At least 12 people have been killed after two gunmen opened fire on a crowd at Bondi Beach at about 6.47pm on Sunday. Twenty-nine people were injured and taken to hospital, including two police officers. One of the gunman was among the dead. It is the deadliest mass shooting in Australia since the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.
A crowd of more than 1,000 had gathered to celebrate the first day of the Jewish festival Hanukkah. Bondi Beach is in the Sydney eastern suburbs, the heart of the Jewish community. New South Wales police have declared the shooting a terrorist attack.
Police confirmed one suspect had been taken into custody and was in serious condition. Another suspect was killed at the scene and police said they were investigating the possibility of a third offender. One of the attackers was known to authorities.
On Sunday evening, police were also investigating reports of an explosive device near the beach. New South Wales Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon confirmed an improvised explosive had been found in a car.
ASIO head Mike Burgess said Australia’s terrorism threat level remained at “probable”. This means there is a greater than 50% chance of an onshore attack or attack planning in the next twelve months. “I don’t see that changing at this stage,” Burgess told reporters in Canberra on Sunday night.
Soon after the shooting began, horrific vision emerged on social media of people shot dead or injured, as well as footage of incredible acts of bravery from passersby trying to thwart the attack.
One video shows a bystander tackling a gunman from behind, wrestling his gun from him. Others were performing CPR on the injured on the beach.
A Jewish chaplain with blood on him spoke of trying to save people amid terrible scenes of people shot in the head. People fled as the attack unfolded, but some elderly people were unable to run.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the scenes as “shocking and distressing”. “My thoughts are with every person affected.” In the wake of the attack he convened an emergency meeting of the National Security Committee of cabinet.
Albanese received a preliminary briefing from Australian Federal Police acting Deputy Commissioner Nigel Ryan and New South Wales Premier Chris Minns, who convened an emergency meeting of state cabinet. Albanese defended himself against criticism he had not taken antisemitism seriously enough.
“Australia is braver than those who seek to make us afraid […] we will see justice done, and we will come through this together,” he said.
“There are nights that tear at our nation’s soul in this moment of darkness,” Albanese said. “We must be each other’s light. Hold on to the true character of the country that we love.”
At a press conference on Sunday night, Minns said “This cowardly act of terrifying violence is shocking and painful to see, and represents some of our worst fears about terrorism in Sydney.” He asked Australians to “wrap their arms around” the Jewish community, and praised both the outpouring of love and support towards the Jewish community as well as the extraordinary demonstrations of courage in the wake of the attack.
Lanyon called for calm, and said this is “not a time for retribution”. He assured the public no stone would be left unturned in bringing those responsible to justice and ensuring there are no further attacks. “This type of disgraceful activity, this wanton use of violence, the taking of innocent lives is unacceptable to New South Wales.”
Independent federal MP Allegra Spender, who represents Bondi in her seat of Wentworth, also expressed her shock and horror.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley also expressed her shock. “Australians are in deep mourning tonight, with hateful violence striking at the heart of an iconic Australian community, a place we all know so well and love, Bondi.
“Today we stand together as Australians against hate in this moment of profound tragedy and shock.”
In a statement, Israeli President Isaac Herzog said “our heart misses a beat”. He called on the Australian government to “take action to fight against the enormous wave of antisemitism which is plaguing Australian society”.
The Australian Imams Council issued a statement condemning the attack.
“These acts of violence and crimes have no place in our society. Those responsible must be held fully accountable and face the full force of the law,” the statement said.
“Our hearts, thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families, and all those who witnessed or were affected by this deeply traumatic attack.”
Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Laurence Grondin-Robillard, Professeure associée à l’École des médias et doctorante en communication, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the Oxford Dictionary has named “rage bait” its Word of the Year. The quantity of live-streamed drama in 2025 has made it clear that outrage is now fuelling much online content.
Although the recording of the live stream leading up to his death is no longer available, excerpts from previous broadcasts that show Pormanove being ridiculed or mistreated continue to circulate online.
A Q&A with Jean Pormanove in July 2021. He reveals a side of himself that is sometimes awkward, but also touching. (YouTube).
As an associate professor and doctoral student at UQAM’s École des médias (School of Media), I closely study the dynamics that shape digital platforms. Increasingly, platforms use rage bait to turn anger into a tool for attracting attention and advancing their commercial goals.
The Kick platform, comparable to Twitch, has been blamed for Graven’s death, and rightly so. A lack of moderation and the encouragement of gambling and games of chance are among the most frequent criticisms directed at it.
The aftermath of Graven’s death
Just a few days after Graven’s death, 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska was stabbed to death on the subway in the North Carolina city of Charlotte. Images and surveillance footage of her death went viral via X, Instagram and TikTok in a matter of hours, showing the young woman wounded, alone and without help.
The fascination with Zarutska’s slaying is nothing new. What’s more unusual, and turns this into rage bait, is how it was exploited.
Conservative YouTuber Benny Johnson accused the news media of ignoring the case, claiming that “if she were black and her killer white, the media would be talking about it non-stop.” His statement was intended to elicit a strong emotional reaction from both sides.
Beyond the reappropriation of news items to produce content designed to provoke outrage, the past year was also marked by the strategic use of videos generated by artificial intelligence for the same purpose.
In this highly charged context, rage bait became Oxford Dictionary’s Word of the Year, with its use reportedly tripling over the last 12 months. The term is defined as “online content deliberately designed to elicit anger,” which is “typically posted in order to increase traffic to or engagement with a particular web page or social media account.”
Oxford Words of the Year have been linked to digital culture for several years now. In 2022, it was “goblin mode,” in 2023, “rizz” won the vote and in 2024, it was “brain rot.”
This year, more than 30,000 people voted to elect the 2025 Word of the Year. The term was in competition with “aura farming” — cultivating one’s aura — and “biohack”, a set of practices aimed at optimizing the health and performance of the body and mind through changes in lifestyle, diet and technology.
From click bait to rage bait
From online clickbait, we are now moving towards rage bait, with the same objective: to gain online visibility.
The problem lies not only with content creators who use this type of bait, but also with social media platforms themselves. A decade ago, platforms were described as echo chambers, spaces where users were exposed almost exclusively to content that confirmed their interests, opinions and beliefs. It’s getting harder to say that today.
Beyond the case of the platform X — which Elon Musk has already significantly revamped since acquiring Twitter — both Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew also relaxed their terms of service in 2025 in the name of freedom of expression.
But this type of content generates engagement. As a result, it circulates and continues to be recommended. It remains visible thanks to its profitability.
This paradox lies at the heart of the problem: different platforms say they want to limit violence, but they profit from the elements that make violence go viral. So we’re therefore trapped in an ecosystem where outrage becomes an economic resource and where the most intense emotions fuel visibility.
A profound change in the web
In this sense, the shift from clickbait to rage bait is not just an evolution in visibility techniques. It highlights a profound change in social media.
This dynamic calls for a rethinking not only of moderation rules, but also of the business models that maintain this cycle of exposure, outrage and profitability.
The recent Words of the Year illustrate an online environment where mental exhaustion, numbness and outrage have become commonplace. Graven’s death reminds us that human lives are caught up in systems that turn vulnerability into spectacle and suffering into a product.
Laurence Grondin-Robillard ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
Owais Hammam was walking near his home in Khirbet Bani Harith in the West Bank on Dec. 3, 2025, when, according to media reports, he was kidnapped by Jewish settlers. Over several hours at a nearby settlement, the 18-year-old Palestinian is alleged to have endured repeated beatings, humiliation and harassment.
Israel military soldiers were reportedly involved in the incident, before they eventually released him the next morning. Hamman was hospitalized with multiple injuries and severe psychological trauma.
The alleged attack is far from isolated. The post-Oct. 7, 2023, environment has seen an escalation in settler violence, which has gone from primarily involving vandalism and property destruction to now being marked by kidnapping, prolonged abuse and apparent military complicity. In the two years to October 2025, more than 3,200 Palestinians were “forcibly displaced by settler violence and movement restrictions,” according to United Nations figures.
As a scholar who has studied Israeli extremist groups for over two decades, I contend that the dramatic escalation of settler violence in the West Bank reveals a profound transformation within Israel’s state institutions. Rather than serving as purported neutral enforcers of law and order, the military, Israeli police and the broader governmental apparatus have become increasingly aligned with — and at times directly complicit in — violent settler actions against Palestinians.
This institutional reluctance to address settler violence is not merely a failure of enforcement, I would argue, but a deliberate outcome of deep social, political and cultural changes that have reshaped Israeli society since at least the mid-1990s.
For the first time, key ministerial positions are held by individuals with explicit pro-settler ideologies and personal ties to some of the most violent streams of the settlement movement. Hence, it is not surprising that prominent figures such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir — both settlers with what has been described as extremist ideologies — have actively implemented policies that facilitate and legitimize settler violence.
For instance, Ben-Gvir has significantly eased firearm regulations, issuing over 100,000 new gun licenses since October 2023, with settlers receiving preferential access.
Smotrich, meanwhile, has publicly distributed security equipment to illegal outposts and allocated substantial budgets for settler militias. This political backing fosters a climate in which settlers feel emboldened to act with impunity.
Itamar Ben-Gvir, left, and Bezalel Smotrich, center, talk to reporters as they visit the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in East Jerusalem on May 10, 2021. Gil Cohen-Magen/AFP via Getty Images
Beyond individual ministers, the Israeli government has pursued structural reforms that systematically undermine institutional checks on settler violence.
The transfer of the main Israeli governing body in the West Bank — the Civil Administration authority — from military central command to Smotrich’s Finance Ministry represents a fundamental shift in governance. For decades, the Civil Administration coordinated the provision of West Bank services such as health and education. It also served as an instrument for coordinating with the Palestinian Authority, the body entrusted per the Oslo Accords with limited self-rule over parts of the occupied West Bank.
By placing the Civil Administration under political control rather than independent military command, the government has weakened one of the few mechanisms capable of restraining settler expansion.
Concurrent to these developments has been a blurring of lines between civilian settlers and uniformed security personnel. After Oct. 7, 2023, Israeli authorities distributed 8,000 army rifles to so-called civilian settlement defense squads and regional defense battalions.
These armed settler groups now operate alongside — and are increasingly indistinguishable from — official security forces. Settlers frequently wear official uniforms and carry army-issued weapons during attacks on Palestinians.
I would suggest that this geographic and institutional proximity makes neutral policing nearly impossible.
The cultural and social dimensions of this phenomenon run even deeper. Many settlers serve as army reservists, creating overlapping identities between civilian and military personnel.
Civilian security coordinators, who are responsible for coordination between the military and the settlements’ own “defense squads,” actively shape military operational policy. They help define settlement boundaries, determine areas prohibited to Palestinians and occasionally command soldiers.
Soldiers typically interpret clashes as friction between civilians rather than crimes requiring intervention. When violence intensifies, they often declare an “emergency situation” and defend settlers rather than protecting Palestinian victims.
Societal shifts
The transformation of Israeli institutions reflects broader societal changes where the settler movement has evolved from one of many societal factions to a dominant political force.
Settlers hold key positions in government and military leadership and exercise considerable political influence.
As a result, settler violence has become increasingly embedded in the operational logic of state institutions, turning law enforcement bodies from ostensibly neutral arbiters into what international observers increasingly describe as enablers or participants in systematic violence against Palestinians.
It represents, I would argue, a fundamental reorientation of state power in explicit service of settler expansionism.
Moreover, the failure to hold perpetrators of settler violence to account reveals the extent of the institutional capture. Between 2005 and 2023, more than 93% of police investigations into settler violence were closed without indictment – and only 3% resulted in convictions.
In 2021, the last year for which I was able to obtain data, Israeli authorities opened just 87 investigations for “ideologically motivated offenses,” while U.N. monitors documented 585 incidents.
Nonetheless, the judicial architecture historically accommodates settlement expansion. Settlers are subject to Israeli civilian law, including the ability to vote in Israeli elections while Palestinians face military law, producing vastly asymmetrical outcomes in cases involving violence and property rights.
The country’s Supreme Court, while occasionally striking down discriminatory measures against Palestinians, has bowed to security rationales that permit the broader settlement enterprise to proceed. For example, in 2022, the court rejected a petition to return Palestinian land in the city of Hebron, ruling that an
Israeli presence is part of the military’s “regional security doctrine.”
Israeli soldiers stand by as Israeli construction vehicles destroy agricultural lands and uproot centuries-old olive trees in the village of Karyut, West Bank, on Dec. 8, 2025. Issam Rimawi/Anadolu via Getty Images
In addition to the humanitarian concerns, this pattern of violence-driven displacement undermines the viability of a two-state solution, which has returned to international discourse as the centerpiece of “day after” planning for Gaza. It also undermines any claim Israel might make that in lieu of a two-state solution, it can enforce the rule of law equally across people living in territories under its control.
So while international actors focus on ceasefire negotiations and reconstruction, the violence in the West Bank undermines the territorial and demographic foundations necessary for Palestinian statehood and makes the prospect of a lasting ceasefire more distant. The implications of that for a just future are indeed dire.
Arie Perliger 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.
Though China and Japan are experienced in dealing with diplomatic crises, relations between the two neighbours appear to have reached a new low. And this time, their conflict may not be easily resolved.
What’s behind the latest crisis and what’s driving the escalation?
The current round of tensions was triggered by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks in the Diet (Japanese parliament) on November 7, suggesting a move by Beijing to use military force against Taiwan would trigger a Japanese military intervention.
Presented as a “worst-case scenario”, such a Chinese attempt would constitute a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan, she said, justifying its right to collective self-defence to support its US security ally in restoring peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.
Diplomatic crisis
Taiwan was a Japanese colony from 1895 to 1945. Later, it harboured Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists after their defeat by Mao Zedong’s communist troops in 1949.
Today, Beijing considers Taiwan a province of China, though it has never been under the Communists’ rule. Statements to the contrary are considered an intervention in China’s domestic affairs, crossing a red line for Beijing’s elite.
Demanding a swift retraction of Takaichi’s remarks and an apology, Beijing’s brigade of “wolf warrior diplomats” launched a war of words against her. With the Japanese prime minister not backing down, Beijing then retaliated with a mix of political, economic and military pressure.
China’s Communist leadership warned its citizens against travelling to Japan, and students were told to reconsider their plans there, apparently because of safety concerns. Imports of Japanese seafood were reduced or put on hold, while concerts and movie screenings featuring Japanese artists were cancelled.
China’s Coast Guard and Navy vessels also passed through the waters of the Senkaku islands, a territory administered by Japan but claimed by China as the Diaoyu islands.
Amid all this, an international campaign to blame Japan for the current crisis was rolled out to isolate Tokyo. A formal protest was issued to the UN, and in talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping, global leaders were pressured to align with his Communist government against Japan.
The diplomatic turmoil reached a climax in early December with Chinese military planes directing their radars at Japanese fighter jets.
Tension spills into trade
China and Japan are key trading partners. This year alone, a fifth of Japan’s inbound tourism came from China. Beijing’s tightening the screws on Japan will therefore have a measurable impact on the Japanese economy. Some estimate the economic fallout could reach ¥2.2 trillion (A$14.2 billion).
Nevertheless, Beijing’s measures still fall short of past episodes of conflict between the two.
In the early 2000s, Japanese prime ministers’ pilgrimages to the Yasukuni war shrine and revisions of Japanese history textbooks triggered massive anti-Japanese protests across China.
In 2010, Beijing stopped exporting rare earth minerals to Japan in retaliation for Japanese authorities arresting a Chinese captain and his crew after they rammed their ship into a Japanese Coast Guard vessel.
Japan’s “nationalisation” of the disputed Senkaku islands in 2012, buying the isles from their private owner, triggered a significant increase in China’s military presence in the East China Sea.
In light of Japan’s wartime past and China’s economic and military rise, diplomatic disputes have been a default in Sino-Japanese relations since both countries normalised their ties in 1972.
Beijing and Tokyo, however, established a path that has skilfully avoided this from spilling over into trade and business. Japanese investments and economic aid were instrumental in driving China’s industrial modernisation, and both countries have developed close trade relations.
So, when relations hit a low in the 2000s, then-Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made a point by choosing Beijing as his first visit abroad in 2006, declaring a “mutually beneficial relationship based on common strategic interests”.
Ever since, this wording has served as the broader framework for manoeuvring tensions in Sino-Japanese relations.
No off-ramp in sight
This time, however, de-escalation and a return to the status quo may not be as easily achieved.
Takaichi has portrayed herself as an arch-conservative who has inherited her mentor Abe’s policy agenda. She has pledged to restore a “strong Japan” by beefing up Tokyo’s defence capabilities and further strengthening the alliance with the United States.
The current dispute should not come as a surprise. Takaichi has established herself as a China hawk. She has repeatedly visited Taiwan, and in April this year called for a “quasi-security alliance” with Taipei. This reflects concerns in Tokyo that have linked the security of Taiwan directly to that of Japan, and put security across the Taiwan Strait at the centre of the US-Japan alliance.
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, then-Prime Minister Kishida Fumio declared “Ukraine may be the East Asia of tomorrow,” explicitly putting Taiwan at the core of international security.
Already, Takaichi has announced plans to increase Japan’s defence budget to 2% of its GDP by the end of March 2026, two years ahead of schedule. To secure the financial resources, tax hikes are part of the discussion. A nation on alert against foreign threats will help temper opposition.
Supported by Taiwan’s leadership and large portions of the island’s public, Takaichi has used the standoff with Beijing to present herself as a resolute leader. She has also redirected the public’s focus away from her party’s past scandals to the current security crisis. Two months into office, her cabinet enjoys high support.
A quick end to the crisis is not in sight. Xi’s China is more powerful than it was a decade ago, leaving it with plenty of options to escalate tensions. The weaponisation of trade and increased military exercises are the tools Beijing will likely employ.
Yet, Japan has learned from past crises. Its supply chains have become more resilient. De-risking its investments and production away from China is an established strategy.
Takaichi’s current governing coalition also does not include the Komeito party, which has strong ties to Beijing. Within her Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), members of the old guard, such as Toshihiro Nikai, who maintained channels to Beijing’s elite, have lost their influence. Figures sceptical of China’s rise, such as Taro Aso, remain at the centre of the party.
With diplomatic channels in short supply and domestic political agendas paramount, an off-ramp for the current dispute is not in sight.
Most importantly, however, geopolitical transitions have created a new context for Sino-Japanese tensions to play out. A confident China has backed Russia in its war in Ukraine and claims leadership of the Global South. The Trump administration has undermined confidence in established US alliances, accelerating polarisation in the international system. Deterring China will become an increasingly difficult task.
Sebastian Maslow 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.
Glacial earthquakes are a special type of earthquake generated in cold, icy regions. First discovered in the northern hemisphere more than 20 years ago, these quakes occur when huge chunks of ice fall from glaciers into the sea.
Until now, only a very few have been found in the Antarctic. In a new study soon to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, I present evidence for hundreds of these quakes in Antarctica between 2010 and 2023, mostly at the ocean end of the Thwaites Glacier – the so-called Doomsday Glacier that could send sea levels rising rapidly if it were to collapse.
A recent discovery
A glacial earthquake is created when tall, thin icebergs fall off the end of a glacier into the ocean.
When these icebergs capsize, they clash violently with the “mother” glacier. The clash generates strong mechanical ground vibrations, or seismic waves, that propagate thousands of kilometres from the origin.
What makes glacial earthquakes unique is that they do not generate any high-frequency seismic waves. These waves play a vital role in the detection and location of typical seismic sources, such as earthquakes, volcanoes and nuclear explosions.
Due to this difference, glacial earthquakes were only discovered relatively recently, despite other seismic sources having been documented routinely for several decades.
Varying with the seasons
Most glacial earthquakes detected so far have been located near the ends of glaciers in Greenland, the largest ice cap in the northern hemisphere.
The Greenland glacial earthquakes are relatively large in magnitude. The largest ones are similar in size to those caused by nuclear tests conducted by North Korea in the past two decades. As such, they have been detected by a high-quality, continuously operating seismic monitoring network worldwide.
The Greenland events vary with the seasons, occurring more often in late summer. They have also become more common in recent decades. The signs may be associated with a faster rate of global warming in the polar regions.
Elusive evidence
Although Antarctica is the largest ice sheet on Earth, direct evidence of glacial earthquakes caused by capsizing icebergs there has been elusive. Most previous attempts to detect Antarctic glacial earthquakes used the worldwide network of seismic detectors.
However, if Antarctic glacial earthquakes are of much lower magnitude than those in Greenland, the global network may not detect them.
In my new study, I used seismic stations in Antarctica itself to look for signs of these quakes. My search turned up more than 360 glacier seismic events, most of which are not yet included in any earthquake catalogue.
The events I detected were in two clusters, near Thwaites and Pine Island glaciers. These glaciers have been the largest sources of sea-level rise from Antarctica.
Earthquakes at the Doomsday Glacier
Thwaites Glacier is sometimes known as the Doomsday Glacier. If it were to collapse completely it would raise global sea levels by 3 metres, and it also has the potential to fall apart rapidly.
About two-thirds of the events I detected – 245 out of 362 – were located near the marine end of Thwaites. Most of these events are likely glacial earthquakes due to capsizing icebergs.
The strongest driver of such events does not appear to be the annual oscillation of warm air temperatures that drives the seasonal behaviour of Greenland glacier earthquakes.
Instead, the most prolific period of glacial earthquakes at Thwaites, between 2018 and 2020, coincides with a period of accelerated flow of the glacier’s ice tongue towards the sea. The ice-tongue speed-up period was independently confirmed by satellite observations.
This speed-up could have been caused by ocean conditions, the effect of which is not yet well understood.
The findings suggest the short-term scale impact of ocean states on the stability of marine-terminating glaciers. This is worth further exploration to assess the potential contribution of the glacier to future sea-level rise.
The second largest cluster of detections occurred near the Pine Island Glacier. However, these were consistently located 60–80 kilometres from the waterfront, so they are not likely to have been caused by capsizing icebergs.
These events remain puzzling and require follow-up research.
What’s next for Antarctic glacial earthquake research
The detection of glacial earthquakes associated with iceberg calving at Thwaites Glacier could help answer several important research questions. These include a fundamental question about the potential instability of the Thwaites Glacier due to the interaction of the ocean, ice and solid ground near where it meets the sea.
Better understanding may hold the key to resolving the current large uncertainty in the projected sea-level rise over the next couple of centuries.
Thanh-Son Pham receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
You’ve probably experienced it – your alarm is set for 6:30am, yet somehow your eyes snap open a few minutes before it goes off. There’s no sound, no external cue, just the body somehow knowing it’s time.
It might seem strange, but you didn’t wake up by chance. It’s your body clock at work – an amazingly precise internal timing system that regulates when you sleep and wake.
But how exactly does this built-in alarm clock work?
A hormonal wake-up call
Deep in the brain is a small group of neurons called the suprachiasmatic nucleus, often referred to as the body’s “master clock”. These neurons keep track of time by coordinating internal rhythms such as circadian rhythm (aligned with the 24-hour day) to regulate things like sleep, body temperature, hunger and digestion.
The circadian rhythm influences when we feel sleepy and alert each day. Our bodies set the master clock naturally, and it is completely normal to see variation in the timing of when people prefer to sleep and be awake.
Have you ever wondered why some people are “morning people”, preferring to catch the sunrise and hit the pillow early at night, and others are “night owls”, staying up late and sleeping till mid-morning? This is because of differences in their circadian rhythm.
Regular sleep and wake, meal and exercise routines program our master clock so it starts to predict when these behaviours will happen each day and begin releasing related hormones accordingly.
For example, when we wake up in the morning, we experience a phenomenon known as the “cortisol awakening response”. This is a significant spike in cortisol – a hormone thought to help us prepare for the day and feel energised.
For people who have very consistent rise times and morning light exposure, the master clock learns when they usually get up. Well before their alarm sounds, it gently prepares the body: the temperature rises, melatonin (a sleepiness hormone) levels fall, and cortisol levels start to climb.
By the time their alarm is due, the body is already transitioning into wakefulness. Think of it as a sort of hormonal wake-up call.
A well-synced rhythm or poor sleep quality?
If you often wake a few minutes before your alarm and feel alert and rested, it’s a sign your circadian rhythm is finely tuned. Your body clock has learned to anticipate your routine and help you transition smoothly from sleep to wakefulness.
However, if you wake before your alarm but feel groggy or restless, it might signal poor sleep quality rather than a well-synced rhythm.
Having a regular bedtime and awakening schedule helps train the body’s internal clock, especially when it stays aligned with natural cues in your environment, such as changes in light and temperature throughout the day.
This will make it easier to fall asleep and wake up feeling refreshed. A regular sleep-wake schedule will help your body “keep track of time” and can teach the body to predict when it’s time to wake up.
On the other hand, an irregular sleep schedule can confuse these internal bodily rhythms, leading to drowsiness and difficulty concentrating and performing mental tasks.
Without a consistent sleep pattern, the body will rely on an alarm to wake up, potentially waking you in deeper stages of sleep and leaving you with that groggy feeling (known as sleep inertia).
In that case, reviewing your sleep hygiene and making small changes to your habits can realign your body’s internal clock, helping you wake naturally and feel truly rested.
Why is it hard to switch off?
Stress and anxiety can increase levels of cortisol – the same hormone that naturally increases in the morning to help you wake up – making it harder to stay asleep or triggering early awakening.
Anticipation of exciting events can also make it difficult to sleep, as a high state of arousal makes your brain stay alert, leading to lighter sleep and premature awakenings. These situations are common and are normal from time to time; however, they may cause longer-term sleep problems if they happen too often.
In the pre-industrial era, people followed environmental cues from the sun and the moon to guide their sleep patterns.
In modern times, waking naturally without an alarm can be hard. But when it happens, it’s a strong sign that you’ve had enough rest and that your body clock is healthy and well-aligned.
Training your body to wake up without an alarm is possible by adopting the following strategies: prioritising a consistent sleep schedule with 7–8 hours of sleep (including on weekends); avoiding sleep disruptions due to caffeine, alcohol or heavy meals; creating a dark sleep environment and avoiding screens before bed; and ensuring exposure to natural sunlight in the morning.
Yaqoot Fatima receives funding from MRFF, NHMRC and Beyond Blue.
Alexandra Metse has received funding from the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, MRFF, the Waterloo Foundation, and the NSW Department of Education. She is a member of the Australasian Sleep Association.
Danielle Wilson 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.
The world’s dominant streaming service, Netflix, has announced its planned acquisition of Warner Bros with a deal valued at US$82.7 billion (A$124.5 billion).
The acquisition has provoked criticism from film fans, the creative community and the United States government, including concerns for the future of filmgoing. News of the acquisition was also followed by a hostile bid (a bid that goes directly to shareholders, not the board), from Paramount Skydance.
Jane Fonda described the Netflix deal as “catastrophic”, saying it “threatens the entire entertainment industry”.
Since emerging as the global leader in streaming, Netflix has avoided acquisitions while its competitors have bought up legacy assets, like Amazon’s purchase of MGM in 2022. Rather than buy existing intellectual property, Netflix sought to build new brands such as Stranger Things and Squid Game.
However, it is rare that a 100-year archive like Warner Bros – which ranges from Looney Tunes cartoons to Emmy-magnet The White Lotus – would come up for sale. The deal would bolster Netflix’s library and save expensive licensing costs. There’s no need to pay for ten seasons of Friends if you own the company.
The acquisition raises questions on the consolidation of streaming services. But one of the most immediate concerns is the impact on filmgoing.
Do we still go to the cinema?
Cinema attendance has been falling since the rise of global streaming. This decline was exacerbated by the pandemic: 2025’s global box office will be down 13% from pre-COVID times.
Netflix occasionally releases films in a handful of theatres for extremely limited runs to qualify for awards such as the Oscars, which require a cinematic release. But Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos has repeatedly stated Netflix’s priority is at home rather than theatres.
While blockbusters from the Warner Bros studio like Batman and Minecraft are likely to still be released in cinemas under the new super-company, original and mid-budget films may not get the same opportunity.
Ironically, the proposed deal is coming at a time when Warner Bros is having a very successful run of auteur-led films in theatres, such as Ryan Coogler’s Sinners and Paul Thomas Anderson’s One Battle After Another.
Commenting on the deal, Sarandos said Netflix would look to make the time between films being exclusively in cinemas and available at home more “consumer friendly” – meaning the company will look to have short cinema runs and a quick pivot to streaming services.
Theatrical windows have been shrinking. The original Top Gun is often credited with starting the home video revolution when it sold a then-record 2.9 million VHS cassettes in 1987, but that was ten months after it had been a hit in cinemas.
Even in 2010, when the Walt Disney Company sought to shorten the home video release window of Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland to 12 weeks, the British theatre chain Odeon threatened not to exhibit the film. Today, blockbusters like Wicked can fly to premium video on demand in a few weeks.
Many theatrical films earn the majority of their box office in the first two weeks of release, and so longer exclusive windows are arguably a case of diminishing returns. However, this doesn’t always hold true.
Earlier this year, Warner Bros’ vampire movie Sinners opened modestly in cinemas. But the film sustained its audience over several weeks on its way to becoming the highest grossing original film at the US box office in years, taking in over US$260 million (A$390 million).
Cinephiles argue original films like Sinners need time to find a cinema audience, and the film’s many musical and horror setpieces are amplified by the communal experience of the theatre.
Challenges ahead
Skydance is also looking to add the studio to its growing portfolio, after its recent purchase of Paramount.
Skydance owner David Ellison has demonstrated his commitment to cinemas by promising Paramount will release 30 films in theatres a year with “healthy traditional windows”.
The deal will also come under regulatory scrutiny due to antitrust concerns. It unites top streamers Netflix and HBO as well as the film studio, removing a significant buyer from the market. Such anti-competitive rationale was used under the Biden administration to successfully block the proposed merger of book publishers Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.
One note of optimism is that Netflix has recently demonstrated a willingness to deviate from its founding principles. When the streaming service first launched, it positioned itself in opposition to broadcast and cable television by dropping all episodes of a season at once, not streaming live content or sport, and shunning advertising. Netflix has rolled back these three tenets in recent years in response to the shifting marketplace.
Perhaps the service’s stubborn refusal to embrace filmgoing is another long-held principle it will abandon if audiences are eager.
New research shows young people are craving in-person entertainment, still a novelty for digital natives.
This appetite for experiences has fuelled the recent success in cinemas of A Minecraft Movie, Taylor Swift concert films, and KPop Demon Hunters sing-along – months after it was originally released on Netflix.
If cinema’s reassert themselves as a lively communal space, perhaps this is one experience the newly diversified Netflix will buy a ticket for.
Liam Burke 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.
Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Peter Draper, Professor, and Executive Director: Institute for International Trade, and Director of the Jean Monnet Centre of Trade and Environment, University of Adelaide
This week, US President Donald Trump approved previously banned exports of Nvidia’s powerful H200 artificial intelligence (AI) chips to China.
In return, the US government will receive 25% of the sales revenue, in what has become a hallmark of this administration to take a sales cut of a private company’s revenues.
The H200 is Nvidia’s second-most powerful AI processor. It’s roughly six times more capable than the H20 chips previously available to buyers in China.
These aren’t consumer gadgets powering the latest cat meme generator or helping you with the weekly pub quiz. They’re the computational engines behind advanced AI systems that increasingly drive autonomous weapons. This includes drone navigation systems, automatic gun emplacements and targeting algorithms in modern warfare.
At the end of a year that has seen the US and China locked in a bitter trade war in which Trump lifted tariffs on China as high as 145% at one point, the decision to allow these sensitive exports is stunning.
This policy reversal fundamentally challenges how export controls work. It also raises urgent questions for US allies such as Australia, caught between economic dependence on China and deepening defence alignment with an increasingly unpredictable United States.
How we got here
Having access to advanced semiconductor chips is crucial in the global race toward advanced artificial intelligence. In October 2022, the Biden administration put strict semiconductor export controls in place. These rules targeted advanced AI chips and chip-making equipment destined for China.
This was dubbed the “small yard, high fence” approach. The aim was to restrict (build a “high fence” around) a narrow range of sensitive technologies, while still allowing broader trade with China.
The Biden administration placed 140 Chinese entities on export blacklists. It also restricted 24 types of manufacturing equipment and banned US engineers from supporting advanced Chinese chip facilities.
Trump’s approach is fundamentally different. In July, his administration allowed Nvidia to sell H20 chips to China in exchange for 15% of revenues. This was widely seen as a concession to China linked to negotiations over US access to rare earth minerals.
Trump’s latest move to approve the far more powerful H200 chips for export to China reflects his abandoning the rulebook on trade.
Strategic security decisions are being transformed into transactional “deals” where everything has a price.
AI warfare is already here
AI chips now power targeting systems, guide munitions and make split-second decisions on battlefields worldwide.
Ukraine’s forces use AI-equipped drones that autonomously navigate the final approach to targets, even in heavily jammed environments, reportedly improving strike accuracy from 30–50% to around 80%.
According to a Guardian report, Israel’s “Lavender” AI system identified 37,000 potential Hamas-linked targets, accelerating airstrikes but reportedly contributing to significant civilian casualties.
China’s People’s Liberation Army is reportedly deploying AI for drone swarm coordination, autonomous target recognition, and real-time battlefield decision-making.
The Pentagon’s Project Maven synthesises satellite and sensor data to suggest targets that US forces may subsequently destroy.
This isn’t science fiction; it is today’s battlefield reality.
A new kind of laundering
Modern semiconductors are “dual-use” technologies. The same chips training AI chatbots can guide cruise missiles. The same microcontrollers regulating washing machines can navigate attack drones.
These components travelled through third countries such as India and Kazakhstan before finding their way to Russian manufacturers.
You can’t ban washing machines without crippling consumer economies. But washing machines contain microcontrollers perfect for military drones. Export controls can become an elaborate game of whack-a-mole, where each restriction spawns new workarounds.
But Australia is in something of a bind. China accounts for about 30% of Australia’s total merchandise trade. Meanwhile, the US increasingly demands policy alignment as the price for accessing its defence technology.
What does US relaxation of export controls on advanced AI chips mean for Australia? Are we obligated to follow? Australia’s alignment with AUKUS was grounded on partners sharing similar views about threats, and adopting a consistent response.
However, the US’ recently released National Security Strategy identifies migration to Europe as a bigger “civilisational” threat than Russia’s military threat. Clearly, Australians see this very differently.
When security becomes a bargaining chip
Export controls work when they’re consistent, predictable, and clearly tied to national security. They fail when they become bargaining chips or revenue generators.
Trump’s H200 deal transforms the “high fence” around sensitive technologies into a turnstile for the right price.
There are pressing questions for Australia. Do US-aligned export controls serve Australian interests? Or are we outsourcing sovereignty to a partner whose decisions are increasingly arbitrary and transactional?
Nathan Howard Gray receives funding from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Peter Draper 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.
The guidance once stated clearly and correctly that the evidence shows no link between vaccines and the development of autism.
Now it claims “studies supporting a link [between vaccines and autism] have been ignored by health authorities”. It also says:
The claim “vaccines do not cause autism” is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr directed the CDC to make these changes, despite promising at his confirmation not to alter the CDC’s vaccine advice.
With this change in wording on the website the CDC has been dragged to a new low. The CDC once stood as a global benchmark of scientific integrity. Sadly, it now risks becoming a megaphone for misinformation and a tool for those whose goal is to undermine science.
Let’s look at the updated CDC statement about vaccines and autism, and how this is at odds with how science works.
Science can’t prove universal negatives
Saying “studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism” is in direct conflict with how science works.
Using science, we can demonstrate that two things are linked by showing consistent, reproducible associations that stand up across multiple study designs. We can also test a hypothesis repeatedly and from many angles.
Therefore, for example, when high-quality studies using different methods, populations and measurements, all fail to find a link between vaccines and autism, the rational conclusion is there is no causal connection.
But we cannot prove the universal absence of a link.
If we were to accept this notion, someone could always claim they aren’t convinced by the current evidence because maybe the next study will find something. Using this same logic, it’s impossible to rule out the Earth is flat or that fairies exist.
It’s wrong to reverse the burden of proof
Another dangerous premise in the CDC’s new framing on vaccines and autism is it reverses the burden of proof.
In science, the person making a claim, especially one that argues against the available consensus, must provide the evidence for it.
The rhetorical manoeuvre on the CDC website suggesting proof is required to show the absence of a link, however, flips this principle on its head. It suggests it’s reasonable to expect scientists to defend against an infinite list of hypothetical possibilities.
But as US astronomer Carl Sagan famously put it, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. In science, if you want to assert something that contradicts the scientific consensus, the burden is on you to produce evidence strong enough to justify overturning what we already know.
The more implausible a claim is, the higher the bar in providing high quality, reproducible and methodologically sound research to support it.
By asking the CDC to alter its website guidance, RFK Jr wants you to accept the opposite: that he or anyone can make any claim and it’s the responsibility of everyone else to disprove these claims.
It’s also unclear what evidence would change RFK Jr’s mind on vaccines and autism. This leaves the door open for him to claim any amount of evidence that doesn’t support his preferred narrative is insufficient.
But what about the study that claimed to be proof?
Speculation about a link between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism began with a fraudulent and now-retracted 1998 Lancet paper by the discredited doctor Andrew Wakefield.
Even if you accepted everything in Wakefield’s paper as true (it wasn’t) and assumed he was an honest researcher (he wasn’t), you would still be left with nothing more than a case series of 12 children. This study design is incapable of establishing a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
Subsequent investigations also uncovered a long list of damning findings about Wakefield, including:
1) He hid major financial conflicts of interest
Wakefield was paid large sums by lawyers preparing a lawsuit against MMR manufacturers, money he failed to disclose. He was contracted to find evidence supporting a link between MMR and autism.
At the same time, he had filed patents for a single-dose measles vaccine and a diagnostic test that stood to profit if public fear about MMR increased.
2) He committed serious ethical violations
Wakefield falsely claimed the study had ethics approval. It did not. Children with developmental conditions were subjected to invasive procedures, including colonoscopies and lumbar punctures, without valid clinical justification or proper oversight.
3) He misrepresented how the children were recruited
The paper claimed the children were consecutively referred, implying an unbiased clinical sample. In reality, several were recruited through anti-vaccine groups or families involved in the lawsuit funding Wakefield, meaning the sample was deliberately cherry-picked to support his predetermined hypothesis.
symptoms that began before vaccination were rewritten as occurring after MMR
gastrointestinal findings were exaggerated or invented
diagnoses were manipulated to fit his fabricated “autistic enterocolitis” syndrome
normal clinical results were presented as abnormal.
The tragedy in all this is that a fraudulent study that never should have seen the light of day continues, even now, to erode confidence in life-saving vaccines. This has led to reduced vaccination rates, the resurgence of preventable childhood illnesses, and unnecessary deaths.
It has also inflicted immeasurable harm on autistic people and their families by fuelling stigma and misinformation.
Hassan Vally 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.
Where many other meteor showers are often over-hyped, the Geminids are the real deal: far and away the best shower of the year, peaking on December 14–15 in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand.
The Geminids – dust and debris left behind by the rock comet Phaethon – put on a fantastic display every year, but 2025 promises to be extra special because the Moon will be out of the way, giving us perfectly dark skies.
So where and when should you look?
Meteors that radiate from the constellation Gemini
The key thing for working out the visibility of a meteor shower is its “radiant”, the single point in the sky from which the meteors seemingly originate. For the Geminids, at their peak, that point lies within the constellation Gemini, near the bright star Castor (α Geminorum).
The radiant is a result of perspective – the dust that causes a given meteor shower is all travelling in the same direction towards Earth, just like the lines in the drawing below.
The higher the radiant is in the sky, the more meteors you will see. When the radiant is below the horizon, you won’t see any meteors from that shower because they are hitting the other side of the planet.
The dust that creates a meteor shower is all moving in the same direction. As meteors approach the observer, they appear to radiate from a single point on the horizon – the result of perspective. Braindrain0000/Wikipedia, CC BY-SA
What time should I look?
The absolute best time to observe is when the radiant is at its highest in the sky, called “culmination”, which happens around 2am or 3am local time on December 15. But any time between midnight through dawn will be a great time to watch the meteor shower in Australia and New Zealand.
The time at which the Geminid radiant rises varies depending on your latitude. The farther south you live, the later the radiant will rise. And the farther north you live, the higher in the sky the radiant will reach, increasing the number of meteors you will see per hour.
The more light-polluted your skies, the fewer meteors you’ll see. Fortunately, the Geminids often produce many bright meteors so it’s worth looking even from inner city locations. Just remember the rates you see will be markedly worse than if you were camping somewhere dark in the countryside.
If the forecast is cloudy for the night of the Geminid maximum, the nights of December 13 and 15 will still offer a decent display, although not as spectacular.
Where should I look?
The Geminids can appear in any part of the night sky, but the best place to look with the unaided eye is usually around 45 degrees to the left or right of the radiant (whichever direction is a darker sky for you).
The easiest way to work this out is to find the constellation Orion, and look so that Orion is about 45 degrees from the centre of your vision.
I’d recommend spending at least an hour out beneath the stars when looking for Geminids, to give your eyes enough time to adapt to the darkness. Don’t look at your phone or any other bright lights during this time. Instead, take some blankets and pillows and lie down.
Ideally, you want to be resting so that the centre of your vision is about 45 degrees above the horizon. Then lie back, and enjoy the show. Remember that meteors come in randomly – you might wait ten minutes and see nothing, then three come along all at once.
Why do meteors look different in photos?
In the days after the Geminid peak, you’ll doubtless see lots of spectacular images on social media. But photos showing dozens of meteors against the background stars are composites of many photographs taken over a period of several hours.
Keen photographers will often set up their cameras pointing at the northern sky, take a lengthy series of exposures, then pick those with meteors in them and stack them together to make a composite image.
If you want to try this yourself, here are a couple of useful tips.
First, to avoid any star trails on your individual images, follow the rule of 500. Find out the focal length of your lens (common wide-angle lenses have focal lengths of 14 to 35mm), and set your exposure time to be less than 500 divided by the focal length of your lens. For example, if you’re using a 50mm lens, you’d have to keep your exposures under 10 seconds.
Next, set the lens focal ratio, or f-number, to be as small as possible. This will ensure the lens is wide open, allowing it to gather as much light as it can during each image.
Finally, set the ISO of your camera to be relatively high, choosing a number of at least 1,600. The higher you set the ISO, the more sensitive your camera will be to light, and the fainter the objects visible in the dark sky images. However, be warned that setting the ISO too high can make your images grainy.
Once all that is done, set up your camera with the field of view you want to image, take a timelapse of the sky, and leave your camera running while you watch the skies. Hopefully over the course of an hour or two under the stars you might just capture some spectacular shots of debris bits burning up high overhead.
Jonti Horner 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.
