- | George Eliot
- | George Eliot
- Rubin Naiman, cited by Susie Neilson in We’re in a ‘Dream Deprivation’ Epidemic
Google Launchpad Accelerator where his startup was one of the very first from Africa at the accelerator.
Tunji Adegbesan is a teacher. He lectures at the Lagos Business School, and he puts what he teaches to practice as the founder of the education startup, “Gidi Mobile.” The startup’s mission is simple, provide education at scale via mobile while making it engaging and exciting. He has generated a lot of interest from investors and partners as well. Google gave Gidi Mobile $1M the week their CEO, Sundar Picha, visited Nigeria...[more]
- | Christine Peterson
Justin Peters has taken on the unenviable task of writing about Fox & Friends for Slate: ‘It’s like the authoritarian Today Show.’ Here’s a gem:
Like the president whom they rush to flatter, Fox & Friends ultimately believes in nothing except itself and co-opts traditional symbols in order to bolster its own status and that of its patron. The show is toxic in the way that it sets its viewers up, right at first light, to see bad faith in everyone they meet thereafter; to assume that their ideological opponents are stupid or insincere or malicious or all of those things at once. Fox & Friends is the most cynical show on television. In lockstep with Trump’s reactionary agenda, it yearns for the past while destabilizing the present and future. It is a witch’s mirror, showing you only those things that you hate most in other people, preventing any meaningful self-reflection. It is one of the few shows that actually matters right now, and we are all screwed for it.
I got a note yesterday from a recent grad of the altMBA. He said, "I have to say that the value I have gained from this group far exceeds anything I could give back, and please know that it is rippling out and will affect many more than just the people that went through the program. Thank you..."
We put together this short video about the impact that this 30-day workshop is having on the thousands of people who have gone through it. I'll be talking a little bit about how and why we made it via Facebook Live today at 10 am NY time.
The next available session is in January. Tomorrow is the last day for First Priority applications. The application takes about fifteen minutes.
There are no tests.
If you're ready for us, we're ready for you.
Krugman pulls no punches, and why should he? The GOP is completely bankrupt, morally:
The Trump administration and its allies are lying about every aspect of their tax plan.
I’m not talking about dubious interpretations of evidence or misleading presentation of the facts — the kind of thing the Bush administration used to specialize in. I’m talking about flat-out, easily refuted lies, like the claim that America has the world’s highest taxes (among rich countries, we have close to the lowest), or the claim that estate taxes are a huge burden on small business (almost no small businesses pay any estate tax).
The list of lies
Nor do I mean that there are just one or two big lies. There are many — so many I literally don’t have space to so much as list them in this column. In a long blog post this past weekend [charmingly entitled Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, by the way] I tried to provide a systematic list; I came up with 10 major Republican lies about tax cuts, and I’m sure I missed a few.
So, politically, can they really get away with this? A lot depends on how the news media handles it. If an administration spokesperson declares that up is down, will news reports simply say “so-and-so says up is down, but Democrats disagree,” or will they also report that up is not, in fact, down? I wish I were confident about the answer to that question.
One thing we know for sure, however, is that a great majority of Republican politicians know perfectly well that their party is lying about its tax plan — and every even halfway competent economist aligned with the party definitely understands what’s going on.
What this means is that everyone who goes along with this plan, or even remains silent in the face of the campaign of mass dissimulation, is complicit — is in effect an accomplice to the most dishonest political selling job in American history.
When I visited Berlin-based artist and hacker Bengt Sjölen’s studio earlier this week he was developing the hardware for of OpenDrop: an open source digital platform for controlling small droplets of liquids using electro-wetting technology. It struck me that we ought to be looking at open wetware and synthetic biohacking in Op3ncare. Because there is a lot of scope for DIY and citizen science to actually make advances in developing new care solutions. There are many areas where this could help us to solve pressing problems like antibiotics resistance.
Bengt mentioned an experimental initiative to use some of the properties of silk produced from recombinant bacteria to break quorum sensing. This means you break cell-cell communication within and across bacterial species. It matters because this is a contributing factor to a number of clinically relevant things like making harmless bacteria produce enzymes which attack host tissues, produce toxins, stick to hosts and protect themselves while outside hosts. It may also be a way to break their antibiotic resistence...[more]
Earlier this month, the MIT Technology Review posted an article that asked “What the hell is an initial coin offering?”
When befuddlement emanates from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, arguably the world’s foremost grantor of geek cred, you know you are in truly new territory...[more]
Giveaway Contest: Thanks to the generosity of @harperperennial, we’re giving away all eight of the brand new, limited edition 2017-18 Harper Perennial Olive Editions! Won’t these look lovely on your shelf? :D
To win these books, you must: 1) be following macrolit on Tumblr (yes, we will check. :P), and 2) reblog this post. We will randomly choose a winner on November 18, at which time we’ll start a new giveaway. And yes, Harper Perennial has agreed to make this an International giveaway! Easy, right? Good luck!
- | Voltaire
Somewhere, someone is doing something that got your attention, inciting you into action. Somewhere, someone is:
- Taking your share
- Wasting an opportunity
- Cutting ahead in line
- Suffering at the hands of bully
- Invading your territory
- Announcing a deadline
- Sharing breaking news
- Disrespecting your tribe
- Going hungry
- Whispering juicy gossip
- Misinterpreting your words
- Not being offered an opportunity
- Libeling a cause you believe in
- Living with loneliness
- Promising a shortcut
- The victim of cruelty
- Being cruel
- Giving something away
- Picking winners
- Asking for help
Which of these is your kind of urgent, a chance to take umbrage or perhaps, a call to action?
Which one turns our heads, gets our attention and breaks our rhythm?
We notice what we care about and work hard to ignore the rest. You can change what you care about by changing what you notice.
Fifteen and counting.
Yes, it is.
Tanjalo, a blockchain startup in Nigeria has launched an online marketplace where residents can buy and sell bitcoin. The Lagos based company officially began operations on October 12 in a bid to address borderless payments and access to cryptocurrencies in West Africa. Tanjalo's CTO and Co-founder Tim Akinbo also runs the only node in West Africa...[more]
Price is a simple number. How much money do I need to hand you to get this thing?
Cost is more relevant, more real and more complicated.
Cost is what I had to give up to get this. Cost is how much to feed it, take care of it, maintain it and troubleshoot it. Cost is my lack of focus and my cost of storage. Cost is the externalities, the effluent, the side effects.
Just about every time, cost matters more than price, and shopping for price is a trap.
- | Ricard Thaler, cited by Neil Irwin in Why Surge Prices Make Us So Mad: What Springsteen, Home Depot, and a Nobel Winner Know
In recent years, anti-immigration rhetoric and nativist policies have become the new normal in liberal democracies from Europe to the United States. Legitimate debates about immigration policy and preventing extremism have been eclipsed by an obsessive focus on Muslims that paints them as an immutable civilizational enemy that is fundamentally incompatible with Western democratic values.
Yet despite the breathless warnings of impending Islamic conquest sounded by alarmist writers and pandering politicians, the risk of Islamization of the West has been greatly exaggerated. Islamists are not on the verge of seizing power in any advanced Western democracy or even winning significant political influence at the polls.
The same cannot be said of white nationalists, who today are on the march from Charlottesville, Va., to Dresden, Germany. As an ideology, white nationalism poses a significantly greater threat to Western democracies; its proponents and sympathizers have proved, historically and recently, that they can win a sizable share of the vote — as they did this year in France, Germany and the Netherlands — and even win power, as they have in the United States.
Keep up the pressure on Republicans in Congress. ‘The People’ can’t stand the dotard. Trump’s approval is tanking.
Proximity matters a great deal.
Detroit car executives in the 1970s and 1980s consistently failed to respond to the threat from Japanese imports. They weren't merely arrogant—they were blinded by proximity. Everyone in their neighborhood, everyone on their commute, everyone in their parking lot was driving an American car. How could there be a problem?
We define the universe around us as normal. It's one of the only ways to stay sane—we assume that the noise in our head is in the head of other people, that what we yearn for or buy is what others do as well. And we look to the world around us for confirmation.
This truth can take us to two insights:
- if you want to understand what part of the world is really like, you should make special efforts to surround yourself with that world. If you market to bodegas, consider taking an apartment upstairs from a bodega.
- there's a huge bonus to being famous to the family. If you can be locally dominant, the locals will instinctively decide that you are globally dominant. Have 100 customers in one neighborhood (virtual or real) is worth much much more than having one customer in each of 100 neighborhoods.
from Perspectives on Politics, 2014
Who governs? Who really rules? To what extent is the broad body of U.S. citizens sovereign, semisovereign, or largely powerless? These questions have animated much important work in the study of American politics. While this body of research is rich and variegated, it can loosely be divided into four families of theories: Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism—Majoritarian Pluralism, in which the interests of all citizens are more or less equally represented, and Biased Pluralism, in which corporations, business associations, and professional groups predominate. Each of these perspectives makes different predictions about the independent influence upon U.S. policy making of four sets of actors: the Average Citizen or“median voter,” Economic Elites, and Mass-based or Business-oriented Interest Groups or industries.
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
So, in case you wondered, the average citizen has functionally zero impact on policy, even when their ‘power’ is pulled together in interest groups. We are not living in a democracy, but an oligarchy.
The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.
Our results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
A final point: Even in a bivariate, descriptive sense,
our evidence indicates that the responsiveness of the U.S. political system when the general public wants government action is severely limited
. Because of the impediments to majority rule that were deliberately built into the U.S. political system—federalism, separation of powers, bicameralism—together with further impediments due to anti-majoritarian congressional rules and procedures, the system has a substantial status quo bias. Thus
when popular majorities favor the status quo, opposing a given policy change, they are likely to get their way; but when a majority—even a very large majority—of the public favors change, it is not likely to get what it wants.
In our 1,779 policy cases, narrow pro-change majorities of the public got the policy changes they wanted only about 30 percent of the time. More strikingly,
even overwhelmingly large pro-change majorities, with 80 percent of the public favoring a policy change, got that change only about 43 percent of the time
In any case, normative advocates of populistic democracy may not be enthusiastic about democracy by coincidence, in which ordinary citizens get what they want from government only when they happen to agree with elites or interest groups that are really calling the shots. When push comes to shove, actual influence matters.
By directly pitting the predictions of ideal-type theories against each other within a single statistical model (using a unique data set that includes imperfect but useful measures of the key independent variables for nearly two thousand policy issues), we have been able to produce some striking findings. One is the nearly total failure of “median voter” and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
Overall, net interest-group alignments are not significantly related to the preferences of average citizens. The net alignments of the most influential, business-oriented groups are negatively related to the average citizen’s wishes. So existing interest groups do not serve effectively as transmission belts for the wishes of the populace as a whole. “Potential groups” do not take up the slack, either, since average citizens’ preferences have little or no independent impact on policy after existing groups’ stands are controlled for.
Furthermore, the preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of “affluent” citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do. To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly often get the policies they favor, but only because those policies happen also to be preferred by the economically-elite citizens who wield the actual influence.
Of course our findings speak most directly to the “first face” of power: the ability of actors to shape policy outcomes on contested issues. But they also reflect—to some degree, at least—the “second face” of power: the ability to shape the agenda of issues that policy makers consider. The set of policy alternatives that we analyze is considerably broader than the set discussed seriously by policy makers or brought to a vote in Congress, and our alternatives are (on average) more popular among the general public than among interest groups. Thus the fate of these policies can reflect policy makers’ refusing to consider them rather than considering but rejecting them. (From our data we cannot distinguish between the two.) Our results speak less clearly to the “third face” of power: the ability of elites to shape the public’s preferences.49 We know that interest groups and policy makers themselves often devote considerable effort to shaping opinion. If they are successful, this might help explain the high correlation we find between elite and mass preferences. But it cannot have greatly inflated our estimate of average citizens’ influence on policy making, which is near zero.
All in all, we believe that the public is likely to be a more certain guardian of its own interests than any feasible alternative.
Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a wide- spread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
Adam Przeworski, a democratic theorist at New York University, suggested that democratic erosion in America begins with a breakdown in what he calls the “class compromise.” His point is that democracies thrive so long as people believe they can improve their lot in life. This basic belief has been “an essential ingredient of Western civilization during the past 200 years,” he said.
But fewer and fewer Americans believe this is true. Due to wage stagnation, growing inequalities, automation, and a shrinking labor market, millions of Americans are deeply pessimistic about the future: 64 percent of people in Europe believe their children will be worse off than they were; the number is 60 percent in America.
That pessimism is grounded in economic reality. In 1970, 90 percent of 30-year-olds in America were better off than their parents at the same age. In 2010, only 50 percent were. Numbers like this cause people to lose faith in the system. What you get is a spike in extremism and a retreat from the political center. That leads to declines in voter turnout and, consequently, more opportunities for fringe parties and candidates.
Political polarization is an obvious problem, but researchers like Przeworski suggest something more profound is going on. Political theorists like to talk about the “social compact,” which is basically an implicit agreement among members of society to participate in a system that benefits everyone.
Well, that only works if the system actually delivers on its promises. If it fails to do so, if it leads enough people to conclude that the alternative is less scary than the status quo, the system will implode from within.
Is that happening here? Neither Przeworski nor anyone else went quite that far. But we know there’s a growing disconnect between productivity (how hard people work) and compensation (how much they’re paid for that work). At the same time, we’ve seen a spike in racial animus, particularly on the right. It seems likely there’s a connection here.
Przeworski believes that American democracy isn’t collapsing so much as deteriorating. “Our divisions are not merely political but have deep roots in society,” he argues. The system has become too rigged and too unfair, and most people have no real faith in it.
Where does that leave us? Nowhere good, Przeworski says. The best he could say is that “our current crisis will continue for the foreseeable future.”
Um, or not.
Don’t forget the other crises piled on top: climate catastrophe, the rise of AI and the jobless future, and the build-up of nuclear arsenals.
- Nancy Bermeo, cited by Sean Illing in 20 of America’s top political scientists gathered to discuss our democracy. They’re scared.
The status quo is not kind. It works overtime to stay the status quo, and that means that new ideas, urgent pleas and cries for justice are rarely easily voiced.
We're pleased that Annie Kenney stood up for a woman's right to vote all those years ago, even if she got arrested for doing so. And we're proud of Elijah Harper, who brought a debate to a standstill when he stood up for the rights of indigenous people. We're glad that Lois Gibbs stood up to fight for the families near Love Canal, and that Rachel Carson was able to save countless lives by blowing the whistle on how we were poisoning ourselves.
The historical examples are pretty much beyond dispute. When we think about the past, our heroes are those that were willing to persist even when their critics tried to silence them.
Where it becomes challenging is when someone around us chooses to speak up. Today. Now.
It might be someone in HR who risks his job to report the boss to the board. Or it might be an unlikely activist, standing up for a cause that wasn't on our radar. It might be someone in accounting who has found a better way to do things, or an unknown with no power or authority who stands up and says, "follow me."
We can't judge those that challenge the status quo merely on their rule breaking. Because the rules only exist to maintain the status quo.
Instead, we have to work ever harder on seeing, listening and supporting the quiet voices who have something important to say. Perhaps, if we listen a bit harder, we'll be able to do the right thing that much sooner.
More on the difficulties of finding low risk, high reward strategies in business these days, and the challenge of finding new ideas:
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd said on Friday its CEO and vice chairman Kwon Oh-hyun had decided to step down from management, as it forecast record third-quarter profits on the back of soaring memory chip prices. The surprise resignation comes as Kwon was expected to take a bigger role following the arrest of Samsung Group scion and heir apparent Jay Y Lee in February on bribery charges, and the departures of other key executives.
“I believe the time has come for the company to start anew with new sprit and young leadership to better respond to challenges,” Kwon, who is seen as Samsung Group No. 2, said in a statement.
“We are fortunately making record earnings right now, but this is the fruit of past decisions and investments; we are not able to even get close to finding new growth engines by reading future trends right now.”
The latent complexity of software systems means they will fail, and as the famous corollary to Murphy’s Law has it, they will fail at the worst possible time, with the largest possible consequences:
James Somers | The Coming Software Apocalypse
it’s been said that software is “eating the world.” More and more, critical systems that were once controlled mechanically, or by people, are coming to depend on code. This was perhaps never clearer than in the summer of 2015, when on a single day, United Airlines grounded its fleet because of a problem with its departure-management system; trading was suspended on the New York Stock Exchange after an upgrade; the front page of The Wall Street Journal’s website crashed; and Seattle’s 911 system went down again, this time because a different router failed. The simultaneous failure of so many software systems smelled at first of a coordinated cyberattack. Almost more frightening was the realization, late in the day, that it was just a coincidence.
We will soon have to hand over programming to AI, because people just aren’t very good at it, and the systems we are building are increasing in complexity on an exponential basis, and we can’t even scale linearly.
Human skin color is not a function of something we call ‘race’. Instead, there are a large number of genes, shared by all people, whose variations lead to differences in skin color. New insight has been revealed in a study on the genetics of skin color in Africans, which is highly variable.
Carl Zimmer reports:
In the journal Science, the researchers [Sarah Tishkoff and her colleagues] published the first large-scale study of the genetics of skin color in Africans.
The researchers pinpointed eight genetic variants in four narrow regions of the human genome that strongly influence pigmentation — some making skin darker, and others making it lighter.
These genes are shared across the globe, it turns out; one of them, for example, lightens skin in both Europeans and hunter-gatherers in Botswana. The gene variants were present in humanity’s distant ancestors, even before our species evolved in Africa 300,000 years ago.
The widespread distribution of these genes and their persistence over millenniums show that the old color lines are essentially meaningless, the scientists said. The research “dispels a biological concept of race,” Dr. Tishkoff said.
Humans develop color much as other mammals do. Special cells in the skin contain pouches, called melanosomes, packed with pigment molecules. The more pigment, the darker the skin.
Skin color also varies with the kind of pigments: Melanosomes may contain mixtures of a brown-black called eumelanin and a yellow-red called pheomelanin.
To find the genes that help produce pigments, scientists began by studying people of European ancestry and found that mutations to a gene called SLC24A5 caused cells to make less pigment, leading to paler skin. Unsurprisingly, almost all Europeans have this variant.
“We knew quite a lot about why people have pale skin if they had European ancestry,” said Nicholas G. Crawford, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Pennsylvania and a co-author of the new study. “But there was very little known about why people have dark skin.”
Since the early 2000s, Dr. Tishkoff has studied genes in Africa, discovering variants important to everything from resistance to malaria to height.
African populations vary tremendously in skin color, and Dr. Tishkoff reasoned that powerful genetic variants must be responsible.
The eight gene variants that Dr. Tishkoff and her colleagues discovered in Africans turned out to be present in many populations outside the continent. By comparing the DNA of these people, the researchers were able to estimate how long ago the genes appeared.
They turned out to be immensely old. A variant for light skin — found in both Europeans and the San hunter-gatherers of Botswana — arose roughly 900,000 years ago, for example.
Even before there were Homo sapiens, then, our distant forebears had a mix of genes for light and dark skin. Some populations may have been dark-skinned and others light-skinned; or maybe they were all the same color, produced by a blend of variants.
Living humans come packaged in a wide range of hues — from pale and freckly in Ireland to dark brown in southern India, Australia and New Guinea. Researchers have argued that these varying colors evolved partly in response to sunlight.
The idea is that people who live with intense ultraviolet light benefited from dark color, pigments that shielded important molecules in their skin. In places with less sunlight, people needed lighter skin, because they were able to absorb more sunlight to make vitamin D.
The new genetic evidence supports this explanation, but adds unexpected complexity. The dark-skinned people of southern India, Australia and New Guinea, for example, did not independently evolve their color simply because evolution favored it.
They inherited the ancestral dark variants Dr. Tishkoff’s team found in Africans. “They had to be introduced from an African population,” said Dr. Tishkoff.
Yet the same is true for some genes that produce light skin in Asia and Europe. They also originated in Africa and were carried from the continent by migrants.
As Africans moved into Europe and Asia, they interbred with Neanderthals on several occasions. Last week, Michael Dannemann and Janet Kelso of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany reported that people in Britain still carry a number of Neanderthal variants that color skin.
Some of the newly discovered genes appeared relatively recently in our evolution.
The pale-skin variant of SLC24A5 that’s overwhelmingly common in Europe, for example, is a recent addition to the genome, arising just 29,000 years ago, according to the new study. It became widespread only in the past few thousand years.
Dr. Tishkoff and her colleagues found it frequently not just in Europe, but also in some populations of lighter-skinned Africans in East Africa and Tanzania. Studies of ancient DNA recently discovered in Africa point to an explanation.
Several thousand years ago, it seems, a migration of early Near Eastern farmers swept into East Africa. Over many generations of interbreeding, the pale variant of SLC24A5 became common in some African populations.
So, one of the largest differences between Africans and Europeans is the remnants of Neanderthal DNA that Africans lack, and which have been shown influence modern-day Europeans:
Neanderthal DNA affects skin tone and hair color, height, sleeping patterns, mood, and smoking status in present-day Europeans. Interestingly, multiple Neanderthal alleles at different loci contribute to skin and hair color in present-day Europeans, and these Neanderthal alleles contribute to both lighter and darker skin tones and hair color, suggesting that Neanderthals themselves were most likely variable in these traits.
JaySimons | United States of America in 2100
This is the map of the United States of America east coast and surroundings in fictional 2100 rising sea level scenario. After global warming and rising of sea level sharply escalated, sea level is now 100 meters higher than it was in year 2000.
For that, major parts of United States of America, including NY, Washington D.C. are now sunken under sea level, and people have migrated further to the inlands.
To see 2100 map of Italy: [link]
To see 2100 map of Germany:
To see 2100 map of Britain: [link]
To see 2100 map of entire Europe: [link]
A warmer climate is set to transform Britain from a fringe player on the global wine-making scene to a major producer by the end of the 21st Century, according to a study commissioned by retailer and merchant Laithwaite’s.
An expected rise in temperatures of more than 2 degrees celsius, plus around 5% more rain, means that UK is going to be well placed to produce a whole variety of wine styles.
Pinot Grigio, Riesling and Pinot Noir could even make it as far north as the Scottish Borders. And Essex on the outskirts of London might be producing Malbec – despite its tricky reputation – as well as Syrah and Chardonnay, researchers said.
...The de facto leader behind the leaderless collective Four Thieves Vinegar, Laufer is now on to his next project: He’s developing a desktop lab and a recipe book meant to equip patients to cook up a range of medicines, including a homemade version of the expensive hepatitis C drug Sovaldi, on their kitchen counters.
Health professionals have strenuously warned against DIY pharmaceuticals, but Laufer sees his work as a moral crusade against the patent laws and market forces that let drug companies price vital remedies out of reach for many patients.
“To deny someone access to a lifesaving medication is murder,” he said. And “an act of theft [of intellectual property] to prevent an act of murder is morally acceptable.”
Ajani Handmade, a Nairobi-based manufacturer of a range of organic hair and skin-care products.
In 2014 Njavika went to a craft fair in Nairobi with 40 jars of oil blend and whipped shea butter. By the end of the fair, the products were sold out...[more]
What if globally designed products could radically change how we work, produce and consume? Several examples across continents show the way we are producing and consuming goods could be improved by relying on globally shared digital resources, such as design, knowledge and software...[more]
Sonder is defined as that moment when you realize that everyone around you has an internal life as rich and as conflicted as yours.
That everyone has a noise in their head.
That everyone thinks that they are right, and that they have suffered affronts and disrespect at the hands of others.
That everyone is afraid. And that everyone realizes that they are also lucky.
That everyone has an impulse to make things better, to connect and to contribute.
That everyone wants something that they can't possibly have. And if they could have it, they'd discover that they didn't really want it all along.
That everyone is lonely, insecure and a bit of a fraud. And that everyone cares about something.
Sonder might happen to you. When it does, it will help you see the world in a whole new way. Because, if you let it, the feeling can persist. A feeling that can allow you to see others the way you'd like to be seen.
In May, Beyoncé threw an Africa-themed push party to celebrate the expected arrival of her twins Sir and Rumi. A medley of patterned fabric cemented the aesthetic but led some Africans to question the extent to which the riotous decor truly paid homage to Africa. African print is about as African as pizza is American – an import from Europe that has become so entrenched in the daily life of West African culture that to peel back its history seems an assault on regional identity. As a result, several thought pieces have debated the misnomer ‘African print’...[more]
This is a love poem. It has no business.
It happens in that anyway world
Where the bodies are by now decided
To get all the way up, accompanied
By changes in temperature and light
Welcome and unwelcome both,
Lie down, get up, go prone again,
Get nowhere in time. I won’t
Reduce to a single preposition
A relation to the one person about it
Like grass. Who has a pronoun, a name,
Three or four even, which globe,
Without containing, her experience,
Of which I chase awareness till
Her letters are with one exception
All over this deepening sheet, name-
Blind blue of a cloudless day.
Unconcerned with property disputes,
The poem gradually permits itself
To figure grass, the blue of the sky
Because we see those first kinds
Of immense quiet as sleepers
While walking the dog in the hills
And store them for future use
As simile and metaphor, each
ancient and suspiciously free
Of present disaster. But today royally is
Blue and cloudless, this blue, this
Unironic absence of clouds over green
That makes you temporarily more
Intelligent, makes time harder to track
Until it seems it’s always been
Only this pleasure somewhere
Between hours in the form of a bell
Melting mid-ring. The poem’s now
Broken one of its rules in order
To keep ringing. Because I want to
Be smarter than true it continues
To disobey the trace of my injuries,
Remembering home is not a place
One at all leaves or gets to
But supremely anonymous
Relations with rhythm, a fragrance
Where skin meets time on which
No pronouns fall, here in the presence of.
Not lasting but repeatable and
Each of the instances claimed
For the series, belonging
with the ones
That came before it, the others
Still to come but not in doubt,
Yesterday moving on top of tomorrow.
If blue were an all-day affair work
Didn’t tear us apart in, but held
As shape and song, the anonymous one
Playing on repeat, referencing nothing but
The very red distraction I attend to
Where bed turns each afternoon away
Along the suede sound of good decay
There’s still plenty of time to invent,
None of it spent in advance, then,
In intuition of every day to come,
The flowers lasting for more than a week,
Blue growing down to grass,
It would be like this.