NewzIntel.com

Category: Academic Analysis

  • Most Pennsylvania voters ignore judicial elections − a political scientist explains why they matter, especially in a battleground state

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Daniel J. Mallinson, Associate Professor of Public Policy and Administration, Penn State

    Three of the seven judges on PA’s state supreme court are up for retention votes in November 2025. AP Photo/Matt Rourke

    This November, there will be no candidate for president, governor, senator or even representative on the Pennsylvania ballot.

    Pennsylvanians will vote, however, on three members of their seven-member state Supreme Court.

    These are retention elections, which means that voters will decide whether to keep the current members of the court or remove them.

    The three seats up for grabs are three of the five Democrats that hold the majority on the court. They are Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht.

    While the typical voter may not think much about judicial elections, political operatives and political scientists, like me, know they have consequences.

    I think it’s important that voters understand what a retention election is and why state judicial elections are growing in political importance in the U.S.

    Retention elections

    Federal judges are appointed by the U.S. president, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and can serve for the rest of their lives. State judges, however, are put in place in a variety of ways.

    The most powerful state courts are the so-called “courts of last resort.” These are essentially the supreme courts of each state. The method for selecting judges in these courts has varied over time and across the states. Currently, states use either gubernatorial appointment, legislative appointment, partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, or a merit process for selecting the judges of their highest courts.

    Pennsylvania has partisan elections, meaning judges run for office attached to political parties, just like a candidate would run for governor or president. However, it is only in their first race for office that a judge runs in a competitive partisan election. After they assume the bench, they participate in retention elections every 10 years. These retention elections are considered nonpartisan, since party labels do not appear on the ballot.

    Essentially, a retention election is an up or down vote. If more than 50% of voters cast a vote in opposition to a sitting judge, that judge will be out of the office at the end of their term. The governor, who is currently Democrat Josh Shapiro, then makes a temporary appointment to fill the seat with a special election held in the next odd year – in this case, 2027. But any appointments would need to be confirmed by the Republican-controlled state Senate, which may not confirm his picks.

    Politicization of the state courts

    Judges win retention elections over 90% of the time. So why should people bother to cast their vote?

    Courts, including state courts, have become highly politicized over the past several decades. A marked increase in politicization occurred for the U.S. Supreme Court after the failed nomination of Robert Bork in the 1980s.

    This politicization has since trickled down to lower federal courts and the states.

    State supreme courts have always made big decisions, but the nationalization of American politics – where national partisan politics drive voter behavior in local elections – has elevated the controversy over state supreme court decisions on issues such as reproductive rights, trans rights, COVID-19 restrictions, environmental protection and more.

    This issue became more acute when courts in battleground states were thrust to the center of adjudicating false claims of election fraud during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. And judges have faced increasing threats, particularly when opposing actions of the Trump administration, as President Donald Trump is prone to calling out specific judges in decisions that he does not like.

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has received additional attention, in part due to the outsized role it has played in recent redistricting. In 2018, the court threw out the congressional districts drawn by the General Assembly in 2011 and invited a new plan from the governor and General Assembly. The two came to a political loggerhead, so the Supreme Court ended up using its own map as a replacement.

    In 2022, the state Supreme Court once again took control of redistricting after Pennyslvania’s then-Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed the congressional district map approved by the General Assembly.

    Given the importance of state supreme courts, particularly in federal elections cases in battleground states like Pennsylvania, it is little wonder why their elections are gaining attention.

    The April 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race was the most expensive state judicial race in U.S. history, with $100 million in spending, including significant contributions from billionaires Elon Musk and George Soros.

    Woman in white blazer stands at podium and smiles as she waves at the crowd
    Former prosecutor Susan Crawford won the highly politicized race for Wisconsin Supreme Court justice in 2025. It was the most expensive state supreme court race in U.S. history.
    Scott Olson via Getty Images

    That was one seat.

    Pennsylvania has three up for grabs in November 2025, with the potential to swing the current Democratic majority.

    And retention elections are politically simple for opponents. As one Republican political consultant told investigative news outlet Spotlight PA: “This is a political consultant’s dream, because your message is just one thing, and that’s ‘No.’”

    This can give some advantage to Republicans in a state that Trump won in 2024 and in a low-turnout election. The question will be whether there is more energy motivating opponents to turn out against the Democratic majority or supporters seeking to maintain the status quo.

    Interior of stately courtroom with dark wood furnishings and gold trim
    The 2025 retention elections could change the balance of power in the court.
    AP Photo/Aimee Dilger

    The stakes for Pennsylvania in 2025

    Much is at stake for Pennsylvanians in the fall. Republicans see this as their best opportunity to break the firm 5-2 Democratic majority on the court. This would pave the way for very different judicial decisions. Many of the court’s recent election-related rulings were made on narrow 4-3 votes that could swing differently if the composition of the court changes.

    Republicans have had their power in Harrisburg diminished with Shapiro in the governor’s mansion and a one-seat Democratic majority in the state House of Representatives over the past two terms.

    A Republican majority on the court would significantly change the balance of power in Harrisburg.

    But it is important to focus not only on the top court. The state’s two appellate-level courts – one step below the state Supreme Court – also have two important races and two retention votes in November that will decide the judiciary’s relationship with the governor and General Assembly.

    The Conversation

    Daniel J. Mallinson 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. Most Pennsylvania voters ignore judicial elections − a political scientist explains why they matter, especially in a battleground state – https://theconversation.com/most-pennsylvania-voters-ignore-judicial-elections-a-political-scientist-explains-why-they-matter-especially-in-a-battleground-state-259775

  • Cleaner air in east Asia has driven recent acceleration in global warming – new study

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Laura Wilcox, Professor, National Centre for Atmospheric Science, University of Reading

    A traffic jam in Beijing in China, where air pollution has drastically reduced. Hung Chung Chih/Shutterstock

    Global warming has picked up pace since around 2010, leading to the recent string of record warm years. Why this is happening is still unclear, and among the biggest questions in climate science today. Our new study reveals that reductions in air pollution – particularly in China and east Asia – are a key reason for this faster warming.

    Cleanup of sulphur emissions from global shipping has been implicated in past research. But that cleanup only began in 2020, so it’s considered too weak to explain the full extent of this acceleration. Nasa researchers have suggested that changes in clouds could play a role, either through reductions in cloud cover in the tropics or over the North Pacific.

    One factor that has not been well quantified, however, is the effect of monumental efforts by countries in east Asia, notably China, to combat air pollution and improve public health through strict air quality policies. There has already been a 75% reduction in east Asian sulphur dioxide emissions since around 2013, and that cleanup effort picked up pace just as global warming began accelerating.

    Our study addresses the link between east Asian air quality improvements and global temperature, building on the efforts of eight teams of climate modellers across the world.

    We have found that polluted air may have been masking the full effects of global warming. Cleaner air could now be revealing more of the human-induced global warming from greenhouse gases.

    In addition to causing millions of premature deaths, air pollution shields the Earth from sunlight and therefore cools the surface. There has been so much air pollution that it has held human-induced warming in check by up to 0.5°C over the last century.

    With the cleanup of air pollution, something that’s vital for human health, this artificial sunshade is removed. Since greenhouse gas emissions have kept on increasing, the result is that the Earth’s surface is warming faster than ever before.

    Modelling the cleanup

    Our team used 160 computer simulations from eight global climate models. This enabled us to better quantify the effects that east Asian air pollution has on global temperature and rainfall patterns. We simulated a cleanup of pollution similar to what has happened in the real world since 2010. We found an extra global warming of around 0.07°C.

    While this is a small number compared with the full global warming of around 1.3°C since 1850, it is still enough to explain the recent acceleration in global warming when we take away year-to-year swings in temperature from natural cycles such as El Niño, a climate phenomenon in the Pacific that affects weather patterns globally.

    yellow smoggy sky, yellow sun and building
    Thick smog influences the effect of greenhouse gases.
    Shaun Robinson/Shutterstock

    Based on long-term trends, we would have expected around 0.23°C of warming since 2010. However, we actually measured around 0.33°C. While the additional 0.1°C can largely be explained by the east Asian air pollution cleanup, other factors include the change in shipping emissions and the recent accelerated increase in methane concentrations in the atmosphere.

    Air pollution causes cooling by reflecting sunlight or by changing the properties of clouds so they reflect more sunlight. The cleanup in east Asian air pollution influences global temperatures because it reduces the shading effect of the pollution over east Asia itself. It also means less pollution is blown across the north Pacific, causing clouds in the east Pacific to reflect less sunlight.

    The pattern of these changes across the North Pacific simulated in our models matches that seen in satellite observations. Our models and temperature observations also show relatively strong warming over the North Pacific, downwind from east Asia.

    The main source of global warming is still greenhouse gas emissions, and a cleanup of air pollution was both necessary and overdue. This did not cause the additional warming but rather, removed an artificial cooling that has for a time helped shield us from some of the extreme weather and other well-established consequences of climate change.

    Global warming will continue for decades. Indeed, our past and future emissions of greenhouse gases will affect the climate for centuries. However, air pollution is quickly removed from the atmosphere, and the recent acceleration in global warming from this particular unmasking may therefore be short-lived.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    The Conversation

    Laura Wilcox receives funding from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the Research Council of Norway, the Clean Air Fund, and Horizon Europe.

    Bjørn H. Samset receives funding from the Research Council of Norway, the Clean Air Fund, and Horizon Europe.

    – ref. Cleaner air in east Asia has driven recent acceleration in global warming – new study – https://theconversation.com/cleaner-air-in-east-asia-has-driven-recent-acceleration-in-global-warming-new-study-260601

  • Was the Air India crash caused by pilot error or technical fault? None of the theories holds up – yet

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Guido Carim Junior, Senior Lecturer in Aviation, Griffith University

    Over the weekend, the Indian Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau released a preliminary report on last month’s crash of Air India flight 171, which killed 260 people, 19 of them on the ground.

    The aim of a preliminary report is to present factual information gathered so far and to inform further lines of inquiry. However, the 15-page document has also led to unfounded speculation and theories that are currently not supported by the evidence.

    Here’s what the report actually says, why we don’t yet know what caused the crash, and why it’s important not to speculate.

    What the preliminary report does say

    What we know for certain is that the aircraft lost power in both engines just after takeoff.

    According to the report, this is supported by video footage showing the deployment of the ram air turbine (RAT), and the examination of the air inlet door of the auxiliary power unit (APU).

    The RAT is deployed when both engines fail, all hydraulic systems are lost, or there is a total electrical power loss. The APU air inlet door opens when the system attempts to start automatically due to dual engine failure.

    The preliminary investigation suggests both engines shut down because the fuel flow stopped. Attention has now shifted to the fuel control switches, located on the throttle lever panel between the pilots.

    This is what the fuel switches look like, with the throttle lever above them.
    Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau

    Data from the enhanced airborne flight recorder suggests these switches may have been moved from “run” to “cutoff” three seconds after liftoff. Ten seconds later, the switches were moved back to “run”.

    The report also suggests the pilots were aware the engines had shut down and attempted to restart them. Despite their effort, the engines couldn’t restart in time.

    We don’t know what the pilots did

    Flight data recorders don’t capture pilot actions. They record system responses and sensor data, which can sometimes lead to the belief they’re an accurate representation of the pilot’s actions in the cockpit.

    While this is true most of the time, this is not always the case.

    In my own work investigating safety incidents, I’ve seen cases in which automated systems misinterpreted inputs. In one case, a system recorded a pilot pressing the same button six times in two seconds, something humanly impossible. On further investigation, it turned out to be a faulty system, not a real action.

    We cannot yet rule out the possibility that system damage or sensor error led to false data being recorded. We also don’t know whether the pilots unintentionally flicked the switches to “cutoff”. And we may never know.

    As we also don’t have a camera in the cockpit, any interpretation of pilots’ actions will be made indirectly, usually through the data sensed by the aircraft and the conversation, sound and noise captured by the environmental microphone available in the cockpit.

    We don’t have the full conversation between the pilots

    Perhaps the most confusing clue in the report was an excerpt of a conversation between the pilots. It says:

    In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.

    This short exchange is entirely without context. First, we don’t know who says what. Second, we don’t know when the question was asked – after takeoff, or after the engine started to lose power? Third, we don’t know the exact words used, because the excerpt in the report is paraphrased.

    Finally, we don’t know whether the exchange referred to the engine status or the switch position. Again, we may never know.

    What’s crucial here is that the current available evidence doesn’t support any theory about intentional fuel cutoff by either of the pilots. To say otherwise is unfounded speculation.

    We don’t know if there was a mechanical failure

    The preliminary report indicates that, for now, there are no actions required by Boeing, General Electric or any company that operates the Boeing 787-8 and/or GEnx-1B engine.

    This has led some to speculate that a mechanical failure has been ruled out. Again, it is far too early to conclude that.

    What the preliminary report shows is that the investigation team has not found any evidence to suggest the aircraft suffered a catastrophic failure that requires immediate attention or suspension of operations around the world.

    This could be because there was no catastrophic failure. It could also be because the physical evidence has been so badly damaged that investigators will need more time and other sources of evidence to learn what happened.

    Why we must resist premature conclusions

    In the aftermath of an accident, there is much at stake for many people: the manufacturer of the aircraft, the airline, the airport, civil aviation authority and others. The families of the victims understandably demand answers.

    It’s also tempting to latch onto a convenient explanation. But the preliminary report is not the full story. It’s based on very limited data, analysed under immense pressure, and without access to every subsystem or mechanical trace.

    The final report is still to come. Until then, the responsible position for regulators, experts and the public is to withhold judgement.

    This tragedy reminds us that aviation safety depends on patient and thorough investigation – not media soundbites or unqualified expert commentary. We owe it to the victims and their families to get the facts right, not just fast.

    The Conversation

    Guido Carim Junior has received funding from Boeing R&D Australia to conduct research projects in the past five years.

    – ref. Was the Air India crash caused by pilot error or technical fault? None of the theories holds up – yet – https://theconversation.com/was-the-air-india-crash-caused-by-pilot-error-or-technical-fault-none-of-the-theories-holds-up-yet-261102

  • MIL-Evening Report: Was the Air India crash caused by pilot error or technical fault? None of the theories holds up – yet

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Guido Carim Junior, Senior Lecturer in Aviation, Griffith University

    Over the weekend, the Indian Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau released a preliminary report on last month’s crash of Air India flight 171, which killed 260 people, 19 of them on the ground.

    The aim of a preliminary report is to present factual information gathered so far and to inform further lines of inquiry. However, the 15-page document has also led to unfounded speculation and theories that are currently not supported by the evidence.

    Here’s what the report actually says, why we don’t yet know what caused the crash, and why it’s important not to speculate.

    What the preliminary report does say

    What we know for certain is that the aircraft lost power in both engines just after takeoff.

    According to the report, this is supported by video footage showing the deployment of the ram air turbine (RAT), and the examination of the air inlet door of the auxiliary power unit (APU).

    The RAT is deployed when both engines fail, all hydraulic systems are lost, or there is a total electrical power loss. The APU air inlet door opens when the system attempts to start automatically due to dual engine failure.

    The preliminary investigation suggests both engines shut down because the fuel flow stopped. Attention has now shifted to the fuel control switches, located on the throttle lever panel between the pilots.

    This is what the fuel switches look like, with the throttle lever above them.
    Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau

    Data from the enhanced airborne flight recorder suggests these switches may have been moved from “run” to “cutoff” three seconds after liftoff. Ten seconds later, the switches were moved back to “run”.

    The report also suggests the pilots were aware the engines had shut down and attempted to restart them. Despite their effort, the engines couldn’t restart in time.

    We don’t know what the pilots did

    Flight data recorders don’t capture pilot actions. They record system responses and sensor data, which can sometimes lead to the belief they’re an accurate representation of the pilot’s actions in the cockpit.

    While this is true most of the time, this is not always the case.

    In my own work investigating safety incidents, I’ve seen cases in which automated systems misinterpreted inputs. In one case, a system recorded a pilot pressing the same button six times in two seconds, something humanly impossible. On further investigation, it turned out to be a faulty system, not a real action.

    We cannot yet rule out the possibility that system damage or sensor error led to false data being recorded. We also don’t know whether the pilots unintentionally flicked the switches to “cutoff”. And we may never know.

    As we also don’t have a camera in the cockpit, any interpretation of pilots’ actions will be made indirectly, usually through the data sensed by the aircraft and the conversation, sound and noise captured by the environmental microphone available in the cockpit.

    We don’t have the full conversation between the pilots

    Perhaps the most confusing clue in the report was an excerpt of a conversation between the pilots. It says:

    In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.

    This short exchange is entirely without context. First, we don’t know who says what. Second, we don’t know when the question was asked – after takeoff, or after the engine started to lose power? Third, we don’t know the exact words used, because the excerpt in the report is paraphrased.

    Finally, we don’t know whether the exchange referred to the engine status or the switch position. Again, we may never know.

    What’s crucial here is that the current available evidence doesn’t support any theory about intentional fuel cutoff by either of the pilots. To say otherwise is unfounded speculation.

    We don’t know if there was a mechanical failure

    The preliminary report indicates that, for now, there are no actions required by Boeing, General Electric or any company that operates the Boeing 787-8 and/or GEnx-1B engine.

    This has led some to speculate that a mechanical failure has been ruled out. Again, it is far too early to conclude that.

    What the preliminary report shows is that the investigation team has not found any evidence to suggest the aircraft suffered a catastrophic failure that requires immediate attention or suspension of operations around the world.

    This could be because there was no catastrophic failure. It could also be because the physical evidence has been so badly damaged that investigators will need more time and other sources of evidence to learn what happened.

    Why we must resist premature conclusions

    In the aftermath of an accident, there is much at stake for many people: the manufacturer of the aircraft, the airline, the airport, civil aviation authority and others. The families of the victims understandably demand answers.

    It’s also tempting to latch onto a convenient explanation. But the preliminary report is not the full story. It’s based on very limited data, analysed under immense pressure, and without access to every subsystem or mechanical trace.

    The final report is still to come. Until then, the responsible position for regulators, experts and the public is to withhold judgement.

    This tragedy reminds us that aviation safety depends on patient and thorough investigation – not media soundbites or unqualified expert commentary. We owe it to the victims and their families to get the facts right, not just fast.

    Guido Carim Junior has received funding from Boeing R&D Australia to conduct research projects in the past five years.

    – ref. Was the Air India crash caused by pilot error or technical fault? None of the theories holds up – yet – https://theconversation.com/was-the-air-india-crash-caused-by-pilot-error-or-technical-fault-none-of-the-theories-holds-up-yet-261102

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Was the Air India crash caused by pilot error or technical fault? None of the theories holds up – yet

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Guido Carim Junior, Senior Lecturer in Aviation, Griffith University

    Over the weekend, the Indian Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau released a preliminary report on last month’s crash of Air India flight 171, which killed 260 people, 19 of them on the ground.

    The aim of a preliminary report is to present factual information gathered so far and to inform further lines of inquiry. However, the 15-page document has also led to unfounded speculation and theories that are currently not supported by the evidence.

    Here’s what the report actually says, why we don’t yet know what caused the crash, and why it’s important not to speculate.

    What the preliminary report does say

    What we know for certain is that the aircraft lost power in both engines just after takeoff.

    According to the report, this is supported by video footage showing the deployment of the ram air turbine (RAT), and the examination of the air inlet door of the auxiliary power unit (APU).

    The RAT is deployed when both engines fail, all hydraulic systems are lost, or there is a total electrical power loss. The APU air inlet door opens when the system attempts to start automatically due to dual engine failure.

    The preliminary investigation suggests both engines shut down because the fuel flow stopped. Attention has now shifted to the fuel control switches, located on the throttle lever panel between the pilots.

    This is what the fuel switches look like, with the throttle lever above them.
    Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau

    Data from the enhanced airborne flight recorder suggests these switches may have been moved from “run” to “cutoff” three seconds after liftoff. Ten seconds later, the switches were moved back to “run”.

    The report also suggests the pilots were aware the engines had shut down and attempted to restart them. Despite their effort, the engines couldn’t restart in time.

    We don’t know what the pilots did

    Flight data recorders don’t capture pilot actions. They record system responses and sensor data, which can sometimes lead to the belief they’re an accurate representation of the pilot’s actions in the cockpit.

    While this is true most of the time, this is not always the case.

    In my own work investigating safety incidents, I’ve seen cases in which automated systems misinterpreted inputs. In one case, a system recorded a pilot pressing the same button six times in two seconds, something humanly impossible. On further investigation, it turned out to be a faulty system, not a real action.

    We cannot yet rule out the possibility that system damage or sensor error led to false data being recorded. We also don’t know whether the pilots unintentionally flicked the switches to “cutoff”. And we may never know.

    As we also don’t have a camera in the cockpit, any interpretation of pilots’ actions will be made indirectly, usually through the data sensed by the aircraft and the conversation, sound and noise captured by the environmental microphone available in the cockpit.

    We don’t have the full conversation between the pilots

    Perhaps the most confusing clue in the report was an excerpt of a conversation between the pilots. It says:

    In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.

    This short exchange is entirely without context. First, we don’t know who says what. Second, we don’t know when the question was asked – after takeoff, or after the engine started to lose power? Third, we don’t know the exact words used, because the excerpt in the report is paraphrased.

    Finally, we don’t know whether the exchange referred to the engine status or the switch position. Again, we may never know.

    What’s crucial here is that the current available evidence doesn’t support any theory about intentional fuel cutoff by either of the pilots. To say otherwise is unfounded speculation.

    We don’t know if there was a mechanical failure

    The preliminary report indicates that, for now, there are no actions required by Boeing, General Electric or any company that operates the Boeing 787-8 and/or GEnx-1B engine.

    This has led some to speculate that a mechanical failure has been ruled out. Again, it is far too early to conclude that.

    What the preliminary report shows is that the investigation team has not found any evidence to suggest the aircraft suffered a catastrophic failure that requires immediate attention or suspension of operations around the world.

    This could be because there was no catastrophic failure. It could also be because the physical evidence has been so badly damaged that investigators will need more time and other sources of evidence to learn what happened.

    Why we must resist premature conclusions

    In the aftermath of an accident, there is much at stake for many people: the manufacturer of the aircraft, the airline, the airport, civil aviation authority and others. The families of the victims understandably demand answers.

    It’s also tempting to latch onto a convenient explanation. But the preliminary report is not the full story. It’s based on very limited data, analysed under immense pressure, and without access to every subsystem or mechanical trace.

    The final report is still to come. Until then, the responsible position for regulators, experts and the public is to withhold judgement.

    This tragedy reminds us that aviation safety depends on patient and thorough investigation – not media soundbites or unqualified expert commentary. We owe it to the victims and their families to get the facts right, not just fast.

    Guido Carim Junior has received funding from Boeing R&D Australia to conduct research projects in the past five years.

    – ref. Was the Air India crash caused by pilot error or technical fault? None of the theories holds up – yet – https://theconversation.com/was-the-air-india-crash-caused-by-pilot-error-or-technical-fault-none-of-the-theories-holds-up-yet-261102

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-Evening Report: UNESCO grants World Heritage status to Khmer Rouge atrocity sites – paving the way for other sites of conflict

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Hughes, Associate Professor of Geography, The University of Melbourne

    A series of atrocity sites of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia have been formally entered onto the World Heritage list, as part of the 47th session of the World Heritage Committee.

    This is not only important for Cambodia, but also raises important questions for atrocity sites in Australia.

    Before this, the World Heritage list only recognised seven “sites of memory” associated with recent conflicts, which UNESCO defines as “events having occurred from the turn of the 20th century” under its criterion vi. These sat within a broader list of more than 950 cultural sites.

    In recent years, experts have intensely debated the question of whether a site associated with recent conflict could, or should, be nominated and evaluated for World Heritage status. Some argue such listings would contradict the objectives of UNESCO and its spirit of peace, which was part of the specialised agency’s mandate after the destruction of two world wars.

    Sites associated with recent conflicts can be divisive. For instance, when Japan nominated the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, both China and the United States objected and eventually disassociated from the decision. The US argued the nomination lacked “historical perspective” on the events that led to the bomb’s use. Meanwhile, China argued listing the property would not be conducive for peace as other Asian countries and peoples had suffered at the hands of the Japanese during WWII.

    Heritage inscriptions risk reinforcing societal divisions if they conserve a particular memory in a one-sided way.

    Nonetheless, the World Heritage Committee decided in 2023 to no longer preclude such sites for inscription. This was done partly in recognition of how these sites may “serve the peace-building mission of UNESCO”.

    Shortly after, three listing were added: the ESMA Museum and Site of Memory, a former clandestine centre for detention, torture and extermination in Argentina; memorial sites of the Rwandan genocide at Nyamata, Murambi, Gisozi and Bisesero; and funerary and memory sites of the first world war in Belgium and France.

    A number of legacy sites associated with Nelson Mandela’s human rights struggle in South Africa were also added last year.

    Atrocities of the Khmer Rouge

    The recently inscribed Cambodian Memorial Sites include prisons S-21 (now known as Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum) and M-13, as well as the execution site Choeung Ek.

    These sites were nominated for their value in showing the development of extreme mass violence in relation to the security system of the Khmer Rouge in 1975–79. They also have value as places of memorialisation, peace and learning.

    The Khmer Rouge developed its methods of disappearance, incarceration and torture of suspected “enemies” during the civil conflict of 1970–75. It established a system of local-level security centres in so-called “liberated” areas.

    One of these centres was known as M-13, a small, well-hidden prison in the country’s rural southwest. A man named Kaing Guek Eav – also called Duch – was responsible for prisoners at M-13.

    Shortly after the entire country fell to the Khmer Rouge in April 1975, Duch was assigned to lead the headquarters of the regime’s security system: a large detention and torture centre known as S-21.

    Under his instruction, tens of thousands of people were detained in inhumane conditions, tortured and interrogated. Many detainees were later taken to the outskirts of the city to be brutally killed and buried in pits at a place called Choeung Ek.

    The sites operated until early 1979, when the Khmer Rouge was forced from power.

    The S-21 facility and the mass graves at Choeung Ek have long been memorialised as the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum and the Choeung Ek Genocidal Centre.

    However, the former M-13 site shows few visual clues to its prior use, and has only recently been investigated by an international team led by Cambodian archaeologist and museum director Hang Nisay. The site is on an island in a small river that forms the boundary between the Kampong Chhnang and Kampong Speu provinces.

    Further research, site protection and memorialisation activities will now be supported, with help from locals.

    From repression to reflection

    The Cambodian memorial sites have been recognised as holding “outstanding universal value” for the way they evidence one of the 20th century’s worst atrocities, and are now places of memory.

    In its nomination dossier for these sites, Cambodia drew on findings from the Khmer Rouge Tribunal to verify and link the conflict and the sites.

    In 2010, the tribunal found Duch guilty of crimes against humanity and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Duch was sentenced to 30 years in prison (which eventually turned into life imprisonment). He died in 2020.

    While courts such as the International Criminal Court have previously examined the destruction of heritage as an international crime, drawing on legal findings to assert heritage status is an unusual inverse. It raises important questions about the legacies of former UN-supported tribunals and the ongoing implications of their findings.

    The recent listings also raise questions for Australia, which has many sites of documented mass killing associated with colonisation and the frontier wars that lasted into the 20th century.

    Might Australia nominate any of these atrocity sites in the future? And could other processes such as truth-telling, reparation and redress support (or be supported by) such nominations?

    The Conversation

    Rachel Hughes has consulted to UNESCO Cambodia.

    Maria Elander 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. UNESCO grants World Heritage status to Khmer Rouge atrocity sites – paving the way for other sites of conflict – https://theconversation.com/unesco-grants-world-heritage-status-to-khmer-rouge-atrocity-sites-paving-the-way-for-other-sites-of-conflict-260923

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Treasury warns the government it may not balance the budget or meet its housing targets

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Head, Canberra School of Government, University of Canberra

    Kokkai Ng/Getty

    In the runup to each election, federal treasury produces a “blue book” and a “red book”, with advice tailored to the priorities of the two alternative governments.

    One of these is given to the incoming government and the other is never released. Freedom of Information requests have generally resulted in only heavily redacted versions of the incoming government brief being made public.

    But this week, the table of contents was accidentally released, revealing treasury’s view of how the government should be handling the economy.

    Taxes “need to be raised”

    Treasury suggests more tax should be raised. This is unsurprising – there is bipartisan support for more defence spending, and an ageing population means more spending on health and aged care, only partially offset by less spending on education.



    Read more:
    The 2025 budget has few savings and surprises but it also ignores climate change

    The government is hoping to slow spending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme but it is still projected to grow much faster than government revenue.

    No one wants to default on government debt. So higher bond yields and the deficits incurred during the COVID pandemic, and projected for the next decade, mean governments will be paying more interest.

    There are few areas of government spending expected to contract. So the cruel arithmetic is unless we are happy to keep government debt – already close to a trillion dollars – growing indefinitely, taxes need to rise.

    The challenge is to find the most efficient way to do so. We don’t know whether Treasury made specific suggestions.

    As we will probably hear at next month’s Economic Reform Roundtable, most economists think we should be putting more tax on things we want to discourage (greenhouse gas emissions, consumption of unhealthy products) and less on things we want to encourage (working, saving).

    We want more taxes that do not alter economic activity (such as on land and excess profits from minerals) and less that discourage useful economic activities (such as stamp duties, which discourage mobility). We also want less tax where activity is being driven into black markets (arguably the case with cigarettes).

    There may be some areas where tax concessions are excessive. Superannuation tax concessions are subsidising some rich people to build much larger savings than are needed for a comfortable retirement. (A proposal from the government to trim these will be before the Senate when parliament resumes next week.)

    Capital gains tax concessions, which mainly help the rich, are also hard to justify.

    We also want to consider equity. Most people accept that a tax system should be progressive. This means the rich pay a higher proportion of income in taxes than do the poor. In our current tax system, income and land taxes are progressive but GST and some other excises are regressive. The overall system is roughly proportional.

    Housing target “will not be met”

    Treasury also warned the government that its pledge to build 1.2 million homes over five years will be very difficult to achieve. In the year to June 2024, just 176,000 homes were built.

    Even the relevant ministers have described the target as “ambitious”. Treasurer Jim Chalmers said on Monday “we will need more effort”.

    Treasury has cast doubt on the government’s plans to build 1.2 million new homes over five years. So far only 176,000 have been built.
    Inga Blessas/Shutterstock

    Many commentators have described how difficult it will be to achieve this target.

    A shortage of construction workers, the impact of planning restrictions, and weak productivity are also concerns. A recent study by the Productivity Commission concluded:

    over the past 30 years, the number of dwellings completed per hour worked by housing construction workers has declined by 53%.

    Concerns about the US

    Another unsurprising revelation in the briefing is Treasury is concerned about the economic consequences of Donald Trump as US president.

    One threat comes from the ever-changing array of tariffs Trump is introducing. If other countries retaliate by raising their own tariffs, the adverse impact on the global economy will be even greater.



    Read more:
    What would a second Trump presidency mean for the global economy?

    We can get some idea of the possible impact on Australia from modelling published by the Reserve Bank. In its Statement on Monetary Policy, the bank presented two alternative scenarios.

    Under what it called the “trade war” scenario, global gross domestic product declines by more than it did during the 2007 global financial crisis. Australian unemployment increases to nearly 6%. Under the “trade peace” scenario, unemployment remains around its current 4% level.

    Another concern held by Treasury was the possible loss of independence of the US Federal Reserve Board (or “Fed”), the counterpart to Australia’s Reserve Bank. Trump has vowed to replace Fed chair Jerome Powell with someone more compliant when Powell’s term ends next year.

    Trump wants the Fed to slash short-term interest rates regardless of the economic circumstances. This would raise the risk of a surge in inflation. It could also lead to higher bond yields, which would flow into higher interest rates charged by banks on loans. This could plunge the US economy into recession, with impacts felt around the world.

    John Hawkins was formerly a senior economist in the Australian Treasury.

    – ref. Treasury warns the government it may not balance the budget or meet its housing targets – https://theconversation.com/treasury-warns-the-government-it-may-not-balance-the-budget-or-meet-its-housing-targets-261084

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Confusing for doctors, inequitable for patients: why Australia’s medicinal cannabis system needs urgent reform

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christine Mary Hallinan, Senior Research Fellow, Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne

    Vanessa Nunes/Getty Images

    In 2024 alone, Australia’s medicines regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), authorised at least 979,000 prescription applications for medicinal cannabis through its specialised access pathways.

    These “specialised access” mechanisms were originally designed for occasional, case-by-case use of unapproved drugs. But they have become mainstream.

    As more and more people receive medicinal cannabis prescriptions, we’re left with a system that is misaligned with its original purpose.

    The current prescribing landscape for medicinal cannabis is confusing for doctors, inequitable for patients, and difficult to regulate.

    The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) recently announced it’s going to crack down on unsafe prescribing. But this doesn’t go far enough. The system needs urgent reform.

    What is medicinal cannabis used for?

    Medicinal cannabis was legalised in Australia in 2016. Products come in different forms including oils, liquids, capsules, gels (which can be applied to the skin), dried flower (which can be inhaled using a vapouriser) and gummies.

    Key ingredients include THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) and CBD (cannabidiol). THC is the main psychoactive compound in cannabis, and is responsible if a “high” is experienced.

    When it was first legalised, medicinal cannabis was intended for patients with complex needs and severe, treatment-resistant conditions.

    The TGA clearly indicated medicinal cannabis should not be considered a first-line treatment for any condition, and should be administered with a “start low, go slow” dosage approach.

    Patients for whom it might be deemed appropriate included those receiving palliative care, or suffering with intractable epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, or chronic pain unresponsive to standard care.

    But over time, prescribing has expanded well beyond these cases. Today, most medicinal cannabis prescriptions are given for relatively common conditions such as chronic pain, anxiety and sleep disorders.

    What does the evidence say?

    The evidence remains inconsistent. Chronic pain – the most common reason medicinal cannabis is prescribed in Australia – offers a key example.

    According to a recent TGA review, some randomised trials suggest medicinal cannabis may help a subset of patients achieve moderate reductions in pain. However, many studies are small, of variable quality, and don’t account for long-term effects.

    And like all medicines, medicinal cannabis carries risks. Products containing THC have been linked to side-effects such as sedation, dizziness and cognitive impairment.

    While generally better tolerated, CBD is not risk-free. For example, both CBD and THC can interact with certain medications, heightening the likelihood of adverse effects.

    Access over evidence

    In Australia, approved medicines undergo rigorous clinical testing before they’re registered. Drug manufacturers’ applications to the TGA normally include detailed data on efficacy as well as long-term safety monitoring and quality controls.

    But driven by patient advocacy, political responsiveness, and commercial momentum, medicinal cannabis has come to reflect a different model.

    Most medicinal cannabis products – bar two which have TGA approval – lack the evidence demonstrating safety, quality and efficacy required of registered pharmaceuticals.

    In other words, the majority are not subject to the rigorous trials or data standards required for formal registration with the TGA’s Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods.

    For many doctors, whose prescribing has traditionally been guided by strong trial data and rigorous regulatory review, this doesn’t sit well.

    Doctors are often flying blind

    While companies can legally sell cannabis products via access schemes without investing in clinical research, doctors are expected to prescribe without consistent information on what works, for whom, and at what dose.

    The TGA oversees access pathways but is neither resourced nor mandated to provide clinical oversight or direct support to prescribers, leaving many clinicians to navigate the system alone.

    Prescriptions are frequently granted via telehealth and posted to patients.

    Growing concerns have emerged that some care models – particularly high-volume telehealth services – are prioritising patient throughput over clinical judgment, and not spending enough time with patients.

    For example, Ahpra reported eight practitioners issued more than 10,000 medicinal cannabis scripts in a six-month period, while one appeared to have issued in excess of 17,000.

    The surge in prescribing has been further shaped by active marketing from some cannabis companies, outpacing the development of coordinated clinical guidance and safety monitoring infrastructure.

    Many people who get a script for medicinal cannabis do so via telehealth.
    Geber86/Shutterstock

    Access and affordability: a system failing patients

    Some people, including those living in rural and remote areas, can find it difficult to navigate medicinal cannabis prescribing processes. This can be due to limited digital access and fewer opportunities for follow-up with a local GP. These challenges make it harder for people to make informed decisions about their care.

    Cost is also a major issue, particularly where bulk billing is unavailable or multiple consultations are needed. This is on top of the cost of the products.

    One of the two TGA-approved medicinal cannabis products, Sativex, used to treat muscle stiffness in multiple sclerosis, is not currently subsidised by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This means patients pay the full cost, which ranges between A$700 and $800 for a 6–8 week supply.



    Read more:
    We looked at 54 medicinal cannabis websites to see if they followed the rules. Here’s what we found

    What needs to change?

    Australia’s medicinal cannabis system is based on a fragmented evidence base and a fast-growing market operating with limited visibility into how products are used or evaluated. Addressing these challenges will require coordinated reform across multiple fronts.

    1. Capture real-world data

    Most urgently, we need robust, real-world data. To deliver safe and equitable care, we must know how medicinal cannabis is being prescribed, for what conditions, under what circumstances, and with what outcomes.

    Without this, we cannot answer the most basic questions about clinical benefits or track adverse events.

    Real-world data, such as de-identified health information from clinics, could help inform better clinical and policy decisions.

    2. Build a national accreditation model

    Australia needs a national prescriber accreditation model for medicinal cannabis, developed in collaboration with clinicians, regulators and professional bodies.

    Such a model would help ensure prescribing is clinically appropriate, evidence-informed, and consistent with evolving standards of care. In practice, this would mean health professionals would need to complete specific training before prescribing medicinal cannabis.

    This approach is not without precedent. For example, some health professionals must undergo immuniser accreditation before they can administer vaccines independently.

    3. Tackle inequity

    Finally, we must confront persistent access inequities. That includes exploring government subsidies for TGA-approved medicinal cannabis products. No one should have to choose between financial hardship and safe access.

    Dr Christine Hallinan, Senior Reseach Fellow, conducted research on the pharmacovigilance of medicinal cannabis at the University of Melbourne as part of the Pharmacovigilance theme within the Australian Centre for Cannabinoid Clinical and Research Excellence (ACRE), which was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) through the Centre of Research Excellence (CRE) scheme. She served as an Associate Investigator on ACRE from 2017 to 2023. Christine Hallinan is also a member of an Expert Roundtable on medicinal cannabis, chaired by Ian Freckelton AO KC and facilitated by Montu. The Roundtable brings together experts from medicine, law, research, and policy to contribute recommendations for a more evidence-based and fit-for-purpose regulatory framework. These roles are disclosed in the interest of transparency and do not influence the content or conclusions of this work.

    – ref. Confusing for doctors, inequitable for patients: why Australia’s medicinal cannabis system needs urgent reform – https://theconversation.com/confusing-for-doctors-inequitable-for-patients-why-australias-medicinal-cannabis-system-needs-urgent-reform-257249

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • How do you stop an AI model turning Nazi? What the Grok drama reveals about AI training

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Aaron J. Snoswell, Senior Research Fellow in AI Accountability, Queensland University of Technology

    Anne Fehres and Luke Conroy & AI4Media, CC BY

    Grok, the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot embedded in X (formerly Twitter) and built by Elon Musk’s company xAI, is back in the headlines after calling itself “MechaHitler” and producing pro-Nazi remarks.

    The developers have apologised for the “inappropriate posts” and “taken action to ban hate speech” from Grok’s posts on X. Debates about AI bias have been revived too.

    But the latest Grok controversy is revealing not for the extremist outputs, but for how it exposes a fundamental dishonesty in AI development. Musk claims to be building a “truth-seeking” AI free from bias, yet the technical implementation reveals systemic ideological programming.

    This amounts to an accidental case study in how AI systems embed their creators’ values, with Musk’s unfiltered public presence making visible what other companies typically obscure.

    What is Grok?

    Grok is an AI chatbot with “a twist of humor and a dash of rebellion” developed by xAI, which also owns the X social media platform.

    The first version of Grok launched in 2023. Independent evaluations suggest the latest model, Grok 4, outpaces competitors on “intelligence” tests. The chatbot is available standalone and on X.

    xAI states “AI’s knowledge should be all-encompassing and as far-reaching as possible”. Musk has previously positioned Grok as a truth-telling alternative to chatbots accused of being “woke” by right-wing commentators.

    But beyond the latest Nazism scandal, Grok has made headlines for generating threats of sexual violence, bringing up “white genocide” in South Africa, and making insulting statements about politicians. The latter led to its ban in Turkey.

    So how do developers imbue an AI with such values and shape chatbot behaviour? Today’s chatbots are built using large language models (LLMs), which offer several levers developers can lean on.

    What makes an AI ‘behave’ this way?

    Pre-training

    First, developers curate the data used during pre-training – the first step in building a chatbot. This involves not just filtering unwanted content, but also emphasising desired material.

    GPT-3 was shown Wikipedia up to six times more than other datasets as OpenAI considered it higher quality. Grok is trained on various sources, including posts from X, which might explain why Grok has been reported to check Elon Musk’s opinion on controversial topics.

    Musk has shared that xAI curates Grok’s training data, for example to improve legal knowledge and to remove LLM-generated content for quality control. He also appealed to the X community for difficult “galaxy brain” problems and facts that are “politically incorrect, but nonetheless factually true”.

    We don’t know if these data were used, or what quality-control measures were applied.

    Fine-tuning

    The second step, fine-tuning, adjusts LLM behaviour using feedback. Developers create detailed manuals outlining their preferred ethical stances, which either human reviewers or AI systems then use as a rubric to evaluate and improve the chatbot’s responses, effectively coding these values into the machine.

    A Business Insider investigation revealed xAI’s instructions to human
    “AI tutors” instructed them to look for “woke ideology” and “cancel culture”. While the onboarding documents said Grok shouldn’t “impose an opinion that confirms or denies a user’s bias”, they also stated it should avoid responses that claim both sides of a debate have merit when they do not.

    System prompts

    The system prompt – instructions provided before every conversation – guides behaviour once the model is deployed.

    To its credit, xAI publishes Grok’s system prompts. Its instructions to “assume subjective viewpoints sourced from the media are biased” and “not shy away from making claims which are politically incorrect, as long as they are well substantiated” were likely key factors in the latest controversy.

    These prompts are being updated daily at the time of writing, and their evolution is a fascinating case study in itself.

    Guardrails

    Finally, developers can also add guardrails – filters that block certain requests or responses. OpenAI claims it doesn’t permit ChatGPT “to generate hateful, harassing, violent or adult content”. Meanwhile, the Chinese model DeepSeek censors discussion of Tianamen Square.

    Ad-hoc testing when writing this article suggests Grok is much less restrained in this regard than competitor products.

    The transparency paradox

    Grok’s Nazi controversy highlights a deeper ethical issue: would we prefer AI companies to be explicitly ideological and honest about it, or maintain the fiction of neutrality while secretly embedding their values?

    Every major AI system reflects its creator’s worldview – from Microsoft Copilot’s risk-averse corporate perspective to Anthropic Claude’s safety-focused ethos. The difference is transparency.

    Musk’s public statements make it easy to trace Grok’s behaviours back to Musk’s stated beliefs about “woke ideology” and media bias. Meanwhile, when other platforms misfire spectacularly, we’re left guessing whether this reflects leadership views, corporate risk aversion, regulatory pressure, or accident.

    This feels familiar. Grok resembles Microsoft’s 2016 hate-speech-spouting Tay chatbot, also trained on Twitter data and set loose on Twitter before being shut down.

    But there’s a crucial difference. Tay’s racism emerged from user manipulation and poor safeguards – an unintended consequence. Grok’s behaviour appears to stem at least partially from its design.

    The real lesson from Grok is about honesty in AI development. As these systems become more powerful and widespread (Grok support in Tesla vehicles was just announced), the question isn’t whether AI will reflect human values. It’s whether companies will be transparent about whose values they’re encoding and why.

    Musk’s approach is simultaneously more honest (we can see his influence) and more deceptive (claiming objectivity while programming subjectivity) than his competitors.

    In an industry built on the myth of neutral algorithms, Grok reveals what’s been true all along: there’s no such thing as unbiased AI – only AI whose biases we can see with varying degrees of clarity.

    The Conversation

    Aaron J. Snoswell previously received research funding from OpenAI in 2024–2025 to develop new evaluation frameworks for measuring moral competence in AI agents.

    – ref. How do you stop an AI model turning Nazi? What the Grok drama reveals about AI training – https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-stop-an-ai-model-turning-nazi-what-the-grok-drama-reveals-about-ai-training-261001

  • MIL-Evening Report: How do you stop an AI model turning Nazi? What the Grok drama reveals about AI training

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron J. Snoswell, Senior Research Fellow in AI Accountability, Queensland University of Technology

    Anne Fehres and Luke Conroy & AI4Media, CC BY

    Grok, the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot embedded in X (formerly Twitter) and built by Elon Musk’s company xAI, is back in the headlines after calling itself “MechaHitler” and producing pro-Nazi remarks.

    The developers have apologised for the “inappropriate posts” and “taken action to ban hate speech” from Grok’s posts on X. Debates about AI bias have been revived too.

    But the latest Grok controversy is revealing not for the extremist outputs, but for how it exposes a fundamental dishonesty in AI development. Musk claims to be building a “truth-seeking” AI free from bias, yet the technical implementation reveals systemic ideological programming.

    This amounts to an accidental case study in how AI systems embed their creators’ values, with Musk’s unfiltered public presence making visible what other companies typically obscure.

    What is Grok?

    Grok is an AI chatbot with “a twist of humor and a dash of rebellion” developed by xAI, which also owns the X social media platform.

    The first version of Grok launched in 2023. Independent evaluations suggest the latest model, Grok 4, outpaces competitors on “intelligence” tests. The chatbot is available standalone and on X.

    xAI states “AI’s knowledge should be all-encompassing and as far-reaching as possible”. Musk has previously positioned Grok as a truth-telling alternative to chatbots accused of being “woke” by right-wing commentators.

    But beyond the latest Nazism scandal, Grok has made headlines for generating threats of sexual violence, bringing up “white genocide” in South Africa, and making insulting statements about politicians. The latter led to its ban in Turkey.

    So how do developers imbue an AI with such values and shape chatbot behaviour? Today’s chatbots are built using large language models (LLMs), which offer several levers developers can lean on.

    What makes an AI ‘behave’ this way?

    Pre-training

    First, developers curate the data used during pre-training – the first step in building a chatbot. This involves not just filtering unwanted content, but also emphasising desired material.

    GPT-3 was shown Wikipedia up to six times more than other datasets as OpenAI considered it higher quality. Grok is trained on various sources, including posts from X, which might explain why Grok has been reported to check Elon Musk’s opinion on controversial topics.

    Musk has shared that xAI curates Grok’s training data, for example to improve legal knowledge and to remove LLM-generated content for quality control. He also appealed to the X community for difficult “galaxy brain” problems and facts that are “politically incorrect, but nonetheless factually true”.

    We don’t know if these data were used, or what quality-control measures were applied.

    Fine-tuning

    The second step, fine-tuning, adjusts LLM behaviour using feedback. Developers create detailed manuals outlining their preferred ethical stances, which either human reviewers or AI systems then use as a rubric to evaluate and improve the chatbot’s responses, effectively coding these values into the machine.

    A Business Insider investigation revealed xAI’s instructions to human
    “AI tutors” instructed them to look for “woke ideology” and “cancel culture”. While the onboarding documents said Grok shouldn’t “impose an opinion that confirms or denies a user’s bias”, they also stated it should avoid responses that claim both sides of a debate have merit when they do not.

    System prompts

    The system prompt – instructions provided before every conversation – guides behaviour once the model is deployed.

    To its credit, xAI publishes Grok’s system prompts. Its instructions to “assume subjective viewpoints sourced from the media are biased” and “not shy away from making claims which are politically incorrect, as long as they are well substantiated” were likely key factors in the latest controversy.

    These prompts are being updated daily at the time of writing, and their evolution is a fascinating case study in itself.

    Guardrails

    Finally, developers can also add guardrails – filters that block certain requests or responses. OpenAI claims it doesn’t permit ChatGPT “to generate hateful, harassing, violent or adult content”. Meanwhile, the Chinese model DeepSeek censors discussion of Tianamen Square.

    Ad-hoc testing when writing this article suggests Grok is much less restrained in this regard than competitor products.

    The transparency paradox

    Grok’s Nazi controversy highlights a deeper ethical issue: would we prefer AI companies to be explicitly ideological and honest about it, or maintain the fiction of neutrality while secretly embedding their values?

    Every major AI system reflects its creator’s worldview – from Microsoft Copilot’s risk-averse corporate perspective to Anthropic Claude’s safety-focused ethos. The difference is transparency.

    Musk’s public statements make it easy to trace Grok’s behaviours back to Musk’s stated beliefs about “woke ideology” and media bias. Meanwhile, when other platforms misfire spectacularly, we’re left guessing whether this reflects leadership views, corporate risk aversion, regulatory pressure, or accident.

    This feels familiar. Grok resembles Microsoft’s 2016 hate-speech-spouting Tay chatbot, also trained on Twitter data and set loose on Twitter before being shut down.

    But there’s a crucial difference. Tay’s racism emerged from user manipulation and poor safeguards – an unintended consequence. Grok’s behaviour appears to stem at least partially from its design.

    The real lesson from Grok is about honesty in AI development. As these systems become more powerful and widespread (Grok support in Tesla vehicles was just announced), the question isn’t whether AI will reflect human values. It’s whether companies will be transparent about whose values they’re encoding and why.

    Musk’s approach is simultaneously more honest (we can see his influence) and more deceptive (claiming objectivity while programming subjectivity) than his competitors.

    In an industry built on the myth of neutral algorithms, Grok reveals what’s been true all along: there’s no such thing as unbiased AI – only AI whose biases we can see with varying degrees of clarity.

    Aaron J. Snoswell previously received research funding from OpenAI in 2024–2025 to develop new evaluation frameworks for measuring moral competence in AI agents.

    – ref. How do you stop an AI model turning Nazi? What the Grok drama reveals about AI training – https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-stop-an-ai-model-turning-nazi-what-the-grok-drama-reveals-about-ai-training-261001

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How do you stop an AI model turning Nazi? What the Grok drama reveals about AI training

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron J. Snoswell, Senior Research Fellow in AI Accountability, Queensland University of Technology

    Anne Fehres and Luke Conroy & AI4Media, CC BY

    Grok, the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot embedded in X (formerly Twitter) and built by Elon Musk’s company xAI, is back in the headlines after calling itself “MechaHitler” and producing pro-Nazi remarks.

    The developers have apologised for the “inappropriate posts” and “taken action to ban hate speech” from Grok’s posts on X. Debates about AI bias have been revived too.

    But the latest Grok controversy is revealing not for the extremist outputs, but for how it exposes a fundamental dishonesty in AI development. Musk claims to be building a “truth-seeking” AI free from bias, yet the technical implementation reveals systemic ideological programming.

    This amounts to an accidental case study in how AI systems embed their creators’ values, with Musk’s unfiltered public presence making visible what other companies typically obscure.

    What is Grok?

    Grok is an AI chatbot with “a twist of humor and a dash of rebellion” developed by xAI, which also owns the X social media platform.

    The first version of Grok launched in 2023. Independent evaluations suggest the latest model, Grok 4, outpaces competitors on “intelligence” tests. The chatbot is available standalone and on X.

    xAI states “AI’s knowledge should be all-encompassing and as far-reaching as possible”. Musk has previously positioned Grok as a truth-telling alternative to chatbots accused of being “woke” by right-wing commentators.

    But beyond the latest Nazism scandal, Grok has made headlines for generating threats of sexual violence, bringing up “white genocide” in South Africa, and making insulting statements about politicians. The latter led to its ban in Turkey.

    So how do developers imbue an AI with such values and shape chatbot behaviour? Today’s chatbots are built using large language models (LLMs), which offer several levers developers can lean on.

    What makes an AI ‘behave’ this way?

    Pre-training

    First, developers curate the data used during pre-training – the first step in building a chatbot. This involves not just filtering unwanted content, but also emphasising desired material.

    GPT-3 was shown Wikipedia up to six times more than other datasets as OpenAI considered it higher quality. Grok is trained on various sources, including posts from X, which might explain why Grok has been reported to check Elon Musk’s opinion on controversial topics.

    Musk has shared that xAI curates Grok’s training data, for example to improve legal knowledge and to remove LLM-generated content for quality control. He also appealed to the X community for difficult “galaxy brain” problems and facts that are “politically incorrect, but nonetheless factually true”.

    We don’t know if these data were used, or what quality-control measures were applied.

    Fine-tuning

    The second step, fine-tuning, adjusts LLM behaviour using feedback. Developers create detailed manuals outlining their preferred ethical stances, which either human reviewers or AI systems then use as a rubric to evaluate and improve the chatbot’s responses, effectively coding these values into the machine.

    A Business Insider investigation revealed xAI’s instructions to human
    “AI tutors” instructed them to look for “woke ideology” and “cancel culture”. While the onboarding documents said Grok shouldn’t “impose an opinion that confirms or denies a user’s bias”, they also stated it should avoid responses that claim both sides of a debate have merit when they do not.

    System prompts

    The system prompt – instructions provided before every conversation – guides behaviour once the model is deployed.

    To its credit, xAI publishes Grok’s system prompts. Its instructions to “assume subjective viewpoints sourced from the media are biased” and “not shy away from making claims which are politically incorrect, as long as they are well substantiated” were likely key factors in the latest controversy.

    These prompts are being updated daily at the time of writing, and their evolution is a fascinating case study in itself.

    Guardrails

    Finally, developers can also add guardrails – filters that block certain requests or responses. OpenAI claims it doesn’t permit ChatGPT “to generate hateful, harassing, violent or adult content”. Meanwhile, the Chinese model DeepSeek censors discussion of Tianamen Square.

    Ad-hoc testing when writing this article suggests Grok is much less restrained in this regard than competitor products.

    The transparency paradox

    Grok’s Nazi controversy highlights a deeper ethical issue: would we prefer AI companies to be explicitly ideological and honest about it, or maintain the fiction of neutrality while secretly embedding their values?

    Every major AI system reflects its creator’s worldview – from Microsoft Copilot’s risk-averse corporate perspective to Anthropic Claude’s safety-focused ethos. The difference is transparency.

    Musk’s public statements make it easy to trace Grok’s behaviours back to Musk’s stated beliefs about “woke ideology” and media bias. Meanwhile, when other platforms misfire spectacularly, we’re left guessing whether this reflects leadership views, corporate risk aversion, regulatory pressure, or accident.

    This feels familiar. Grok resembles Microsoft’s 2016 hate-speech-spouting Tay chatbot, also trained on Twitter data and set loose on Twitter before being shut down.

    But there’s a crucial difference. Tay’s racism emerged from user manipulation and poor safeguards – an unintended consequence. Grok’s behaviour appears to stem at least partially from its design.

    The real lesson from Grok is about honesty in AI development. As these systems become more powerful and widespread (Grok support in Tesla vehicles was just announced), the question isn’t whether AI will reflect human values. It’s whether companies will be transparent about whose values they’re encoding and why.

    Musk’s approach is simultaneously more honest (we can see his influence) and more deceptive (claiming objectivity while programming subjectivity) than his competitors.

    In an industry built on the myth of neutral algorithms, Grok reveals what’s been true all along: there’s no such thing as unbiased AI – only AI whose biases we can see with varying degrees of clarity.

    Aaron J. Snoswell previously received research funding from OpenAI in 2024–2025 to develop new evaluation frameworks for measuring moral competence in AI agents.

    – ref. How do you stop an AI model turning Nazi? What the Grok drama reveals about AI training – https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-stop-an-ai-model-turning-nazi-what-the-grok-drama-reveals-about-ai-training-261001

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Washington’s war demands – Australia right to refuse committing to a hypothetical conflict with China over Taiwan

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

    Andy. LIU/Shutterstock

    The United States can count on Australia as one of its closest allies.

    Dating back to the shared experiences in the second world war and the ANZUS Treaty signed in 1951, Australia has steadfastly worked to help ensure the US remains the principal security guarantor in the Indo-Pacific.

    Australia’s track record speaks for itself. Yet additional demands are being placed that rankle.

    The Pentagon wants to know how Australia – and other allies such as Japan – would respond in the event of a war with China over Taiwan.

    Making these demands – which are being sought as part of the review of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement – is both unjustified and unreasonable.

    ‘100 years of mateship’

    Since federation in 1901, Australians have found themselves alongside US counterparts in almost all the major conflicts of the 20th century and beyond.

    It is this shared experience that led former Ambassador to Washington, Joe Hockey, to coin the term “100 years of mateship”.

    The pinnacle of the security relationship is the ANZUS Treaty which is a loosely worded document barely 800 words long.

    However, it is important to remember AUKUS is just that – a technical agreement, albeit premised on the century-spanning trusted collaboration across the full spectrum of national security ties.

    Goldilocks solution

    More recently, the US administration has made demands of allies, including Australia, the likes of which have not been seen in living memory.

    This spans not just tariffs, but also increased defence spending. American policymakers appear oblivious or unconcerned about the blowback they are generating.

    It is this context which makes the US demands for a broad-ranging and largely open-ended commitment over the defence of Taiwan, in advance of any conflict, so extraordinary and unhelpful.

    Under-secretary of defence for policy Elbridge Colby who wants a clear sense of how Australia would act in a potential war over Taiwan.
    Supplied by US Department of Defence, CC BY

    Australia has long had a fear of abandonment. Ever since the searing experience of the fall of Singapore in 1942, officials have been eager to burnish ties with US counterparts. Conversely, there has always been a strong element in the community that has feared entrapment in yet another US-led war in Asia.

    The experience in the Korean and Vietnam wars, let alone Afghanistan and Iraq, left many guarded about the efficacy of hitching the wagon to US-led military campaigns.

    In essence, though, Australian policymakers have long sought the Goldilocks solution: not too enthusiastic to trigger entrapment and not too lukewarm to trigger abandonment.

    No guarantees

    Now Australia, Japan and others face a surprising new push by American officials for a commitment to a hypothetical conflict, under open-ended circumstances.

    The irony is that American demands for a commitment fly in the face of the loosely worded ANZUS alliance – which stipulates an agreement to consult, but little more than that.

    The AUKUS agreement includes no such guarantees either. The overt and confronting nature of Washington’s demands means Prime Minister Anthony Albanese effectively has no option but to push back:

    We support the status quo when it comes to Taiwan. We don’t support any unilateral action […] we want peace and security in our region.

    Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy was adamant Australia would not be committing forces ahead of any “hypothetical” conflict:

    The decision to commit Australian troops to a conflict will be made by the government of the day, not in advance, but by the government of the day.

    A further irony is Australia, like Japan, is already hugely invested in its US military relationship, particularly through its military technology.

    The purchase of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, for instance, was meant to help enable the generation of interoperable forces, yet no such demand has been made when it comes to an advance commitment over their use in support of US ambitions.

    So why invoke AUKUS in such a way?

    Evidently, the way the US is trying to stand over Japan and Australia is harmful to its own interests. Such adversarial and unduly transactional behaviour could provoke a popular backlash in Australia and elsewhere.

    The government has rightly rebuffed the calls saying it would be up to the government of the day to make such a decision. It is likely this will not be well received by the Trump administration. The PM is right though, to say it’s hypothetical and not worthy of a public endorsement.

    Strategic ambiguity

    Yet a further irony is that this is mostly a moot point.

    The key benefit of alliance collaboration is already in place – and that relates to the efforts to deter China from ever acting on its desire to change the status quo in the first place.

    As former PM and now ambassador to Washington, Kevin Rudd explained in his book, The Avoidable War, geo-political disaster is still avoidable, particularly if the US and China can find a way to coexist without betraying their core interests through managed strategic competition.

    This strategic ambiguity is meant to complicate a potential adversary’s military planners and political decision makers’ thought processes over the advantages and disadvantages of going to war.

    China already knows a clash over Taiwan would mean US allies like Japan and Australia would find it virtually impossible to avoid being entangled. The strategic ambiguity can be maintained ad infinitum, so long as an outright invasion is averted.

    And the likelihood of conflict over Taiwan? I remain sanguine that conflict can be avoided.

    But to do so would involve clear and compelling messaging: both through diplomatic channels and through the demonstration of robust military capabilities that war would be too costly.

    John Blaxland received funding (2015–2018) from the US DoD Minerva Research Initiative.

    – ref. Washington’s war demands – Australia right to refuse committing to a hypothetical conflict with China over Taiwan – https://theconversation.com/washingtons-war-demands-australia-right-to-refuse-committing-to-a-hypothetical-conflict-with-china-over-taiwan-261076

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How much salt is OK in drinking water? Without limits, Australia’s health gap widens in remote and regional areas

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Juliette Crowther, Researcher in Food Policy, George Institute for Global Health

    Andrew Merry/Getty

    Most Australians consume far too much sodium, mostly in the form of salt (sodium chloride) in the food they eat.

    The National Health and Medical Research Council recommends no more than 2,000 milligrams of sodium a day, roughly one teaspoon of salt.

    Yet the average Australian consumes nearly twice that.

    In some regional and remote communities, salty drinking water is quietly adding to this problem – yet sodium levels in tap water are often overlooked.

    Our new research reviewed 197 countries and shows when drinking water standards for sodium exist, they’re usually based on taste, not health.

    Most follow guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO) which, in its global campaign to lower sodium intake, has focused on diet but largely ignored drinking water.

    Salty water is an overlooked health risk

    Excess sodium is a major risk factor for high blood pressure and cardiovascular diseases, such as heart attacks and stroke. These are leading causes of death and disability across the world.

    In 2013, these health risks led the WHO to set a global target to reduce sodium intake by 30% by 2025. The WHO has since extended this to 2030, due to slow progress.

    Public health efforts to reduce sodium (salt) have focused mainly on food, not drinking water. This is because most tap water contains low sodium levels (usually below 20mg per litre).

    But some natural water sources contain excessively high sodium. In Australia, this mainly affects remote and rural communities.

    Evidence suggests it’s a growing issue, compounded by climate change, rising sea levels, more frequent storms, prolonged droughts, and human activities, including over extraction of groundwater and agricultural runoff.

    What does the WHO say about water?

    The WHO’s recommended threshold for sodium in water – no more than 200mg/L – is based on how water tastes (palatability), not what is safe for health.

    Worryingly, the WHO recommendations about drinking water are based on an outdated 2003 report that found evidence linking sodium with high blood pressure was lacking.

    Convincing evidence has since confirmed that higher sodium intake is directly related to increased blood pressure.

    The WHO updated its dietary guidelines for sodium in 2012 to reflect these health risks. But water guidelines have not changed.

    What our new research shows

    Our new research, published in recent weeks, reviewed guidelines for sodium in drinking water in 197 countries.

    It found 20% of countries – home to 30% of the world’s population – have no sodium limit in drinking water.

    Among the 132 countries that do, most (92%) follow WHO guidelines.

    Our research found only 12 countries cited health reasons for setting sodium limits, and just two of these set stricter limits than WHO guidelines.

    This means across the world, most drinking standards for sodium continue to be guided by taste, not health.

    Palatability is highly subjective. Just as some people enjoy salty chips and others find them overpowering, sensitivity to sodium in water varies.

    In contrast, the health risks of too much salt are clear.

    What do Australia’s guidelines say?

    Australia’s drinking water guidelines include a non-mandatory sodium limit of 180mg/L, also based on taste.

    But this is still too high to protect health.

    Drinking two litres of water at this concentration in one day would mean having 360mg of sodium – almost one-fifth of the recommended maximum. This is equivalent to eating a large bag of sea-salt popcorn.

    While the guidelines do recommend that people with high blood pressure drink water with less than 20mg/L sodium, there is no clear plan for how this can be achieved equitably, especially when the alternative is expensive bottled water.

    Water inequity in Walgett

    The consequences of this policy gap are stark in places such as Walgett, a remote town in north-western New South Wales with a high Aboriginal population (almost 50%).

    In 2018, when the local river ran dry, the town switched to bore water. Residents immediately noticed the water was slimy and undrinkable.

    Local Aboriginal community controlled organisations asked researchers from the University of New South Wales to test the water. This revealed sodium levels over 300mg/L.

    In 2020, the New South Wales government eventually installed a desalination plant, but due to issues managing waste, it was decommissioned a few months later.

    Today, Walgett still lacks a long-term solution to provide drinking water with low levels of sodium.

    Water inequality is health inequality

    Walgett isn’t an isolated case. Many inland and remote towns, often with high Aboriginal populations, rely on rivers and bore water increasingly affected by drought and agricultural overuse.

    This inequity in access to safe drinking water worsens the health gap.

    Indigenous Australians already face higher rates of high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease – all worsened by excess sodium.

    In places such as Walgett, where some people report spending as much as A$50 a week on bottled water, families are forced to choose between safe hydration and essentials such as food or medicine.

    Without mandatory health-based limits, these communities have no way to compel authorities to make their water safe.

    Safe drinking water is a human right

    In 2023, the European Union mandated legally binding drinking water standards in all member states.

    Although still based on the outdated 200mg/L taste threshold, this legal framework gives communities a basis to advocate for safer water – something Australia currently lacks.

    A sodium limit closer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency guideline of 30–60mg/L would better align with health advice.

    Without enforceable, health-based limits, Australia risks falling behind on its commitments to the sodium reduction targets and sustainable development goals set by the United Nations.

    No one should have to fight for safe drinking water. If we want to protect our most vulnerable communities, water policy must catch up with science and public health priorities.

    We would like to thank all of the authors of the paper, and the Yuwaya Ngarra-li, a community-led partnership between the Dharriwaa Elders Groups in Walgett and the University of New South Wales.

    This research was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. The George Institute’s Food Policy Group is a World Health Organization Collaborating Centre on Population Salt Reduction. Juliette Crowther has no other conflicts of interest to declare.

    Jacqui Webster receives salary funding from a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator Grant (#2018015) and DFAT. Jacqui Webster is Chief Investigator on the NHMRC Ideas grant (#2003862) that this research is funded through.

    – ref. How much salt is OK in drinking water? Without limits, Australia’s health gap widens in remote and regional areas – https://theconversation.com/how-much-salt-is-ok-in-drinking-water-without-limits-australias-health-gap-widens-in-remote-and-regional-areas-260496

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • Even a day off alcohol makes a difference – our timeline maps the health benefits when you stop drinking

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nicole Lee, Adjunct Professor at the National Drug Research Institute (Melbourne based), Curtin University

    d3sign/Getty

    Alcohol has many negative effects on our health, some of which may surprise you. These include short-term impacts such as waking up with a pounding head or anxiety, to long-term effects including cancer.

    If you are thinking about taking some time off alcohol, you’ll find many quick wins and long-term gains for your health.

    How long will you have to wait to feel the benefits?

    We’ve made a timeline – based on scientific research – that shows what you might feel in the first days, weeks, months and years after taking a break from alcohol.

    Some benefits start immediately, so every day without alcohol is a win for your health.

    After one day

    Alcohol takes around 24 hours to completely leave your body, so you may start noticing improvements after just one day.

    Alcohol makes you need to urinate more often, causing dehydration. But your body can absorb a glass of water almost immediately, so once alcohol is out of your system alcohol dehydration is reduced, improving digestion, brain function and energy levels.

    Alcohol also reduces the liver’s ability to regulate blood sugar. Once alcohol leaves the system, blood sugar begins to normalise.

    If you are a daily drinker you may feel a bit worse to start with while your body adjusts to not having alcohol in its system all the time. You may initially notice disrupted sleep, mood changes, sweating or tremors. Most symptoms usually resolve in about a week without alcohol.

    After one week

    Even though alcohol can make you feel sleepy at first, it disrupts your sleep cycle. By the end of an alcohol-free week, you may notice you are more energetic in the mornings as a result of getting better quality sleep.

    As the body’s filter, the liver does much of the heavy lifting in processing alcohol and can be easily damaged even with moderate drinking.

    The liver is important for cleaning blood, processing nutrients and producing bile that helps with digestion.

    But it can also regenerate quickly. If you have only mild damage in the liver, seven days may be enough to reduce liver fat and heal mild scarring and tissue damage.

    Even small amounts of alcohol can impair brain functioning. So quitting can help improve brain health within a few days in light to moderate drinkers and within a month even for very heavy dependent drinkers.

    Bodies of man and woman sitting on a couch with tv remote and glasses of wine.
    Alcohol damages your liver, but it’s very good at regenerating and healing itself.
    skynesher/Getty

    After one month

    Alcohol can make managing mood harder and worsen symptoms of anxiety and depression. After a few weeks, most people start to feel better. Even very heavy drinkers report better mood after one to two months.

    As your sleep and mood improve you may also notice more energy and greater wellbeing.

    After a month of abstinence regular drinkers also report feeling more confident about making changes to how they drink.

    You may lose weight and body fat. Alcohol contains a lot of kilojules and can trigger hunger reward systems, making us overeat or choose less healthy foods when drinking.

    Even your skin will thank you. Alcohol can make you look older through dehydration and inflammation, which can be reversed when you quit.

    Alcohol irritates the gut and disrupts normal stomach functioning, causing bloating, indigestion, heartburn and diarrhoea. These symptoms usually start to resolve within four weeks.

    One month of abstinence, insulin resistance – which can lead to high blood sugar – significantly reduces by 25%. Blood pressure also reduces (by 6%) and cancer-related growth factors declines, lowering your risk of cancer.

    After six months

    The liver starts to repair within weeks. For moderate drinkers, damage to your liver could be fully reversed by six months.

    At this point, even heavy drinkers may notice they’re better at fighting infections and feel healthier overall.

    Man looks out the window drinking a beer.
    Just a month without alcohol can you make more confident about sticking to changes.
    Yue_/Getty

    After one year or more

    Alcohol contributes to or causes a large number of chronic diseases, including heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and seven different types of cancer, as well as mental health issues. All of these risks can be reduced by quitting or cutting back on alcohol.

    Alcohol increases blood pressure. High blood pressure (hypertension) is the top risk factor for death in the world. A small 2mmHg increase in blood pressure above the normal range (120mmHG) increases death from stroke by 10% and from coronary artery disease by 7%.

    Cutting back on alcohol to less than two drinks a day can reduce blood pressure significantly, reducing risk of stroke and heart disease. Reducing blood pressure also reduces risk of kidney disease, eye problems and even erectile dysfunction.

    With sustained abstinence, your risk of getting any type of cancer drops. One study looked at cancer risk for more than 4 million adults over three to seven years and found the risk of alcohol-related cancer dropped by 4%, even for light drinkers who quit. Reducing from heavy to moderate drinking reduced alcohol-related cancer risk by 9%.

    Making a change

    Any reduction in drinking will have some noticeable and immediate benefits to your brain and general health. The less you drink and the longer you go between drinks, the healthier you will be.

    Whether you aim to cut back or quit entirely, there are some simple things you can do to help you stick with it:

    If you are still wondering about whether to make changes or not you can check your drinking risk here.

    If you have tried to cut back and found it difficult you may need professional help. Call the National Alcohol and other Drug Hotline on 1800 250 015 and they will put you in touch with services in your area that can help. You can also talk to your GP.

    We would like to thank Dr Hannah MacRae for assistance in identifying the research used in this article.

    The Conversation

    Nicole Lee works as a paid evaluation and training consultant in alcohol and other drugs. She has previously been awarded grants by state and federal governments, NHMRC and other public funding bodies for alcohol and other drug research. She is CEO of Hello Sunday Morning.

    Dr Katinka van de Ven is the Research Manager of Hello Sunday Morning. She also works as a paid evaluation and training consultant in alcohol and other drugs. Katinka has previously been awarded grants by state governments and public funding bodies for alcohol and other drug research.

    – ref. Even a day off alcohol makes a difference – our timeline maps the health benefits when you stop drinking – https://theconversation.com/even-a-day-off-alcohol-makes-a-difference-our-timeline-maps-the-health-benefits-when-you-stop-drinking-249272

  • Cycling can be 4 times more efficient than walking. A biomechanics expert explains why

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Anthony Blazevich, Professor of Biomechanics, Edith Cowan University

    You’re standing at your front door, facing a five kilometre commute to work. But you don’t have your car, and there’s no bus route. You can walk for an hour – or jump on your bicycle and arrive in 15 minutes, barely breaking a sweat. You choose the latter.

    Many people would make the same choice. It’s estimated that there are more than a billion bikes in the world. Cycling represents one of the most energy-efficient forms of transport ever invented, allowing humans to travel faster and farther while using less energy than walking or running.

    But why exactly does pedalling feel so much easier than pounding the pavement? The answer lies in the elegant biomechanics of how our bodies interact with this two-wheeled machine.

    A wonderfully simple machine

    At its heart, a bicycle is wonderfully simple: two wheels (hence “bi-cycle”), pedals that transfer power through a chain to the rear wheel, and gears that let us fine-tune our effort. But this simplicity masks an engineering that perfectly complements human physiology.

    When we walk or run, we essentially fall forward in a controlled manner, catching ourselves with each step. Our legs must swing through large arcs, lifting our heavy limbs against gravity with every stride. This swinging motion alone consumes a lot of energy. Imagine: how tiring would it be to even swing your arms continuously for an hour?

    On a bicycle, your legs move through a much smaller, circular motion. Instead of swinging your entire leg weight with each step, you’re simply rotating your thighs and calves through a compact pedalling cycle. The energy savings are immediately noticeable.

    But the real efficiency gains come from how bicycles transfer human power to forward motion. When you walk or run, each footstep involves a mini-collision with the ground. You can hear it as the slap of your shoe against the road, and you can feel it as vibrations running through your body. This is energy being lost, literally dissipated as sound and heat after being sent through your muscles and joints.

    Walking and running also involve another source of inefficiency: with each step, you actually brake yourself slightly before propelling forward. As your foot lands ahead of your body, it creates a backwards force that momentarily slows you down. Your muscles then have to work extra hard to overcome this self-imposed braking and accelerate you forward again.

    Kissing the road

    Bicycles use one of the world’s great inventions to solve these problems – wheels.

    Instead of a collision, you get rolling contact – each part of the tyre gently “kisses” the road surface before lifting off. No energy is lost to impact. And because the wheel rotates smoothly so the force acts perfectly vertically on the ground, there’s no stop-start braking action. The force from your pedalling translates directly into forward motion.

    But bicycles also help our muscles to work at their best. Human muscles have a fundamental limitation: the faster they contract, the weaker they become and the more energy they consume.

    This is the famous force-velocity relationship of muscles. And it’s why sprinting feels so much harder than jogging or walking – your muscles are working near their speed limit, becoming less efficient with every stride.

    Bicycle gears solve this problem for us. As you go faster, you can shift to a higher gear so your muscles don’t have to work faster while the bike accelerates. Your muscles can stay in their sweet spot for both force production and energy cost. It’s like having a personal assistant that continuously adjusts your workload to keep you in the peak performance zone.

    A graphic with a cyclist and a pedestrian.
    Cycling can be at least four times more energy-efficient than walking and eight times more efficient than running.
    The Conversation, CC BY

    Walking sometimes wins out

    But bicycles aren’t always superior.

    On very steep hills of more than about 15% gradient (so you rise 1.5 metres every 10 metres of distance), your legs struggle to generate enough force through the circular pedalling motion to lift you and the bike up the hill. We can produce more force by pushing our legs straight out, so walking (or climbing) becomes more effective.

    Even if roads were built, we wouldn’t pedal up Mount Everest.

    This isn’t the case for downhills. While cycling downhill becomes progressively easier (eventually requiring no energy at all), walking down steep slopes actually becomes harder.

    Once the gradient exceeds about 10% (it drops by one metre for every ten metres of distance), each downhill step creates jarring impacts that waste energy and stress your joints. Walking and running downhill isn’t always as easy as we’d expect.

    Not just a transportation device

    The numbers speak for themselves. Cycling can be at least four times more energy-efficient than walking and eight times more efficient than running. This efficiency comes from minimising three major energy drains: limb movement, ground impact and muscle speed limitations.

    So next time you effortlessly cruise past pedestrians on your morning bike commute, take a moment to appreciate the biomechanical work of art beneath you. Your bicycle isn’t just a transport device, but a perfectly evolved machine that works in partnership with your physiology, turning your raw muscle power into efficient motion.

    The Conversation

    Anthony Blazevich 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. Cycling can be 4 times more efficient than walking. A biomechanics expert explains why – https://theconversation.com/cycling-can-be-4-times-more-efficient-than-walking-a-biomechanics-expert-explains-why-257120

  • Can’t work out without music? Neither could the ancient Greeks and Romans

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Konstantine Panegyres, Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History, The University of Western Australia

    Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

    These days when you see people exercising, they’re usually also listening to music, whether they’re at the gym, or out jogging on the street.

    It makes sense, as studies have shown listening to music can help you get the most out of a workout.

    Somehow the ancient Greeks and Romans knew this too, long before modern science was there to back it.

    A more than 2,000-year-old habit

    In his oration To the People of Alexandria, the Greek writer Dio Chrysostom (40-110 CE) complained about a phenomenon he saw all the time.

    Dio wrote people loved to listen to music in their daily activities. According to him, music could be found in the courtroom, in the lecture theatre, in the doctor’s room, and even in the gym.

    “Everything is done to music […] people will presently go so far as to use song to accompany their exercise in the gymnasium,” Dio wrote.

    But exercising to music wasn’t a new thing in his day. This practice has been recorded across the ancient Greek and Roman worlds from the earliest times, and as far back as the poems of Homer (circa 800 BCE).

    Why exercise to music?

    There are many depictions of professional athletes training, or competing, to the accompaniment of music in ancient Greek vase paintings.

    In one vase painting from the 5th century BCE, a group of athletes trains while a musician plays the aulos, a type of ancient pipe instrument.

    Young men exercising to the sound of an aulos player (an ancient wind instrument).
    Wikimedia

    The ancient writer Plutarch of Chaeronea (46-119 CE) tells us music was also played while people wrestled or did athletics.

    Athenian writer Flavius Philostratus (circa 170-245 CE) offers clues as to why. In a book about gymnastics, Philostratus wrote music served to stimulate athletes, and that their performance might be improved through listening to music.

    Today’s researchers have proven this to be true. One 2020 study involving 3,599 participants showed listening to music during exercise had many benefits, such as reducing the perception of fatigue and exertion, and improving physical performance and breathing.

    Singing and trumpets

    Since ancient people didn’t have electronic devices, they found other ways to exercise to music. Some had music played by a musician during their exercise routine. Others sang while they exercised.

    Singing while playing ball games was particularly popular. In Homer’s Odyssey (circa 8th century BCE), Nausicaa, the daughter of the King of Phaeacia, plays a ball game with her girl friends, and they all sing songs as they play.

    Similarly, the historian Carystius of Pergamum (2nd century BCE) wrote the women of his time “sang as they played ball”.

    Another popular activity was dancing to music. Dancing was widely regarded as a gymnastic exercise people could do for better health.

    One famous advocate of the benefits of dancing as exercise was the great Athenian philosopher Socrates (circa 470-399 BCE). According to the historian Diogenes Laertius (3rd century CE), “it was Socrates’ regular habit to dance, thinking that such exercise helped to keep the body in good condition”.

    Exercising to music was depicted in several ancient Greek vase painting.
    Wikimedia, CC BY-NC-SA

    Apart from individuals using music in their personal exercise, soldiers also did training exercises, and marched to battle, to the sound of trumpets.

    Don’t skip leg day

    There was a belief in ancient Greek and Roman that music and exercise played an important role in shaping and developing the body and soul.

    The ideal was harmony and moderation. The body and soul needed to be balanced and proportionate in all their parts, without any excess. As such, doing one kind of exercise too often, or exercising one body part excessively, was frowned upon.

    The physician Galen of Pergamum (129-216 CE) criticised types of exercise that focused too much on one part of the body. He preferred ball games as they exercised the whole body evenly.

    Immoderation in music – that is, listening to too much, or listening to music that was too emotional – was also sometimes frowned upon.

    For example, the Athenian philosopher Plato (circa 428-348 BCE) famously argued most music should be censored as it can stir the passions too strongly. Plato thought only simple and unemotional music, listened to in moderation, should be allowed.

    If the ancients could see today’s people running along the pavement with music thumping in their ears, they would surely be amazed. And they’d probably approve – as long as it wasn’t being done in excess.

    The Conversation

    Konstantine Panegyres 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. Can’t work out without music? Neither could the ancient Greeks and Romans – https://theconversation.com/cant-work-out-without-music-neither-could-the-ancient-greeks-and-romans-258069

  • MIL-Evening Report: Washington’s war demands – Australia right to refuse being dragged into a potential conflict with China over Taiwan

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

    Andy. LIU/Shutterstock

    The United States can count on Australia as one of its closest allies.

    Dating back to the shared experiences in the second world war and the ANZUS Treaty signed in 1951, Australia has steadfastly worked to help ensure the US remains the principal security guarantor in the Indo-Pacific.

    Australia’s track record speaks for itself. Yet additional demands are being placed that rankle.

    The Pentagon wants to know how Australia – and other allies such as Japan – would respond in the event of a war with China over Taiwan.

    Making these demands – which are being sought as part of the review of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement – is both unjustified and unreasonable.

    ‘100 years of mateship’

    Since federation in 1901, Australians have found themselves alongside US counterparts in almost all the major conflicts of the 20th century and beyond.

    It is this shared experience that led former Ambassador to Washington, Joe Hockey, to coin the term “100 years of mateship”.

    The pinnacle of the security relationship is the ANZUS Treaty which is a loosely worded document barely 800 words long.

    However, it is important to remember AUKUS is just that – a technical agreement, albeit premised on the century-spanning trusted collaboration across the full spectrum of national security ties.

    Goldilocks solution

    More recently, the US administration has made demands of allies, including Australia, the likes of which have not been seen in living memory.

    This spans not just tariffs, but also increased defence spending. American policymakers appear oblivious or unconcerned about the blowback they are generating.

    It is this context which makes the US demands for a broad-ranging and largely open-ended commitment over the defence of Taiwan, in advance of any conflict, so extraordinary and unhelpful.

    Under-secretary of defence for policy Elbridge Colby who wants a clear sense of how Australia would act in a potential war over Taiwan.
    Supplied by US Department of Defence, CC BY

    Australia has long had a fear of abandonment. Ever since the searing experience of the fall of Singapore in 1942, officials have been eager to burnish ties with US counterparts. Conversely, there has always been a strong element in the community that has feared entrapment in yet another US-led war in Asia.

    The experience in the Korean and Vietnam wars, let alone Afghanistan and Iraq, left many guarded about the efficacy of hitching the wagon to US-led military campaigns.

    In essence, though, Australian policymakers have long sought the Goldilocks solution: not too enthusiastic to trigger entrapment and not too lukewarm to trigger abandonment.

    No guarantees

    Now Australia, Japan and others face a surprising new push by American officials for a commitment to a hypothetical conflict, under open-ended circumstances.

    The irony is that American demands for a commitment fly in the face of the loosely worded ANZUS alliance – which stipulates an agreement to consult, but little more than that.

    The AUKUS agreement includes no such guarantees either. The overt and confronting nature of Washington’s demands means Prime Minister Anthony Albanese effectively has no option but to push back:

    We support the status quo when it comes to Taiwan. We don’t support any unilateral action […] we want peace and security in our region.

    Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy was adamant Australia would not be committing forces ahead of any “hypothetical” conflict:

    The decision to commit Australian troops to a conflict will be made by the government of the day, not in advance, but by the government of the day.

    A further irony is Australia, like Japan, is already hugely invested in its US military relationship, particularly through its military technology.

    The purchase of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, for instance, was meant to help enable the generation of interoperable forces, yet no such demand has been made when it comes to an advance commitment over their use in support of US ambitions.

    So why invoke AUKUS in such a way?

    Evidently, the way the US is trying to stand over Japan and Australia is harmful to its own interests. Such adversarial and unduly transactional behaviour could provoke a popular backlash in Australia and elsewhere.

    The government has rightly rebuffed the calls saying it would be up to the government of the day to make such a decision. It is likely this will not be well received by the Trump administration. The PM is right though, to say it’s hypothetical and not worthy of a public endorsement.

    Strategic ambiguity

    Yet a further irony is that this is mostly a moot point.

    The key benefit of alliance collaboration is already in place – and that relates to the efforts to deter China from ever acting on its desire to change the status quo in the first place.

    As former PM and now ambassador to Washington, Kevin Rudd explained in his book, The Avoidable War, geo-political disaster is still avoidable, particularly if the US and China can find a way to coexist without betraying their core interests through managed strategic competition.

    This strategic ambiguity is meant to complicate a potential adversary’s military planners and political decision makers’ thought processes over the advantages and disadvantages of going to war.

    China already knows a clash over Taiwan would mean US allies like Japan and Australia would find it virtually impossible to avoid being entangled. The strategic ambiguity can be maintained ad infinitum, so long as an outright invasion is averted.

    And the likelihood of conflict over Taiwan? I remain sanguine that conflict can be avoided.

    But to do so would involve clear and compelling messaging: both through diplomatic channels and through the demonstration of robust military capabilities that war would be too costly.

    John Blaxland received funding (2015–2018) from the US DoD Minerva Research Initiative.

    – ref. Washington’s war demands – Australia right to refuse being dragged into a potential conflict with China over Taiwan – https://theconversation.com/washingtons-war-demands-australia-right-to-refuse-being-dragged-into-a-potential-conflict-with-china-over-taiwan-261076

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Washington’s war demands – Australia right to refuse being dragged into a potential conflict with China over Taiwan

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

    Andy. LIU/Shutterstock

    The United States can count on Australia as one of its closest allies.

    Dating back to the shared experiences in the second world war and the ANZUS Treaty signed in 1951, Australia has steadfastly worked to help ensure the US remains the principal security guarantor in the Indo-Pacific.

    Australia’s track record speaks for itself. Yet additional demands are being placed that rankle.

    The Pentagon wants to know how Australia – and other allies such as Japan – would respond in the event of a war with China over Taiwan.

    Making these demands – which are being sought as part of the review of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement – is both unjustified and unreasonable.

    ‘100 years of mateship’

    Since federation in 1901, Australians have found themselves alongside US counterparts in almost all the major conflicts of the 20th century and beyond.

    It is this shared experience that led former Ambassador to Washington, Joe Hockey, to coin the term “100 years of mateship”.

    The pinnacle of the security relationship is the ANZUS Treaty which is a loosely worded document barely 800 words long.

    However, it is important to remember AUKUS is just that – a technical agreement, albeit premised on the century-spanning trusted collaboration across the full spectrum of national security ties.

    Goldilocks solution

    More recently, the US administration has made demands of allies, including Australia, the likes of which have not been seen in living memory.

    This spans not just tariffs, but also increased defence spending. American policymakers appear oblivious or unconcerned about the blowback they are generating.

    It is this context which makes the US demands for a broad-ranging and largely open-ended commitment over the defence of Taiwan, in advance of any conflict, so extraordinary and unhelpful.

    Under-secretary of defence for policy Elbridge Colby who wants a clear sense of how Australia would act in a potential war over Taiwan.
    Supplied by US Department of Defence, CC BY

    Australia has long had a fear of abandonment. Ever since the searing experience of the fall of Singapore in 1942, officials have been eager to burnish ties with US counterparts. Conversely, there has always been a strong element in the community that has feared entrapment in yet another US-led war in Asia.

    The experience in the Korean and Vietnam wars, let alone Afghanistan and Iraq, left many guarded about the efficacy of hitching the wagon to US-led military campaigns.

    In essence, though, Australian policymakers have long sought the Goldilocks solution: not too enthusiastic to trigger entrapment and not too lukewarm to trigger abandonment.

    No guarantees

    Now Australia, Japan and others face a surprising new push by American officials for a commitment to a hypothetical conflict, under open-ended circumstances.

    The irony is that American demands for a commitment fly in the face of the loosely worded ANZUS alliance – which stipulates an agreement to consult, but little more than that.

    The AUKUS agreement includes no such guarantees either. The overt and confronting nature of Washington’s demands means Prime Minister Anthony Albanese effectively has no option but to push back:

    We support the status quo when it comes to Taiwan. We don’t support any unilateral action […] we want peace and security in our region.

    Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy was adamant Australia would not be committing forces ahead of any “hypothetical” conflict:

    The decision to commit Australian troops to a conflict will be made by the government of the day, not in advance, but by the government of the day.

    A further irony is Australia, like Japan, is already hugely invested in its US military relationship, particularly through its military technology.

    The purchase of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, for instance, was meant to help enable the generation of interoperable forces, yet no such demand has been made when it comes to an advance commitment over their use in support of US ambitions.

    So why invoke AUKUS in such a way?

    Evidently, the way the US is trying to stand over Japan and Australia is harmful to its own interests. Such adversarial and unduly transactional behaviour could provoke a popular backlash in Australia and elsewhere.

    The government has rightly rebuffed the calls saying it would be up to the government of the day to make such a decision. It is likely this will not be well received by the Trump administration. The PM is right though, to say it’s hypothetical and not worthy of a public endorsement.

    Strategic ambiguity

    Yet a further irony is that this is mostly a moot point.

    The key benefit of alliance collaboration is already in place – and that relates to the efforts to deter China from ever acting on its desire to change the status quo in the first place.

    As former PM and now ambassador to Washington, Kevin Rudd explained in his book, The Avoidable War, geo-political disaster is still avoidable, particularly if the US and China can find a way to coexist without betraying their core interests through managed strategic competition.

    This strategic ambiguity is meant to complicate a potential adversary’s military planners and political decision makers’ thought processes over the advantages and disadvantages of going to war.

    China already knows a clash over Taiwan would mean US allies like Japan and Australia would find it virtually impossible to avoid being entangled. The strategic ambiguity can be maintained ad infinitum, so long as an outright invasion is averted.

    And the likelihood of conflict over Taiwan? I remain sanguine that conflict can be avoided.

    But to do so would involve clear and compelling messaging: both through diplomatic channels and through the demonstration of robust military capabilities that war would be too costly.

    John Blaxland received funding (2015–2018) from the US DoD Minerva Research Initiative.

    – ref. Washington’s war demands – Australia right to refuse being dragged into a potential conflict with China over Taiwan – https://theconversation.com/washingtons-war-demands-australia-right-to-refuse-being-dragged-into-a-potential-conflict-with-china-over-taiwan-261076

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Women played key roles in Syria’s revolution. Now they’ve been pushed to the margins

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kinda Alsamara, Lecturer in the School of Languages and Cultures, The University of Queensland

    The end of the oppressive Assad regime in Syria in late 2024 has been broadly welcomed on the global stage – underscored by the fact the United States and European Union have now lifted sanctions against the country.

    However, women have been marginalised by Syria’s new leadership. That’s a problem for Syrian women, of course, but it also puts at risk prospects for sustainable peace in Syria.

    A growing body of research, including our own, shows a direct correlation between gender equality and peace.

    Syria now stands at a crossroads. Will it ensure women’s meaningful participation and follow a path to peace? Or will things head in the other direction?

    This is more urgent than ever. Failure to grapple with women’s rights in Syria risks plunging the nation further into extremist violence.

    Women excluded both before and after Assad’s rule

    After decades in power, the harsh Assad regime was overthrown late last year by rebels led by Sunni Islamist militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

    But women – who were marginalised politically and economically under Assad – continue to be systematically excluded from decision-making in the new government.

    This is even though women played an essential role in the Syrian revolution. They organised protests and advocated for rights (often at great personal risk).

    They endured sacrifices such as imprisonment, torture, disappearance and displacement.

    Yet, only one woman was appointed to Syria’s immediate post-Assad caretaker government. She didn’t get a ministerial title.

    The caretaker government spokesman reportedly suggested women’s “biological and physiological nature” makes them unsuitable for certain government roles.

    Reports allege the man initially appointed as Syria’s new minister of justice previously oversaw executions of women accused of being sex workers.

    Some Syrian activists are concerned Hayat Tahrir al-Sham will enforce a gendered and conservative interpretation of Islamic law, which prevailed in its previous stronghold of Idlib (a city in northwestern Syria).

    Limited roles for women

    A key moment came when the new Syrian government held a “national dialogue conference” earlier this year. This conference was to establish a forward-looking “political identity” for Syria.

    Of the seven-member conference preparatory committee, only two were women.

    There was no representation on the preparatory committee from several of Syria’s diverse communities, including Kurdish, Alawite and Druze groups.

    Most members had strong ties with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham or other Islamist factions.

    About 200 of the 1,000 delegates at the conference were women. However, their input in legislative and security committees was minimal.

    Only one of 18 conference recommendations referred (in a limited way) to women.

    Following the national dialogue conference, new Syrian President Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa signed into force a constitutional declaration that set a five-year transition period and established the interim government.

    Senior figures in the new government described the declaration as guaranteeing women’s political and economic rights.

    Yet only one of Syria’s 23 ministers is a woman: Hind Kabawat, appointed as minister of social affairs and labour. This “soft” portfolio is commonly associated with gendered expectations around care and welfare.

    Key ministries were allocated to al-Sharaa’s all-male long-time comrades from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s base in Idlib.

    Change is possible

    A just and sustainable peace requires proactive measures to integrate women into leadership roles in Syria.

    Change is possible. For example, constitutional mandates could guarantee minimum representation for women in ministerial leadership and judicial positions, which would better reflect the diversity of Syrian society.

    Independent mechanisms could be established to investigate and address gender-based injustices. This would need to provide accountability for past abuses and protect women’s rights under the post-Assad system.

    As we have previously noted, there cannot be a “collective forgetting” of crimes Syrian women experienced in the past.

    Economic empowerment initiatives would also help foster women’s financial independence and participation in public life.

    Public awareness campaigns could also highlight women’s contributions to the revolution and their essential role in nation-building.

    Syria at a crossroads

    With the recent lifting of sanctions by the US and EU, and ongoing regional instability globally, Syria stands at a crossroads.

    The G7 Summit in May 2025 emphasised the global community’s renewed focus on women’s participation in peace processes.

    Influential middle-power countries can play a key role by reviewing sanctions and tying humanitarian aid to the promotion of human rights, gender inclusion and pluralistic governance.

    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. Women played key roles in Syria’s revolution. Now they’ve been pushed to the margins – https://theconversation.com/women-played-key-roles-in-syrias-revolution-now-theyve-been-pushed-to-the-margins-257358

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Washington’s war demands – Australia risks being dragged into a conflict with China over Taiwan

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

    Andy. LIU/Shutterstock

    The United States can count on Australia as one of its closest allies.

    Dating back to the shared experiences in the second world war and the ANZUS Treaty signed in 1951, Australia has steadfastly worked to help ensure the US remains the principal security guarantor in the Indo-Pacific.

    Australia’s track record speaks for itself. Yet additional demands are being placed that rankle.

    The Pentagon wants to know how Australia – and other allies such as Japan – would respond in the event of a war with China over Taiwan.

    Making these demands – which are being sought as part of the review of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement – is both unjustified and unreasonable.

    ‘100 years of mateship’

    Since federation in 1901, Australians have found themselves alongside US counterparts in almost all the major conflicts of the 20th century and beyond.

    It is this shared experience that led former Ambassador to Washington, Joe Hockey, to coin the term “100 years of mateship”.

    The pinnacle of the security relationship is the ANZUS Treaty which is a loosely worded document barely 800 words long.

    However, it is important to remember AUKUS is just that – a technical agreement, albeit premised on the century-spanning trusted collaboration across the full spectrum of national security ties.

    Goldilocks solution

    More recently, the US administration has made demands of allies, including Australia, the likes of which have not been seen in living memory.

    This spans not just tariffs, but also increased defence spending. American policymakers appear oblivious or unconcerned about the blowback they are generating.

    It is this context which makes the US demands for a broad-ranging and largely open-ended commitment over the defence of Taiwan, in advance of any conflict, so extraordinary and unhelpful.

    Under-secretary of defence for policy Elbridge Colby who wants a clear sense of how Australia would act in a potential war over Taiwan.
    Supplied by US Department of Defence, CC BY

    Australia has long had a fear of abandonment. Ever since the searing experience of the fall of Singapore in 1942, officials have been eager to burnish ties with US counterparts. Conversely, there has always been a strong element in the community that has feared entrapment in yet another US-led war in Asia.

    The experience in the Korean and Vietnam wars, let alone Afghanistan and Iraq, left many guarded about the efficacy of hitching the wagon to US-led military campaigns.

    In essence, though, Australian policymakers have long sought the Goldilocks solution: not too enthusiastic to trigger entrapment and not too lukewarm to trigger abandonment.

    No guarantees

    Now Australia, Japan and others face a surprising new push by American officials for a commitment to a hypothetical conflict, under open-ended circumstances.

    The irony is that American demands for a commitment fly in the face of the loosely worded ANZUS alliance – which stipulates an agreement to consult, but little more than that.

    The AUKUS agreement includes no such guarantees either. The overt and confronting nature of Washington’s demands means Prime Minister Anthony Albanese effectively has no option but to push back:

    We support the status quo when it comes to Taiwan. We don’t support any unilateral action […] we want peace and security in our region.

    Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy was adamant Australia would not be committing forces ahead of any “hypothetical” conflict:

    The decision to commit Australian troops to a conflict will be made by the government of the day, not in advance, but by the government of the day.

    A further irony is Australia, like Japan, is already hugely invested in its US military relationship, particularly through its military technology.

    The purchase of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, for instance, was meant to help enable the generation of interoperable forces, yet no such demand has been made when it comes to an advance commitment over their use in support of US ambitions.

    So why invoke AUKUS in such a way?

    Evidently, the way the US is trying to stand over Japan and Australia is harmful to its own interests. Such adversarial and unduly transactional behaviour could provoke a popular backlash in Australia and elsewhere.

    The government has rightly rebuffed the calls saying it would be up to the government of the day to make such a decision. It is likely this will not be well received by the Trump administration. The PM is right though, to say it’s hypothetical and not worthy of a public endorsement.

    Strategic ambiguity

    Yet a further irony is that this is mostly a moot point.

    The key benefit of alliance collaboration is already in place – and that relates to the efforts to deter China from ever acting on its desire to change the status quo in the first place.

    As former PM and now ambassador to Washington, Kevin Rudd explained in his book, The Avoidable War, geo-political disaster is still avoidable, particularly if the US and China can find a way to coexist without betraying their core interests through managed strategic competition.

    This strategic ambiguity is meant to complicate a potential adversary’s military planners and political decision makers’ thought processes over the advantages and disadvantages of going to war.

    China already knows a clash over Taiwan would mean US allies like Japan and Australia would find it virtually impossible to avoid being entangled. The strategic ambiguity can be maintained ad infinitum, so long as an outright invasion is averted.

    And the likelihood of conflict over Taiwan? I remain sanguine that conflict can be avoided.

    But to do so would involve clear and compelling messaging: both through diplomatic channels and through the demonstration of robust military capabilities that war would be too costly.

    John Blaxland received funding (2015–2018) from the US DoD Minerva Research Initiative.

    – ref. Washington’s war demands – Australia risks being dragged into a conflict with China over Taiwan – https://theconversation.com/washingtons-war-demands-australia-risks-being-dragged-into-a-conflict-with-china-over-taiwan-261076

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Why Texas Hill Country, where a devastating flood killed more than 130 people, is one of the deadliest places in the US for flash flooding

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Hatim Sharif, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at San Antonio

    A Kerrville, Texas, resident watches the flooded Guadalupe River on July 4, 2025. Eric Vryn/Getty Images

    Texas Hill Country is known for its landscapes, where shallow rivers wind among hills and through rugged valleys. That geography also makes it one of the deadliest places in the U.S. for flash flooding.

    In the early hours of July 4, 2025, a flash flood swept through an area of Hill Country dotted with summer camps and small towns about 70 miles northwest of San Antonio. More than 130 people died in the flooding. The majority of them were in Kerr County, including more than two dozen girls and counselors at one summer camp, Camp Mystic. Dozens more people were still unaccounted for a week later.

    The flooding began with a heavy downpour, with more than 10 inches of rain in some areas, that sent water sheeting off the hillsides and into creeks. The creeks poured into the Guadalupe River.

    A river gauge at Hunt, Texas, near Camp Mystic, showed how quickly the river flooded: Around 3 a.m. on July 4, the Guadalupe River was rising about 1 foot every 5 minutes at the gauge, National Weather Service data shows. By 4:30 a.m., it had risen more than 20 feet. As the water moved downstream, it reached Kerrville, where the river rose even faster.

    Flood expert Hatim Sharif, a hydrologist and civil engineer at the University of Texas at San Antonio, explains what makes this part of the country, known as Flash Flood Alley, so dangerous.

    What makes Hill Country so prone to flooding?

    Texas as a whole leads the nation in flood deaths, and by a wide margin. A colleague and I analyzed data from 1959 to 2019 and found 1,069 people had died in flooding in Texas over those six decades. The next highest total was in Louisiana, with 693.

    Many of those flood deaths have been in Hill County. It’s part of an area known as Flash Flood Alley, a crescent of land that curves from near Dallas down to San Antonio and then westward.

    The hills are steep, and the water moves quickly when it floods. This is a semi-arid area with soils that don’t soak up much water, so the water sheets off quickly and the shallow creeks can rise fast.

    When those creeks converge on a river, they can create a surge of water that wipes out homes and washes away cars and, unfortunately, anyone in its path.

    Hill Country has seen some devastating flash floods. In 1987, heavy rain in western Kerr County quickly flooded the Guadalupe River, triggering a flash flood similar to the one in 2025. Ten teenagers being evacuated from a camp died in the rushing water.

    San Antonio, at the eastern edge of Hill Country, was hit with a flash flood on June 12, 2025, that killed 13 people whose cars were swept away by high water from a fast-flooding creek near an interstate ramp in the early morning.

    Why does the region get such strong downpours?

    One reason Hill Country gets powerful downpours is the Balcones Escarpment.

    The escarpment is a line of cliffs and steep hills created by a geologic fault. When warm air from the Gulf rushes up the escarpment, it condenses and can dump a lot of moisture. That water flows down the hills quickly, from many different directions, filling streams and rivers below.

    As temperature rise, the warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, increasing the downpour and flood risk.

    A tour of the Guadalupe River and its flood risk.

    The same effect can contribute to flash flooding in San Antonio, where the large amount of paved land and lack of updated drainage to control runoff adds to the risk.

    What can be done to improve flash flood safety?

    First, it’s important for people to understand why flash flooding happens and just how fast the water can rise and flow. In many arid areas, dry or shallow creeks can quickly fill up with fast-moving water and become deadly. So people should be aware of the risks and pay attention to the weather.

    Improving flood forecasting, with more detailed models of the physics and water velocity at different locations, can also help.

    Probabilistic forecasting, for example, can provide a range of rainfall scenarios, enabling authorities to prepare for worst-case scenarios. A scientific framework linking rainfall forecasts to the local impacts, such as streamflow, flood depth and water velocity, could also help decision-makers implement timely evacuations or road closures.

    Education is particularly essential for drivers. One to two feet of moving water can wash away a car. People may think their trucks and SUVs can go through anything, but fast-moving water can flip a truck and carry it away.

    Officials can also do more to barricade roads when the flood risk is high to prevent people from driving into harm’s way. We found that 58% of the flood deaths in Texas over the past six decades involved vehicles. The storm on June 12 in San Antonio was an example. It was early morning, and drivers had poor visibility. The cars were hit by fast-rising floodwater from an adjacent creek.

    This article, originally published July 5, 2025, has been updated with the death toll rising.

    Hatim Sharif 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. Why Texas Hill Country, where a devastating flood killed more than 130 people, is one of the deadliest places in the US for flash flooding – https://theconversation.com/why-texas-hill-country-where-a-devastating-flood-killed-more-than-130-people-is-one-of-the-deadliest-places-in-the-us-for-flash-flooding-260555

    MIL OSI –

  • Why Texas Hill Country, where a devastating flood killed more than 130 people, is one of the deadliest places in the US for flash flooding

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Hatim Sharif, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at San Antonio

    A Kerrville, Texas, resident watches the flooded Guadalupe River on July 4, 2025. Eric Vryn/Getty Images

    Texas Hill Country is known for its landscapes, where shallow rivers wind among hills and through rugged valleys. That geography also makes it one of the deadliest places in the U.S. for flash flooding.

    In the early hours of July 4, 2025, a flash flood swept through an area of Hill Country dotted with summer camps and small towns about 70 miles northwest of San Antonio. More than 130 people died in the flooding. The majority of them were in Kerr County, including more than two dozen girls and counselors at one summer camp, Camp Mystic. Dozens more people were still unaccounted for a week later.

    The flooding began with a heavy downpour, with more than 10 inches of rain in some areas, that sent water sheeting off the hillsides and into creeks. The creeks poured into the Guadalupe River.

    A river gauge at Hunt, Texas, near Camp Mystic, showed how quickly the river flooded: Around 3 a.m. on July 4, the Guadalupe River was rising about 1 foot every 5 minutes at the gauge, National Weather Service data shows. By 4:30 a.m., it had risen more than 20 feet. As the water moved downstream, it reached Kerrville, where the river rose even faster.

    Flood expert Hatim Sharif, a hydrologist and civil engineer at the University of Texas at San Antonio, explains what makes this part of the country, known as Flash Flood Alley, so dangerous.

    What makes Hill Country so prone to flooding?

    Texas as a whole leads the nation in flood deaths, and by a wide margin. A colleague and I analyzed data from 1959 to 2019 and found 1,069 people had died in flooding in Texas over those six decades. The next highest total was in Louisiana, with 693.

    Many of those flood deaths have been in Hill County. It’s part of an area known as Flash Flood Alley, a crescent of land that curves from near Dallas down to San Antonio and then westward.

    The hills are steep, and the water moves quickly when it floods. This is a semi-arid area with soils that don’t soak up much water, so the water sheets off quickly and the shallow creeks can rise fast.

    When those creeks converge on a river, they can create a surge of water that wipes out homes and washes away cars and, unfortunately, anyone in its path.

    Hill Country has seen some devastating flash floods. In 1987, heavy rain in western Kerr County quickly flooded the Guadalupe River, triggering a flash flood similar to the one in 2025. Ten teenagers being evacuated from a camp died in the rushing water.

    San Antonio, at the eastern edge of Hill Country, was hit with a flash flood on June 12, 2025, that killed 13 people whose cars were swept away by high water from a fast-flooding creek near an interstate ramp in the early morning.

    Why does the region get such strong downpours?

    One reason Hill Country gets powerful downpours is the Balcones Escarpment.

    The escarpment is a line of cliffs and steep hills created by a geologic fault. When warm air from the Gulf rushes up the escarpment, it condenses and can dump a lot of moisture. That water flows down the hills quickly, from many different directions, filling streams and rivers below.

    As temperature rise, the warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, increasing the downpour and flood risk.

    A tour of the Guadalupe River and its flood risk.

    The same effect can contribute to flash flooding in San Antonio, where the large amount of paved land and lack of updated drainage to control runoff adds to the risk.

    What can be done to improve flash flood safety?

    First, it’s important for people to understand why flash flooding happens and just how fast the water can rise and flow. In many arid areas, dry or shallow creeks can quickly fill up with fast-moving water and become deadly. So people should be aware of the risks and pay attention to the weather.

    Improving flood forecasting, with more detailed models of the physics and water velocity at different locations, can also help.

    Probabilistic forecasting, for example, can provide a range of rainfall scenarios, enabling authorities to prepare for worst-case scenarios. A scientific framework linking rainfall forecasts to the local impacts, such as streamflow, flood depth and water velocity, could also help decision-makers implement timely evacuations or road closures.

    Education is particularly essential for drivers. One to two feet of moving water can wash away a car. People may think their trucks and SUVs can go through anything, but fast-moving water can flip a truck and carry it away.

    Officials can also do more to barricade roads when the flood risk is high to prevent people from driving into harm’s way. We found that 58% of the flood deaths in Texas over the past six decades involved vehicles. The storm on June 12 in San Antonio was an example. It was early morning, and drivers had poor visibility. The cars were hit by fast-rising floodwater from an adjacent creek.

    This article, originally published July 5, 2025, has been updated with the death toll rising.

    The Conversation

    Hatim Sharif 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. Why Texas Hill Country, where a devastating flood killed more than 130 people, is one of the deadliest places in the US for flash flooding – https://theconversation.com/why-texas-hill-country-where-a-devastating-flood-killed-more-than-130-people-is-one-of-the-deadliest-places-in-the-us-for-flash-flooding-260555

  • When disasters fall out of the public eye, survivors continue to suffer – a rehabilitation professional explains how sustained mental health support is critical to recovery

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Lee Ann Rawlins Williams, Clinical Assistant Professor of Education, Health and Behavior Studies, University of North Dakota

    In Kerrville, Texas, Leighton Sterling watches the rushing floodwaters along the Guadalupe River on July 4, 2025. Eric Vryn via Getty Images News

    The devastating losses from the historic flooding in Texas Hill Country on July 4, 2025, are still coming into grim focus, with 121 deaths confirmed and more than 100 still missing as of July 10.

    As emergency responders focus on clearing debris and searching for victims, a less visible and slower disaster has been unfolding: the need for ongoing mental health support long after headlines fade.

    This phase is no less critical than restoring power or rebuilding bridges. Disasters destabilize emotional well-being, leaving distress, prolonged recovery and long-term impacts in their wake long after the event is over.

    Without sustained emotional support, people and communities face heightened risks of prolonged trauma and stalled recovery.

    As an educator and practitioner focused on disability and rehabilitation, I explore the intersection of disaster recovery and the impact of disasters on mental health. Both my research and that of others underscore the vital importance of support systems that not only help people cope in the immediate aftermath of a disaster but also facilitate long-term healing over the months and years that follow – especially for vulnerable populations like children, older adults and people with disabilities.

    The emotional toll of disasters

    Natural disasters disrupt routines, displace families and challenge people’s sense of control and security. In the immediate aftermath, survivors often experience shock, grief, anxiety and sleep disturbances. Often these symptoms may evolve into chronic stress, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder or a combination of these conditions.

    A 2022 study found that Texans who experienced two or more disasters within a five-year span had significantly poorer mental health, as reflected by lower scores on standardized psychological assessments, which highlights the cumulative toll repeated disasters can have on mental well-being.

    After Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans in 2005, nearly a third of survivors continued to experience poor mental health years later.

    And reports following Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico in 2017 revealed surging rates of anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts, especially in areas where services remained unavailable for extended periods of time.

    There are actionable ways to make a difference in the recovery process.

    Strained recovery systems

    Disaster response understandably focuses on immediate needs like rescue operations, providing post-disaster housing and repairing damaged infrastructure. In addition, short-term mental health supports such as mobile health clinics are often provided in the immediate aftermath of a disaster.

    However, although emergency services are deployed quickly after a disaster, long-term mental health support is often delayed or under-resourced, leaving many people without continued care during the recovery period, especially in remote or rural communities, exposing deep structural gaps in how recovery systems are designed.

    One year after Hurricane Harvey devastated parts of Texas in 2017, more than 90% of Gulf Coast residents reported ongoing stress related to housing instability, financial hardship or displacement. Yet less than 10% of people stated that they or someone in their household had used mental health services following the disaster.

    Hurricane Helene in 2024 similarly tested the resilience of rural mental health networks in western North Carolina. The storm damaged roads and bridges, schools and even local clinics.

    This prompted a news organization, North Carolina Health News, to warn of rising “trauma, stress and isolation” among residents as providers scrambled to offer free counseling despite legal barriers stemming from licensing requirements to provide counseling across state borders. State health officials activated community crisis centers and helplines, while mobile mental health teams were dispatched from Tennessee to help those impacted by the disaster. However, state representatives stressed that without long-term investment, these critical supports risk being one-off responses.

    These events serve as a powerful reminder that while roads and buildings can often be restored quickly, emotional recovery is a slower, more complex process. Truly rebuilding requires treating mental health with the same urgency as physical infrastructure. This requires investing in strong mental health recovery systems, supporting local clinics, sustaining provider networks and integrating emotional care into recovery plans from the start.

    Surrounded by community members and volunteers, an emotionally distraught woman speaks to the governor of Texas.
    In Hunt, Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott speaks to volunteers and community members during a news conference on July 8, 2025.
    Brandon Bell via Getty Images News

    Finding mental health support following a disaster

    Lessons learned from previous disasters and an abundance of research show how sustained mental health supports can help people recover and build resilience.

    These six lessons are particularly helpful for finding needed mental health support following a disaster:

    • If you’re feeling overwhelmed after a disaster, you’re not alone, and help is available. Free and confidential support is offered through resources like the Disaster Distress Helpline (1-800-985-5990 or text TalkWithUs to 66746), which connects you to trained counselors 24/7.

    • Many communities offer local mental health crisis lines or walk-in centers that remain active well after the disaster passes. Check your county or state health department’s website for updated listings and information.

    • Even if physical offices are closed, many clinics now offer virtual counseling or can connect you with therapists and medication refills remotely. If you’ve seen someone before, ask if they’re still available by phone or video.

    • After major disasters, states often deploy mobile health clinics that include mental health services to shelters, churches or schools. These temporary services are free and open to the public.

    • If someone you care about is struggling, help them connect with resources in the community. Share hotline numbers, offer to help make an appointment or just let them know it’s OK to ask for support. Many people don’t realize that help is available, or they think it’s only for more “serious” problems. It’s not.

    • Mental health support doesn’t always arrive right away. Keep an eye on local news, school updates or health department alerts for new services that may become available in the weeks or months after a disaster.

    Disasters don’t just damage buildings; they disrupt lives in lasting ways.

    While emotional recovery takes time, support is available. Staying informed and sharing resources with others can help ensure that the road to recovery isn’t traveled alone.

    The Conversation

    Lee Ann Rawlins Williams 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. When disasters fall out of the public eye, survivors continue to suffer – a rehabilitation professional explains how sustained mental health support is critical to recovery – https://theconversation.com/when-disasters-fall-out-of-the-public-eye-survivors-continue-to-suffer-a-rehabilitation-professional-explains-how-sustained-mental-health-support-is-critical-to-recovery-260781

  • MIL-Evening Report: Music is at the forefront of AI disruption, but NZ artists still have few protections

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dave Carter, Associate Professor, School of Music and Screen Arts, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

    Getty Images

    Was the recent Velvet Sundown phenomenon a great music and media hoax, a sign of things to come, or just another example of what’s already happening ?

    In case you missed it, the breakout act was streamed hundreds of thousands of times before claims emerged the band and their music were products of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI).

    Despite the “band” insisting they were real, an “associate” later admitted it was indeed an “art hoax” marketing stunt. Much of the subsequent commentary was concerned with fairness – particularly that a “fake” band was succeeding at the expense of “real” artists.

    But Velvet Sundown is only the most recent example in a long history of computer generated and assisted music creation – going back to the 1950s when a chemistry professor named Lejaren Hiller debuted a musical composition written by a computer.

    By the 1980s, David Cope’s Experiments in Musical Intelligence created music so close to the style of Chopin and Bach it fooled classically trained musicians.

    Artist and composer Holly Herndon was highlighting a need for the ethical use and licensing of voice models and deepfakes several years before Grimes invited others to use AI-generated versions of her voice to make new music, and “Deepfake Drake” alarmed the major record labels.

    At the same time, music companies, including Warner, Capitol and rapper-producer Timbaland, have since inked record contracts for AI-generated work.

    GenAI-powered tools, such as those offered by Izotope, LANDR and Apple, have become commonplace in mixing and mastering since the late 2000s. Machine learning technology also underpins streaming recommendations.

    Creativity and copyright

    Despite this relatively long history of technology’s impact on music, it still tends to be framed as a future challenge. The New Zealand government’s Strategy for Artificial Intelligence, released this month, suggests we’re at a “pivotal moment” as the AI-powered future approaches.

    In June, a draft insight briefing from Manata Taonga/Ministry for Culture & Heritage explored “how digital technologies may transform the ways New Zealanders create, share and protect stories in 2040 and beyond”.

    It joins other recent publications by the Australasian Performing Rights Association and New Zealand’s Artificial Intelligence Researchers Association, which grapple with the future impacts of AI technologies.

    One of the main issues is the use of copyright material to train AI systems. Last year, two AI startups, including the one used by Velvet Sundown, were sued by Sony, Universal and Warner for using unlicensed recordings as part of their training data.

    It’s possible the models have been trained on recordings by local musicians without their permission, too. But without any requirement for tech firms to disclose their training data it can’t be confirmed.

    Even if we did know, the copyright implications for works created by AI in Aotearoa New Zealand aren’t clear. And it’s not possible for musicians to opt out in any meaningful way.

    This goes against the data governance model designed by Te Mana Raraunga/Māori Sovereignty Network. Māori writer members of music rights administrator APRA AMCOS have also raised concerns about potential cultural appropriation and misuse due to GenAI.

    Recent research suggesting GenAI work displaces human output in creative industries is particularly worrying for local musicians who already struggle for visibility. But it’s not an isolated phenomenon.

    In Australia, GenAI has reportedly been used to impersonate successful, emerging and dead artists. And French streaming service Deezer claims up to 20,000 tracks created by GenAI were being uploaded to its service daily.

    Regulation in the real world

    There has been increased scrutiny of streaming fraud, including a world-first criminal case brought last year against a musician who used bots to generate millions of streams for tracks created with GenAI.

    But on social media, musicians now compete for attention with a flood of “AI slop”, with no real prospect of platforms doing anything about it.

    More troublingly, New Zealand law has been described as “woefully inadequate” at combating deepfakes and non-consensual intimate imagery that can damage artists’ brands and livelihoods.

    The government’s AI strategy prioritises adoption, innovation and a light-touch approach over these creative and cultural implications. But there is growing consensus internationally that regulatory intervention is warranted.

    The European Union has enacted legislation requiring AI services to be transparent about what they have trained their models on, an important first step towards an AI licensing regime for recorded and musical works.

    An Australian senate committee has recommended whole-of-economy AI guardrails, including transparency requirements in line with the EU. Denmark has gone even further, with plans to give every citizen copyright of their own facial features, voice and body, including specific protections for performing artists.

    It’s nearly ten years since the music business was described as the “canary in a coalmine” for other industries and a bellwether of broader cultural and economic shifts. How we address the current challenges presented by AI in music will have far-reaching implications.

    Dave Carter is a writer member of APRA AMCOS. He has received funding and contributed to projects funded by Manatū Taongao Ministry for Culture and Heritage, NZ on Air and APRA AMCOS.

    Jesse Austin-Stewart has completed commissioned research for NZ On Air and participated in focus groups for Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage. He has received competitive funding from Creative New Zealand, NZ On Air, Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture & Hertiage, and the NZ Music Commission. He is a writer member of APRA AMCOS and a member of the Composer’s Association of New Zealand and Recorded Music NZ

    Oli Wilson has previously completed research in partnership with or commissioned by APRA AMCOS, Toi Mai Workforce Development Council, Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture & Heritage and the NZ Music Commission. He has also received funding, or contributed to projects that have benefited from funding from NZ on Air, the NZ Music Commission and Recorded Music New Zealand. He has provided services to The Chills, owns shares in TripTunz Limited, and is a writer member of APRA AMCOS.

    – ref. Music is at the forefront of AI disruption, but NZ artists still have few protections – https://theconversation.com/music-is-at-the-forefront-of-ai-disruption-but-nz-artists-still-have-few-protections-260299

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Can’t work out without music? Neither could the ancient Greeks and Romans

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Konstantine Panegyres, Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History, The University of Western Australia

    Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

    These days when you see people exercising, they’re usually also listening to music, whether they’re at the gym, or out jogging on the street.

    It makes sense, as studies have shown listening to music can help you get the most out of a workout.

    Somehow the ancient Greeks and Romans knew this too, long before modern science was there to back it.

    A more than 2,000-year-old habit

    In his oration To the People of Alexandria, the Greek writer Dio Chrysostom (40-110 CE) complained about a phenomenon he saw all the time.

    Dio wrote people loved to listen to music in their daily activities. According to him, music could be found in the courtroom, in the lecture theatre, in the doctor’s room, and even in the gym.

    “Everything is done to music […] people will presently go so far as to use song to accompany their exercise in the gymnasium,” Dio wrote.

    But exercising to music wasn’t a new thing in his day. This practice has been recorded across the ancient Greek and Roman worlds from the earliest times, and as far back as the poems of Homer (circa 800 BCE).

    Why exercise to music?

    There are many depictions of professional athletes training, or competing, to the accompaniment of music in ancient Greek vase paintings.

    In one vase painting from the 5th century BCE, a group of athletes trains while a musician plays the aulos, a type of ancient pipe instrument.

    Young men exercising to the sound of an aulos player (an ancient wind instrument).
    Wikimedia

    The ancient writer Plutarch of Chaeronea (46-119 CE) tells us music was also played while people wrestled or did athletics.

    Athenian writer Flavius Philostratus (circa 170-245 CE) offers clues as to why. In a book about gymnastics, Philostratus wrote music served to stimulate athletes, and that their performance might be improved through listening to music.

    Today’s researchers have proven this to be true. One 2020 study involving 3,599 participants showed listening to music during exercise had many benefits, such as reducing the perception of fatigue and exertion, and improving physical performance and breathing.

    Singing and trumpets

    Since ancient people didn’t have electronic devices, they found other ways to exercise to music. Some had music played by a musician during their exercise routine. Others sang while they exercised.

    Singing while playing ball games was particularly popular. In Homer’s Odyssey (circa 8th century BCE), Nausicaa, the daughter of the King of Phaeacia, plays a ball game with her girl friends, and they all sing songs as they play.

    Similarly, the historian Carystius of Pergamum (2nd century BCE) wrote the women of his time “sang as they played ball”.

    Another popular activity was dancing to music. Dancing was widely regarded as a gymnastic exercise people could do for better health.

    One famous advocate of the benefits of dancing as exercise was the great Athenian philosopher Socrates (circa 470-399 BCE). According to the historian Diogenes Laertius (3rd century CE), “it was Socrates’ regular habit to dance, thinking that such exercise helped to keep the body in good condition”.

    Exercising to music was depicted in several ancient Greek vase painting.
    Wikimedia, CC BY-NC-SA

    Apart from individuals using music in their personal exercise, soldiers also did training exercises, and marched to battle, to the sound of trumpets.

    Don’t skip leg day

    There was a belief in ancient Greek and Roman that music and exercise played an important role in shaping and developing the body and soul.

    The ideal was harmony and moderation. The body and soul needed to be balanced and proportionate in all their parts, without any excess. As such, doing one kind of exercise too often, or exercising one body part excessively, was frowned upon.

    The physician Galen of Pergamum (129-216 CE) criticised types of exercise that focused too much on one part of the body. He preferred ball games as they exercised the whole body evenly.

    Immoderation in music – that is, listening to too much, or listening to music that was too emotional – was also sometimes frowned upon.

    For example, the Athenian philosopher Plato (circa 428-348 BCE) famously argued most music should be censored as it can stir the passions too strongly. Plato thought only simple and unemotional music, listened to in moderation, should be allowed.

    If the ancients could see today’s people running along the pavement with music thumping in their ears, they would surely be amazed. And they’d probably approve – as long as it wasn’t being done in excess.

    Konstantine Panegyres 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. Can’t work out without music? Neither could the ancient Greeks and Romans – https://theconversation.com/cant-work-out-without-music-neither-could-the-ancient-greeks-and-romans-258069

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Soaring house prices may be locking people into marriages, new research shows

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Whelan, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Sydney

    GAS-photo/Shutterstock

    House prices continued to rise across Australia in June, recent data shows. Nationally, prices have risen about 38% in the past five years.

    Higher housing prices are simply one contributor, albeit a very important one, to the cost of living crisis that Australian households face. Energy prices are another.

    Those higher costs of living and the financial stress associated with them are linked to a range of negative outcomes for households, including poor health and wellbeing, greater housing insecurity, and some families having to go without some essential items.

    One consequence of house prices that has largely been ignored is their relationship to marriage and divorce.

    Divorce rates are at historic lows

    The rate of divorce in Australia is at the lowest level since the introduction of no-fault divorce in 1976.

    The 1990s recession was also a period of significant financial hardship for households, and divorces rose over that time. Why isn’t this happening now?

    Couples may prefer to divorce but can’t for financial reasons.

    Why? Put simply, divorce is a decision that brings with it significant costs. The financial implications of divorce could mean couples stay together longer than they’d like to.

    Why do people choose to marry or separate?

    To understand patterns of divorce, a good place to start is to think about why couples choose to marry, or separate, in the first place.

    Economists argue that individuals marry if the expected benefits from marriage exceed the benefits from remaining single.

    As new information arises or unexpected outcomes occur, individuals may reassess their beliefs about the expected benefits from being married versus being single.

    In turn, we might expect that separation occurs if either partner believes they will be better off outside the marriage than within it, taking into account all costs and constraints.

    How housing prices can affect the likelihood of divorce

    Research shows that housing prices are closely linked to a range of household behaviours and outcomes, including consumer spending, labour supply and fertility intentions.

    Rising housing prices might encourage couples to remain married (or not separate) due to the higher housing costs they would face if they separated.

    It is generally cheaper to run a single household where many resources are shared rather than two separate households. This may be thought of as a cost that accompanies higher house prices.

    The high cost of housing can affect couples’ decisions to separate.
    Elias Bitar/Shutterstock

    Of course, higher house prices also offer some benefit in the event of separation. For homeowners, the asset held by the couple is more valuable and the wealth each partner may be entitled to is greater. This benefit from separation might encourage couples to separate and divorce.

    Our research, presented at the Australian Conference of Economists last week and not yet peer reviewed, addresses this issue. We looked at whether unanticipated changes in the growth of housing prices are related to the likelihood of divorce.

    It is important to focus on unanticipated changes in housing prices. Unanticipated changes, or “shocks”, will lead individuals to reassess their decision to stay married, or separate and divorce.

    Which factors explain divorce in Australia?

    Our research sought to understand the key factors associated with divorce in Australia using the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey.

    Not unexpectedly we found couples who share similar traits such as the same religion, education level or place of birth are more likely to remain married. A longer time being married is also linked to couples being less likely to separate. In contrast, partners whose parents had divorced are more likely to separate.

    Importantly, the inclusion of housing price shocks into our analysis indicates they have a significant effect on the likelihood of divorce. But the effect differs depending on whether the housing price shock is positive or negative.

    For homeowners, lower-than-anticipated housing price growth significantly increases the likelihood of separation. In this case the cost of lower house prices is more important than the benefit of lower house prices. When house prices don’t grow as quickly as anticipated, couples can separate knowing they will not face as large a penalty running separate households.

    So what lesson may be drawn from this research and why is a link between housing prices and divorce important?

    Our findings indicate higher-than-expected house price growth may be keeping some people in marriages they’d otherwise leave, but don’t, for financial concerns. This is more likely to include women with low education levels, low-income households and older couples.

    In some instances, this will have negative consequences. Often those harmful consequences are disproportionately experienced by women and policy settings have a role to play in reducing those effects.

    One only needs to look at initiatives such as the Leaving Violence Program. By providing financial support to assist people leaving potentially dangerous relationships, it will alleviate barriers associated with high housing costs that come after separation.

    Stephen Whelan receives funding from the Australian Research Council as part of DP230101054. Funding is also received from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute for project 24/PRO/73346.

    Luke Hartigan receives funding from the Australian Research Council as part of DP230100959.

    – ref. Soaring house prices may be locking people into marriages, new research shows – https://theconversation.com/soaring-house-prices-may-be-locking-people-into-marriages-new-research-shows-260086

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What’s happened to Australia’s green hydrogen dream? Here are 5 reasons the industry has floundered

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Reeve, Program Director, Energy and Climate Change, Grattan Institute

    An official from German energy supplier Eon with Fortescue founder Andrew Forrest after inking a deal in 2022 to supply green hydrogen from Australia to Germany. Michael Kappeler/picture alliance via Getty Images

    As the world looks for ways to tackle climate change, Australia has invested heavily in green hydrogen.

    Green hydrogen is shaping as the best option to strip carbon emissions from some industrial processes, such as iron-making and ammonia production. But making the dream a reality in Australia is proving difficult.

    Two recent announcements are a case in point. This month, the Queensland government withdrew financial support for the Central Queensland Hydrogen Hub. It came weeks after energy company Fortescue cut 90 green hydrogen jobs in Queensland and Western Australia.

    I led the development of Australia’s National Hydrogen Strategy in 2019, in my previous job as a federal public servant. I also co-authored a Grattan Institute report on how hydrogen could help decarbonise the Australian economy. Here, I explain the main challenges to getting the industry off the ground.

    But first, what is green hydrogen?

    Hydrogen is the lightest and most abundant element in the universe. It’s usually found as a gas, or bonded to other elements.

    It’s used to make products such as fertilisers, explosives and plastics. In future, it may also be a zero-emissions replacement for fossil fuels in industries such as steel and chemicals manufacturing.

    Australia currently makes very low volumes of hydrogen using natural gas, which produces greenhouse gas emissions. We are well-placed to produce “green” or zero-emissions hydrogen, through a process powered by renewable energy which releases hydrogen from water.

    But creating a large green hydrogen industry won’t be easy. These are the main five challenges.

    1. The learning curve is steep

    About 15 facilities in Australia are currently producing green hydrogen, all at low volumes – between 8 kilograms and one tonne a day (see chart below).

    By contrast, most recently cancelled projects would have produced hundreds of tonnes of green hydrogen daily. The Central Queensland Hydrogen Hub, for example, would initially have produced about 200 tonnes a day, scaling up to 800 tonnes in the 2030s.

    The failure of these big projects shows Australia has much to learn about planning, building, commissioning and operating large green hydrogen facilities.

    The hydrogen projects currently operating in Australia are orders of magnitude smaller than those proposed.
    Grattan Insitute, CC BY-NC-SA

    2. Demand is limited

    Very little hydrogen is currently used in Australia – around 500,000 tonnes a year. This is less than 1% of national energy consumption.

    Most of this hydrogen is produced using natural gas, and is produced on site at existing industrial operations that require hydrogen, such as oil refiners and ammonia plants. Using hydrogen from a different source would require major – and costly – engineering changes at these facilities.

    So, how do new green hydrogen producers create demand for their product?

    The first option is to convince a company to spend money changing their operations to bring in green hydrogen from outside. This is not an easy prospect. The second is to find big new markets – which leads to the next challenge.

    3. The chicken-and-egg problem

    Renewable hydrogen isn’t a direct substitute for conventional fuels.

    You can’t burn hydrogen in your gas stovetop without changing the pipes in the house and the burners on the stove. Likewise, you can’t use hydrogen as a substitute for coal when making steel without changing the smelting process.

    This creates a chicken-and-egg problem. Green hydrogen proponents won’t invest in high-volume production unless there are large users to buy the product. But large users won’t invest in changing their processes unless they are assured of supply.

    4. Green hydrogen is expensive

    Green hydrogen is much more expensive than conventional hydrogen. And as yet, there’s little evidence buyers are willing pay more for it.

    So for green hydrogen to compete with conventional production, it needs government subsidies.

    The huge expense is largely due to the electricity used to make green hydrogen – prices of which are currently high.

    As renewable energy expands, electricity prices in Australia are expected to fall. But building more large-scale renewable generation in Australia is itself a difficult prospect.

    5. Economic and political turmoil

    Recent turmoil in global markets has made companies more cautious about investing outside their core business. And global inflation has helped drive up the cost of electricity needed to produce green hydrogen.

    Globally, governments have scrambled to keep national economies afloat, which has led to cuts in green hydrogen in several countries.

    In Australia, green hydrogen is still key to the Albanese government’s Future Made in Australia policy. And hydrogen has been a rare area of agreement between the two major parties, at both federal and state levels.

    But there are signs this is changing. The federal opposition last year fought the government’s hydrogen tax credits, and the withdrawal of support for the Central Queensland Hydrogen Hub came from the Queensland LNP government, which won office in October last year.

    What next?

    There is a long road ahead if green hydrogen is to help Australia reach its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

    So what have we learned so far?

    Many scrapped projects tried to implement a “hub” model – combining multiple users in one place, which was designed to make it more attractive to suppliers. But this was difficult to co-ordinate, and vulnerable to changing global conditions.

    The green hydrogen industry should focus on the most promising uses for its product. For example, if it could successfully make enough green hydrogen to supply ammonia production, it could build on this to eventually support a bigger industry, such as iron-making.

    It’s also time to rethink how subsidies are structured, to reflect the fact some sectors are better bets than others. At present, the federal government’s Hydrogen Headstart program and the hydrogen tax credit are agnostic as to how the hydrogen is used, which does little to help demand emerge in the right places.

    Finally, political unity must be renewed. Hydrogen projects require a lot of capital, and investors get nervous when an industry does not have bipartisan support.

    The hype around green hydrogen in Australia is fading. There are some reasons for hope – but success will require a lot of hard work.

    Since 2008, the Grattan Institute has been supported by government, corporations, and philanthropic gifts. A full list of supporters is published at www.grattan.edu.au.

    – ref. What’s happened to Australia’s green hydrogen dream? Here are 5 reasons the industry has floundered – https://theconversation.com/whats-happened-to-australias-green-hydrogen-dream-here-are-5-reasons-the-industry-has-floundered-260634

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Even a day off alcohol makes a difference – our timeline maps the health benefits when you stop drinking

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Lee, Adjunct Professor at the National Drug Research Institute (Melbourne based), Curtin University

    d3sign/Getty

    Alcohol has many negative effects on our health, some of which may surprise you. These include short-term impacts such as waking up with a pounding head or anxiety, to long-term effects including cancer.

    If you are thinking about taking some time off alcohol, you’ll find many quick wins and long-term gains for your health.

    How long will you have to wait to feel the benefits?

    We’ve made a timeline – based on scientific research – that shows what you might feel in the first days, weeks, months and years after taking a break from alcohol.

    Some benefits start immediately, so every day without alcohol is a win for your health.

    After one day

    Alcohol takes around 24 hours to completely leave your body, so you may start noticing improvements after just one day.

    Alcohol makes you need to urinate more often, causing dehydration. But your body can absorb a glass of water almost immediately, so once alcohol is out of your system alcohol dehydration is reduced, improving digestion, brain function and energy levels.

    Alcohol also reduces the liver’s ability to regulate blood sugar. Once alcohol leaves the system, blood sugar begins to normalise.

    If you are a daily drinker you may feel a bit worse to start with while your body adjusts to not having alcohol in its system all the time. You may initially notice disrupted sleep, mood changes, sweating or tremors. Most symptoms usually resolve in about a week without alcohol.

    After one week

    Even though alcohol can make you feel sleepy at first, it disrupts your sleep cycle. By the end of an alcohol-free week, you may notice you are more energetic in the mornings as a result of getting better quality sleep.

    As the body’s filter, the liver does much of the heavy lifting in processing alcohol and can be easily damaged even with moderate drinking.

    The liver is important for cleaning blood, processing nutrients and producing bile that helps with digestion.

    But it can also regenerate quickly. If you have only mild damage in the liver, seven days may be enough to reduce liver fat and heal mild scarring and tissue damage.

    Even small amounts of alcohol can impair brain functioning. So quitting can help improve brain health within a few days in light to moderate drinkers and within a month even for very heavy dependent drinkers.

    Alcohol damages your liver, but it’s very good at regenerating and healing itself.
    skynesher/Getty

    After one month

    Alcohol can make managing mood harder and worsen symptoms of anxiety and depression. After a few weeks, most people start to feel better. Even very heavy drinkers report better mood after one to two months.

    As your sleep and mood improve you may also notice more energy and greater wellbeing.

    After a month of abstinence regular drinkers also report feeling more confident about making changes to how they drink.

    You may lose weight and body fat. Alcohol contains a lot of kilojules and can trigger hunger reward systems, making us overeat or choose less healthy foods when drinking.

    Even your skin will thank you. Alcohol can make you look older through dehydration and inflammation, which can be reversed when you quit.

    Alcohol irritates the gut and disrupts normal stomach functioning, causing bloating, indigestion, heartburn and diarrhoea. These symptoms usually start to resolve within four weeks.

    One month of abstinence, insulin resistance – which can lead to high blood sugar – significantly reduces by 25%. Blood pressure also reduces (by 6%) and cancer-related growth factors declines, lowering your risk of cancer.

    After six months

    The liver starts to repair within weeks. For moderate drinkers, damage to your liver could be fully reversed by six months.

    At this point, even heavy drinkers may notice they’re better at fighting infections and feel healthier overall.

    Just a month without alcohol can you make more confident about sticking to changes.
    Yue_/Getty

    After one year or more

    Alcohol contributes to or causes a large number of chronic diseases, including heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and seven different types of cancer, as well as mental health issues. All of these risks can be reduced by quitting or cutting back on alcohol.

    Alcohol increases blood pressure. High blood pressure (hypertension) is the top risk factor for death in the world. A small 2mmHg increase in blood pressure above the normal range (120mmHG) increases death from stroke by 10% and from coronary artery disease by 7%.

    Cutting back on alcohol to less than two drinks a day can reduce blood pressure significantly, reducing risk of stroke and heart disease. Reducing blood pressure also reduces risk of kidney disease, eye problems and even erectile dysfunction.

    With sustained abstinence, your risk of getting any type of cancer drops. One study looked at cancer risk for more than 4 million adults over three to seven years and found the risk of alcohol-related cancer dropped by 4%, even for light drinkers who quit. Reducing from heavy to moderate drinking reduced alcohol-related cancer risk by 9%.

    Making a change

    Any reduction in drinking will have some noticeable and immediate benefits to your brain and general health. The less you drink and the longer you go between drinks, the healthier you will be.

    Whether you aim to cut back or quit entirely, there are some simple things you can do to help you stick with it:

    If you are still wondering about whether to make changes or not you can check your drinking risk here.

    If you have tried to cut back and found it difficult you may need professional help. Call the National Alcohol and other Drug Hotline on 1800 250 015 and they will put you in touch with services in your area that can help. You can also talk to your GP.

    We would like to thank Dr Hannah MacRae for assistance in identifying the research used in this article.

    Nicole Lee works as a paid evaluation and training consultant in alcohol and other drugs. She has previously been awarded grants by state and federal governments, NHMRC and other public funding bodies for alcohol and other drug research. She is CEO of Hello Sunday Morning.

    Dr Katinka van de Ven is the Research Manager of Hello Sunday Morning. She also works as a paid evaluation and training consultant in alcohol and other drugs. Katinka has previously been awarded grants by state governments and public funding bodies for alcohol and other drug research.

    – ref. Even a day off alcohol makes a difference – our timeline maps the health benefits when you stop drinking – https://theconversation.com/even-a-day-off-alcohol-makes-a-difference-our-timeline-maps-the-health-benefits-when-you-stop-drinking-249272

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘You become a target’: research shows why many people who experience racism don’t report it

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mario Peucker, Associate Professor and Principal Research Fellow, Institute for Sustainable Industries and Liveable Cities, Victoria University

    The way racism manifests itself may have changed over time, but it remains a persistent problem in Australia.

    The 2024 Reconciliation Barometer found a significant increase in racism against First Nations people. Antisemitism and Islamophobia have also been on the rise.

    Many other migrant communities and their Australian-born descendants continue to face racial discrimination, abuse and systemic marginalisation.

    And yet the true picture of racism in Australia is hard to determine, as a lot of racism goes unreported. Our soon to be published research reveals people often don’t know how to come forward, are scared of negative consequences, or simply don’t think anything would change if they did report it.

    Unheard voices

    The silencing of those who have experienced racism manifests in various ways, including the sceptical, at times hostile public reactions to those who speak out publicly.

    But our research, funded by VicHealth and accepted for publication by the journal Ethnic and Racial Studies, analysed how inadequate formal reporting pathways can mean people don’t come forward about their experiences.

    We conducted a survey of more than 700 people, then focus groups with almost 160 people. In total, we examined the experiences of 859 Victorian adults from culturally or racially marginalised communities.

    The vast majority of them – 76% of the survey respondents – had experienced racism in Australia, across many areas of life. These experiences happened at work, in shopping centres, on public transport and on the streets. Some also encountered racism in schools, healthcare, housing, online or when dealing with police.

    But crucially, only 15.5% of them had ever reported any such incident to an organisation.

    Unsurprisingly, one of the reasons why people do not report is that many are not aware of existing reporting options, for example through the federal or states’ human rights commissions.

    For 75.2% of survey respondents, not knowing where and how to report was a key barrier. The only place most people knew about was the police, which was often not seen as appropriate unless the incident involved physical violence.

    Moreover, trust in an effective response by police was generally low. A Muslim woman in one of the focus groups said:

    the biggest reason [for not reporting] is probably not knowing. The obvious is the police station, but then, well, many of us already feel that police won’t do much. But what else is out there?

    High cost, low reward

    An even bigger obstacle is that reporting racism was commonly considered high-cost, but low-reward. Most participants (83.2%) were deterred by the conviction that the process was taking too much time and effort.

    As one Asian-Australian participant stated:

    I imagine the reporting to be a long process. Do I want to go through the process, especially as a migrant. You ask yourself: is it life and death? If not, let me just get on with my day.

    Many highlighted concerns they would not be taken seriously (75.9%) or that reporting would have negative consequences for them or their children (72.8%). They were also concerned about how reporting could negatively affect their career, treatment at school or even their legal resident status.

    An African-Australian man said:

    You know you’re gonna be a double victim. Let’s say at your workplace, if you report racism, straight away […] you become a target.

    No accountability

    These factors shape the discouraging perspective that reporting is a high-cost action.

    But what makes it even worse is the very common conviction, expressed by 90.6% of survey respondents, that “nothing would change” even if they were to report, and that there was no accountability for racist behaviour.

    A Somali-born mother, whose daughter was called a racist slur by her teacher, complained to the school principal, but “he didn’t do anything”. She said her kids and their friends “all agreed that no one would do anything about this”. She said:

    They have this belief that if they make a complaint, it will not go anywhere. They all said the same thing: If you go somewhere, no one will care.

    Another survey participant said reporting racism would have to be worth the effort:

    We need to know that the mental and emotional sacrifice of reporting will be worth it, that it will result in an outcome. Why would I report racism if nothing will be done?

    ‘Don’t rock the boat’

    In addition, there are other psychological factors at play.

    Of those surveyed, 70.1% explained they refrain from reporting because they don’t want to “cause trouble”. In the focus groups, participants often spoke about not wanting to “rock the boat” or refraining from “talking bad, talking about racism because they might hate us”.

    Similarly, others are so determined to “blend in” they feel they have to accept racism. A Chinese-Australian participant explained her community wouldn’t complain because:

    we want to, and try to, fit in. And we have come to accept a little bit of tough treatment.

    Even protecting the perpetrators of racism from harm was described by some as a reason for not reporting:

    I thought by reporting I would hurt her [the perpetrator], and in our culture, we should not be hurting another person.

    What can be done?

    Our research shows racism often goes undetected and unreported due to systemic and cultural barriers. As a result, injustice remains unchallenged and normalised.

    But communities are finding alternative ways of speaking out against racism, often outside formal reporting channels.

    Following our research, for example, three local community-led anti-racism support networks have been set up in parts of Victoria to complement the existing support and reporting system.

    These networks provide trusted and culturally safe spaces and support to those who face racism. They have started to systematically document racism, working towards local evidence that can be used to raise awareness and inform targeted anti-racism actions in the future.

    Networks like these could be introduced around the country to give people more options to come forward.

    We won’t be able to properly address racism while those experiencing it think they won’t be listened to. We all need to ensure racist incidents are taken seriously, responded to promptly and that people are heard.

    Mario Peucker receives funding from the Victorian Government and VicHealth.

    Franka Vaughan receives funding from VicHealth

    Jo Doley received funding from VicHealth.

    Tom Clark receives funding from VicHealth.

    – ref. ‘You become a target’: research shows why many people who experience racism don’t report it – https://theconversation.com/you-become-a-target-research-shows-why-many-people-who-experience-racism-dont-report-it-260092

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Cycling can be 4 times more efficient than walking. A biomechanics expert explains why

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Blazevich, Professor of Biomechanics, Edith Cowan University

    You’re standing at your front door, facing a five kilometre commute to work. But you don’t have your car, and there’s no bus route. You can walk for an hour – or jump on your bicycle and arrive in 15 minutes, barely breaking a sweat. You choose the latter.

    Many people would make the same choice. It’s estimated that there are more than a billion bikes in the world. Cycling represents one of the most energy-efficient forms of transport ever invented, allowing humans to travel faster and farther while using less energy than walking or running.

    But why exactly does pedalling feel so much easier than pounding the pavement? The answer lies in the elegant biomechanics of how our bodies interact with this two-wheeled machine.

    A wonderfully simple machine

    At its heart, a bicycle is wonderfully simple: two wheels (hence “bi-cycle”), pedals that transfer power through a chain to the rear wheel, and gears that let us fine-tune our effort. But this simplicity masks an engineering that perfectly complements human physiology.

    When we walk or run, we essentially fall forward in a controlled manner, catching ourselves with each step. Our legs must swing through large arcs, lifting our heavy limbs against gravity with every stride. This swinging motion alone consumes a lot of energy. Imagine: how tiring would it be to even swing your arms continuously for an hour?

    On a bicycle, your legs move through a much smaller, circular motion. Instead of swinging your entire leg weight with each step, you’re simply rotating your thighs and calves through a compact pedalling cycle. The energy savings are immediately noticeable.

    But the real efficiency gains come from how bicycles transfer human power to forward motion. When you walk or run, each footstep involves a mini-collision with the ground. You can hear it as the slap of your shoe against the road, and you can feel it as vibrations running through your body. This is energy being lost, literally dissipated as sound and heat after being sent through your muscles and joints.

    Walking and running also involve another source of inefficiency: with each step, you actually brake yourself slightly before propelling forward. As your foot lands ahead of your body, it creates a backwards force that momentarily slows you down. Your muscles then have to work extra hard to overcome this self-imposed braking and accelerate you forward again.

    Kissing the road

    Bicycles use one of the world’s great inventions to solve these problems – wheels.

    Instead of a collision, you get rolling contact – each part of the tyre gently “kisses” the road surface before lifting off. No energy is lost to impact. And because the wheel rotates smoothly so the force acts perfectly vertically on the ground, there’s no stop-start braking action. The force from your pedalling translates directly into forward motion.

    But bicycles also help our muscles to work at their best. Human muscles have a fundamental limitation: the faster they contract, the weaker they become and the more energy they consume.

    This is the famous force-velocity relationship of muscles. And it’s why sprinting feels so much harder than jogging or walking – your muscles are working near their speed limit, becoming less efficient with every stride.

    Bicycle gears solve this problem for us. As you go faster, you can shift to a higher gear so your muscles don’t have to work faster while the bike accelerates. Your muscles can stay in their sweet spot for both force production and energy cost. It’s like having a personal assistant that continuously adjusts your workload to keep you in the peak performance zone.

    Cycling can be at least four times more energy-efficient than walking and eight times more efficient than running.
    The Conversation, CC BY

    Walking sometimes wins out

    But bicycles aren’t always superior.

    On very steep hills of more than about 15% gradient (so you rise 1.5 metres every 10 metres of distance), your legs struggle to generate enough force through the circular pedalling motion to lift you and the bike up the hill. We can produce more force by pushing our legs straight out, so walking (or climbing) becomes more effective.

    Even if roads were built, we wouldn’t pedal up Mount Everest.

    This isn’t the case for downhills. While cycling downhill becomes progressively easier (eventually requiring no energy at all), walking down steep slopes actually becomes harder.

    Once the gradient exceeds about 10% (it drops by one metre for every ten metres of distance), each downhill step creates jarring impacts that waste energy and stress your joints. Walking and running downhill isn’t always as easy as we’d expect.

    Not just a transportation device

    The numbers speak for themselves. Cycling can be at least four times more energy-efficient than walking and eight times more efficient than running. This efficiency comes from minimising three major energy drains: limb movement, ground impact and muscle speed limitations.

    So next time you effortlessly cruise past pedestrians on your morning bike commute, take a moment to appreciate the biomechanical work of art beneath you. Your bicycle isn’t just a transport device, but a perfectly evolved machine that works in partnership with your physiology, turning your raw muscle power into efficient motion.

    Anthony Blazevich 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. Cycling can be 4 times more efficient than walking. A biomechanics expert explains why – https://theconversation.com/cycling-can-be-4-times-more-efficient-than-walking-a-biomechanics-expert-explains-why-257120

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –