NewzIntel.com

Category: Academic Analysis

  • MIL-Evening Report: Going to the dentist is expensive. Here are 3 things you can do to protect your oral health – and 3 things to avoid

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dileep Sharma, Professor and Head of Discipline – Oral Health, University of Newcastle

    Jiri Hera/Shutterstock

    Around one in three Australians delayed their visit to a dentist in the last financial year – or didn’t go at all – due to cost.

    Given it doesn’t look like dental treatment is being added to Medicare any time soon, what can you do?

    Most oral and dental diseases are preventable, if you take care of your teeth and mouth. In-between visits to the dentist, here’s what you can do to avoid preventable issues – and blow-out costs.

    What causes diseases in your mouth?

    More than 1,000 species of microbes live in the mouth. Most dental and oral diseases are due to an imbalance or overgrowth in these microbes within the plaque (or “biofilm”).

    Plaque gathers on the hard surfaces inside the mouth (your teeth), as well as soft surfaces (such as your tongue). Removing plaque manually with brushing and flossing is the most effective way to maintain oral health.

    Plaque starts to form immediately after brushing, which is why you should remove it regularly.

    Things to do

    1. Brush twice a day

    Use a toothbrush with soft bristles (either electric or manual). Soft bristles remove plaque without damaging the teeth or gums. A fluoridated toothpaste will help strengthen the teeth.

    Brush for at least two minutes, using a sweeping and scrubbing motion, away from the gums. It’s a good idea to start at the back teeth and work your way through to the front teeth. Don’t forget to scrub the biting surface of the teeth.

    2. Floss

    Don’t skip this step – it’s crucial to clean in-between the teeth where a toothbrush can’t reach. Once a day should be enough.

    Whether you use floss, a pick, a bottle brush or other devices may depend on the space between your teeth.

    3. Clean your tongue

    To completely remove the microbes, it’s also important to clean your tongue regularly (twice daily). You can use a toothbrush while you’re already brushing, or a special tongue scraper – just don’t brush or scrape too hard.

    Brushing twice a day is important to remove bacteria in the mouth and on the teeth.
    PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    Things to avoid

    1. Sugary drinks and refined food

    What we eat and drink can affect the mouth’s pH.

    When bacteria in the mouth break down sugars, they produce acids. The acidity can dissolve minerals in the teeth and lead to decay.

    Refined foods – such as white bread, cakes and pastries – can easily be broken down by the mouth’s bacteria. So, having a lot of them, as well as sugary drinks, can damage the teeth and cause cavities.

    Water is the best choice to drink with your meals. Sparkling and soda water are acidic and can lead to mineral loss from the teeth, even when they are unflavoured. There is evidence flavoured sparkling water can be as harmful as orange juice.

    2. Tobacco and vaping

    Smoking or using smokeless tobacco (such as chewed tobacco or snuff pouches) is linked to oral cancer.

    Nicotine is also known to increase the severity of gum diseases – even when inflammation isn’t visible.

    This is true for both smoking and smokeless tobacco (such as chewed tobacco or snuff pouches).

    Vaping also increases your risk of developing cavities and gum disease.

    3. Too much alcohol, tea and coffee

    Drinking a lot of coffee, tea or red wine can stain your teeth. So if you’re concerned about your teeth appearing yellow or brown, it’s best to limit your intake.

    Drinking alcohol is also linked to an increased risk of developing oral cancers, which most commonly affect the tongue, floor of the mouth, cheek and palate.

    Drinks that are fizzy and sugary can damage the teeth.
    Svetlana Foote/Shutterstock

    Your mouth’s health is linked to your overall health

    Leaving oral diseases untreated (such as gum disease) has been linked to developing other conditions, such as liver disease, and pre-existing conditions getting worse.

    This is particularly evident if you have diabetes. Evidence shows it’s easier to manage blood sugar levels when gum diseases are properly treated.

    You can keep an eye on symptoms, such as bleeding gums which may be an early sign of gum disease. If symptoms that worry you, talk to your GP or diabetes educator. They may be able to refer you to a dentist if needed.

    Dileep Sharma receives funding from Dental Council of NSW, International Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research, Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, International College of Dentists and Tropical Australian Academic Health Centre for his dental research projects. He is affiliated with The International Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research and Australian Dental Association.

    – ref. Going to the dentist is expensive. Here are 3 things you can do to protect your oral health – and 3 things to avoid – https://theconversation.com/going-to-the-dentist-is-expensive-here-are-3-things-you-can-do-to-protect-your-oral-health-and-3-things-to-avoid-250786

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Non-compete clauses make it too hard to change jobs. Banning them for millions of Australians is a good move

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By William van Caenegem, Professor of Law, Bond University

    Zivica Kerkez/Shutterstock

    The Labor government used this week’s budget to announce it plans to ban non-compete agreements for employees on less than A$175,000 per year, a move that will affect about 3 million Australian workers.

    Describing them as “unfair”, a media release by federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers said non‑compete clauses “are holding back Australian workers from switching to better, higher‑paying jobs”. Banning non-compete clauses could lift the wages of affected workers by up to 4%, the government has said.

    The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry quickly called the measure “heavy-handed”, arguing that very few employees, according to businesses, turn down employment due to non-compete clauses.

    However, research I did with colleagues from Melbourne and Monash universities showed very few employees signing a new job contract ever think about the end of the relationship and what might happen after.

    Workers often accept non-compete clauses with little understanding or regard for their practical implications.

    What the law currently says

    The current law says contractual clauses that stop departing workers from taking a new job in their preferred line of work, often for long periods of time, are – in principle – unenforceable.

    That is, however, unless a court says a particular non-compete clause is “reasonably required” to protect a “legitimate interest”.

    Therein lies the problem: it is hard to predict when, where or under what circumstances a court will find a particular clause is “reasonably required”.

    Our research concluded this uncertainty favoured employers with greater nous and resources.

    These employers have the advantage over employees, who are rarely willing or able to go to court arguing their non-compete clause is invalid.

    This has a chilling effect on the mobility of employees. In other words, these clauses make it harder for workers to change jobs.

    That’s detrimental to labour market competition and can hold back knowledge-sharing and economic growth.

    Global efforts to ban non-compete clauses

    In California, non-compete clauses have long been banned. Many economists have identified this as among the key reasons for the success of the Californian knowledge economy. This example also featured in a submission I made (with researcher Caitlyn Douglas) to a 2024 Treasury review into non-compete clauses in Australia.

    US research from 2021 also found non-compete clauses can hinder labour mobility. They can impede fundamental freedoms such as freedom of employment and freedom of general competition.

    In 2024, under President Biden, the US Federal Trade Commission banned non-competes clauses across the US.

    However, the ban has been blocked due to legal challenges in the US Federal Court. It’s also been reported the Trump administration may kill off these reforms altogether.

    The UK government proposed in 2023 limiting non-competes to a maximum of three months.

    Holding employees back

    Unlike in some countries, Australian law does not require employers to compensate their ex-employee for loss of income during their non-compete period.

    This means that if workers comply and do not work in the field they’re most skilled for, they will take a serious financial hit for months or more.

    This is another detrimental effect of non-compete clauses. They really hurt if the worker in question is lower paid and has very specific skills (such as hairdressers or dental assistants).

    In that respect, Labor’s mooted ban on such clauses for employees on less than $175,000 is well conceived.

    Courts will usually only enforce a non-compete clause if its terms are reasonable to protect a legitimate interest, such as trade secrets an employee has learned during their employment.

    However, it’s mostly higher-ranked employees that have access to really significant trade secrets, such as technical information, confidential business plans or pricing structures.

    Higher paid employees are also more often the “public face of the business”. A court might decide it’s fair to say such workers can’t leave and the next day turn up as the main face of a competing business.

    And the new government proposal won’t leave employers without any recourse against employees who take their genuine trade secrets and pass them on to their new employers. They will still be able to sue for breach of confidence.

    Non-competes really hurt if the worker in question is lower paid and has very specific skills (such as hairdressers or dental assistants).
    Dorde Krstic/Shutterstock

    Challenges for reform

    The proposed reforms are well supported by authoritative legal and economic research.

    The federal government will have to consider carefully how to make sure the prohibition cannot be easily circumvented.

    And they’ll have to ensure these reforms don’t make it more likely judges will find restraints valid for those on more than A$175,000. Labour and knowledge mobility remain crucially important for them too.

    Another key challenge will be ensuring a ban doesn’t encourage practices or clauses restricting competition to emerge or become too prevalent.

    That could include “garden leave” clauses. These give a departing employee a long notice period, during which they are paid but do not work and are isolated from their employment (and instead “doing the gardening” at home).

    The risk is that if employers can no longer include non-compete clauses in contracts, they might use long garden leave provisions more often.

    Although it is good that “garden leave” employees get paid during that period (unlike during a non-compete term), they are still isolated from their work, stagnating in their skills and unable to move to new employment.

    William van Caenegem received funding from the Australian Research Council a decade ago for some of the research referred to in this article.

    – ref. Non-compete clauses make it too hard to change jobs. Banning them for millions of Australians is a good move – https://theconversation.com/non-compete-clauses-make-it-too-hard-to-change-jobs-banning-them-for-millions-of-australians-is-a-good-move-253101

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The 2025 federal budget fails the millions of voters who want action on Australia’s struggling environment

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Neal, Senior lecturer in Economics / Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

    Commentators have branded last night’s federal budget as an attempt to win over typical Australian voters concerned about the cost of living, ahead of what is expected to be a tightly fought federal election.

    The budget’s big-ticket items included tax cuts and energy bill relief, plus measures to make childcare and healthcare cheaper.

    There was little in the budget dedicated to stemming Australia’s environmental crises. Given this, one might assume the average voter cares little for action on conservation and curbing climate change. But is this true?

    Polling suggests the clear answer is “no”. Voters consistently say they want more government action on both conservation and climate change. As the federal election looms, Labor is running out of time to show it cares about Australia’s precious natural environment.

    What environmental spending was in the budget?

    The main spending on the environment in last night’s budget had been announced in the weeks before. It includes:

    These measures are welcome. However, the overall environment spending is inadequate, given the scale of the challenges Australia faces.

    Australia’s protected areas, such as national parks, have suffered decades of poor funding, and the federal budget has not rectified this. It means these sensitive natural places will remain vulnerable to harms such as invasive species and bushfires.

    More broadly, Australia is failing to stem the drivers of biodiversity loss, such as land clearing and climate change. This means more native species become threatened with extinction each year.

    Experts say conserving Australia’s threatened species would cost an extra $2 billion a year. Clearly, the federal budget spending of an extra $50 million a year falls well short of this.

    And global greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase. This contributes to ever-worsening climate change, bringing heatwaves, more extreme fires, more variable rainfall and rising seas.

    Contrary to what the federal budget priorities might suggest, Australians are concerned about these issues.

    What does the average voter think about the environment?

    Results from reputable polling provide insight into what the average voters want when it comes to environmental policy and spending.

    When it comes to conservation, the evidence is clear. Polling by YouGov in October last year (commissioned by two environment groups) estimated that 70% of Australians think the Labor government should do more to “protect and restore nature”. The vast majority of voters (86%) supported stronger national nature laws.

    Essential Research polling in October 2023 found 53% of voters think the government is not doing enough to preserve endangered species. About the same proportion said more government action was needed to preserve native forests, and oceans and rivers.

    On climate change, the average voter appears to have views significantly out of step with both major parties. The Australia Institute’s Climate of the Nation report last year found 50% of voters believed the government was not doing enough to prepare for and adapt to climate impacts.

    The report also found 50% of voters supported a moratorium on new coal mines in Australia, 69% support charging companies a levy for each tonne of carbon pollution they emit, and 69% are concerned about climate change.

    Also in 2024, a Lowy Institute poll found 57% of Australians supported the statement that “global warming is a serious and pressing problem, and that we should take steps now to mitigate it even if it involves significant costs”.

    There’s a caveat here. As the cost-of-living crisis has worsened, the issue has edged out all others in terms of voter concerns at the upcoming election.

    For example, in January this year, Roy Morgan polling found 57% of voters considered cost of living one of their top-three issues of concern. Only 23% considered global warming a top-three issue.

    However, global warming was still more of a concern for voters than managing the economy (22%), keeping interest rates down (19%) and reducing taxes (15%). It was tied with reducing crime (23%).

    It’s also important to note that climate change and cost-of-living pressures are not separate issues. Research suggests that as climate change worsens, it will cause inflation to worsen.

    Labor’s unmet election promises

    The singular focus on the cost of living in last night’s federal budget means environmental spending has been neglected.

    Context matters here. Labor has utterly failed to deliver its 2022 election promise to rewrite federal environmental protection laws and create an environmental protection agency.

    The government could have used this budget to repair its environmental credentials going into the next election – but it didn’t. The many voters concerned about the environment might well wonder if Labor considers the environment a policy priority at all.

    The upcoming election result may show whether minor parties and independents better reflect the Australian electorate’s views on this important issue.

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

    – ref. The 2025 federal budget fails the millions of voters who want action on Australia’s struggling environment – https://theconversation.com/the-2025-federal-budget-fails-the-millions-of-voters-who-want-action-on-australias-struggling-environment-253099

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Our work and home lives are blending more than ever – how do we navigate this new ‘zigzag’ reality?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Candice Harris, Professor of Management, Auckland University of Technology

    Black Salmon/Shutterstock

    For decades, researchers examined work and home life as separate domains. If they were taken together it was usually to study so-called work-life balance.

    But these days, the reality is more complex. Our work and home lives are more seamlessly integrated than ever, largely because of communications technology and the work-from-home trend.

    This can mean we deal with a work matter and a bit of domestic or family business virtually simultaneously, shifting attention and focus from one to the other within seconds.

    We’ve dubbed this phenomenon “zigzag working” to describe how employees blend work and family roles within times and spaces that might once have been separate.

    During and in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic, this became more common as many working parents had to perform their paid work at home. But as workers increasingly return to the office, has zigzag working become the new normal?

    In our research, we studied zigzag working beyond COVID to test support for it, and to understand its effects on conflict and happiness. Our study used a survey with two samples: 318 employees and 373 managers.

    Zigzag working in action

    Zigzag working provides a unique way to examine the blending of work and life. Frequent interspersing of family and work happens regularly. But what does it look like?

    Consider Raj, a senior banking professional and solo parent of a 14-year-old. Here’s how a couple of hours of interspersing work and family while in the office unfold:

    11:02 am. While listening to the CEO’s update, Raj messages his son, encouraging him to play basketball in the school break instead of gaming. His son responds with “whatever”.

    11:09 am. Raj replies: “Yes, whatever – go have a run.”

    11:48 am. He dashes out to buy lunch, remembering school camp fees are due by 5 pm.

    11:54 am. Heading back to his office, he takes a call from a colleague.

    12:02 pm. Back at his desk, Raj checks his diary while on the call, realising it’s his mother’s birthday.

    12:11 pm. Raj orders flowers for her, remembering he often said “whatever” as a teenager. He starts a message to his son but is interrupted when pulled into an urgent meeting.

    12:27 pm. As the meeting unfolds, Raj realises it has minimal impact on his division. Multitasking, he messages his son, replies to an email and mentally reviews his to-do list, including the camp fees.

    12.43 pm. Working on a product proposal, he notices no replies from his son or the florist, but his mother has messaged telling him not to bring anything for dinner since he’s so busy.

    Technology has allowed employees to blend work and family roles simultaneously.
    GaudiLab/Shutterstock

    Zigzag working results

    After speaking with employees and managers, we were able to identify several key points.

    • Zigzag working, characterised by frequent small transitions between work and family responsibilities, occurs throughout the workday.

    • Both men and women regularly zigzag between work and family responsibilities during the day. Gender differences were tested for, finding no significant variation in zigzagging behaviour. This contrasts with prior research that often finds gender differences in work-family conflict.

    • Managers zigzag more than employees.

    • Zigzag working is more prevalent for those working from home. This aligns with the idea that remote work environments make it easier for employees to switch rapidly between work and personal responsibilities.

    • Even those not working from home still reported moderate levels of zigzag working, suggesting this phenomenon is not limited to remote work.

    • Zigzag working was linked to both work-family conflict and happiness, underscoring its unique impact. While managing multiple responsibilities can be challenging, it can also be rewarding – especially when individuals feel a sense of control over their time and tasks.

    The key takeaway? Zigzagging exists, and it is practised across genders, levels of seniority and locations. While it makes workers busier, our research found it also makes them happier.

    Employers should embrace zigzag working

    Recognising zigzagging as a normal work dynamic can foster a more supportive workplace, enhancing employee wellbeing, focus and overall performance. Employers can promote discussions about zigzagging to challenge rigid work-life boundaries.

    Encouraging men to share their zigzagging experiences broadens the conversation beyond the assumption that openly juggling work and family is primarily a women’s issue. Normalising work-family intersections can make them feel more manageable and even gratifying.

    Zigzagging is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Employers should recognise that zigzagging can vary by job role, time constraints and caregiving responsibilities, differing across professions and individuals.

    Technology can further support zigzag working, enabling staff to efficiently manage both work and family responsibilities.

    Zigzagging provides a fresh perspective on the blend of work and family, revealing the interplay between work and family can be simultaneously both beneficial and detrimental. Zigzaggers may be busy, but they are also happy – working as masters of their own universes.

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

    – ref. Our work and home lives are blending more than ever – how do we navigate this new ‘zigzag’ reality? – https://theconversation.com/our-work-and-home-lives-are-blending-more-than-ever-how-do-we-navigate-this-new-zigzag-reality-251601

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia stands firm behind its foreign aid in the budget, but the future remains precarious

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Conley Tyler, Honorary Fellow, Asia Institute, The University of Melbourne

    This week’s budget will come as a relief to Australia’s neighbours in the Indo-Pacific that rely on development assistance. The Albanese government did not follow the lead of US President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer in cutting its foreign aid.

    The Trump administration froze foreign assistance and dismantled the US Agency for International Development (USAID) when it came into office. Meanwhile, the UK announced 40% aid cuts of its own.

    It is to Australia’s credit this has not happened here. Australia’s development budget remains intact this year and in forward estimates.

    Sensible policymakers seem to recognise that Australia’s strategic circumstances are different. As a nation surrounded by low- and middle-income countries, Australia cannot vacate the field on development issues without enormous reputational, diplomatic and strategic damage.

    This budget shows Australia is committed to its region – with 75% of the foreign assistance budget flowing to the Indo-Pacific – and sees development partnerships as a way to solve shared problems.

    What’s in the budget for aid and development

    The details of the development budget show Australia has been listening to its partners to identify critical gaps and reprioritise funds.

    In the Pacific, funding has risen to a historic high, with no country receiving less aid. There have been changes in focus to respond to the US funding cuts, including programs on HIV/AIDS in Papua New Guinea and Fiji and gender-based violence in the Pacific.

    This fits with Australia’s desire to be a partner of choice – and to prevent an increased Chinese presence in the region.

    In Southeast Asia, Australia has increased its aid to all countries and has shifted funding, particularly in health where the US was a major donor.

    This is in Australia’s interest. A new program on Indonesian human and animal health, for example, will help prevent health system failures in areas such as tuberculosis and polio elimination on Australia’s doorstep.

    Funds have also been reallocated to support civil society organisations working in vital areas like media freedom and human rights, which would have been a casualty in the US cuts.

    There was also a shift in humanitarian funding to Myanmar and Bangladesh, where the US aid withdrawal has left Rohingya refugees in a desperate state.

    Importantly, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is helping local organisations survive US cuts by allowing temporary flexibility in the use of grant funding to help them continue to deliver essential services.

    Beyond these reprioritisations, the other heartening thing about the budget is its normality.

    It maintains funding for assistive technology for people with disabilities and an Inclusion and Equality Fund to support LGBTQIA+ civil society organisations and human rights defenders. There are programs on maternal health, including reproductive rights.

    The future is still precarious

    However, it would be wrong to think this budget will fill the gaps left by the US withdrawal.

    The ANU Development Policy Centre estimates that traditional OECD donors will cut at least 25% of their aid by 2027. It said, “when that much of a thing goes missing, it’s clearly at risk of collapse”.

    Some development organisations will close their doors, potentially including household names that Australians have donated to for years. This is a time of huge transformation for the sector.

    Another future problem will be maintaining multilateral institutions that rely on US funding – including the World Health Organization, World Food Programme, World Bank and Asian Development Bank. This will require a concerted effort with other countries.

    So, while the Australian budget shows a government deploying current funding as intelligently as possible, there will eventually be limits to this approach.

    In the “new world of uncertainty” described in the treasurer’s budget speech, it simply won’t be possible to meet Australia’s strategic aims and keep development spending at its current rate. It is still far away from 1% of the federal budget.

    At some point, Australia must rethink the trajectory of its international commitments.

    Analysis by the Development Intelligence Lab, a think tank working on development cooperation in the Indo-Pacific, has shown that over the last 25 years, the international parts of the federal budget – defence, intelligence, diplomacy and development – have held steady at around 10%.

    In a time of disruption, this might need to change. In 1949, for example, Australia invested almost 9% of the federal budget on development and diplomacy alone – not including defence.

    Those in the foreign aid sector can celebrate Australia has not pulled back on its commitments like the US and UK. At the same time, we should expect the next government will inevitably be called on to do more.

    Melissa Conley Tyler is Executive Director at the Asia-Pacific Development, Diplomacy & Defence Dialogue (AP4D), an initiative funded by the foreign affairs and defence portfolios and hosted by the Australian Council for International Development..

    – ref. Australia stands firm behind its foreign aid in the budget, but the future remains precarious – https://theconversation.com/australia-stands-firm-behind-its-foreign-aid-in-the-budget-but-the-future-remains-precarious-253028

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Leak of US military plans on Signal is a classic case of ‘shadow IT’. It shows why security systems need to be easy to use

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Murray, Professor of Cybersecurity, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

    Yesterday, The Atlantic magazine revealed an extraordinary national security blunder in the United States. Top US government officials had discussed plans for a bombing campaign in Yemen against Houthi rebels in a Signal group chat which inadvertently included The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.

    This is hardly the first time senior US government officials have used non-approved systems to handle classified information. In 2009, the then US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton fatefully decided to accept the risk of storing her emails on a server in her basement because she preferred the convenience of accessing them using her personal BlackBerry.

    Much has been written about the unprecedented nature of this latest incident. Reporting has suggested the US officials involved may have also violated federal laws that require any communication, including text messages, about official acts to be properly preserved.

    But what can we learn from it to help us better understand how to design secure systems?

    A classic case of ‘shadow IT’

    Signal is regarded by many cybersecurity experts as one of the world’s most secure messaging apps. It has become an established part of many workplaces, including government.

    Even so, it should never be used to store and send classified information. Governments, including in the US, define strict rules for how national security classified information needs to be handled and secured. These rules prohibit the use of non-approved systems, including commercial messaging apps such as Signal plus cloud services such as Dropbox or OneDrive, for sending and storing classified data.

    The sharing of military plans on Signal is a classic case of what IT professionals call “shadow IT”.

    It refers to the all-too-common practice of employees setting up parallel IT infrastructure for business purposes without the approval of central IT administrators.

    This incident highlights the potential for shadow IT to create security risks.

    Government agencies and large organisations employ teams of cybersecurity professionals whose job it is to manage and secure the organisation’s IT infrastructure from cyber threats. At a minimum, these teams need to track what systems are being used to store sensitive information. Defending against sophisticated threats requires constant monitoring of IT systems.

    In this sense, shadow IT creates security blind spots: systems that adversaries can breach while going undetected, not least because the IT security team doesn’t even know these systems exist.

    It’s possible that part of the motivation for the US officials in question using shadow IT systems in this instance might have been avoiding the scrutiny and record-keeping requirements of the official channels. For example, some of the messages in the Signal group chat were set to disappear after one week, and some after four.

    However, we have known for at least a decade that employees also build shadow IT systems not because they are trying to weaken their organisation’s cybersecurity. Instead, a common motivation is that by using shadow IT systems many employees can get their work done faster than when using official, approved systems.

    Usability is key

    The latest incident highlights an important but often overlooked lesson in cybersecurity: whether a security system is easy to use has an outsized impact on the degree to which it helps improve security.

    To borrow from US Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, we might say that a system designer who prioritises security at the expense of usability will produce a system that is neither usable nor secure.

    The belief that to make a system more secure requires making it harder to use is as widespread as it is wrong. The best systems are the ones that are both highly secure and highly usable.

    The reason is simple: a system that is secure yet difficult to use securely will invariably be used insecurely, if at all. Anyone whose inbox auto-complete has caused them to send an email to the wrong person will understand this risk. It likely also explains how The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief might have been mistakenly added by US officials to the Signal group chat.

    While we cannot know for certain, reporting suggests Signal displayed the name of Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat group only as “JG”. Signal doesn’t make it easy to confirm the identity of someone in a group chat, except by their phone number or contact name.

    In this sense, Signal gives relatively few clues about the identities of people in chats. This makes it relatively easy to inadvertently add the wrong “JG” from one’s contact list to a group chat.

    Signal is one of the most secure messaging apps, but should never be used to store and send classified information.
    Ink Drop/Shutterstock

    A highly secure – and highly usable – system

    Fortunately, we can have our cake and eat it too. My own research shows how.

    In collaboration with Australia’s Defence Science and Technology Group, I helped develop what’s known as the Cross Domain Desktop Compositor. This device allows secure access to classified information while being easier to use than traditional solutions.

    It is easier to use because it allows users to connect to the internet. At the same time, it keeps sensitive data physically separate – and therefore secure – but allows it to be displayed alongside internet applications such as web browsers.

    One key to making this work was employing mathematical reasoning to prove the device’s software provided rock-solid security guarantees. This allowed us to marry the flexibility of software with the strong hardware-enforced security, without introducing additional vulnerability.

    Where to from here?

    Avoiding security incidents such as this one requires people following the rules to keep everyone secure. This is especially true when handling classified information, even if doing so requires more work than setting up shadow IT workarounds.

    In the meantime, we can avoid the need for people to work around the rules by focusing more research on how to make systems both secure and usable.

    Toby Murray receives funding from the Department of Defence. He is Director of the Defence Science Institute, which is funded by the Victorian, Tasmanian and Commonwealth Governments. He previously worked for the Department of Defence.

    – ref. Leak of US military plans on Signal is a classic case of ‘shadow IT’. It shows why security systems need to be easy to use – https://theconversation.com/leak-of-us-military-plans-on-signal-is-a-classic-case-of-shadow-it-it-shows-why-security-systems-need-to-be-easy-to-use-253036

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What makes a good search engine? These 4 models can help you use search in the age of AI

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Coghlan, Senior Lecturer in Digital Ethics, Centre for AI and Digital Ethics, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

    beast01/Shutterstock

    Every day, users ask search engines millions of questions. The information we receive can shape our opinions and behaviour.

    We are often not aware of their influence, but internet search tools sort and rank web content when responding to our queries. This can certainly help us learn more things. But search tools can also return low-quality information and even misinformation.

    Recently, large language models (LLMs) have entered the search scene. While LLMs are not search engines, commercial web search engines have started to include LLM-based artificial intelligence (AI) features into their products. Microsoft’s Copilot and Google’s Overviews are examples of this trend.

    AI-enhanced search is marketed as convenient. But, together with other changes in the nature of search over the last decades, it raises the question: what is a good search engine?

    Our new paper, published in AI and Ethics, explores this. To make the possibilities clearer, we imagine four search tool models: Customer Servant, Librarian, Journalist and Teacher. These models reflect design elements in search tools and are loosely based on matching human roles.

    The four models of search tools

    Customer Servant

    Workers in customer service give people the things they request. If someone asks for a “burger and fries”, they don’t query whether the request is good for the person, or whether they might really be after something else.

    The search model we call Customer Servant is somewhat like the first computer-aided information retrieval systems introduced in the 1950s. These returned sets of unranked documents matching a Boolean query – using simple logical rules to define relationships between keywords (e.g. “cats NOT dogs”).

    Librarian

    As the name suggests, this model somewhat resembles human librarians. Librarian also provides content that people request, but it doesn’t always take queries at face value.

    Instead, it aims for “relevance” by inferring user intentions from contextual information such as location, time or the history of user interactions. Classic web search engines of the late 1990s and early 2000s that rank results and provide a list of resources – think early Google – sit in this category.

    Librarians don’t just retrieve information, they strive for relevance.
    Tyler Olson/Shutterstock

    Journalist

    Journalists go beyond librarians. While often responding to what people want to know, journalists carefully curate that information, at times weeding out falsehoods and canvassing various public viewpoints.

    Journalists aim to make people better informed. The Journalist search model does something similar. It may customise the presentation of results by providing additional information, or by diversifying search results to give a more balanced list of viewpoints or perspectives.

    Teacher

    Human teachers, like journalists, aim at giving accurate information. However, they may exercise even more control: teachers may strenuously debunk erroneous information, while pointing learners to the very best expert sources, including lesser-known ones. They may even refuse to expand on claims they deem false or superficial.

    LLM-based conversational search systems such as Copilot or Gemini may play a roughly similar role. By providing a synthesised response to a prompt, they exercise more control over presented information than classic web search engines.

    They may also try to explicitly discredit problematic views on topics such as health, politics, the environment or history. They might reply with “I can’t promote misinformation” or “This topic requires nuance”. Some LLMs convey a strong “opinion” on what is genuine knowledge and what is unedifying.

    No search model is best

    We argue each search tool model has strengths and drawbacks.

    The Customer Servant is highly explainable: every result can be directly tied to keywords in your query. But this precision also limits the system, as it can’t grasp broader or deeper information needs beyond the exact terms used.

    The Librarian model uses additional signals like data about clicks to return content more aligned with what users are really looking for. The catch is these systems may introduce bias. Even with the best intentions, choices about relevance and data sources can reflect underlying value judgements.

    The Journalist model shifts the focus toward helping users understand topics, from science to world events, more fully. It aims to present factual information and various perspectives in balanced ways.

    This approach is especially useful in moments of crisis – like a global pandemic – where countering misinformation is critical. But there’s a trade-off: tweaking search results for social good raises concerns about user autonomy. It may feel paternalistic, and could open the door to broader content interventions.

    The Teacher model is even more interventionist. It guides users towards what it “judges” to be good information, while criticising or discouraging access to content it deems harmful or false. This can promote learning and critical thinking.

    But filtering or downranking content can also limit choice, and raises red flags if the “teacher” – whether algorithm or AI – is biased or simply wrong. Current language models often have built-in “guardrails” to align with human values, but these are imperfect. LLMs can also hallucinate plausible-sounding nonsense, or avoid offering perspectives we might actually want to hear.

    Staying vigilant is key

    We might prefer different models for different purposes. For example, since teacher-like LLMs synthesise and analyse vast amounts of web material, we may sometimes want their more opinionated perspective on a topic, such as on good books, world events or nutrition.

    Yet sometimes we may wish to explore specific and verifiable sources about a topic for ourselves. We may also prefer search tools to downrank some content – conspiracy theories, for example.

    LLMs make mistakes and can mislead with confidence. As these models become more central to search, we need to stay aware of their drawbacks, and demand transparency and accountability from tech companies on how information is delivered.

    Striking the right balance with search engine design and selection is no easy task. Too much control risks eroding individual choice and autonomy, while too little could leave harms unchecked.

    Our four ethical models offer a starting point for robust discussion. Further interdisciplinary research is crucial to define when and how search engines can be used ethically and responsibly.

    Damiano Spina has received funding from the Australian Research Council and is an Associate Investigator of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society (ADM+S).

    Falk Scholer has received funding from the Australian Research Council and is an Associate Investigator of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society (ADM+S).

    Hui Chia and Simon Coghlan do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. What makes a good search engine? These 4 models can help you use search in the age of AI – https://theconversation.com/what-makes-a-good-search-engine-these-4-models-can-help-you-use-search-in-the-age-of-ai-252927

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How Netflix has shaped (and shattered) our content landscape over the past decade – and what comes next

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexa Scarlata, Research Fellow, Media & Communication, RMIT University

    Shutterstock

    To mark 10 years since Netflix began operating in Australia, we and our colleagues at the Streaming Industries and Genres Network have published a report that looks at the state of Australia’s streaming industry today – and back at the platforms that have failed over the years.

    It once seemed like Netflix was the be-all and end-all of streaming in Australia. But a decade of competition with other streamers, and stress on local content, paint a very different picture.

    The streaming wars rage on

    Australia’s “streaming wars” kicked off in early 2015 with the arrival of Stan and Netflix, joining smaller players already on the scene. At the time, some industry insiders predicted the new streaming video-on-demand services would quickly consolidate – that there was room for only two major players: Netflix and one other.

    These early assumptions were proven wrong. Instead, Australia has sustained numerous streamers of different sizes, audiences and ownership. The larger, more generalist services such as Netflix, Prime Video and Disney+ compete directly with each other for exclusive content.

    Other niche genre players such as Shudder (horror) and Hayu (reality TV) have managed to stay afloat by catering to a specific audience segment and keeping their prices low.

    There have also been a few fatalities along the way. Quickflix and Presto were early to the market. Both services had gained considerable ground by 2014, with Quicklix leading the way. But they were eventually viewed as sluggish and limited in comparison to Netflix.

    Netflix always on top

    Netflix has always been the most popular streaming service in Australia. One million users had access to the platform within just three months of its arrival in 2015.

    In 2020, analytics firm Ampere Analysis identified Australia as the most highly-penetrated Netflix market in the world, then available in 63% of Australian homes, compared to 50% in the United States.

    In the first half of 2024, it was used by 67% of Australian adults, including some 800,000 people with an ad-tier subscription.

    The global behemoth has produced some notable local titles.

    In January of last year, the series adaptation of Boy Swallows Universe became Netflix’s most successful Australian-made show in its first two weeks on the platform.

    Later in April, the second season of the Heartbreak High reboot debuted at number one in Australia and stayed on the Global Top 10 English TV Series list for three consecutive weeks.



    Read more:
    Streaming, surveillance and the power of suggestion: the hidden cost of 10 years of Netflix

    Collectively, Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+, Paramount+ and Stan spent A$225.2 million on 55 commissioned or co-commissioned Australian programs in the 2023–24 financial year.

    That said, their commitment to the local production sector over the last decade has been limited, as they have no obligation to invest in local content.

    A lack of regulation decimates local genres

    The lack of streaming regulation in Australia, alongside the gradual watering-down of commercial broadcaster obligations, has resulted in the collapse of investment in local content.

    Children’s TV, documentary, drama TV programming and Australian film have all suffered as a result.

    The introduction of multi-national streamers has radically shifted financing practices in Australia, leaving our production sector in distress.

    Last year, we partnered with ACMI to pull together a symposium where streaming industry insiders discussed the deeper implications of streaming on local genres, as well as the opportunities and challenges ahead.

    We heard from Andy Barclay, manager of business and legal affairs at Screen Producer Australia, who said the traditional “jigsaw puzzle” of finance planning based on international territories was all but gone in favour of major streamers offering full funding and “a little premium” upfront.

    But this comes at a cost, as the streamers then control global distribution and hold a tight grip on viewership data. It also means local production can become beholden to the whims of US business interests. As Barclay explain:

    These huge [streaming] companies, their Australian businesses […] we don’t drive their business decisions. It’s what happens over in the United States that drives their business decisions.

    Nonetheless, having fresh, cash-rich and risk-taking players in the Australian content market has led to opportunities for some local creators.

    As Sam Lingham of Australian comedy group Aunty Donna remarked on the same panel:

    Netflix, creatively, were pretty hands-off. We pitched them the show and they were like, ‘yeah, go do that’.

    What’s on the horizon?

    The streaming sector in Australia is now poised to splinter even further.

    Warner Bros Discovery will launch its streaming platform, Max, next week. It will be a real blow to the Foxtel-owned streamer, Binge, which has long touted its exclusive rights to much of the Warner catalogue.

    There are also concerns about the access and affordability of sport. This year, a new AFL broadcast agreement with Fox Sports and Channel Seven saw Saturday night games move behind a paywall. People will now need Kayo Sports or Foxtel to watch these games live.

    Big streamers have also entered the fray. Back in 2016, Netflix said it had no intention of investing in live sport. But we’re now seeing it and other players such as Prime Video, Apple TV+ and YouTube buy into sports rights around the world.

    According to Free TV Chief Executive Bridget Fair

    we saw it [in 2023] with Amazon hoovering up the whole of the World Cup cricket and it’s going to keep happening […] people who previously got a lot of stuff for free are going to have to start paying.

    Finally, many streamers – Netflix, Binge, Prime Video and Stan – have introduced or announced that they will introduce ad-tier subscriptions. Streamers can expect to see better profit margins on their advertising-supported offerings, compared to the monthly subscription model.

    Cheaper, ad-supported subscriptions may prove to be a popular option for viewers stacking multiple subscriptions. Already, 800,000 Australians have signed up to Netflix’s A$7.99 + ads option. But this does make for a disrupted, broadcast-like viewing experience (and one you still have to pay for).

    As the last 10 years of streaming in Australia has shown, the future can be hard to predict when it comes to new players entering established markets. One thing seems certain though – Netflix is here to stay.

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

    – ref. How Netflix has shaped (and shattered) our content landscape over the past decade – and what comes next – https://theconversation.com/how-netflix-has-shaped-and-shattered-our-content-landscape-over-the-past-decade-and-what-comes-next-251471

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Budget delivers cheaper medicines and more bulk billing but leaves out long-term health reform

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Cutler, Professor and Director, Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University

    Less than two months from an election, the Albanese government last night presented a budget that aims to swing the voting pendulum its way.

    Headline health expenditure includes:

    • $8.5 billion to encourage more GP bulk billing and to train doctors and nurses
    • $1.7 billion to help public hospitals reduce their waiting lists
    • $644 million to establish 50 more urgent care clinics
    • $689 million to reduce the price of prescriptions to $25 for non-concessional patients
    • $793 million for women’s health, to provide greater access to contraception, treatment for urinary tract infections and greater access to perimenopause and menopause care.

    These announcements were already strategically made over the past month to maximise media coverage and build election momentum.

    Australians want more access to affordable health care – and the budget delivers this for many. But it doesn’t push the process of health reform forward, which is needed to secure the health system’s long-term sustainability.

    How does this compare to previous health budgets?

    While the budget contains large health expenditure items, a significant amount was not strictly new funding, but already provided for by the government.

    Consequently, the budget only allocates an additional $7.7 billion to health compared to actual spending for 2024-25.

    This increase aligns with steady long-term spending trends from previous years. It reflects a 6.6% increase in nominal spending (when inflation is included), but only a 3.9% increase in real spending (when inflation is taken out).

    Actual and estimated expenditure from the health portfolio

    Health spending as a proportion of the budget is reducing.
    Treasury

    The proportion of the budget spent on health could be considered historically low, projected to be 15.9% for 2025-26.

    It’s unclear whether Australians want more of the budget allocated to health, but there is certainly a need for greater investment.

    Will this health budget improve Australians’ health?

    The Albanese government is trying to kill three birds with one stone with this health budget. It wants to reduce the cost of living, improve health outcomes, and win an election.

    Keeping the cost of living down and improving health services are the top two most important issues for this election. Headline health announcements directly address these two issues.

    However, they also deliver a political benefit by shifting the media spotlight away from Opposition leader Peter Dutton. He was unable to legitimately counter attack headline health announcements given his unpopularity when he was a health minister. Instead, he promised to match some health announcements if elected.

    Increasing bulk-billing rates and reducing prescription prices will directly reduce out-of-pocket costs for many Australians. This will mostly be for people without a concession card.

    Increasing access to urgent care clinics will also help reduce cost of living pressures because they deliver services free of charge.

    Making health care cheaper for patients will also improve health outcomes. Many Australians sometimes choose not to access health care because of its cost, which can lead to worse health outcomes and expensive hospital care.

    The magnitude of any health improvement will depend on how patients respond to cheaper health care.

    More health benefit will go to patients who start seeing their GP rather than staying at home and trying to manage their condition themselves.

    The health benefit will be less for patients who start seeing their GP instead of an emergency department or urgent care clinic, because they are substituting one place of care for another.

    Is this good health policy?

    There is an “opportunity cost” every time the government spends money. Using the health budget to reduce the cost of living means less money to improve the health system elsewhere.

    In that context, this health budget has missed an opportunity to build a more sustainable health system.

    Medicare is not the best way to fund community care from GPs, nurses and allied health providers. It imposes barriers to establishing seamless multidisciplinary team-based care. These include restricting the types of services non-GP clinicians deliver, and not funding enough care coordination. People with chronic disease, such as diabetes and heart disease, often fall through the cracks and become sicker.

    A review of general practice incentives submitted to the health department last year recommended transition towards new funding models. This could include funding models that pay for a bundle of services delivered together as a team, rather than a fee for every service delivered by each team member.

    But payment reform is extremely hard. Medicare has not substantially changed since 1984 when it was first introduced.

    Given this budget allocated $7.9 billion to increase bulk billing alone, and $2.4 billion ongoing, this budget has a missed opportunity to start the payment reform process. This extra funding will reinforce current payment structures, and could have been used as leverage to get GPs over the line on reforming Medicare.

    The government also missed an opportunity to start reforming the health workforce. An independent review, also submitted last year, sought to improve access to primary care, improve care quality, and improve workforce productivity.

    It outlined 18 recommendations, including payment reform, to remove barriers to increase access to care delivered by multidisciplinary teams of doctors, nurses and allied health providers such as psychologists and physiotherapists.

    Again, there was nothing in this budget to suggest this will be pursued in 2025-26.

    What happens next?

    What next usually depends on which party wins the election.

    In this case, Dutton has agreed to match the health budget spending on bulk billing and price reductions for PBS scripts. But the Coalition has not committed to 50 more urgent care clinics.

    Whichever party wins, there is an urgent need to substantially reform health care if our health system is to remain one of the world’s best.



    Read more:
    At a glance: the 2025 federal budget

    Henry Cutler was a member of the Expert Advisory Panel that delivered its final review of general practice incentives mentioned in this article. He received remuneration from the Department of Health and Aged Care for this role.

    – ref. Budget delivers cheaper medicines and more bulk billing but leaves out long-term health reform – https://theconversation.com/budget-delivers-cheaper-medicines-and-more-bulk-billing-but-leaves-out-long-term-health-reform-251921

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What works to prevent violence against women? Here’s what the evidence says

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kristin Diemer, Associate Professor of Sociology, The University of Melbourne

    Journalist and activist Jess Hill’s Quarterly Essay argues Australia’s primary prevention framework to end violence against women isn’t working.

    Hill says the framework focuses too much on addressing gender inequality and changing attitudes, while overlooking crucial opportunities to address drivers of violence such as child maltreatment, alcohol and gambling.

    So what does the evidence say works to prevent violence against women?

    Australia’s plan to reduce and prevent violence

    The World Health Organisation RESPECT framework guides most global intervention programs and includes seven specific strategies to prevent violence against women:

    • Relationship skills strengthening
    • Empowerment of women
    • Services ensured
    • Poverty reduced
    • Environments (schools, workplaces, public spaces) made safe
    • Child and adolescent abuse prevented
    • Transformed attitudes, beliefs and norms.

    These are embedded in the 12 actions of Australia’s prevention framework, called Change the Story, but are not explicitly listed.

    The RESPECT strategies are also included in Australia’s National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032.

    Interventions are usually separated into three complementary, but overlapping approaches: primary (prevention), secondary (early intervention) and tertiary (responses).

    Primary prevention in Change the Story is aimed at addressing the underlying drivers of violence before it occurs. But most interventions have dual purposes of reducing or preventing current and future violence, as we transform into a violence-free community.

    Australia’s national plan includes reducing the harmful use of alcohol, support for children to live free from violence, holding perpetrators to account, changing the law, and promoting gender equality in public and private lives.

    Together, these strategies chip away at harmful underlying attitudes that drive domestic violence.

    Australia’s strategy for preventing violence against women includes holding perpetrators to account.
    Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock

    What does the evidence say works?

    Systematic reviews of interventions to prevent or reduce violence against women and girls find that sufficient investment into the right programs can address the core drivers of violence and lead to a significant reduction and prevention of violence.

    The reviews identify that most successful interventions do not typically separate out prevention from early intervention and response. They focus on gender dynamics, power and control, and locally relevant social structures that disempower women and girls.

    The global program What Works to Prevent Violence against Women and Girls, for example, reviewed 96 evaluations of interventions. Of these, seven interventions had positive effects across all three domains of responding to, reducing and preventing domestic violence.

    None of the effective interventions were the same, but they had common features.

    One of the common indicators of success was that they addressed multiple drivers of violence while being relevant to what was important in the participants’ lives, such as an intervention to reduce HIV or couples counselling. These two interventions were designed to challenge gender inequity and the use of violence, while empowering couples with improved communications skills.

    Effective interventions also commonly included support for survivors, for things such as mental health support, safe spaces, empowerment activities and mediation skills.

    Effective interventions incldue support for survivors and empowerment activites.
    Oleg Elkov/Shutterstock

    Equally important was including work with perpetrators or key influencers, such as other family members or local leaders. One example developed in Tajikistan involved in-laws, which enabled young women to attend and implement ideas from the program into their family life.

    The final two key components of successful interventions were related to implementation of the programs: having the ability to deliver the program with sufficient, well-trained and supported staff, and for a length of time allowing reflection and learning through experience.

    The Transforming Masculinities program in the Democratic Republic of Congo promoted gender equality and positive masculinity within faith communities. Careful selection of staff and volunteers was crucial to the intervention’s success.

    Effective interventions were delivered over 15 to 30 months. They included a combination of community activities and weekly workshops, allowing facilitators to build on content from previous sessions.

    Putting this all together, the most effective programs were rigorously planned and suitable to the client group. They focused on multiple core drivers of violence against women and girls. They worked with perpetrators and community influencers. They also worked with and supported survivors.

    Elements which prevented programs from being effective included short-term or inadequate funding, and a lack of sufficient planning to ensure the intervention was adapted to the client’s context.

    We have clear evidence about they types of programs that can prevent and reduce violence against women and girls, both internationally and in Australia. We also have service providers and program leaders who have been sharing evidence with governments for more than five decades. What we need now is the will and commitment for intensive programming.



    Read more:
    Despite some key milestones since 2000, Australia still has a long way to go on gender equality

    Kristin Diemer has received funding from the Australian Research Council, ANROWS, the Department of Social Services, the Victorian Government and is on the Advisory Group for the Australian National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey.

    – ref. What works to prevent violence against women? Here’s what the evidence says – https://theconversation.com/what-works-to-prevent-violence-against-women-heres-what-the-evidence-says-252873

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Is this the right budget for these economic times? We asked 5 experts

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Garrow, Editorial Web Developer

    Treasurer Jim Chalmers has described the income tax cuts in this week’s federal budget as a “top-up”. They will amount to roughly one cup of coffee a week for every taxpayer in the first year.

    But they will add another A$17 billion to the deficit over coming years, in addition to a raft of previously announced spending measures and very little savings.

    That is against a backdrop of the most uncertain global economic outlook since the Global Financial Crisis of 2007–08. Australia may face a real economic shock if trade wars trigger recessions in our major trading partners.

    We asked five experts if this is the right budget for these economic times. Only two agreed, with three saying much more is needed to address long-term structural debt and meaningful economic reform.

    – ref. Is this the right budget for these economic times? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/is-this-the-right-budget-for-these-economic-times-we-asked-5-experts-252922

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Protecting salmon farming at the expense of the environment – another step backwards for Australia’s nature laws

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phillipa C. McCormack, Future Making Fellow, Environment Institute, University of Adelaide

    A bill introduced to parliament this week, if passed, would limit the government’s power to reconsider certain environment approvals when an activity is harming the environment.

    It fulfils Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s promise last month to introduce new laws to allow salmon farming to continue in Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour. This salmon farming is currently mooted for reconsideration.

    There’s no doubt Australia’s nature laws need reform. The latest review found “Australians do not trust that the EPBC Act is delivering for the environment, for business or for the community”.

    But stopping the government from reconsidering a past decision is no way to fix these flaws. Reconsidering decisions is necessary if new evidence shows the activity is causing much more harm to nature, or a different kind of harm, than anticipated.

    Salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour

    Salmon have been farmed in Macquarie Harbour for almost 40 years, but activity has increased over the past decade.

    In 2012, Tasmania’s Department of Primary Industries sought approval to expand farming in the harbour, despite possible impacts on threatened species and the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

    But then-Environment Minister, Tony Bourke, declared no further consideration was needed and the action could proceed, because the proposal was not
    “a controlled action”. Under the Act, a controlled action is any activity likely to impact on a matter of national environmental significance, such as a threatened species. A project or development deemed a controlled action then requires approval from the environment minister.

    However, Bourke’s decision was subject to conditions – most importantly, to ensure no significant impacts to the Maugean skate.

    In late 2023, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek received a series of requests to reconsider Bourke’s 2012 decision.

    New evidence comes to light

    The power to request a reconsideration is available to anyone. If substantial new information justifies it, the minister may revoke the original decision and make a new one.

    In the Macquarie Harbour case, these reconsideration requests relied on scientific studies completed after 2012. One highlighted the skate’s vulnerability to changing water conditions. Another released last month showed a strong correlation between more intense salmon farming and increased extinction risk for the skate.

    Plibersek has not made a decision yet. However, documents her office released under Freedom of Information laws show new evidence. This evidence supports a declaration that salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour should be reconsidered. That could trigger a full review of salmon farming in the Harbour.

    However, the bill Labor has introduced would strip the minister’s powers to reconsider the earlier decision.

    Prime minister promises law change to protect salmon farms, February 2025 (ABC News)

    What does the new bill propose?

    On Monday a government spokesperson said:

    This bill is very specific – it’s a minor change, with extremely strict criteria – focused on giving Tasmanian workers certainty while government investments protect the Maugean Skate. The existing laws apply to everything else, including all new proposals for coal, gas, and land clearing.

    But we disagree. The bill describes the circumstances in which the minister can reconsider a decision. These are cases (such as Macquarie Harbour) where an activity is allowed to proceed without full assessment and approval, in a “particular manner”. The “particular manner” must include complying with a state or territory management arrangement. For example, the salmon farmers have to comply with a Tasmanian government plan for Macquarie Harbour. Finally, these activities must be currently underway, and ongoing in that way, for at least five years.

    It is not uncommon for “particular manner” decisions to require compliance with state or territory management arrangements. So the new legislation will catch more than just the Macquarie Harbour project in the “net”.

    For instance, our quick search of the EPBC Act portal revealed a similar particular manner decision. This means that, after five years of operation, this second decision will also be immune from challenge.

    There would be more where that came from. The bill will not only protect salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour.

    What’s more, reconsideration powers have been used sparingly – there seems no reason to limit their use further. A search of the EPBC Act public portal reveals only 52 reconsideration requests since the Act began, averaging just two a year. Many of these requests were made by proponents, disgruntled with a “controlled action” decision made in relation to their own projects.

    One bad bill after another

    This may sound familiar, because Labor’s bill is similar to Liberal Senator Richard Colbeck’s private bill proposed in December, which also concerned protecting salmon farming jobs in Macquarie Harbour.

    The Senate’s Environment and Communications Legislation Committee made a single recommendation on that bill: that it not be passed.

    The majority report (from Labor, Greens and Independent senators) provided sensible reasons for recommending the bill be abandoned. It noted the power to request a reconsideration already has “appropriate safeguards”.

    Furthermore, these “safeguards strike an appropriate balance by providing industry with confidence and certainty that a decision made will not be easily reversed, while allowing decisions to be reconsidered should new and significant information relating to the decision arise”.

    Just four months later, these remain compelling reasons for maintaining the power to reconsider decisions.

    We don’t have time to go backwards

    This amendment will not achieve the comprehensive reforms the EPBC Act needs. In fact, it will actively undermine these goals. It has been rushed through after years of effort to improve nature laws, on the eve of an election, in a marginal electorate, and has been put to Parliament on the day of a budget lockup.

    Despite removing this scrutiny, the bill is unlikely to resolve the controversy in Macquarie Harbour.



    Read more:
    Labor’s dumping of Australia’s new nature laws means the environment is shaping as a key 2025 election issue

    Phillipa McCormack receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Environmental Science Program, Natural Hazards Research Australia, Green Adelaide and the ACT Government. She is a member of the National Environmental Law Association and an affiliated member of the Centre for Marine Socioecology.

    Justine Bell-James receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, and the National Environmental Science Program. She is a Director of the National Environmental Law Association and a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

    – ref. Protecting salmon farming at the expense of the environment – another step backwards for Australia’s nature laws – https://theconversation.com/protecting-salmon-farming-at-the-expense-of-the-environment-another-step-backwards-for-australias-nature-laws-252814

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: A $33 billion vote-grabber or real relief? Examining the Albanese government’s big housing pledge

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ehsan Noroozinejad, Senior Researcher, Urban Transformations Research Centre, Western Sydney University

    Man As Thep/Shutterstock

    The Australian housing market is in crisis: soaring prices, increasing rental stress, declining home ownership rates and a growing number of people experiencing homelessness.

    In response, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a $33 billion housing investment plan as part of his government’s latest budget.



    Read more:
    At a glance: the 2025 federal budget

    This is a central plank of Labor’s re-election pitch, aimed at showing housing commitment by:

    Making it easier to buy, better to rent, and building more homes faster.

    What are the key features of the plan?

    The plan includes two headline measures aimed at boosting housing supply and helping buyers:

    1-Expanding ‘Help to Buy’ for first-home buyers:

    The Help to Buy program provides shared-equity loans to first-time homebuyers so they can purchase properties with smaller deposits. Under this program, the government buys a portion of the property to lower the required mortgage amount for buyers.

    Under the initial terms of the scheme, the Commonwealth offered up to 30% of the price for existing homes and 40% for new constructions, while restricting eligibility to households within specific income and property value ranges.

    Now, the Albanese government has raised cap levels to enable more people to become eligible. The income ceiling for single buyers will increase from $90,000 to $100,000, while the maximum income limit for couples and single parents will rise from $120,000 to $160,000.

    These higher caps mean more than five million Australian properties would fall under the scheme’s scope, significantly expanding buyers’ choice.

    2-Investing in prefabricated and modular homes:

    In November 2024, the Albanese government announced a $900 million productivity fund to reward states and territories that boost housing supply by removing barriers to prefab and modular construction.

    And now, the Albanese government is budgeting another $54 million for the advanced manufacturing of prefab and modular housing industry. This includes $5 million to create a national certification system to streamline approvals and eliminate red tape.

    This aims to speed up home construction through off-site manufacturing technologies, which produce components in factories before assembling them on-site.

    Minister for Industry and Science Ed Husic claims these homes can be finished in half the time of conventional construction. Even a 20–30% time saving would be significant.

    These buildings are also more energy efficient, more resilient and cheaper.

    A crane lifts part of a modular home into place.
    benik.at/Shutterstock

    Can these measures fix the problem?

    The big picture problem is, Australia has simply not been building enough homes for its growing population.

    According to the Urban Development Institute of Australia’s State of the Land Report 2025, the federal government will fail (by 400,000 dwellings) to meet its target of constructing 1.2 million new homes by 2029.

    Prefab building methods make up just 8% of new housing developments in Australia.

    Some countries use it much more: Sweden boasts more than 100 years of prefab construction experience, where more than 80% of homes are produced in factories and then assembled at their destinations.

    Modular housing can be described as a promising step forward. But while they offer potential improvements in speed and cost efficiency, it cannot solve the massive housing deficit on its own without structural policy reforms in the near future.

    What about the Help to Buy scheme?

    Shared-equity loans tackle a different side of the problem: affordability for buyers.

    Experts describe Help to Buy as a “modest” but useful “piece of the puzzle” in solving the housing crisis.

    While its impact on general house prices and universal housing affordability is minimal, policymakers worry that programs like these unintentionally push up prices by boosting demand.

    Federal v state roles

    Housing policy in Australia is a shared responsibility.

    State governments control planning, zoning and most of the levers that determine how quickly homes can be approved and built (such as releasing land for development or approving apartment projects).

    The federal government mainly controls funding and high-level programs, so the success of the Albanese government’s plan will depend a lot on cooperation with the states and territories.

    However, there’s some inherent tension here: Canberra can set targets and provide incentives (funding), but it can’t directly build houses or force local councils to approve projects faster.

    That’s one reason behind the prefab certification idea: it removes one potential regulatory hurdle at a national level.

    Political timing

    The timing of this housing plan announcement is no coincidence.

    Australia will have a federal election by May 2025. Most voters will likely consider housing costs and cost-of-living to be primary issues.

    The expansion of Help to Buy enables Labor to target first-home buyers, which may be important in the election.

    The new housing plan is ambitious in scope and certainly a welcome effort to turn the tide on housing affordability.

    However, renters and prospective buyers are unlikely to experience quick benefits from these housing initiatives, as it will require sustained action and cooperation well beyond the upcoming election cycle.

    The Help to Buy program will begin later in 2025, and the positive effects of investing in prefabricated/modular housing will require a period of time before they become apparent.

    It is unclear whether these measures will effectively persuade voters and produce substantial improvements.

    Dr. Ehsan Noroozinejad has received funding from both national and international organisations to support research addressing housing and climate crises. His most recent funding on integrated housing and climate policy comes from the James Martin Institute for Public Policy.

    – ref. A $33 billion vote-grabber or real relief? Examining the Albanese government’s big housing pledge – https://theconversation.com/a-33-billion-vote-grabber-or-real-relief-examining-the-albanese-governments-big-housing-pledge-252915

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Maritime truce would end a sorry war on the waves for Russia that set back its naval power ambitions

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Colin Flint, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Utah State University

    A warship is seen docked in the port of the Black Sea city of Sochi. Mikhail Mordasov/AFP via Getty Images

    Away from the grueling land battles and devastating airstrikes, the Ukraine war has from its outset had a naval element. Soon after the February 2022 invasion, Russia imposed a de facto naval blockade on Ukraine, only to see its fleet stunningly defeated during a contest for control of the Black Sea.

    But that war on the waves looks like it could be ending.

    Under the terms of a deal announced on March 25, 2025, by the U.S. and agreed upon in Saudi Arabia, both sides of the conflict committed to ensuring “safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea,” according to a White House statement.

    The naval aspect of the Ukraine war has gotten less attention than events on land and in the skies. But it is, I believe, a vital aspect with potentially far-reaching consequences.

    Not only have Russia’s Black Sea losses constrained Moscow’s ability to project power across the globe through naval means, it has also resulted in Russia’s growing cooperation with China, where Moscow is emerging as a junior party to Beijing on the high seas.

    Battle over the Black Sea

    The tradition of geopolitical theory has tended to paint an oversimplification of global politics. Theories harkening back to the late 19th century categorized countries as either land powers or maritime powers.

    Thinkers such as the British geopolitician Sir Halford Mackinder or the U.S. theorist Alfred Thayer Mahan characterized maritime powers as countries that possessed traits of democratic liberalism and free trade. In contrast, land powers were often portrayed as despotic and militaristic.

    While such generalizations have historically been used to demonize enemies, there is still a contrived tendency to divide the world into land and sea powers. An accompanying view that naval and army warfare is somewhat separate has continued.

    And this division gives us a false impression of Russia’s progress in the war with Ukraine. While Moscow has certainly seen some successes on land and in the air, that should not draw attention away from Russia’s stunning defeat in the Black Sea that has seen Russia have to retreat from the Ukrainian shoreline and keep its ships far away from the battlefront.

    As I describe in my recent book, “Near and Far Waters: The Geopolitics of Seapower,” maritime countries have two concerns: They must attempt to control the parts of the sea relatively close to their coastlines, or their “near waters”; meanwhile, those with the ability and desire to do so try to project power and influence into “far waters” across oceans, which are the near waters of other countries.

    The Black Sea is a tightly enclosed and relatively small sea comprising the near waters of the countries that surround it: Turkey to the south, Bulgaria and Romania to the west, Georgia to the east, and Ukraine and Russia to the north.

    Control of the Black Sea’s near waters has been contested throughout the centuries and has played a role in the current Russian-Ukraine war.

    Russia’s seizure of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 allowed it to control the naval port of Sevastopol. What were near waters of Ukraine became de facto near waters for Russia.

    Controlling these near waters allowed Russia to disrupt Ukraine’s trade, especially the export of grain to African far waters.

    But Russia’s actions were thwarted through the collaboration of Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey to allow passage of cargo ships through their near waters, then through the Bosporus into the Mediterranean Sea.

    Ukraine’s use of these other countries’ near waters allowed it to export between 5.2 million and 5.8 million tons of grain per month in the first quarter of 2024. To be sure, this was a decline from Ukraine’s exports of about 6.5 million tons per month prior to the war, which then dropped to just 2 million tons in the summer of 2023 because of Russian attacks and threats. Prior to the announcement of the ceasefire, the Foreign Agricultural Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture had forecasted a decline in Ukrainian grain exports for 2025.

    But efforts to constrain Russia’s control of Ukraine’s near waters in the Black Sea, and Russia’s unwillingness to face the consequences of attacking ships in NATO countries’ near waters, meant Ukraine was still able to access far waters for economic gain and keep the Ukrainian economy afloat.

    For Putin, that sinking feeling

    Alongside being thwarted in its ability to disrupt Ukrainian exports, Russia has also come under direct naval attack from Ukraine. Since February 2022, using unmanned attack drones, Ukraine has successfully sunk or damaged Russian ships and whittled away at Russia’s Black sea fleet, sinking about 15 of its prewar fleet of about 36 warships and damaging many others.

    Russia has been forced to limit its use of Sevastopol and station its ships in the eastern part of the Black Sea. It cannot effectively function in the near waters it gained through the seizure of Crimea.

    Russia’s naval setbacks against Ukraine are only the latest in its historical difficulties in projecting sea power and its resulting tendency to mainly focus on the defense of near waters.

    In 1905, Russia was shocked by a dramatic naval loss to Japan. Yet even in cases where it was not outright defeated, Russian sea power has been continually constrained historically. In World War I, Russia cooperated with the British Royal Navy to limit German merchant activity in the Baltic Sea and Turkish trade and military reach in the Black Sea.

    In World War II, Russia relied on material support from the Allies and was largely blockaded within its Baltic Sea and Black Sea ports. Many ships were brought close to home or stripped of their guns as artillery or offshore support for the territorial struggle with Germany.

    During the Cold War, meanwhile, though the Soviet Union built fast-moving missile boats and some aircraft carriers, its reach into far waters relied on submarines. The main purpose of the Soviet Mediterranean fleet was to prevent NATO penetration into the Black Sea.

    And now, Russia has lost control of the Black Sea. It cannot operate in these once secure near waters. These losses reduce its ability to project naval power from the Black Sea and into the Mediterranean Sea.

    Ceding captaincy to China

    Faced with a glaring loss in its backyard and put in a weak position in its near waters, Russia as a result can project power to far waters only through cooperation with a China that is itself investing heavily in a far-water naval capacity.

    Joint naval exercises in the South China Sea in July 2024 are evidence of this cooperation. Wang Guangzheng of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy’s Southern Theater said of the drill that “the China-Russia joint patrol has promoted the deepening and practical cooperation between the two in multiple directions and fields.” And looking forward, he claimed the exercise “effectively enhanced the ability to the two sides to jointly respond to maritime security threats.”

    Warships of the Chinese and Russian navies take part in a joint naval exercise in the East China Sea.
    Li Yun/Xinhua via Getty Images

    This cooperation makes sense in purely military terms for Russia, a mutually beneficial project of sea power projection. But it is largely to China’s benefit.

    Russia can help China’s defense of its northern near waters and secure access to far waters through the Arctic Ocean – an increasingly important arena as global climate change reduces the hindrance posed by sea ice. But Russia remains very much the junior partner.

    Moscow’s strategic interests will be supported only if they match Chinese interests. More to the point, sea power is about power projection for economic gain. China will likely use Russia to help protect its ongoing economic reach into African, Pacific, European and South American far waters. But it is unlikely to jeopardize these interests for Russian goals.

    To be sure, Russia has far-water economic interests, especially in the Sahel and sub-Saharan Africa. And securing Russian interests in Africa complements China’s growing naval presence in the Indian Ocean to secure its own, and greater, global economic interests. But cooperation will still be at China’s behest.

    For much of the Ukraine war, Russia has been bottled up in its Black Sea near waters, with the only avenue for projecting its naval power coming through access to Africa and Indian Ocean far waters – and only then as a junior partner with China, which dictates the terms and conditions.

    A maritime deal with Ukraine now, even if it holds, will not compensate for Russia’s ongoing inability to project power across the oceans on its own.

    Editor’s note: This is an updated version of an article originally published by The Conversation U.S. on Oct. 3, 2024.

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

    – ref. Maritime truce would end a sorry war on the waves for Russia that set back its naval power ambitions – https://theconversation.com/maritime-truce-would-end-a-sorry-war-on-the-waves-for-russia-that-set-back-its-naval-power-ambitions-253089

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Podcasting was once a rebel medium for diverse voices. Now it’s slowly being consumed by big media

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Corey Martin, Lecturer/Podcast Producer, Swinburne University of Technology

    Shutterstock

    Podcasting was once the underdog of the media world: a platform where anyone with a microphone and an idea could share their voice.

    With low barriers to entry and freedom from institutional gatekeeping, it promised to amplify marginalised voices and allow underrepresented groups to tell their own stories, on their own terms.

    Today, however, this promise seems increasingly strained as corporate interests tighten their grip on the industry. As money flows in, the podcasting space is beginning to resemble the rest of the digital media world – driven by advertising revenues and political polarisation.

    The promise of podcasting

    Six years ago, audio scholars Martin Spinelli and Lance Dann described podcasting as a “revolutionary” medium for its ability to inspire empathy through innovative forms of audio.

    Podcasting was heralded as a format that broke through the barriers of traditional media by offering new ways to engage with underrepresented voices and ideas. Media and cultural studies pointed to the direct-to-ear delivery – free from the biases of visual culture – as a uniquely intimate way to consume content.

    Globally, the industry boomed as a result of pandemic lockdowns, with the number of podcasts on Spotify skyrocketing from 450,000 in 2019, to 1.5 million in 2020.

    Listenership has also surged in Australia. According to a 2024 report by Edison Research, we’ve seen a 20% increase in listenership from 2022 to 2024 – with 48% of the those aged 12 and above having listened to a podcast within the past month.

    From open space to rat race

    In his 2024 book Podcasting in a Platform Age, podcast researcher John Sullivan warns the podcasting space is being increasingly dominated by a handful of powerful media companies that dictate what and who gets visibility.

    Larger podcasts with higher production budgets, celebrity hosts and backing from major networks are attracting larger audiences, with independent creators struggling to get a foot in the door.

    At the time of writing, of the top 50 most popular podcasts in Australia, more than half (52%) come from overseas, and primarily the United States.

    Of the 24 Australian-made podcasts on the list, 80% are backed by a media organisation, with most (64%) connected to major networks such as LiSTNR, which is owned by Southern Cross Austereo. Only 12% of the Australian podcasts on the list come from truly independent creators without any corporate funding or major production support.

    Why does it matter that large-network ownership is on the rise? To understand this, it helps to first understand how ads keep podcast networks in business – and how this can impact content decisions.

    Deepening ideological divides

    Advertisers follow the crowds. In a podcasting context, this means they’re more likely to funnel their dollars into large networks, further bolstering their resources.

    At the same time, networks want to drive as many ears to their ad sponsors as possible. To do this, they focus on producing content they know will get the most engagement.

    The result is a vicious cycle in which attention and advertising power feed each other, making it even harder for independent voices to break through. Over time, this feedback loop can lead to less content diversity and more polarisation.

    According to Spotify’s 2024 Wrapped, American podcaster Joe Rogan took out the top podcast spot for the fifth year in a row globally.
    Shutterstock

    It’s here that we’re seeing an increase of politicians using podcasts to push their views and cultivate ideological loyalty.

    In the lead-up to the 2024 US election, Kamala Harris appeared on Call Her Daddy (the second most popular Spotify podcast in 2024), while Donald Trump was on The Joe Rogan Experience (the most popular). Both interviews were later fact-checked and found to contain false or misleading claims.

    Trump’s interview in particular was flagged by CNN for having 32 false claims. Nonetheless, analysts and researchers pointed to it as a driver behind his success with young male voters.

    The political podcasting trend is also playing out in Australia ahead of the next federal election.

    Late last year, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton appeared on the podcast Diving Deep With Sam Fricker. This was followed by an appearance on Straight Talk, hosted by businessman Mark Bouris, in January.

    More recently, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Greens leader Adam Bandt separately appeared on It’s A Lot with Abbie Chatfield.



    Read more:
    Misinformation is rife and causing deeper polarisation – here’s how social media users can help curb it

    Diversity in the podcasting space

    According to 2022 Pew Research Centre data, 55% of Americans said their major reason for listening to podcasts was “to learn”, while 29% said they wanted to stay up-to-date with current affairs. But information-hungry listeners may be getting shortchanged, as podcasts are less likely to be fact-checked against the same editorial standards that govern traditional media.

    As platform researcher Michael Bossetta notes, although large platforms such as Spotify have the potential to create a more informed world, they
    are more likely to push content that keeps users hooked (that is, content they already enjoy and/or agree with).

    Recommender algorithms also have a role to play. One 2020 study found that while Spotify’s personalised suggestions increased user engagement by 28.90%, they also reduced the individual-level diversity of podcast streams by 11.51%.

    But platforms do have the power to do better. They could, for instance, use their algorithms to prioritise content diversity. This would help ease the “engagement-diversity trade-off”, in which personalisation increases engagement, but limits the diversity of content consumed by an individual.

    That said, it’s unlikely platforms will voluntarily change the way they operate. If meaningful reforms are to happen, they will more likely have to come from government regulations or through independent governing bodies.

    In the meantime, listeners aren’t powerless. While we can’t stop algorithms from pushing certain content to the top of our feeds, we can disrupt them by actively seeking out independent voices and diverse stories.

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

    – ref. Podcasting was once a rebel medium for diverse voices. Now it’s slowly being consumed by big media – https://theconversation.com/podcasting-was-once-a-rebel-medium-for-diverse-voices-now-its-slowly-being-consumed-by-big-media-252169

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘We don’t have a cultural place for men as victims’: why men often don’t tell anyone about sexual abuse

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vita Pilkington, Research Fellow, PhD Candidate in men’s experiences of sexual trauma, The University of Melbourne

    Kristi Blokhin/Shutterstock

    In Australia, it’s estimated almost one in five boys (18.8%) experience child sexual abuse. And at least one in 16 men (6.1%) experience sexual violence after age 15.

    However, many boys and men don’t tell others about these experiences. Studies show men are less likely to disclose sexual abuse and assaults than women.

    It also takes boys and men longer to first disclose sexual abuse or assaults. On average, men wait 21 years before telling anyone about being abused.

    This is a problem because talking to others is often an important part of understanding and recovering from these traumatic experiences. When boys and men don’t discuss these experiences, it risks their mental health problems and isolation becoming worse and they don’t get the support they need.

    We wanted to understand what prevents boys and men from telling others about sexual abuse and assaults (or “sexual trauma”). So we conducted a systematic review, where we pooled together evidence from a range of studies on the topic.

    We found 69 relevant studies, which included more than 10,500 boys and men who had experienced sexual trauma from around the world. Studies were published in 23 countries across six continents, with most studies from the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Two studies were published in Australia.

    Our new findings offer clues as to how we can break down the barriers preventing men and boys from discussing sexual trauma.

    Many boys and men don’t tell anyone if they’ve been victim to sexual violence.
    gpointstudio/Shutterstock

    Upending masculine identities

    We found across countries and cultures, boys’ and men’s sexual trauma affected their masculine identities. This included feeling as though they are not “real men”, or that they’re weak for having been targeted and assaulted.

    In one study, a participant explained:

    Sexual abuse to a man is an abuse against his manhood as well.

    Almost universally, boys and men suffered intense feelings of shame and guilt about being victimised, and many blamed themselves for years to decades.

    Many boys and men said they were worried others would think they were gay if they disclosed being abused or assaulted. This harmful stereotype reflects widespread homophobic attitudes as well as mistaken beliefs about survivors of abuse and assaults.

    Sexual abuse against boys and men has been long been overlooked, dismissed and misunderstood. The taboo nature of the issue was felt by participants. As a therapist who supported male survivors of abuse said in one study:

    We don’t have a cultural place for men as victims.

    LGBTQIA+ men face additional barriers to disclosure. Some experienced distress surrounding concerns abuse or assaults somehow cause, or contribute to, their sexualities. Many also reported receiving unsupportive and homophobic responses when they disclosed abuse and assaults to others. This includes their stories being minimised and dismissed, or suggestions they must have consented given their attraction to other men.

    Stigma if they do tell

    In many cases, boys and men who tried to tell others about their sexual trauma were met with stigmatising and unhelpful responses. Some were blamed, told they were making it up, or even mocked.

    Others were discouraged from speaking out about their experiences again. In some countries, people tell boys and men not to talk about being abused or assaulted because this is seen as bringing shame on themselves and their families.

    Boys and men who were assaulted by women were often told their experiences can’t be classified as abuse or assaults, or aren’t bad enough to warrant support.

    Understanding why men don’t talk

    Many of these barriers to disclosure are linked to harmful myths about sexual abuse and assaults among boys and men. These include mistaken beliefs that men are not abused or assaulted, and that only gay men are abused or assaulted.

    What’s more, many people believe experiencing sexual abuse or assaults is at odds with socially-held ideas about how men “should” behave: for example, constantly demonstrating physical strength, dominance, self-reliance and toughness.

    These strict ideas about what it means to be a man appear to prevent many boys and men from disclosing sexual trauma, and impact how others respond when they do disclose.

    It can also mean boys and men try to bury their difficulties after sexual trauma because they feel they’re expected to be unemotional and cope with their problems independently.

    If men don’t feel comfortable telling anyone about their experience, they can’t get help.
    Drazen Zigic/Shutterstock

    What can we do better?

    We know having experienced sexual trauma is closely linked to significant mental health problems in boys and men. These include substance abuse and addiction, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and even suicide.

    Receiving unsupportive and stigmatising responses when they try to seek help only makes these issues worse, and adds to cycles of silence and shame.

    We must break down barriers that stop boys and men disclosing these traumatic experiences. Doing so could save lives.

    Helping boys and men disclose sexual trauma isn’t just about encouraging them to come forward. We need to make sure other people are prepared to respond safely when they choose to speak up.

    There are many ways to raise awareness of the fact sexual abuse and assault happens to boys and men. For example, television shows such as Baby Reindeer helped put this issue at the forefront of conversation. Public health campaigns that explicitly bring boys and men into discussions about sexual trauma can also be helpful.

    We also need to do more to make sure boys and men who experience sexual trauma have suitable places to go for support. Australia has some services doing vital work in this space, such as the Survivors & Mates Support Network. However, more funding and support is crucial so men across the country have safe spaces to discuss and recover from their experiences.

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

    Vita Pilkington led this project and receives funding from the Melbourne Research Scholarship and the Margaret Cohan Research Scholarship, both awarded by the University of Melbourne.

    Sarah Bendall has been awarded a NHMRC Investigator Grant to support research surrounding understanding and treating trauma in young people with mental health difficulties. She has previously held a NHMRC Early Career Fellowship and a McCusker Philanthropic Foundation Fellowship. She advises government on trauma and youth mental health policy, including Victoria’s statewide trauma service (Transforming Trauma Victoria).

    Zac Seidler receives funding from an NHMRC Investigator Grant. He is also the Global Director of Research with the Movember Institute of Men’s Health.

    – ref. ‘We don’t have a cultural place for men as victims’: why men often don’t tell anyone about sexual abuse – https://theconversation.com/we-dont-have-a-cultural-place-for-men-as-victims-why-men-often-dont-tell-anyone-about-sexual-abuse-252630

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Critical thinking is more important than ever. How can I improve my skills?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Ellerton, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy and Education; Curriculum Director, UQ Critical Thinking Project, The University of Queensland

    Siora Photography/Unsplash

    There is a Fox News headline that goes like this:

    Transgender female runner who beat 14,000 women at London Marathon offers to give medal back

    Read about the event elsewhere and it turns out the athlete was also beaten by thousands of people and it was a participation medal. While the Fox News headline is true, it is framed to potentially elicit a negative reaction.

    Misinformation is on the rise. We’re told we need to think critically when we read things online, but how can we recognise such situations? And what does it mean to think critically anyway?

    What is critical thinking?

    Critical thinking is based on the idea that if all ideas are equal, then all ideas are worthless. Without this assumption, there can be nothing to be critical of.

    When we think critically, we focus on the quality of our reasoning and the factors that can influence it. In other words, thinking critically primarily means being critical of your own thinking.

    Importantly, critical thinking is not strongly correlated with intelligence. While some believe intelligence is basically fixed (though there is debate around this), we can learn to think critically.

    Other factors being equal, there’s also no evidence thinking critically is an innate ability. In fact, we have evidence critical thinking can be improved as a skill in itself, and it is transferrable to other contexts.

    The tools of argumentation

    Many factors can affect the quality of your thinking. They include things like cognitive biases (systemic thinking errors), prior beliefs, prejudices and worldviews, framing effects, and how much you know about the subject.

    To understand the quality of our reasoning, we can use the concepts and language of argumentation.

    People often think “arguments” are about conflicting views. A better way to understand argumentation is to view it as a way of making our thinking visible and accessible to each other.

    Arguments contain premises, those things we think are true about the world, and conclusions, which is where we end up in our thinking. Moving from premises to conclusions is called inferring, and it is the quality of these inferences that is the concern of critical thinking.

    For example, if I offer the premises

    P1: All Gronks are green

    P2: Fred is a Gronk

    Then you have already inferred the conclusion

    C: Fred is green

    You don’t even need to know what a Gronk is to make that inference.

    All our rational judgements and decisions are made up of chains of inferences. Constructing, evaluating and identifying types of arguments is the core business of critical thinking.

    Argumentation is not about conflicting views – it’s making your thinking accessible.
    John Diez/Pexels

    How can we improve our critical thinking skills?

    To help us get better at it, we can understand critical thinking in three main ways.

    First, we can see critical thinking as a subject we can learn. In this subject, we study how arguments work and how our reasoning can be influenced or improved. We also learn what makes for good thinking by using ideas like accuracy, clarity, relevance, depth and more. These are what we value in good thinking. By learning this, we start to think about how we think, not just what we think about.

    Second, we improve our critical thinking by using what we’ve learned in real situations. This helps us build important thinking skills like analysing, justifying, evaluating and explaining.

    Third, we can also think of critical thinking as a habit or attitude – something we choose to practice in our everyday lives. This means being curious, open-minded and willing to question things instead of just accepting them. It also means being aware of our own biases and trying to be fair and honest in how we think.

    When we put all three of these together, we become better thinkers – not just in educational contexts, but in life.

    Practical steps to improving critical thinking

    Since critical thinking centres on the giving and taking of reasons, practising this is a step towards improvement. There are some useful ways to do this.

    1. Make reasoning – rather than conclusions – the basis of your discussions with others.

    When asking for someone’s opinion, inquire as to why they think that. And offer your thinking to others. Making our thinking visible leads to deep and meaningful conversations in which we can test each other’s thinking and develop the virtues of open-mindedness and curiosity.

    2. Always assess the credibility of information based on its source and with a reflection on your own biases.

    The processes of our thinking can shape information as we receive it, just as much as the source can in providing it. This develops the virtues of carefulness and humility.

    3. Keep the fundamental question of critical inquiry in mind.

    The most important question in critical thinking is: “how do we know?”. Continually testing the quality of your inquiry – and therefore thinking – is key. Focusing on this question gives us practice in applying the values of inquiry and develops virtues such as persistence and resilience.

    You are not alone!

    Reasoning is best understood as a social competence: we reason with and towards each other. Indeed, to be called reasonable is a social compliment.

    It’s only when we have to think with others that we really test the quality of our thinking. It’s easy to convince yourself about something, but when you play in the arena of public reasoning, the bar is much higher.

    So, be the reasonable person in the room.

    That doesn’t mean everyone has to come around to your way of thinking. But it does mean everyone will get closer to the truth because of you.

    Use online resources

    There are many accessible tools for developing critical thinking. Kialo (Esperanto for “reason”), brings together people from around the world on a user-friendly (and free) platform to help test our reasoning in a well-moderated and respectful environment. It is an excellent place to practice the giving and taking of reasons and to understand alternative positions.

    The School of Thought, developed to curate free critical thinking resources, includes many that are often used in educational contexts.

    There’s also a plethora of online courses that can guide development in critical thinking, from Australian and international universities.

    Peter Ellerton is affiliated with the Rationalist Society of Australia.

    – ref. Critical thinking is more important than ever. How can I improve my skills? – https://theconversation.com/critical-thinking-is-more-important-than-ever-how-can-i-improve-my-skills-252517

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The collapse of Hudson’s Bay signals a turning point for Canadian legacy retailers

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Xiaodan Pan, Associate Professor, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University

    Hudson’s Bay Company has begun liquidating all but six of its stores. After the 352-year-old retailer filed for creditor protection amid mounting debt and operational losses in early March, a court gave it permission to start the liquidation process.

    Founded in 1670 as a fur-trading enterprise, Hudson’s Bay grew into one of Canada’s most iconic department store chains. But with nearly all locations set to close by June 30 and its loyalty programs suspended, the future of Hudson’s Bay remains uncertain.

    The retailer’s financial troubles raise broader questions about the viability of traditional department stores in an increasingly fast-paced, digitally driven retail environment.



    Read more:
    Hudson’s Bay liquidation: What happens when a company goes bankrupt?

    Modernization efforts

    In recent years, Hudson’s Bay attempted to modernize by blending its physical retail footprint with a growing digital presence. This included launching a revamped e-commerce platform and creating an online marketplace that allowed third-party sellers to broaden its product assortment.

    In 2021, Hudson’s Bay split its e-commerce and physical store divisions into separate entities: The Bay Online, focused on digital retail, and Hudson’s Bay, dedicated to in-store shopping experiences.

    But despite these efforts, Hudson’s Bay has struggled to differentiate its online platform in an overcrowded and highly competitive digital landscape, all while maintaining its physical presence.

    The rise of off-price retailers

    In sharp contrast to the struggles of legacy department stores, off-price retailers such as Winners, Marshalls and TJ Maxx continue to thrive. Their success is largely due to their ability to attract consumers across a wide range of income levels by offering brand-name merchandise at large discounts.

    In Canada, Winners alone has expanded to more than 300 stores nationwide, while Marshalls has added more than 100 locations. Combined, they significantly outnumber Hudson’s Bay’s approximately 80 stores.

    Off-price retailers have also gained a competitive edge through real estate choices, favouring open-air shopping centres and strip malls that provide greater accessibility and ample parking, which are benefits that many Hudson’s Bay urban locations lack.

    The off-price model thrives on an ever-changing merchandise mix. Buyers continuously source fashion, designer labels and home goods from a broad spectrum of vendors. This approach keeps assortments fresh and also ensures fast inventory turnover, reducing holding costs and supporting lower prices.

    This retail model has demonstrated resilience across economic cycles. In times of inflation or financial uncertainty, foot traffic to off-price stores typically increases as consumers become more price-sensitive — further eroding the market share of traditional department stores.

    The pressures from digital retailers

    The rapid rise of e-commerce has presented a significant challenge for traditional department stores. Over the past decade, online shopping in Canada has grown substantially, with monthly online retail sales surpassing three billion Canadian dollars.

    E-commerce now accounts for 11 to 12 per cent of total retail sales, with categories like fashion, hobby and leisure, electronics and furniture and home goods accounting for around 75 per cent of all retail e-commerce sales in Canada.

    In the general merchandise space, Amazon controls more than 40 per cent of Canada’s e-commerce market. Retail giants like Walmart and Costco have also expanded their digital capabilities. These players undercut the traditional value proposition of department stores.

    The large investments required in distribution capabilities has made it increasingly difficult for smaller competitors, such as Hudson’s Bay, to match the delivery speeds and product assortments of these retail heavyweights.

    In niche merchandise categories, specialized retailers have also chipped away at department stores’ customer bases. Sephora and Shoppers Drug Mart dominate the beauty and personal care market, while Lululemon, Nike and Zara rank among the top online stores in fashion.

    Ikea, Wayfair and other direct-to-consumer brands lead the online home goods and furniture market, while Canadian-based Holt Renfrew and France-based LVMH are both leaders in the luxury market.

    Adding to the challenge are international digital disruptors such as Shein and Temu, which have have rapidly gained ground in Canada. In 2023, Shein led the country’s online fashion segment with e-commerce net sales of approximately US$1.4 billion.

    Temu — an ultra-low-price platform that entered Canada in 2023 — became the country’s most-downloaded iPhone app by the end of 2024. These platforms are challenging legacy retailers by offering aggressive pricing, free shipping and vast product assortments.

    Pathways to reinvention

    With almost all of its stores closing and its loyalty programs suspended, the future of Hudson’s Bay is in question. While its brand recognition remains strong, it’s unclear whether it will be able to come back from the brink it’s now on.

    For any struggling legacy retailer looking to survive in today’s evolving market, reinvention is essential. Department stores and legacy retailers will need to reinvent themselves across five key dimensions:

    1. Reposition the brand: Canadian retailers can redefine their core value propositions, emphasizing what makes them unique. Their uniqueness may lie in their Canadian heritage, for instance. Brands like Roots and Canada Goose have been successful with this strategy.

    2. Rethink retail formats: The age of downtown retailing continues to fade, especially as remote work reduces foot traffic in urban centres. Large-scale covered malls are also declining, given the demise of anchor department store retailers and the rise of e-commerce. Canadian retailers should explore alternate formats, such as neighbourhood-based, category-specific outlets tailored to community preferences.

    3. Optimize physical presence: Strategic location decisions are crucial. Physical retailers must right-size their physical footprints — closing underperforming locations while reinvesting in high-traffic, high-return outlets. Future expansion should favour asset-light, data-informed models based on actual consumer demand.

    4. Improve in-store experiences: To draw customers back into stores, shopping must become experiential. Immersive displays, personalized service and community-centric events could make a visit to a physical store more memorable and engaging for customers.

    5. Integrating physical and digital channels: A cohesive digital and physical strategy is essential. Technologies such as augmented reality fitting rooms, virtual showrooms, click-and-collect options and AI-powered personalization could bridge the gap between online and in-store shopping.

    A defining moment for Canadian retailers

    Canadian retailing stands at a pivotal crossroads. The collapse of legacy department stores, the dominance of e-commerce giants and the rise of off-price and digital-first competitors all signal a permanent shift in how consumers shop.

    A long legacy alone does not secure survival. As seen with the collapses of Sears, Eaton’s and now Hudson’s Bay, failure to adapt can lead to obsolescence. The retail landscape is now defined by agility, innovation and the ability to meet consumers where they are.

    For retailers still standing, the lesson is clear: nostalgia is not a business model. Shoppers are now more price-conscious, convenience-driven and digitally engaged than ever before. Companies unwilling or unable to evolve will likely face the same fate as the retail giants that came before them.

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

    – ref. The collapse of Hudson’s Bay signals a turning point for Canadian legacy retailers – https://theconversation.com/the-collapse-of-hudsons-bay-signals-a-turning-point-for-canadian-legacy-retailers-252705

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: As generative AI becomes more sophisticated, it’s harder to distinguish the real from the deepfake

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Andreea Pocol, PhD candidate, Computer Science, University of Waterloo

    The text-to-image model DALL-E uses generative adversarial networks (GANs) to generate images. (Shutterstock)

    In the age of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), the phrase “I’ll believe it when I see it” no longer stands. Not only is GenAI able to generate manipulated representations of people, but it can also be used to generate entirely fictitious people and scenarios.



    Read more:
    The use of deepfakes can sow doubt, creating confusion and distrust in viewers

    GenAI tools are affordable and accessible to all, and AI-generated images are becoming ubiquitous. If you’ve been doom-scrolling through your news or Instagram feeds, chances are you’ve scrolled past an AI-generated image without even realizing it.

    As a computer science researcher and PhD candidate at the University of Waterloo, I’m increasingly concerned by my own inability to discern what’s real from what’s AI-generated.

    My research team conducted a survey where nearly 300 participants were asked to classify a set of images as real or fake. The average classification accuracy of participants was 61 per cent in 2022. Participants were more likely to correctly classify real images than fake ones. It’s likely that accuracy is much lower today thanks to the rapidly improving GenAI technology.

    We also analyzed their responses using text mining and keyword extraction to learn the common justifications participants provided for their classifications. It was immediately apparent that, in a generated image, a person’s eyes were considered the telltale indicator that the image was probably AI-generated. AI also struggled to produce realistic teeth, ears and hair.

    But these tools are constantly improving. The telltale signs we could once use to detect AI-generated images are no longer reliable.

    Improving images

    Researchers began exploring the use of GANs for image and video synthesis in 2014. The seminal paper “Generative Adversarial Nets” introduced the adversarial process of GANs. Although this paper does not mention deepfakes, it was the springboard for GAN-based deepfakes.

    Some early examples of GenAI art which used GANs include the “DeepDream” images created by Google engineer Alexander Mordvintsev in 2015.

    But in 2017, the term “deepfake” was officially born after a Reddit user, whose username was “deepfakes,” used GANs to generate synthetic celebrity pornography.

    In 2019, software engineer Philip Wang created the “ThisPersonDoesNotExist” website, which used GANs to generate realistic-looking images of people. That same year, the release of the deepfake detection challenge, which sought new and improved deepfake detection models, garnered widespread attention and led to the rise of deepfakes.



    Read more:
    How to combat the unethical and costly use of deepfakes

    About a decade later, one of the authors of the “Generative Adversarial Nets” paper — Canadian computer scientist Yoshua Bengio — began sharing his concerns about the need to regulate AI due to the potential dangers such technology could pose to humanity.

    Bengio and other AI trailblazers signed an open letter in 2024, calling for better deepfake regulation. He also led the first International AI Safety Report, which was published at the beginning of 2025.

    Hao Li, deepfake pioneer and one of the world’s top deepfake artists, conceded in a manner eerily reminiscent of Robert Oppenheimer’s famous “Now I Am Become Death” quote:

    “This is developing more rapidly than I thought. Soon, it’s going to get to the point where there is no way that we can actually detect ‘deepfakes’ anymore, so we have to look at other types of solutions.”

    The new disinformation

    Big tech companies have indeed been encouraging the development of algorithms that can detect deepfakes. These algorithms commonly look for the following signs to determine if content is a deepfake:

    • Number of words spoken per sentence, or the speech rate (the average human speech rate is 120-150 words per minute),
    • Facial expressions, based on known co-ordinates of the human eyes, eyebrows, nose, lips, teeth and facial contours,
    • Reflections in the eyes, which tends to be unconvincing (either missing or oversimplified),
    • Image saturation, with AI-generated images being less saturated and containing a lower number of underexposed pixels compared to pictures taken by an HDR camera.

    But even these traditional deepfake detection algorithms suffer several drawbacks. They are usually trained on high-resolution images, so they may fail at detecting low-resolution surveillance footage or when the subject is poorly illuminated or posing in an unrecognized way.

    Despite flimsy and inadequate attempts at regulation, rogue players continue to use deepfakes and text-to-image AI synthesis for nefarious purposes. The consequences of this unregulated use range from political destabilization at a national and global level to the destruction of reputations caused by very personal attacks.

    Disinformation isn’t new, but the modes of propagating it are constantly changing. Deepfakes can be used not only to spread disinformation — that is, to posit that something false is true — but also to create plausible deniability and posit that something true is false.

    It’s safe to say that in today’s world, seeing will never be believing again. What might once have been irrefutable evidence could very well be an AI-generated image.

    Andreea Pocol receives funding from NSERC.

    – ref. As generative AI becomes more sophisticated, it’s harder to distinguish the real from the deepfake – https://theconversation.com/as-generative-ai-becomes-more-sophisticated-its-harder-to-distinguish-the-real-from-the-deepfake-225768

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Sudan’s civil war: What military advances mean, and where the country could be heading next

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Christopher Tounsel, Associate Professor of History, University of Washington

    A Sudanese man celebrates as the military enters the central city of Wad Madani, pushing out the Rapid Support Forces in January 2025. AP Photo/Marwan Ali

    A series of advances by the Sudanese military has led some observers to posit that the African nation’s yearslong civil war could be at a crucial turning point.

    Even if it were to end tomorrow, the bloody conflict would have left the Sudanese people scarred by violence that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions of people. But the recent victories by the military do not spell the end of its adversary, a rebel paramilitary group that still holds large areas in Sudan.

    The Conversation turned to Christopher Tounsel, a historian of modern Sudan at the University of Washington, to explain what the war has cost and where it could turn now.

    Can you give a summary of the civil war to date?

    On April 15, 2023, fighting broke out in Sudan between the Sudanese Armed Forces, or SAF – led by de facto head of state Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan – and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, or RSF, led by Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known colloquially as “Hemedti.” The RSF emerged out of the feared Janjaweed militia that had terrorized the Darfur region of Sudan.

    While the SAF and RSF previously worked together to forcibly remove longtime President Omar al-Bashir from power in 2019, they later split amid a power struggle that turned deadly.

    The major point of contention was the disputed timeline for RSF integration into the national military, with the RSF preferring a 10-year process to the SAF’s preferred two-year plan.

    By early April 2023, the government deployed SAF troops along the streets of the capital, Khartoum, while RSF forces took up locations throughout the country. Matters came to a head when explosions and gunfire rocked Khartoum on April 15 of that year. The two forces have been in conflict ever since.

    To human toll of the civil war has been staggering. As of February 2025, estimates of those killed from the conflict and its related causes, including lack of sufficient medical facilities and hunger, have ranged from 20,000 to 150,000 – a wide gulf that, according to Humanitarian Research Lab executive director Nathaniel Raymond, is partially due to the fact that the dead or displaced are still being counted.

    The conflict has displaced more than 14 million people, a number that demographically makes the Sudan situation the world’s worst displacement crisis. Nearly half of Sudan’s population is “acutely food insecure,” according to the U.N.’s World Food Programme. Another 638,000 face “catastrophic levels of hunger” – the world’s highest number.

    How have recent developments changed the war?

    The SAF has recently scored a slew of victories. At time of writing, the Sudanese military controls much of the country’s southeastern border with Ethiopia, the Red Sea coast – and, with it, Sudan’s strategically important Port Sudan – and parts of the country’s metropolitan center located at the confluence of the Blue and White Nile rivers.

    Further, the SAF has reclaimed much of the White Nile and Gezira provinces and broken an RSF siege of North Kordofan’s provincial capital of el-Obeid. In perhaps the most important development, the army in late March recaptured the RSF’s last major stronghold in Khartoum, the Presidential Palace.

    A fighter loyal to the Sudanese army patrols a market area in Khartoum on March 24, 2025.
    AFP via Getty Images

    Each of these actions indicates that the SAF is taking an increasingly proactive approach in the war. Such positive momentum could not only serve to reassure the Sudanese populace that the SAF is the country’s strongest force but also signal to foreign powers that it is, and will continue to be, the country’s legitimate authority moving forward.

    And yet, there are other indications that the RSF is in no rush to concede defeat. Despite the SAF’s advances, the RSF has strengthened its control over nearly all of Darfur, Sudan’s massive western region that shares a lengthy border with neighboring Chad.

    It is here that the RSF has been accused of committing genocide against non-Arab communities, and only the besieged capital of North Darfur, El Fasher, stands in the way of total RSF hegemony in the region. The RSF also controls territory to the south, along Sudan’s borders with the Central African Republic and South Sudan.

    The fact that the SAF and RSF are entrenched in their respective regional strongholds casts doubt on the significance of the military’s recent victories.

    Could Sudan be heading to partition?

    As a historian who spent years writing about South Sudanese separatism, I find it somewhat unfathomable to imagine that Sudan would further splinter into different countries. Given the current state of affairs, however, partition is not outside the realm of possibility. In February, during a summit in Kenya, the RSF and its allies officially commenced plans to create a rival government.

    The African Union’s 55 member states are said to be split on the issue of Sudanese partition and the question of whether any entity linked with the RSF should be accepted. In January, during the waning days of U.S. President Joe Biden’s presidency, Washington determined that the RSF and its allies had committed genocide and sanctioned Hemedti, the RSF leader, prohibiting him and his family from traveling to the U.S. and freezing any American assets he may hold.

    Any attempt to entertain partition could be read as an acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the RSF and would also create a dangerous precedent for other leaders who have been accused of human rights violations.

    In addition to the RSF’s perceived lack of moral legitimacy, there is also the recent precedent of South Sudan’s secession. South Sudan, since seceding from Sudan in 2011, has experienced enormous difficulties. Roughly 2½ years into independence, the nation erupted into a civil war waged largely along ethnic lines. Since the conclusion of that war in 2018, the world’s youngest nation continues to struggle with intergroup violence, food insecurity and sanctions resulting from human rights violations.

    Simply put, recent Sudanese history has shown that partition is not a risk-free solution to civil war.

    How has shifting geopolitics affected the conflict?

    It is important to understand that the conflict’s ripples extend far beyond Sudan’s borders. Similarly, the actions of countries such as the U.S., Russia and China have an impact on the war.

    Sudanese people line up to collect a charity ‘iftar’ fast-breaking meal in Omdourman on March 19, 2025.
    Ebrahim Hamid/AFP via Getty Images

    President Donald Trump’s executive order freezing contributions from the U.S. government’s development organization, USAID, has shuttered approximately 80% of the emergency food kitchens established to help those impacted by the conflict. An estimated 2 million people have been affected by this development.

    Russian financial and military contributions have been credited with helping the SAF achieve its gains in recent months. Russia has long desired a Red Sea naval base near Port Sudan, and the expulsion of Russia’s fleet from Syria following the fall of President Bashar Assad increased the importance of such a base.

    And then there is China. A major importer of Sudanese crude oil, China engaged in conversations to renegotiate oil cooperation agreements with Sudan in October 2024 with the hopes of increasing oil production amid the war. An end to the war – and, with it, protecting the flow of oil through pipelines vulnerable to attack – would benefit both members of this bilateral relationship.

    As the war enters its third year, the outlook remains frustratingly difficult to discern.

    Christopher Tounsel has previously received funding from the Council of American Overseas Research Centers.

    – ref. Sudan’s civil war: What military advances mean, and where the country could be heading next – https://theconversation.com/sudans-civil-war-what-military-advances-mean-and-where-the-country-could-be-heading-next-253007

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: National standards by stealth? Why the government’s latest plan for schools might fail the history test

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jade Wrathall, Teaching Fellow, Te Kura Toi Tangata – School of Education, University of Waikato

    smolaw/Shutterstock

    The New Zealand government’s plan to purchase a standardised tool to assess reading, writing and mathematics for school children between Year 3 and 10 has caught parents, schools and education groups by surprise.

    The tool would essentially be a return to a form of national standards, a policy introduced in 2008 under John Key’s National government.

    Under this policy, children were compared against the level of achievement expected for their age and time at school. The goal was to improve results across the education system.

    The policy was ended by Labour in 2017 after there was little improvement in international testing results and several criticism from the sector. The National Standards in their Seventh Year survey of teachers and principals found just 16% of respondents said the standardised testing had a positive impact.

    The planned introduction of a new standardised assessment tool is concerning for a number of reasons – particularly when it comes to long-term consequences for schools and student learning.

    But what has also raised the hackles of many in education is how the tender process for the new tool happened without warning. Here is what parents, schools and the public should know about the background to this debate.

    In 2024, Education Minister Erica Stanford announced plans to allow schools to choose between two tools to assess students, but the ministry has now issued a tender for just one.
    Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

    A narrowing curriculum

    There is plenty of research – from New Zealand and overseas – highlighting the negative consequences of standardised testing in education.

    Standardised assessment can, for example, lead to schools being ranked against each other according to their achievement data. A low ranking could jeopardise a school’s reputation and therefore the number of enrolments and subsequent funding they receive.

    In this high-stakes environment, teachers can be pressured to focus on assessed subjects, often to the detriment of the broader curriculum. While the curriculum in New Zealand has already been considerably narrowed under the government’s “Teaching the Basics Brilliantly” policy, a standardised assessment could further exacerbate this trend.

    Teachers may also be inclined to “teach to the test” and employ rote learning strategies, where children are encouraged to memorise the correct answers. While this may result in high test scores, it is questionable whether deeper learning will occur.

    Focusing on assessment can also be detrimental to children’s belief that they could learn and their attitudes towards learning, particularly when they are labelled according to their level of achievement.

    Finally, while standardised tests might promise an “easy fix” to improve educational outcomes, they do not address the deeper socioeconomic disparities which continue to significantly affect educational achievement.

    A lack of consultation

    This shift back towards a national testing standard is happening without any known consultation with the education sector. Instead, the plan to use one standardised assessment tool only became evident when the government tender was released.

    But the introduction of a standardised test also doesn’t fit with the government’s previous public statements on testing.

    In 2024, Education Minister Erica Stanford announced plans to allow schools to choose between two tools to assess students. These tools were selected specifically to prevent comparison across schools because they were so different from one another.

    At the time, Stanford said

    It’s not our intention to pit schools against each other. This data is for parents to know how their kids are going, teachers to inform practice, and as a system to know how we’re tracking.

    But according to documents released later the same year, the government already had a plan to rely on a single standardised assessment tool that could produce comparable data.

    Control from afar

    While the Ministry of Education says this new standardised assessment tool “will deliver a long-term solution to support all schools and kura”, there are reasons to be sceptical.

    Standardised assessment can be used by the government to control what teachers do in the classroom and provide data to reallocate resources to where they are most needed. This resource allocation strategy, however, can leave some schools without the funding and support they need.

    Principals and teachers can also be held accountable for student achievement, while larger contextual factors, such as socioeconomic inequalities, are ignored. This can ultimately lead to educators being blamed if achievement targets are not met.

    Regardless of who wins the tender for the new assessment tool, New Zealand’s recent experience with standardised testing didn’t achieve what was promised. Returning to national standards – either in name or just in spirit – should raise alarms for everyone.

    Marta Estellés has previously received funding from The Spencer Foundation, New Zealand National Commission of UNESCO, the Division of Education at The University of Waikato and The University of Cantabria.

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

    – ref. National standards by stealth? Why the government’s latest plan for schools might fail the history test – https://theconversation.com/national-standards-by-stealth-why-the-governments-latest-plan-for-schools-might-fail-the-history-test-252917

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Modern spacesuits have a compatability problem. Astronauts’ lives depend on fixing it

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Berna Akcali Gur, Lecturer in Outer Space Law, Queen Mary University of London

    Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore, the Nasa astronauts who were stuck on the International Space Station (ISS) for nine months, have finally returned to Earth.

    Spacesuits were an important consideration that Nasa had to factor into its plans to bring the astronauts back home. Wilmore and Williams had travelled to the ISS in Boeing’s experimental Starliner spacecraft, so they arrived wearing Boeing “Blue” spacesuits.

    Following helium leaks and thruster (engine) issues with Starliner, Nasa decided it was safer not to send them back to Earth on that vehicle. The astronauts had to wait to return on one of the other spacecraft that ferry crew members to the ISS, the SpaceX Crew Dragon.

    This meant they needed a different type of spacesuit, made by SpaceX for use in its vehicle only. Boeing’s suits cannot be used in Crew Dragon in part because the umbilicals (the flexible “pipes” that supply air and cooling to the suit) have connections and standards that don’t work with the ports inside a Crew Dragon.

    This highlights a general problem for the growing number of space agencies and companies sending people into orbit, and for planned missions to the Moon and beyond. Ensuring that different spacesuits are compatible, or “interoperable”, with spacecraft they weren’t designed to be used in is vital if we are to protect astronauts’ lives during an emergency in space, especially in joint missions.

    The spacesuits worn during a return from space are called “launch, entry and abort” (LEA) suits. These are airtight and provide life support to the astronauts in case there is a decompression, when air is lost from the cabin.

    Unfortunately, a decompression has already caused loss of life in space. During the Soyuz 11 mission in 1971, three Soviet cosmonauts visited the world’s first space station, Salyut 1. But during preparations for re-entry, the crew cabin lost its air, killing cosmonauts Georgy Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov and Viktor Patsayev, who were not wearing LEA suits. All cosmonauts wore them after this incident.

    As well as the connections for life support, the Boeing and SpaceX suits also have restraints and connections for communications that are specific to each vehicle. For their return home from the ISS in a SpaceX capsule, Williams was able into use a spare SpaceX suit that was already aboard the space station and the company sent up an additional suit on a cargo delivery for Wilmore to wear.

    Two spacecraft are usually docked at the ISS as “lifeboats” to evacuate the astronauts in the event of an emergency. These are generally a SpaceX Crew Dragon and a Russian Soyuz capsule.

    If an emergency evacuation were to occur and there weren’t enough of the right spacesuits available – for either the Crew Dragon or Soyuz – it could endanger astronauts during the fiery re-entry through Earth’s atmosphere. Interoperability between spacesuits has therefore become a matter of survival.

    The Outer Space Treaty, which provides the basic framework for international space law, recognises astronauts as “envoys of humankind” and grants them specific legal protections. These were expanded on in subsequent UN treaties – notably the Rescue Agreement, which imposes a range of duties on states to render assistance to each others’ astronauts in cases of emergency, accident or distress.

    For the ISS, a collaborative space programme with international flight crews, protocols include terms that set forth how this obligation is to be met. However, these protocols do not contain terms relating to spacesuit interoperability.

    Risks to astronauts in space

    A major potential cause of an emergency evacuation is space debris. The ISS has regularly had to manoeuvre to avoid collisions with debris – including entire defunct satellites.

    In his memoir, Endurance, Nasa astronaut Scott Kelly describes being commanded to enter the Soyuz vehicle with two other crew members and prepare to detach from the ISS because of a close approach by a large defunct satellite. Luckily, the spacecraft passed by harmlessly.

    As orbits become increasingly congested, with an exponential increase in the number of space objects being launched, the risk of collisions will also increase.

    Ever more companies and governments are entering the human spaceflight arena. The Tiangong space station, China’s orbiting laboratory, has been fully operational since 2022, and there are plans to open it to space tourism, just like the ISS.

    India is planning to join the community of nations with the capability to launch humans into space, under a programme called Gaganyaan. And while most space travellers remain government-funded astronauts, the number of private space-farers is increasing.

    Billionaire Jared Isaacman (who is President Trump’s nominee to run Nasa) has commanded two private missions into orbit using Crew Dragon. On the second of these, he participated in the first spacewalk by privately funded astronauts. The ISS is set to be retired in 2030 – but one company, Houston-based Axiom Space, is already building a private space station.

    Against this complex and part-unregulated backdrop, ensuring the interoperability of different spacecraft systems, including spacesuits, will increase levels of safety in this inherently risky activity.

    While the safety and practicality of spacesuits has always been the top priority, compatibility between different suits and vehicles should also be high on the list. This requires space agencies and private spaceflight companies to engage with each other in a process to agree on standard interfaces and connections for life support and communications, across all their suits and space vehicles.

    Amid this period of increased commercialisation and competition between the organisations and companies involved in orbital spaceflight, a move toward greater collaboration can only be a good thing.

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

    – ref. Modern spacesuits have a compatability problem. Astronauts’ lives depend on fixing it – https://theconversation.com/modern-spacesuits-have-a-compatability-problem-astronauts-lives-depend-on-fixing-it-252935

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The Secret Garden by Frances Hodgeson Burnett was an early work of climate fiction

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Davina Quinlivan, Lecturer in English and Creative Writing, University of Exeter

    I grew up in a mixed-heritage family. Both of my parents’ childhoods were deeply affected by colonialism in India and they often told me stories about this period in their lives. As a result, I inherited a sense of place and a feeling for a country which was never my home.

    It’s a strange feeling, which I still struggle to put into words, though I tried in my memoir, Shalimar: A Story of Place and Migration, which holds at its heart the sensation and imagery of India’s climate and its wildlife. India, for me, will always coexist with English weather and the roses my father tended to in our modest, suburban home in Hayes, west London.

    While we now have beautifully written, tender children’s books which address colonial history, from Nazneen Ahmed Pathak’s City of Stolen Magic (2023) to Jasbinder Bilan’s Nush and the Stolen Emerald (2024), The Secret Garden still holds a powerful spell over me. That’s because of its representation of nature and its use of fiction to tell a story about England and India, two countries brought together through the healing space of the garden.

    I believe that re-contextualising A Secret Garden as an early work of climate fiction – a type of storytelling that imagines how climate change could shape our world – is an apt way to rethink this classic tale.

    This article is part of Rethinking the Classics. The stories in this series offer insightful new ways to think about and interpret classic books and artworks. This is the canon – with a twist.

    Published in 1911, The Secret Garden unfolds against the backdrop of the fictional Misselthwaite Manor and its walled garden on the Yorkshire Moors.

    While Yorkshire and its thick sheets of rain, enveloped in mist and fog, is portrayed vividly by Hodgeson Burnett, the ghostly heat and skies of India are also woven throughout the book’s micro-climates. Hodgeson Burnett’s attention to nature is masterful and magical:

    One knows it sometimes when one gets up at the tender solemn dawn-time and goes out and stands out and throws one’s head far back and looks up and up and watches the pale sky slowly changing and flushing … And one knows it sometimes when one stands by oneself in a wood at sunset and the mysterious deep gold stillness slanting through and under the branches seems to be saying slowly again and again something one cannot quite hear, however much one tries.

    The climates of India and Yorkshire blur into a new reality when seen through the eyes of the book’s central protagonist, the recently orphaned Mary Lennox. She is sent to live with her uncle after her parents die of cholera in colonial Calcutta.

    Wilful and fiery, Mary’s grief and rootlessness seems to be unending until she follows a twitching robin into a walled garden. There she befriends other children including her cousin Colin, who uses a wheelchair, and the gardener, Weatherstaff.

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

    The hidden sanctuary and wonder of the garden is intertwined with Mary’s inner world and her search for solace after the loss of her parents. Her resilience thrives and blooms, particularly when she becomes a storyteller and draws the other children into this secret place through her tales of adventure.

    Here, the telling of the “story” of the garden is as important as the experience of the garden itself. This is where fiction does its work – we need stories like this to recover a sense of care in times of ecological crisis.

    Last year saw the launch of the Climate Fiction Prize, a vital endeavour to specifically support literary fiction as a cultural form which permits writers the freedom to imagine alternative paths for human existence. The Secret Garden is a work of such imagination, of transformation from otherwise impossible states of crisis and inertia.

    Beyond the Canon

    As part of the Rethinking the Classics series, we’re asking our experts to recommend a book or artwork that tackles similar themes to the canonical work in question, but isn’t (yet) considered a classic itself. Here is Davina Quinlivan’s suggestion:

    Shaun Tan’s Tales From the Inner City (2018) is a beautiful and extremely moving collection of illustrated, eco-centric stories exploring the relationship between humans and animals in urban environments.

    Tan is well known for his elegiac and often uncanny, playful storytelling and Tales From the Inner City skilfully braids these aesthetic values with a powerful message of hope and compassion for the wild and domestic creatures we share our world with. While there is no explicit reference to the climate crisis, Tan’s exquisite images illustrate stories of kinship between humans and dogs, snails, whales, pigeons, cats and tigers – all bound to each other as intertwined species.

    Set within cities, the wild beauty of each animal seems enlarged, as does the poignancy of each story, reminding us of what we have to lose. Some of the creatures literally morph into giant versions of themselves, eerie against Tan’s various backdrops of urban space. In one story, two tiny humans are seen being carried through stormy waters, perched between the ears of an enormous cat. It’s an indelible image of hope and survival in the wake of environmental devastation. Tan’s imaginative power is utterly extraordinary.

    Davina Quinlivan is an AHRC-funded StoryArcs Fellow based in the Department of English and Creative Writing at The University of Exeter. She is also an Artistic Lead with Emblaze, an imprint of Paper Nations. Paper Nations is an award-winning creative writing incubator illuminating stories of colour in the South West, funded by Arts Council England and produced by The Story Society, Bath Spa University.

    – ref. The Secret Garden by Frances Hodgeson Burnett was an early work of climate fiction – https://theconversation.com/the-secret-garden-by-frances-hodgeson-burnett-was-an-early-work-of-climate-fiction-250338

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s job cuts are causing Republican angst as all parties face backlash

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Thomas Gift, Associate Professor and Director of the Centre on US Politics, UCL

    A spate of town hall meetings held across the US has revealed palpable anger among both Democratic and Republican voters. At some events, voters have spoken to “empty chairs” in lieu of Congress members who refused to show their faces. At others, lawmakers have been booed, heckled and faced raucous audiences.

    What’s striking isn’t just the outrage, but where it’s coming from. Much of the backlash is from parties’ own voters.

    Things have become particularly bad for Republicans. So much so that party leaders have urged lawmakers to host live-streamed or call-in events rather than in-person town halls. President Donald Trump has baselessly blamed “paid agitators” for the fallout. But some backlash doubtlessly comes from Trump supporters.

    Republican angst might suggest a discrepancy between their abstract support for federal spending cuts by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) and their actual response to its practical consequences.

    Republicans doubtlessly like the optics of Musk taking out his chainsaw to slice government. A March 2025 CNN poll, for example, revealed that 75% of Republicans approve of Musk, compared to just 6% of Democrats. Additionally, 73% of Republicans even think Doge cuts won’t go far enough in rooting out “waste, fraud, and abuse” in government.

    However, that enthusiasm seems to fade when specific programmes are on the chopping block. As Republican strategist Brian Seitchik puts it: “There is certainly a disconnect right now between the theory of Doge, the cutting of fat in government … and what is seemingly a blowtorch as opposed to a scalpel approach to solving these problems.”

    Cuts to the federal workforce are emerging as perhaps the most contentious issue. These jobs are disproportionately concentrated in Washington DC. But in terms of total numbers, most are scattered across the country. That includes Republican states that Trump carried in last November’s election.

    Eliminating these jobs is having an impact that many Trump voters didn’t anticipate. Some may soon be showing buyer’s remorse with Trump. It is worth noting that around 81% of Republicans rated jobs and the economy as a very important issue, compared to 73% of Democrats, in a March poll from the Economist/YouGov.

    The political downside of job cuts has been made worse by an administration that can often seem numb to their impact. Recently, new video footage was unearthed of current Office of Management and Budget head Russ Vought saying in 2023 that he wanted civil servants to be “traumatically affected”.

    Despite all of Doge’s relentless efforts, US federal spending still hit a new high last month – US$603 billion (£467 billion). Without touching health service and senior citizen entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, it will be hard for the White House to significantly reduce national debt.

    High prices also continue to anger Trumpland. Trump vowed in the campaign: “You just watch – they’ll come down, and they’ll come down fast.” With inflation, Trump can scapegoat former president Joe Biden for a period. But that only lasts so long.

    Job cuts don’t just affect Democratic states.

    The problem for the White House is that it’s hard to imagine two more inflationary policies than those offered by Trump: tariffs, which pass higher prices onto consumers; and mass deportations, which constrict the labour supply and drive up the price of goods.

    Trump’s base is notoriously loyal. But swing voters who backed Trump could be in for a rude awakening if they expected Trump to revitalise American manufacturing and slash the price of eggs and Big Macs. If Trump’s approval ratings start to slide, some Republicans in Congress may also give him less than their full-throated support.

    Discontented Democrats

    Republicans aren’t the only ones with a problem from their own flank. According to polling by CNN, the Democratic party’s approval rating is just 29%, an all-time low. Among Democrats, some frustration stems from the direction in which Trump is taking the country, but much of it is about the Democratic party’s inability to counter him.

    Consider Trump’s speech before a joint session of Congress a couple weeks ago, where Democrats looked clumsy (and shrill) in their response. Representative Al Green was even censured for disrupting Trump’s address, including by 10 of his Democratic colleagues.

    Consider also the recent spending bill, when Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer broke with his party to keep the federal government open. Fellow Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the move a “huge slap in the face,” while even Schumer’s longtime political partner and former Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called him out for caving.

    Many Democratic voters view Democratic party leadership as feckless, as weak, and, in short, as losing. That’s hard to dispute that when Republicans have control of the White House, Congress, and for all intents and purposes, the Supreme Court.

    Calls for “fighting harder” ring hollow unless they’re backed with concrete action. Some pushback can come from states and localities. But what Democratic voters may be looking for is a common message. Half the party wants full-on resistance to Trump. Half doesn’t.

    What Democrats do next

    Coming out of November’s election, the autopsy reports haven’t moved the party in a consistent, constructive direction. For example, Democratic strategist James Carville says that his party should simply “roll over and play dead,” letting Republicans self-combust and making the American people long for Democratic governance. Others, like Ocasio-Cortez, are spoiling for a fight with Trump.

    Past patterns in election cycles would suggest that Democrats will take back at least one chamber of Congress in the 2026 midterms. But before they can, Democrats must heal splits between moderates and progressives, and address the backlash against “wokeism”, which is fading even faster than it emerged.

    Things look dire for Democrats now. Still, some historical context is instructive. 2004 was also a devastating loss for Democrats, when presidential candidate John Kerry lost to incumbent George W. Bush. Yet in 2008, Barack Obama ushered in a new era of Democratic governance. Politics has a way of self-correcting when the party in power over-interprets its mandate.

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

    – ref. Trump’s job cuts are causing Republican angst as all parties face backlash – https://theconversation.com/trumps-job-cuts-are-causing-republican-angst-as-all-parties-face-backlash-252940

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Psychopaths experience pain differently, even when their bodies say otherwise

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sophie Alshukri, PhD Candidate in Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University

    Roman Samborskyi/Shutterstock

    Psychopathy has long been associated with murderers, notorious criminals, and the griping true crime stories that dominate Netflix documentaries. But our recent research is showing they have a complex relationship with pain which may in part be responsible for their lack of empathy.

    Psychopathic traits are on a spectrum. We all have levels somewhere on this scale. To be deemed a “psychopath” by some medical professionals, though, you would need to sit on the higher end of the spectrum.

    Typically, people who are higher on the psychopathic traits spectrum show greater pain tolerance. And this is usually reflected in their physiology. For instance, in a 2022 study people higher in psychopathic traits showed lower brain activity with pressure pain.

    When we conducted our recent research on pain and people with different levels of psychopathy, our results surprised us. Participants with high levels of psychopathy seemed to process pain differently to people low in psychopathy.

    We applied pressure pain to our participants using a device that gently pressed a small circular probe onto the participant’s fingernail using compressed air. We measured their reactions from their sweat responses.

    This is called skin conductance response (SCR), and is activated in times of “fight or flight”, or even when we need to pay attention. And this normally increases sweat production. That’s what we used to measure participants’ response to pain and empathy in our experiment.

    Before our experiment began, we slowly increased the levels of pressure that participants felt until they told us they had reached their pain threshold (the most pain they could bear). The low and high psychopathy groups chose similar levels of pressure for their pain threshold.

    Next, we delivered varying levels of pressure (with the highest being each participant’s pain threshold) to ensure participants did not become used to the stimulations. Following each stimulation, participants were asked to rate how much pain they felt using a self-report measure ranging from 0-100.

    We found that participants higher in psychopathy reported feeling less pain than participants who were lower in psychopathy. The high psychopathy group even rated their own pain thresholds as less painful than the low psychopathy group (on the 0-100 scale). However, their SCRs were the same as those lower in psychopathy.

    So, what does this mean?

    It suggests that people higher in psychopathy interpret pain differently. Perhaps this explains why psychopathy relates to greater risk-taking and increased levels of violence or aggression towards others – they do not recognise feelings of pain in the same way as other people.

    Psychopaths may not recognise pain in the same way as others.
    Ground Picture/Shutterstock

    Usually, psychopathy relates to lower levels of physiological responses in threatening situations because they don’t associate pain with fear or punishment.

    The results of our study suggest that the difference in pain perception between high and low psychopathic people may be psychological rather than physiological. This could explain why there were differences in self-reports, but not in sweat responses.

    We don’t know whether they are pretending to feel pain or are less connected to their body’s physiology. But a 2019 study on children suggests those high in psychopathic traits may engage in extreme coping when scared. For instance, those children showed blunted emotional responses, disengagement or risky behaviour to cope with the stress.

    What about empathy for other people’s pain?

    We also tested our participants’ responses to other people’s pain by showing them images, such as a hand trapped in a door or a bare foot stepping on glass. Previous research has shown that people higher in psychopathy show reduced levels of physiological arousal to other people’s distress.

    For example, a 2015 study found people higher in psychopathy demonstrated lower levels of brain activity when seeing other people in painful situations. In our study, we found that people higher in psychopathy not only reported feeling less empathy but also showed lower sweat responses when viewing other people’s pain.

    This lower SCR has also been found in male prisoners with psychopathic traits. And it typically indicates less attention or focus on other people’s pain.

    Our study shows that a lack of empathy for others may not be a conscious choice. Our recent systematic review, where we looked at eight previous studies on psychopathy and pain perception, also helped to corroborate these findings, showing that psychopathy links to lower levels of brain activity in response to other people’s pain.

    Research has shown that lower levels of empathy for other people can be influenced by a higher tolerance for pain. If someone does not understand the feelings of pain the same way as other people, they probably don’t understand the pain that other people may be experiencing.

    Also, a 2020 review showed that the brain networks used in processing pain are also used to process empathy. This could mean that if people higher in psychopathy don’t feel as much pain themselves, their perceptions of other people’s pain could also be reduced via this shared network.

    Just because you show higher psychopathic traits does not necessarily mean you are going to be the lead character of your own true crime documentary, though. In fact, recent research, including a 2022 study, noted psychopathic traits can be positive and help people regulate their emotions.

    Surgeons and other medical professionals show high levels of psychopathic traits, particularly the stress immunity part of the personality trait.

    Perhaps this is what allows medical professionals high in psychopathic traits to stay calm under pressure, allowing them to make quick, rational decisions without being overwhelmed by stress.

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

    – ref. Psychopaths experience pain differently, even when their bodies say otherwise – https://theconversation.com/psychopaths-experience-pain-differently-even-when-their-bodies-say-otherwise-251529

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The paradox of weight loss: why losing pounds may not always lead to better health

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Barbara Pierscionek, Professor and Deputy Dean, Research and Innovation, Anglia Ruskin University

    Jacob Lund/Shutterstock

    One of the lasting memories from my teenage years is what I now recognise as an obsession with weight control. Thin was in, and magazines promoted a variety of diets, each claiming effectiveness, often accompanied by images of beautiful, slim models. Not much has changed.

    Diets, intermittent fasting, weight-loss surgery, and more recently, weight-loss injections continue to be marketed as solutions for shedding pounds. Achieving a healthy weight is widely regarded as essential for overall wellbeing.

    Many studies have explored the relationship between weight changes and mortality, as well as mortality in obese people with heart disease. These studies often suggest that excessive weight is unhealthy and that people with obesity and heart disease should lose weight.

    However, findings from a recent study, of which I was a co-author, challenge this assumption. Our research indicates that significant weight loss – greater than 10kg – can actually increase the risk of early death in obese people with cardiovascular disease.

    This study was based on data from over 8,000 participants in the UK Biobank, a comprehensive resource for medical research that includes genetic data.

    While it’s known that rapid weight loss can signal underlying health issues and lead to serious complications, the weight changes in our study were observed over an average of nine years, meaning for some participants, these changes were relatively quick.

    This creates a paradox. While both obesity and cardiovascular disease are known to increase the risk of early death, in obese people with cardiovascular disease, weight loss – intended to improve health – can have the opposite effect.

    The relationship between body weight and illness is complex. Though obesity contributes to cardiovascular problems, studies have also shown an increased risk of early death in those with chronic heart failure who are lean, and in people with coronary artery disease whose weight fluctuates.

    Obesity rates are rising, but simply focusing on weight loss may not be the answer.

    Variability in weight loss

    For weight loss to be effective, we must consider the diverse factors contributing to weight gain, which vary from person to person. Genetics play a significant role in appetite and metabolism, and they can also influence lifestyle factors like overeating, inadequate exercise and poor dietary choices that lead to obesity.

    In our study, my colleagues and I couldn’t account for all the factors behind the participants’ obesity or the methods they used to lose weight. This means we can’t definitively determine which weight-loss strategies – whether in terms of duration, diet or physical activity – pose the greatest risks.

    The conventional approach to healthy weight – using body mass index (BMI) – may not apply to everyone. BMI is increasingly recognised as having limitations. Some people may tolerate higher weights without adverse health effects. The real question isn’t how quickly weight should be lost, but how quickly it should be lost for each person.

    Given the current evidence, we cannot accurately determine an ideal weight range that’s universally beneficial for health. However, intriguing patterns are emerging from various countries.

    For instance, Tonga has a high rate of obesity, yet it experiences significantly lower rates of heart-disease-related deaths than many European countries where obesity is less prevalent. Tonga also reports lower levels of alcohol consumption and suicide than most European nations.

    Health encompasses both physical and mental wellbeing. Shifting the focus to holistic wellbeing and happiness may offer more lasting health benefits. Treating obesity requires a comprehensive approach, addressing all underlying factors contributing to the condition.

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

    – ref. The paradox of weight loss: why losing pounds may not always lead to better health – https://theconversation.com/the-paradox-of-weight-loss-why-losing-pounds-may-not-always-lead-to-better-health-252397

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: After months of Trump’s shock tactics, whistleblower groups are pushing back against attacks on workers’ rights

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kate Kenny, Professor of Business and Society, University of Galway

    Julio Javier Vargas/Shutterstock

    In the US, under president Donald Trump, rapid assaults on civil servants’ rights, including their rights to speak out about wrongdoing, are increasingly part of the administration’s play for power. Shock tactics tend to work when the speed leaves observers too stunned to act.

    But countering the paralysis, whistleblower supporters are organising. Civil society groups are collaborating to shore up workers’ rights, challenge threats in the courts, and inform the public why it’s important to protect whistleblowers. Their cool-headed approach shows what it takes to work together to preserve democratic freedoms.

    Since January 2025, the Trump administration has assaulted federal workers’ rights including whistleblowing protections. Key personnel are being fired, with thousands of other civil servants under threat of being reclassified as “at-will” workers who can be sacked at any time for any reason.

    But the US needs whistleblower rights. In the past ten years alone, US government workers speaking out have protected citizens from a long list of ills. This includes food contamination, health risks, airline dangers and climate censorship. And they have called out managers for fraud and corruption.

    Recent UK research demonstrates how listening to whistleblowers in some cases – including the Post Office scandal and the collapse of contractor Carillion – would have saved taxpayers nearly £400 million.

    Functioning government bureaucracies, staffed by well-qualified, professional and independent civil servants, curtail attempts by politicians to control the state.

    In the US, long-standing structures like the Pendleton Act of 1883 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, were put in place to ensure this. These laws insist government workers are hired and fired on the basis of skill and ability, not their political views. New employees take an oath of loyalty to the US constitution, not to the president.

    Whistleblower protection is a critical part of ensuring this independence, because it enables civil servants to challenge abuses of power. But whistleblowers can only call out wrongdoing if they are protected from reprisal. Right now, these protections are under threat.

    Shock and awe

    Critics of the new US administration know all this. But the speed of change seems overwhelming. And the will to resist depletes, as people struggle to make sense of the constant disruption.

    What to do with widely reported shows of anti-democratic aggression, like the recent appearance of senior Trump adviser Elon Musk on stage with a red chainsaw, shouting about a “chainsaw for bureaucracy”?

    This is exactly the kind of chaotic, performative scene that stokes fascist passions, but leaves critics frozen.

    Elon Musk’s chainsaw stunt was made famous by Argentinian president Javier Milei, who was looking on as Musk played to the gallery.
    Joshua Sukoff/Shutterstock

    Connecting such moves with Trump’s aggression against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes and trans citizens, US philosopher Judith Butler has warned that people can be stunned into inaction by increasingly shocking events. They stop seeing how they are connected.

    What links these events, fundamentally, is contempt for ordinary US citizens’ rights and for constitutional democracy. As Butler also says, it’s important that citizens are not left immobilised by the outrage.

    To counter the chaos, cool heads are needed. Supporters of whistleblower rights are pushing back. With partners, the nonprofit whistleblower organisation Government Accountability Project is suing Trump over the unconstitutional roll-back of federal worker protections. And civil society groups successfully challenged February’s firing of the chief of the federal whistleblowing agency.

    This kind of whistleblower activism has happened before in other parts of the world. In Europe, NGOs monitor countries’ adoption of the new EU whistleblower protection law.

    Organisations like the Whistleblowing International Network and the UNCAC coalition support civil society groups in countries around the world with new but fragile whistleblower protection systems introduced to support public trust and democratic accountability. These partnerships harness public opinion through the media and lobby for change. They come together in regular online events and forums to sustain momentum.

    These coalitions of whistleblower activists have a history of working together, celebrating small wins and publicising each other’s work.

    As my recent book details, this collective activism is not easy. These organisations operate on limited funding. And in the face of disinformation on social media, defending truth and facts can be challenging. Yet as I found, strategising and collaborating can help counter aggressive opposition.

    A shared commitment to democratic rights is what keeps coalitions of whistleblower activists going – they demonstrate passions for equality and the right to live without fear.

    Trump is working to remake the federal government in the service of his political agenda. It is a classic move made by “strongman” leaders. They seize control of government bureaucracy in order to reward elite supporters, give favours and jobs to insiders, and weaken oversight on corruption.

    Attacking government bureaucracy has been a first step in the power grab by authoritarian leaders worldwide, from Hungary to Benin, Turkey and Venezuela.

    Working with his largest election donor Elon Musk, who already owns businesses benefiting from government contracts, Trump’s aggressive overhaul of the federal government radically dilutes the potential for dissenting workers to speak out in protest.

    It is tempting to remain paralysed in the face of daily attempts to roll back workers’ rights. But through their dedication, mutual support and celebration of even small wins, international collectives of whistleblower activists remind us that there is a way forward and why it’s vital to keep going.

    Kate Kenny has in the past and at different times engaged in research funded by organizations including: the EU Commission, ESRC UK, the British Academy, Harvard University, Science Foundation Ireland and Leverhulme Trust.

    – ref. After months of Trump’s shock tactics, whistleblower groups are pushing back against attacks on workers’ rights – https://theconversation.com/after-months-of-trumps-shock-tactics-whistleblower-groups-are-pushing-back-against-attacks-on-workers-rights-252861

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The TGL golf league might signal that indoor sport is the future, for better or worse

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Brad Millington, Associate Professor, Sport Management, Brock University

    The inaugural season of the TGL golf league closes this week with a final championship-deciding series. The upstart, team-based, men’s league has made headlines for its celebrity backers, including star golfers Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy.

    Even more noteworthy is TGL’s unique format. Events are played inside SoFi Center, a custom-built venue in Florida with an audience capacity of 1,500.

    At one end lies the “ScreenZone,” where a golf simulator is used for longer shots such as drives and iron play. At the other end, players chip and putt along the physical surface of the “GreenZone” to record a final score on each hole.

    TGL is the latest commercial venture to shake up the golf world in recent years. The league is no doubt novel in some ways, yet it can also be explained as the convergence of two longstanding trends: the “mediatization” and “indoorization” of sport.



    Read more:
    PGA Tour-LIV merger: What this new partnership means for the future of golf and elite sport

    A ‘mediatized’ sports landscape

    Mediatization is a concept that speaks to relationships of interdependence between media and other institutions, such as sport. More than simply conveying sport content, communication technologies have helped change sport over the years — consider “television timeouts” or the use of instant replay.

    In return, sport is a source of live, unpredictable and exciting media content, something that is highly valuable in a competitive attention economy.

    In this context, TGL stands out as an especially tech-infused venture.

    First, there is the golf simulator. The ScreenZone is so named because players hit into a massive screen measuring 64 by 53 feet. Tracking technology is used to map and represent the flight of the ball on screen. This allows for a thoroughly datafied sport experience as an array of performance metrics are available to both players and fans.

    Also relevant are TGL’s seemingly made-for-TV conventions, some of which might be anathema to golf traditionalists. Among them, a 40-second shot clock keeps a brisk pace of play. Players are also mic’d up, making strategy conversations and reactions accessible to the audience.

    In all, TGL is a media spectacle. It is not uncommon for sports leagues to adopt new rules and formats, seemingly in a bid to capture consumer attention. But, through TGL’s video game-like components, media representation — golf on a simulated volcano, among other places — becomes part of the sport competition itself.

    Sport moves indoors

    TGL is also an indoor spectacle. In this sense, it contributes to the indoorization of outdoor sports.

    Outdoor sports from surfing to skiing, rock climbing and many more have moved indoors in recent years (while remaining outdoor sports too). A potential trade-off is that, while outdoor sports often foreground adventure, uncertainty and danger, their indoor analogues often trade this for control, predictability and calculability. The authenticity of indoor sport might therefore be debated, especially in historically counter-cultural sports such as surfing.

    Yet indoorization can also lead to expansion. From the late 1800s onwards, artificial ice in North American arenas allowed for reliable skating conditions and helped hockey move to new locations, growing the game as a commercial endeavour and cultural institution.

    There was also the benefit of escaping the elements. As architectural historian Howard Shubert writes:

    “Covered rinks allowed patrons to escape winter’s cold temperatures, harsh winds, and blowing snow and eliminated the immediate danger of falling through thin ice on ponds and streams.”

    Indoorization is not new, even for golf: golf simulators can be found in converted garages; Topgolf facilities offer high-tech, all-weather golf experiences. But TGL is a high-profile entrant in a history of moving sport indoors.

    Indoorization as adaption?

    Researchers assessing the prospects for outdoor skating against recent climate projections have concluded the future looks bleak for outdoor rinks, and that indoor arenas and synthetic surfaces will grow more important in the years ahead.

    Put another way, indoorization may increasingly be a requirement, and not just a luxury, in the context of a worsening climate crisis.

    Likewise, sport mega-events have implemented various climate adaptation measures over time, from snow-making on ski slopes to refrigeration of sliding tracks and far beyond. The future is likely to see host cities become climate unreliable to an even greater extent.

    It’s not just winter sports. From air-conditioned stadiums to relocated events in search of cooler conditions to indoor recess for students escaping poor-quality outdoor air, the changing climate is a point of vulnerability year-round — and for sport and physical activity participation at various levels.

    Our point here is not that TGL was conceived with the climate crisis in mind. Nor do we expect outdoor golf to disappear. Rather, the climate crisis will demand adaptation in sport in the years ahead.

    In a time of technological innovation — augmented reality, artificial intelligence and more — the mediatization of sport will provide new commercial and recreational opportunities that offer escape from, and perhaps distraction from, worsening outdoor conditions.

    TGL’s blend of real and artificial elements can be seen as foreshadowing “solutions” to much greater problems that are beginning to seem inevitable.

    Brad Millington receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Brian Wilson receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Michael L. Naraine receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and Sport Canada.

    Parissa Safai has received funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

    – ref. The TGL golf league might signal that indoor sport is the future, for better or worse – https://theconversation.com/the-tgl-golf-league-might-signal-that-indoor-sport-is-the-future-for-better-or-worse-252608

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why the Tesla backlash could help electric cars finally go mainstream

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Hannah Budnitz, Research Associate in Urban Mobility, Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford

    Elon Musk’s controversial political views and actions have sparked an exodus from X (formerly Twitter), his social media platform, and mass protests against his car company, Tesla. Dealerships in the US and beyond have experienced peaceful protests and occasional vandalism, while sales are down almost everywhere and the company has lost almost half its value in two months.

    Ironically, these political controversies may broaden the mass market appeal of electric vehicles. This is an industry that needs to go beyond the early-adopter tech bros – and now might be the moment.

    In 2010, when Tesla became the first American carmaker to go public since Ford in 1956, fully electric cars were still a niche technology. The Nissan Leaf was launched that same year, but it was still limited to shorter trips in cities. Other big carmakers weren’t yet taking electric seriously, and the Chinese electric vehicle (EV) industry was just starting to gear up.

    In 2013, when the International Energy Agency (IEA) produced its first Global EV Outlook report, there were less than 60,000 on the road worldwide. A decade later, almost the same number of EVs are sold every day.

    Tesla’s competition was initially just little urban runarounds like this 2010 Nissan Leaf.
    Dong liu / Shutterstock

    So, there is plenty of evidence that Tesla had a leading role in making EVs a “winning technology” – something the traditional major carmakers felt compelled to compete with. Governments around the world also got on board.

    Not made for the mainstream

    In fact, Tesla’s approach to making electric cars mainstream was to not make them for the mainstream. Its marketing strategy was to sell direct to customers who not only bought into the environmental credentials but the hi-tech glamour – and didn’t mind the price tag.

    In other words, Tesla targeted “early adopters” which, in the case of electric cars, meant wealthy men. Study after study shows these early adopters in North America and Europe were skewed towards men and those with higher incomes.

    Although these studies often measured income and gender separately, research I published with colleagues indicated it was having both characteristics – being both a man and wealthy – that made someone more likely to be an EV owner, or more likely to say their next car would probably be electric.

    Out of our representative sample of nearly 2,000 UK drivers, wealthy men were also more likely to agree that their social circle expected them to switch.

    We did not find the same results among women, no matter their income level, nor low-income men. This despite the fact that women were significantly more likely to value protecting the environment and to feel an obligation to drive an electric car (if they were first convinced it would reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality).

    This points to another key implication of our research. To support mass adoption, drivers need to be confident that EVs can deliver the environmental benefits they promise, as well as being more comfortable and cheaper to run than conventional cars.

    To gain this confidence, drivers – no matter who they are – want to hear consistent messaging from a trusted source that highlights the benefits, not just the costs.

    However, as we found in our project Inclusive Transition to Electric Mobility, drivers and policymakers alike perceive EVs as unaffordable. Some research participants even mentioned Tesla by name when giving an example of how making the switch is beyond the means of people like them.

    Cheaper EVs need new messaging

    Although Tesla sells mass-produced models and slashed its prices around the world last year, its cars are still expensive (in the UK, they start at about £40,000). The company’s reputation and brand is linked not only to the tech-bro image of Silicon Valley, but with elitism and inequity.

    However, the reputation of EVs in general need not be. Unlike ten years ago, this is a technology with momentum among many manufacturers, and consumers have plenty of new, cheaper models to choose from, as well as a growing second-hand market. The IEA’s latest report suggests EVs are finally becoming a mass-market product.

    Tesla is facing stiff competition from cheaper rivals such as Chinese firm BYD.
    i viewfinder / Shutterstock

    As electric cars become more affordable in real terms, the messaging needs to be about environmental benefit rather than futuristic technology. It needs to emphasise long-term affordability of use as well as purchase. EVs need to be seen as practical and safe – and drivers need to hear these messages from trusted sources.

    My research highlighted how family, friends, colleagues and neighbours could be this source of trusted information. Early adopters I interviewed described the many personal, social interactions involved in the practicalities of parking and charging their cars – such as coordinating workplace charging so no one is caught short, and sharing tips on the best tariff for home charging. Some have effectively become local ambassadors for EVs.

    I’m also investigating how communities coming together around EVs might lead to more car sharing. This could maximise the environmental benefits of the transition, since reducing the number of cars on the road is as important as ensuring cars switch from petrol to electric.

    There is little doubt about the damage Musk’s political approach has done to Tesla’s image, although it is not the sole cause of the company’s current troubles.

    Meanwhile, the transition to electric personal mobility is well underway around the world. Tesla’s troubles won’t stop this – but they can give the car industry an opportunity to make the messaging around electric vehicles more diverse, equitable and inclusive for the mass market.

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

    – ref. Why the Tesla backlash could help electric cars finally go mainstream – https://theconversation.com/why-the-tesla-backlash-could-help-electric-cars-finally-go-mainstream-252963

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Three graphs that show what’s happening with Donald Trump’s popularity

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paul Whiteley, Professor, Department of Government, University of Essex

    Donald Trump started out with more Americans approving than disapproving of his performance just after inauguration day on January 20 , and this continued into February. By early March, his ratings had turned a little bit negative, but not by much, and it has stayed that way. As of March 20, 48% of Americans approved of his job performance so far, while 49% disapproved.

    The daily average of polls measuring approval/disapproval ratings for the job Trump is doing appears in the chart below. They cover the period from February 20 to March 20.

    Approval and disapproval ratings for Trump’s performance:

    These aggregate ratings are interesting, but they disguise the political divide which is revealed when we drill down into the details. This can be done using an Economist/YouGov poll completed on March 18, for instance.

    This reveals how polarised American public opinion has become when it comes to judging the president. Around 6% of respondents who identified themselves as Democrats approved of his performance, while 93% of them disapproved. Those who identified as Republican were almost the exact opposite, with 90% approving and 7% disapproving.

    One problem in analysing these statistics is that only 29% of the sample interviewed were Republicans, compared with 34% Democrats. The pollsters do their best to get a representative sample of the US electorate and it’s worth noting that there are currently more registered Democrats in the US than there are Republicans.

    Interestingly, the American National Election Study survey conducted just before the presidential election last year showed that only 11.6% of Americans were supporters of the Maga movement. This highly respected study, which has been carried out over the past 75 years as a national resource, would suggest that Maga supporters are noisy, but fewer in number than some people might realise.

    What do independents think?

    Around 37% of those interviewed for the Economist poll described themselves as independents. In their case 37% of them approved of his performance and 54% disapproved. Trump may have a very strong following among Republicans, but they are less than one-third of the electorate.

    A quick calculation looking at support among Democrats, Republicans and independents in proportion to their size in the electorate suggests that 42% of Americans have a favourable view of his performance, while 54% have an unfavourable view.

    If we look at the social backgrounds of respondents in the survey there is not much difference between the young and the old, or different income groups in their attitudes to the president’s performance. But there is a large gender gap with 53% of men, but only 39% of women, approving. Similarly, while 53% of whites approved, only 24% of blacks and 31% of Hispanics did so. Finally, 7% of ideological liberals approved of Trump’s job performance, compared with 81% of conservatives and 44% of moderates. Overall, partisanship and ideology completely dominate the picture when it comes to judging Trump’s record.

    How important is the economy?

    US politics is in turmoil with large federal jobs losses and significant changes, such as tariffs on Canadian goods, being announced by the new administration, so there are a lot of factors at work which can explain attitudes to Trump. In the 2024 presidential election the economy played a key role in explaining how people voted, and it is always an important issue in elections.

    Given that, it is interesting to look at one of the key measures of the voter’s attitudes to the economy, namely consumer confidence. This has been measured by researchers at the University of Michigan for many decades using a series of surveys conducted every month.

    US consumer sentiment scale March 2024 to March 2025:

    The chart shows scores on the Index of Consumer Sentiment from March of last year until March this year. A high score means Americans are confident about the state of their economy and a low score the opposite. Confidence has plunged from a rating of 79.4 a year ago to 57.9 now. It is notable that, as recently as December 2024, it stood at 74.0, but after the inauguration of Trump it started to rapidly decline. Americans are getting increasingly worried about the state of their economy, along with the rest of the world.

    The cause is not hard to discern: the imposition of tariffs, a fall in the stock market, the threat of inflation, the administration’s sympathy towards Vladimir Putin and its threats to allies such as Canada and Greenland over their territorial integrity. These issues are all adding up to a self-imposed economic crisis.

    But what are the implication of this for presidential approval ratings? The chart below shows the relationship between consumer confidence and presidential approval over a period of nearly 50 years. There is a moderately strong relationship between the two series (correlation = 0.40). When consumers are optimistic, they approve of the president’s performance, and when they are pessimistic, they disapprove.

    Presidential approval and consumer confidence 1978-2025:

    Overall, the data suggests that Trump should not be confident of his approval ratings across the US, if you look at people across all political affiliations and who vote. Along with a looming economic crisis, this could lead to a rapid loss of support for the president and the Republicans in the near future.

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

    – ref. Three graphs that show what’s happening with Donald Trump’s popularity – https://theconversation.com/three-graphs-that-show-whats-happening-with-donald-trumps-popularity-252857

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –