 centimetres, before it hits the plate. The result is a pitch that doesn’t reach the batter when or where they expect it to be.

Kevin Gausman explains the art of the splitter. (Toronto Blue Jays)

As the Blue Jays edge closer to third World Series title — their first in 32 years — Gausman’s splitter offers an example of how physics can shape performance in elite sport. Understanding the science behind the pitch offers a new way to appreciate the game.

The Conversation

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

ref. How the physics of baseball could help Kevin Gausman and the Blue Jays win the World Series – https://theconversation.com/how-the-physics-of-baseball-could-help-kevin-gausman-and-the-blue-jays-win-the-world-series-268732

Drinking tequila and mezcal sustainably on the Day of the Dead

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Brendon Larson, Professor, School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo

People in Mexico and elsewhere will soon be marking the annual Día de Muertos (Day of the Dead) on Nov. 2. Many will celebrate the day with the quintessential Mexican beverage, tequila; perhaps in the form of a slushy margarita or a shot.

Tequila comes from a single species, blue agave. Agaves are fleshy plants of arid lands that accumulate sugars over several years to power their sole blooming. To produce tequila, the leaves and flower stalk are removed, the agave hearts (called piñas) roasted, and their sugars fermented and distilled.

Tequila was intentionally branded for a global market in the late 19th century, and it’s become an industrial product. There are vast blue-gray monocultures of it across the state of Jalisco, centred around the namesake town of Tequila.

Yet, in the interest of ethical consumption, we must consider the environmental impacts of industrial tequila production. There are several issues here. In Jalisco, the region’s ecosystems are being destroyed and replaced by a uniform crop that is prone to pest outbreaks.

Tequila’s manufacturing process consumes huge amounts of energy, water and agrochemicals. While some in the tequila industry make lots of money (such as celebrities who have their own brands), those who harvest the crops make significantly less.

In addition, despite the marketing, most commercial tequilas taste alike given their uniform source, standard yeast and mechanical production, not to mention added sugars and artificial flavours.

The mezcal shift

People have recently been turning to mezcal, perceiving it as a more authentic, tastier alternative. After all, tequila is simply mezcal from Tequila.

Mezcal-making derives from a relationship between Indigenous Peoples and their landscape that goes back millennia. They learned that agave fibers have many uses, for architecture, medicines and textiles. They drank the sweet, non-alcoholic sap, known as aguamiel and realized it could be fermented.

This history is the basis of peasant communities’ continued harvest of agave to make mezcal. They collect dozens of types of wild agave or grow them among other crops. They roast the hearts for several days in an earthen pit, then ferment them in a homegrown bacteria-and-yeast soup.

The distillation appears to be a more recent, colonial addition to the process. The resulting spirit has vital cultural meaning, not least in festivals such as Día de Muertos, where it honours those who have died and connects people to them.

Traditional production is slow and varied. It distils the diversity of life and the people’s history into a delightful bouquet: not just smoky, as many people think, but floral, fruity, herbal, metallic and so much more.

Is mezcal sustainable?

Many consumers find the narrative of mezcal’s authenticity and sustainability appealing. Its volume is a blip relative to tequila, so surely it must be better for both people and the planet. It’s never simple to assess sustainability, though, and the rapid growth of the industry — with eight per cent more expected annually through 2030 — raises a flag.

Traditional practices have been co-opted, and the same powerful families and multinational brands that drove tequila’s rise grow the main agave used for mezcal, espadín, in large farms of clones.

The spread of commercial farming destroys habitat, specifically the tropical dry forest where many of Mexico’s restricted, native species occur. In San Juan del Río, an Indigenous Zapotec town in the state of Oaxaca, remote sensing has shown an increase in agave cover from six to 22 per cent in 26 years. In addition to soil degradation and loss, these cash crops supplant ones grown for local consumption and strain traditional governance.

From a biodiversity perspective, it’s an open question whether family-scale operations are better given the pressure to expand. Agave and the trees used for firewood for roasting and distilling are interwoven ecological hubs in this dry landscape, along with the bats who visit them for nectar. Overharvesting can lead to ecosystem strain, if not collapse.

Connoisseurs have worsened the problem by developing a taste for particular species like cuish, jabalí and tepeztate, some of which cannot be cultivated, take decades to mature or yield less mezcal.

There has been a documented decline in desirable species of agave, including tobalá, which is listed as vulnerable. Many agaves used for mezcal production are rare.

Sustainability concerns

A few studies have begun to quantify the broader impacts, reinforcing questions about sustainability. It takes two tobalá plants, which require 10-15 years to mature, to produce one bottle of mezcal. Ten kilograms of both liquid and solid waste are released. Even if firewood is used rather than fuel, its weight may match that of the hearts.

Overall, production of one bottle requires the equivalent of about five litres of gasoline. While this may be less carbon than tequila, it’s more than beer and wine.

Mezcal production may bring money into communities, but the interface with global markets brings its own issues. For example, mezcal is now controlled under a Denomination of Origin (DO) certification. While this geographic indicator was ostensibly intended to protect small producers, evidence suggests they’re struggling to meet its standards (and cost) while power and profits concentrate elsewhere.

If you are celebrating this Día de Muertos with mezcal, consider buying from a collaborative that still relies on traditional practices: caring for agave and the land by leaving some flowers for the bats, replanting, reducing chemical use and recycling waste. Bear in mind that growing human consumption is at the root of unsustainability, which just adds to the reasons to moderate one’s drinking.

This article was co-authored by Diana Pinzón, a forestry engineer and co-founder of Zinacantan Mezcal and Fondo Agavero Asociación Civil.

The Conversation

Brendon Larson receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Ronda L. Brulotte has received funding from the U.S. Fulbright Program.

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

ref. Drinking tequila and mezcal sustainably on the Day of the Dead – https://theconversation.com/drinking-tequila-and-mezcal-sustainably-on-the-day-of-the-dead-268119

Voters lose when maps get redrawn before every election instead of once a decade − a trend started in Texas, moving to California and likely spreading across the country

Source: The Conversation – USA – By David Patterson Soule, Lecturer of Economics, University of Richmond

The new congressional districts in Texas, and the ones proposed for California, are pervasive upheavals of the relationship between voters and those they elect. Douglas Rissing/iStock/Getty Images Plus

After the U.S. census is conducted every 10 years, each state must redraw its congressional districts to account for any loss or gain of congressional seats and to maintain an equal population in each district.

But in 2025, breaking from standard practice, President Donald Trump has asked Republican states to redraw their districts mid-decade to provide a greater Republican advantage in the upcoming 2026 midterm elections.

Not to be outdone, the Democrats have responded by starting a redistricting effort in California to offset the Republican gains in Texas. Californians will decide whether to approve those changes in a ballot measure on Nov. 4, 2025.

As other states join the fray, this battle for control of the U.S. House of Representatives has escalated to what the media has called a “Redistricting War.” In this war, the control of the House may be determined more by how each party is able to redistrict states they control and less by how citizens vote.

The media and politicians focus on which party is winning or losing seats. But are the citizens winning or losing in this conflict?

Studies have shown that districts contorted for political purposes make it more difficult for constituents to know who their representatives are, reduces representative-citizen interactions and lowers voter participation in elections.

Changing a resident’s congressional district will sever any existing relationship or understanding of who their current representative is and how to seek help or share policy concerns. This forces residents to navigate unfamiliar political terrain as they figure out their new district, who is running, and what the candidates stand for. This added complexity discourages residents from voting.

More importantly, it diminishes their faith in the democratic process.

Two people with question mark bubbles over their heads.
Districts being contorted for political purposes makes it more difficult for constituents to know who their representatives are and lowers voter participation in elections.
Circlon Tech/Getty Images

Staggering scale of changes

Just how big are the changes already enacted in Texas and proposed in California?

The University of Richmond Spatial Analysis Laboratory, which co-author Kyle Redican directs, has analyzed the impact of the mid-decade redistricting changes. The number of redistricting casualties – residents reassigned to a new congressional district – caused by these mid-decade changes in Texas and California is nearly 20 million. That’s about 6% of the overall U.S. population.

The scale of the changes is staggering: 10.4 million Texas residents, about 36% of the state’s population, and 9.2 million California residents, about 23% of the state’s population, will find themselves in new, unfamiliar congressional districts.

Only one district in Texas, of 38 total districts, and eight districts in California, of 52 total districts, remain untouched, making this a pervasive upheaval, not a surgical adjustment.

Most dramatically, nine districts in California and eight districts in Texas will have more than 50% new residents, fundamentally changing the overall composition of those districts.

The 41st District in California will have 100% new residents, while the 9th District in Texas will have 97% new residents, essentially becoming entirely different constituencies.

Making a change of this size mid-decade, as opposed to once every decade, will be highly disruptive and represent a major tear in the fabric of representative democracy.

Lawmakers picking their voters

So who exactly is being moved? The demographic patterns reveal the calculated nature of these partisan manipulations.

In Texas, Black and Hispanic residents are disproportionately shuffled into new districts compared to white residents.

Minorities constitute 67.1% of Texans who have been moved into a new district, while minorities constitute only 56.4% of Texans who get to remain in their same district. By moving more minorities out of a district and into another reliably Republican district, partisan mapmakers are able to reduce the likely Democratic voter share in that district and swing it to be a Republican-leaning district.

California follows the opposite playbook: White residents are disproportionately moved.

There, 41.2% of those moved into a new district are white, while only 32.7% of those who get to remain in their same district are white. In this case, California is moving likely Republican voters into another reliably Democratic district, which reduces the Republican voter share in the original district and swings it to be a Democratic-leaning district.

In either case, legislators are making deliberate decisions about which residents to move to achieve a political goal.

Yet fundamental to a representative democracy is a simple principle: The people choose their representatives. It’s not that representatives choose their constituents. The founders envisioned the House of Representatives as the people’s house, representing and accountable to the voters.

In the current mid-decade redistricting, the legislators are handpicking their constituencies.

Mocking the fundamental idea

Does the redistricting battle ever end?

If mid-decade redistricting becomes an accepted way to win elections, each time a party wins control of a state legislature and governorship they will have the incentive to redistrict. Each of these future redistrictings will continue to negatively affect citizens’ participation in the representative process and mock the fundamental idea that citizens should choose their representatives.

It’s entirely possible that redistricting could happen every two years – though that is an extreme outcome of this competition.

Texas and California have fired the opening shots in the redistricting arms race. Other states – Missouri, North Carolina and Virginia – are joining the fight, each time diminishing the public trust in our democratic process.

Today, it’s 20 million Americans caught in the crossfire. Tomorrow, it could be 100 million as this conflict spreads from state to state. With tit-for-tat redistricting offsetting gains in seats, who is really winning?

For sure, we know who is losing – the people and representative democracy.

Spatial Analysis Lab intern Ryan Poulsen worked on the block data processing for this story.

The Conversation

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Voters lose when maps get redrawn before every election instead of once a decade − a trend started in Texas, moving to California and likely spreading across the country – https://theconversation.com/voters-lose-when-maps-get-redrawn-before-every-election-instead-of-once-a-decade-a-trend-started-in-texas-moving-to-california-and-likely-spreading-across-the-country-268181

Rate my AI teacher? Students’ perceptions of chatbots will influence how they learn with AI

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Nandini Asavari Bharadwaj, Ph.D. Candidate, Learning Sciences Program, Department of Educational & Counselling Psychology, McGill University

A “transformation” is upon us. After a multi-year procession of educational technology products that once promised to shake things up, now it’s AI’s turn.

Global organizations like the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, as well as government bodies, present AI to the public as “transformative.”

Prominent AI companies with large language model (LLM) chatbots have “education-focused” products, like ChatGPT Education, Claude for Education and Gemini in Google for Education.

AI products facilitate exciting new ways to search, present and engage with knowledge and have sparked widespread interest and enthusiasm in the technology for young learners. However, there are crucial areas of concern regarding AI use such as data privacy, transparency and accuracy.

Current conversations on AI in education focus on notions it will upend teaching and learning systems in schools, teacher lesson planning and grading or individualized learning (for example, via personalized student tutoring with chatbots). However, when or whether AI will transform education remains an open question.

In the meantime, it is vital to think about how student engagement with chatbots should make us examine some fundamental assumptions about human learning.

Learning is a social affair

How students view their teachers and their own ability to contemplate thinking (known as metacognition) are tremendously important for learning. These factors need to be considered when we think about learning with chatbots.

The popularity of the Rate My Professors website in Canada, United States and the United Kingdom is a testament to the significance of what students think about teachers.

With AI’s foray into education, students’ conceptions of their AI tutors, teachers and graders will also matter for multiple reasons.

First, learning is a thoroughly social affair. From how a child learns through imitating and modelling others to engaging with or being influenced by peers in the classroom, social interactions matter to how we learn.




Read more:
I got an AI to impersonate me and teach me my own course – here’s what I learned about the future of education


With use of chatbots increasing to more than 300 million monthly users, conversational interactions with LLMs also represent a new para-social interaction space for people worldwide.

What we think of interaction partners

Second, theory-of-mind frameworks suggest that what we think of others influences how we interact with them. How children interpret, process or respond to social signals influences their learning.

To develop this idea further, beyond other students or teachers as interaction partners, what we think about learning tools has an influence on how we learn.

Our sense of tools and their affordances — the quality or property of a tool that “defines its possible uses or makes clear how it can or should be used” — can have consequences for how we use the tool.

Perceived affordances can dictate how we use tools, from utensils to computers. If a learner perceives a chatbot to be adept at generating ideas, then it could influence how they use it (for example, for brainstorming versus editing).

New ‘social entity’

AI systems, at a minimum, represent the entrance of a new social entity in educational environments, as they have in the social environment. People’s conceptions of AI can be understood under the larger umbrella of a theory of artificial minds, referring to how humans infer the internal states of AI to predict actions and understand behaviour. This theory extends the notion of theory of mind to non-human AI systems.

A person’s theory of artificial minds could develop based on biological maturation and exposure to the technology, and could vary considerably between different individuals.

3 aspects to consider

It’s important to consider how student conceptions of AI may impact trust of information received from AI systems; personalized learning from AI; and the role that AI may have in a child’s social life:

1. Trust: In human learning, the judgments we make about knowledge and learning go a long way in acceptance of ideas inherent in learning material.

From recent studies in children’s interactions with conversational AI systems, we see that children’s trust in information from AI varies across factors like age and type of information. A learner’s theory of artificial minds would likely affect willingness to trust the information received from AI.

2. Personalized learning: Intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) research has shown excellent results for how traditional ITS — without chatbot engagement — can scaffold learners while also helping students identify gaps in learning for self-correction. New chatbot-based ITS, such as KhanMigo from Khan Academy, are being marketed as providing personalized guidance and new ways to engage with content.

A learner’s theory of artificial minds could affect the quality of interactions between them and their AI chatbot tutor and how much they accept their learning support.




Read more:
Why we should be skeptical of the hasty global push to test 15-year-olds’ AI literacy in 2029


3. Social relationships: The artificial friend (the “AF”) in Kazuo Ishiguro’s Klara and the Sun is a poignant literary example of the impact an artificial entity can have on a growing child’s sense of self and relationship to the world.

We can already see the detrimental effects of introducing children to AI social chatbots with the tragic suicide of a child who was allegedly engaged in emotional and sexual chat conversations with a Character.AI chatbot.

Social relationships with AI involve a serious renegotiation of the social contract regarding our expectations and understanding of each other. Here, relationships with children need special attention, foremost whether we want children to develop social relationships with AI in the first place.

Where do we go from here?

Many discussions about AI literacy are now unfolding, involving, for example, understanding how AI functions, its limitations and ethical issues. Throughout these conversations, it’s essential for educators to recognize that students possess an intuitive sense of how AI functions (or a theory of artificial minds). Students’ intuitive sense of AI shapes how they perceive its educational affordances, even without formal learning.

Instruction must account for students’ cognitive development, existing experiences and evolving social contexts.

The “rate my AI teacher” future is coming. It will require a focus on students’ conceptions of AI to ensure effective, ethical and meaningful integration of AI into future educational environments.

The Conversation

Nandini Asavari Bharadwaj receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Adam Kenneth Dubé receives research funding from Mitacs, Canadian Foundation for Innovation, and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. He is the education leadership team member for the McGill Collaborative for AI and Society.

ref. Rate my AI teacher? Students’ perceptions of chatbots will influence how they learn with AI – https://theconversation.com/rate-my-ai-teacher-students-perceptions-of-chatbots-will-influence-how-they-learn-with-ai-265163

Scary stories for kids: All About Ghosts is a non-fiction book that gave me all the knowledge to spot spectres

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Catherine Bannister, Visiting Researcher at The University of Sheffield, Social research of children’s play and cultural worlds / archives of cultural tradition and childhood, University of Sheffield

Usborne

All About Ghosts by Christopher Maynard is a non-fiction book for children curious about spectral beings. First published in 1977, this book grabbed many children with the vice-like grip of a reanimated hand from a mouldering grave.

The book is one of several 1970s spooky releases that left many British children of the time with an abiding curiosity about all things unnerving. They are known as the “haunted generation”, a name coined by writer and broadcaster Bob Fischer.

One member of this haunted generation who went on to craft their own creepy contributions is actor and writer Reece Shearsmith, famous for The League of Gentlemen and Inside No.9, who introduces the 2019 edition of All About Ghosts. I too am a member, with an attraction to the mysterious that I can chart back to the original book – and which led me to become a folklorist.




Read more:
Scary stories for kids: these tales of terror made me a hit at sleepovers as a pre-teen


Despite the supernatural being an unusual topic for a factual book from an educational publisher such as Usborne, the writing addresses its younger readers with a straight face and without condescension. It presents its stories of eerie encounters succinctly and informatively, while indulging in just enough gruesome detail to have you sleeping with the light on.

The book’s whistlestop tour of the dark side opens by asking: “What is a ghost?” It provides definitions across the spectral spectrum before introducing the earliest recorded ghost sightings, beginning with the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, dating from 2000BC.


This article is part of a series of expert recommendations of spooky stories – on screen and in print – for brave young souls. From the surprisingly dark depths of Watership Down to Tim Burton’s delightfully eerie kid-friendly films, there’s a whole haunted world out there just waiting for kids to explore. Dare to dive in here.


All About Ghosts leads its young readers through a landscape of graveyards and battlefields. It takes them out to a sea of doomed vessels and pirate wraiths. It wends its way through a haunted house with a bricked-up skeleton, and to the English village of Pluckley, which counts 12 ghosts among its population.

While its engaging style and clear prose indicate a younger readership, the information in the book’s brief, spooky vignettes owes a lot to research. In writing this guide to ghosts, Maynard consulted the folklorist Eric Maple, as well as organisations and archives including the Harry Price Library of Magical Literature and the Society for Psychical Research.

What resonates most are the evocative illustrations accompanying these yarns. The one-eyed phantom dog Black Shuck dripping drool is terrifying. The spectral submarine officer warning living comrades of incipient danger conveys a weird melancholy.

But the one I find most scary is Tom Colley’s ghost glowing by a gibbet – a cage in which the rotting remains of criminals were put on public display to warn against such crimes. Seeing this picture takes me back to being a child, sprawled on my bedroom carpet to read, pleasantly terrified and almost too nervous to turn the next page.

The book also invites its readers to participate in the hunt, sharing details of the equipment needed to track down apparitions and catch out frauds: “A thin layer of flour or powder … will show up any footprints or fingerprints made by fake ‘ghosts’.”

My younger self certainly took some of this advice on board. Even if I didn’t actively hunt ghosts, this book taught me to look out for the tell-tale signs of their presence: a sudden drop in temperature, strange draughts, objects moved by unseen hands. I would know a ghost was about.

Book cover

Usborne

These tips for ghost hunting in the style of other practical guides has the potential to encourage children to see themselves as daring researchers. And if the kit is a little outdated, today’s ghost hunters can always switch up a notepad and graph paper for digital tools.

The book’s examples of clever fakes and its ambiguous language – “ghosts are supposed to haunt the scene of death” – enable it to walk the line between belief and scepticism.

Children can sometimes be perceived by adults as being too ready to believe, growing into rationality later. However, folklorists of childhood Iona and Peter Opie – who have surveyed schoolchildren around the country from the mid-20th century onward on their play and games, language, beliefs and customs – describe the more nuanced phenomenon of “half belief”.

While children are drawn to the unexplained, their responses to tales of ghosts and summoning rituals, to good and bad luck, and to charms and omens, indicate they could also be taking part out of playful fun and exploration, curiosity and friendship. In subtly approaching its readers as critical thinkers as much as thrill-seekers, this book confirms its classic status for the spooky season and beyond.

All About Ghosts is suitable for children aged 10+.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.


Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.


The Conversation

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

ref. Scary stories for kids: All About Ghosts is a non-fiction book that gave me all the knowledge to spot spectres – https://theconversation.com/scary-stories-for-kids-all-about-ghosts-is-a-non-fiction-book-that-gave-me-all-the-knowledge-to-spot-spectres-268244