NewzIntel.com

Category: Academic Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Global: Those ‘what I eat in a day’ TikTok videos aren’t helpful. They might even be harmful

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Catherine Houlihan, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, University of the Sunshine Coast

    Iren_Geo/Shutterstock

    You may have come across those “what I eat in a day” videos on social media, where people – usually conventionally attractive influencers wearing activewear – list everything they consumed that day.

    They might seem like harmless fun but in fact they can reinforce dangerous ideas about food, weight and body image.

    I’ve worked with people with eating disorders who watch these videos and have seen first hand how harmful this content can be.

    Here’s what the research says and what you need to know.

    Videos that promote ‘health’ can be unhealthy

    “What I eat in a day” videos have been popular for over a decade, with views reaching in the billions.

    They target both men and women and many claim to promote health and nutrition. Yet videos such as these can do more harm than good.

    Very few of these creators have formal qualifications in health or nutrition, increasing the potential for misinformation.

    They often depict low calorie diets, exclude entire food groups or promote “clean eating” (a problematic idea at best).

    Some even encourage dangerous behaviours such as skipping meals, eating very little or using laxatives to purge food.

    They can also send harmful messages about body image. Many such videos use beauty filters to create images promoting unrealistic body ideals.

    These videos often feature shots of how the person looks from the front, the side, in the gym, and in tight, form-fitting clothes. There may even be some “before and after” weight loss pics, sending the harmful message this should be everyone’s goal.

    The subtext is clear: “eat what I eat in a day and you can look like me”.

    But that’s not just a dangerous idea – it’s a totally false and erroneous one.

    Knowing what a certain person “eats in a day” doesn’t mean you’ll look like them if you follow their lead.

    In fact, a 24-hour rundown of one person’s food intake doesn’t even provide accurate information about that person’s nutritional health – let alone yours.

    These videos can target both men and women.
    Veja/Shutterstock

    You are not them

    Like our health, our nutritional needs are unique to us and can vary day to day.

    What constitutes a “healthy” choice for one person might be totally different for another depending on things such as:

    Links between health and diet are best examined over time, not in a single day.

    Basing our food intake on a brief snapshot of what someone else eats is unlikely to lead to better health. It might leave you worse off overall.

    5 ways these videos can affect mental health

    What we watch online can affect our mood, behaviour and body image.

    Alarm bells should ring if you frequently see these videos and notice you’re doing or experiencing these five things:

    1. disordered eating. Eating less than your body needs, skipping meals, cutting out entire food groups, binge eating and purging are all signs of disordered eating that can lead to serious mental health problems such as eating disorders

    2. low mood. Watching videos promoting low-calorie diets can worsen our mood; you might find yourself feeling deflated after comparing yourself to others (or rather, to the version of themselves they promote online)

    3. poor body image. Research shows watching “what I eat in a day” videos can leave people feeling worse about their bodies and appreciating them less

    4. obsessive thinking and anxiety. Obsessing over the “perfect” diet can increase anxiety about food and eating. Diets that encourage a very detailed approach to nutrition – including breaking meals down into components such as carbohydrates and proteins or weighing food – can further fuel obsessive thoughts

    5. narrow life focus. Having your social media feed filled with these types of videos can create an overemphasis on the importance of food, eating and body image on your self-worth. This ultimately affects your health and wellbeing.

    What we watch online can affect our mood, behaviour, and body image.
    GaudiLab/Shutterstock

    OK, so what can I do?

    If you’re encountering “what I eat in a day” videos often and find they’re affecting your mood, eating behaviour or sense of self-worth you can try to:

    • understand that these videos are not tailored to your individual health or nutritional needs and that many contain harmful messaging
    • avoid engaging with videos that promote disordered eating, idealised beauty standards or that make you feel bad after you watch them
    • unfollow accounts that regularly post such videos, or tap “not interested” on the TikTok video to stop the algorithm showing you more of them
    • balance your social media feed with content focused on other areas of life besides food and eating (such as art, design, animals, books, sports or travel). Fill your feed with interests that improve your personal sense of wellbeing
    • consider taking regular breaks from social media and seeing if you feel better overall.

    If you do want to view posts about food, seek out creators attempting to buck these negative trends by focusing more on fun and taste.

    And if you’re experiencing low mood, disordered eating or body image issues, seek help from your local GP. They can connect you with practitioners who provide evidence-based therapies such as cognitive behavioural therapy.

    If you have a history of an eating disorder or suspect you may have one, you can contact the Butterfly Foundation’s national helpline on 1800 334 673 (or via their online chat).

    Ultimately, “what I eat in a day” videos aren’t really helpful. They contain very little useful information to guide your health or nutritional goals.

    If you are considering making changes to your diet, it’s important to consult a qualified professional, such as an accredited practising dietitian, who can learn about your situation and monitor any risks.

    Catherine Houlihan consults with an eating disorders service owned and operated by the Butterfly Foundation.

    – ref. Those ‘what I eat in a day’ TikTok videos aren’t helpful. They might even be harmful – https://theconversation.com/those-what-i-eat-in-a-day-tiktok-videos-arent-helpful-they-might-even-be-harmful-257127

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Do you talk to AI when you’re feeling down? Here’s where chatbots get their therapy advice

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Centaine Snoswell, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland

    Pexels/Mikoto

    As more and more people spend time chatting with artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots such as ChatGPT, the topic of mental health has naturally emerged. Some people have positive experiences that make AI seem like a low-cost therapist.

    But AIs aren’t therapists. They’re smart and engaging, but they don’t think like humans. ChatGPT and other generative AI models are like your phone’s auto-complete text feature on steroids. They have learned to converse by reading text scraped from the internet.

    When someone asks a question (called a prompt) such as “how can I stay calm during a stressful work meeting?” the AI forms a response by randomly choosing words that are as close as possible to the data it saw during training. This happens so fast, with responses that are so relevant, it can feel like talking to a person.

    But these models aren’t people. And they definitely are not trained mental health professionals who work under professional guidelines, adhere to a code of ethics, or hold professional registration.

    Where does it learn to talk about this stuff?

    When you prompt an AI system such as ChatGPT, it draws information from three main sources to respond:

    1. background knowledge it memorised during training
    2. external information sources
    3. information you previously provided.

    1. Background knowledge

    To develop an AI language model, the developers teach the model by having it read vast quantities of data in a process called “training”.

    Where does this information come from? Broadly speaking, anything that can be publicly scraped from the internet. This can include everything from academic papers, eBooks, reports, free news articles, through to blogs, YouTube transcripts, or comments from discussion forums such as Reddit.

    Are these sources reliable places to find mental health advice? Sometimes.
    Are they always in your best interest and filtered through a scientific evidence based approach? Not always. The information is also captured at a single point in time when the AI is built, so may be out-of-date.

    A lot of detail also needs to be discarded to squish it into the AI’s “memory”. This is part of why AI models are prone to hallucination and getting details wrong.

    2. External information sources

    The AI developers might connect the chatbot itself with external tools, or knowledge sources, such as Google for searches or a curated database.

    When you ask Microsoft’s Bing Copilot a question and you see numbered references in the answer, this indicates the AI has relied on an external search to get updated information in addition to what is stored in its memory.

    Meanwhile, some dedicated mental health chatbots are able to access therapy guides and materials to help direct conversations along helpful lines.

    3. Information previously provided

    AI platforms also have access to information you have previously supplied in conversations, or when signing up to the platform.

    When you register for the companion AI platform Replika, for example, it learns your name, pronouns, age, preferred companion appearance and gender, IP address and location, the kind of device you are using, and more (as well as your credit card details).

    On many chatbot platforms, anything you’ve ever said to an AI companion might be stored away for future reference. All of these details can be dredged up and referenced when an AI responds.

    And we know these AI systems are like friends who affirm what you say (a problem known as sycophancy) and steer conversation back to interests you have already discussed. This is unlike a professional therapist who can draw from training and experience to help challenge or redirect your thinking where needed.

    What about specific apps for mental health?

    Most people would be familiar with the big models such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, or Microsofts’ Copilot. These are general purpose models. They are not limited to specific topics or trained to answer any specific questions.

    But developers can make specialised AIs that are trained to discuss specific topics, like mental health, such as Woebot and Wysa.

    Some studies show these mental health specific chatbots might be able to reduce users’ anxiety and depression symptoms. Or that they can improve therapy techniques such as journalling, by providing guidance. There is also some evidence that AI-therapy and professional therapy deliver some equivalent mental health outcomes in the short term.

    However, these studies have all examined short-term use. We do not yet know what impacts excessive or long-term chatbot use has on mental health. Many studies also exclude participants who are suicidal or who have a severe psychotic disorder. And many studies are funded by the developers of the same chatbots, so the research may be biased.

    Researchers are also identifying potential harms and mental health risks. The companion chat platform Character.ai, for example, has been implicated in ongoing legal case over a user suicide.

    This evidence all suggests AI chatbots may be an option to fill gaps where there is a shortage in mental health professionals, assist with referrals, or at least provide interim support between appointments or to support people on waitlists.

    Bottom line

    At this stage, it’s hard to say whether AI chatbots are reliable and safe enough to use as a stand-alone therapy option.

    More research is needed to identify if certain types of users are more at risk of the harms that AI chatbots might bring.

    It’s also unclear if we need to be worried about emotional dependence, unhealthy attachment, worsening loneliness, or intensive use.

    AI chatbots may be a useful place to start when you’re having a bad day and just need a chat. But when the bad days continue to happen, it’s time to talk to a professional as well.

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

    Laura Neil receives funding through the Australian government Research Training Program Scholarship.

    Centaine Snoswell 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. Do you talk to AI when you’re feeling down? Here’s where chatbots get their therapy advice – https://theconversation.com/do-you-talk-to-ai-when-youre-feeling-down-heres-where-chatbots-get-their-therapy-advice-257732

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Jacaranda, black locust and London plane: common street trees show surprising resilience to growing heat in Australia

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Manuel Esperon-Rodriguez, Senior Lecturer in Ecology, Western Sydney University

    Kokkai Ng/Getty Images

    As Australian cities heat up and dry out, street trees are emerging as frontline defenders of urban liveability.

    Street trees make city life more bearable during heatwaves. They also improve human health and wellbeing, filter pollutants and support biodiversity.

    But as climate change intensifies droughts and dials up more extreme heat, can urban forests survive in a hotter, drier future?

    To find out, we studied how ten of Australia’s most common non-native street trees grow and tolerate drought across seven cities. The familiar species we chose are the well-loved jacaranda and widely planted London plane tree as well as box elder, European nettle tree, honey locust, sweetgum, southern magnolia, callery pear, black locust and Chinese elm.

    Unexpectedly, our new research shows several species tolerate drought better than predicted, including jacaranda and London plane. Some even put on growth spurts during droughts of unprecedented duration and heat. But others showed greater sensitivity than we had anticipated, including honey locust and black locust.

    As cities plan for a hotter future, our research will help urban planners choose the toughest, most resilient street trees.

    Penrith street trees faced the hottest conditions.
    Author provided

    What did we do?

    Street trees cool cities both through their shade and by giving off water through transpiration. These effects can lower local temperatures by several degrees, which helps offset the extra heat trapped by roads, rooftops and hard surfaces.

    But the trees we rely on for cooling are vulnerable to mounting pressures from climate change. Drought, heatwaves and limited soil and water availability in cities can all threaten tree health, growth and survival.

    To test how these species were coping, we chose over 570 street trees in Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney, as well as Mildura in regional Victoria, Mandurah south of Perth and Parramatta and Penrith in Western Sydney.

    We extracted small cores of wood from the trunk, in a process that leaves the tree alive and largely unaffected. The oldest tree we sampled was a 70-year-old southern magnolia in Sydney.

    Growth rings in these cores let us reconstruct their growth histories and assess how they responded both to long-term climate patterns and extreme events such as the Black Summer of 2019–20 and the Millennium Drought from 1997–2009.

    How resilient are these trees?

    What we found was both reassuring and surprising.

    Across all seven cities, the fastest average growth for all species was recorded in Mildura in northern Victoria. Overall, the slowest growth was found in the warmest location – Penrith.

    Some species behaved predictably. The black locust grew faster in cooler, wetter cities such as Melbourne, as expected, while honey locust and Chinese elms grew more slowly in hotter cities.

    But others defied expectations. Species such as London plane and southern magnolia showed consistent growth trends across cities despite the difference in heat, while others varied depending on local conditions.

    Crucially, the growth records showed many street trees responded positively to wetter conditions during the warmest months, most likely due to the longer growing season and increased access to water.

    Surprisingly, species such as box elder and Callery pear actually increased their growth during the very hot periods over the Black Summer of 2019–20 as well as during wetter La Niña periods in 2021–22. This suggests these species have adapted to warm urban environments – or that care and watering was provided.

    Jacarandas have become popular street trees in warmer cities.
    Snowscat/Unsplash, CC BY-NC-ND

    What happened during drought?

    During drought, street trees generally demonstrated strong resistance. This means they maintained their growth during dry periods.

    But their resilience – measured by their ability to bounce back to pre-drought growth rates – was often limited, especially in drier cities.

    While many street trees can withstand short-term stress, this suggests repeated or prolonged droughts can still take a toll on their long-term health.

    Interestingly, species identified as vulnerable in climate models did not always show greater sensitivity to drought or climate extremes in our real-world study.

    Why? Local conditions and species-level characteristics such as leaf size, wood density and water use strategy may play a significant role in determining which individual trees will thrive as the climate changes.

    We also know care provided by council staff or local residents is extremely useful. When trees are irrigated during stressful conditions, they can help get the tree through tough times.

    Why no eucalypts?

    During their growing season each year, many northern hemisphere trees produce growth rings. These rings make it possible to reliably reconstruct their growth histories using our methods.

    But most eucalypts don’t form clear annual growth rings. This is why we didn’t include spotted gums and other common eucalypts seen on city streets.

    Eucalypts tend to grow whenever conditions are favourable rather than being constrained by a strict annual cycle. Only a few native species reliably produce datable annual rings, such as snow gums and alpine ash. This is because they live in cold, high elevation areas, where winter consistently limits growth each year. These conditions aren’t found in any major Australian city.

    What does this mean for city planners?

    Our research shows that species selection matters a great deal.

    Some street trees such as jacarandas, London plane and the European nettle tree can thrive even under extreme heat and drought, while honey locust and Chinese elms are more sensitive to local conditions.

    Authorities can maximise the benefits of urban forests and reduce tree decline or loss by choosing resilient species and matching them to the specific climate of each city or neighbourhood.

    As climate extremes become more common, even resilient species may face new challenges.

    Planting and maintaining diverse, climate-adapted urban forests will help ensure our cities remain liveable, healthy, and green in the decades to come.

    Mark G Tjoelker receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

    Manuel Esperon-Rodriguez, Matthew Brookhouse, and Sally Power 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. Jacaranda, black locust and London plane: common street trees show surprising resilience to growing heat in Australia – https://theconversation.com/jacaranda-black-locust-and-london-plane-common-street-trees-show-surprising-resilience-to-growing-heat-in-australia-257247

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The AI hype is just like the blockchain frenzy – here’s what happens when the hype dies

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Gediminas Lipnickas, Lecturer in Marketing, University of South Australia

    Izf/Shutterstock

    In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has taken centre stage across various industries. From AI-generated art to chatbots in customer service, every sector is seemingly poised for disruption.

    It’s not just in your news feed every day – venture capital is pouring in, while CEOs are eager to declare their companies “AI-first”. But for those who remember the lofty promises of other technologies that have since faded from memory, there’s an uncanny sense of déjà vu.

    In 2017, it was blockchain that promised to transform every industry. Companies added “blockchain” to their name and watched stock prices skyrocket, regardless of whether the technology was actually used, or how.

    Now, a similar trend is emerging with AI. What’s unfolding is not just a wave of innovation, but a textbook example of a tech hype cycle. We’ve been here many times before.

    Understanding the hype cycle

    The tech hype cycle, first defined by the research firm Gartner, describes how emerging technologies rise on a wave of inflated promises and expectations, crash into disillusionment and, eventually, find a more realistic and useful application.


    The Conversation, CC BY-ND

    Recognising the signs of this cycle is crucial. It helps in distinguishing between genuine technological shifts and passing fads driven by speculative investment and good marketing.

    It can also mean the difference between making a good business decision and a very costly mistake. Meta, for example, invested more than US$40 billion into the metaverse idea while seemingly chasing their own manufactured tech hype, only to abandon it later.



    Read more:
    Why the metaverse isn’t ready to be the future of work just yet

    When buzz outpaces reality

    In 2017, blockchain was everyone’s focus. Presented as a revolutionary technology, blockchain offered a decentralised way to record and verify transactions, unlike traditional systems that rely on central authorities or databases.

    US soft drinks company Long Island Iced Tea Corporation became Long Blockchain Corporation and saw its stock rise 400% overnight, despite having no blockchain product. Kodak launched a vague cryptocurrency called KodakCoin, sending its stock price soaring.

    These developments were less about innovation and more about speculation, chasing short-term gains driven by hype. Most blockchain projects never delivered real value. Companies rushed in, driven by fear of missing out and the promise of technological transformation.

    But the tech wasn’t ready, and the solutions it supposedly offered were often misaligned with real industry problems. Companies tried everything, from tracking pet food ingredients on blockchain, to launching loyalty programs with crypto tokens, often without clear benefits or better alternatives.

    In the end, about 90% of enterprise blockchain solutions failed by mid-2019.

    The generative AI déjà vu

    Fast-forward to 2023, and the same pattern started playing out with AI. Digital media company BuzzFeed saw its stock jump more than 100% after announcing it would use AI to generate quizzes and content. Financial services company Klarna replaced 700 workers with an AI chatbot, claiming it could handle millions of customer queries.

    The results were mostly negative. Klarna soon saw a decline in customer satisfaction and had to walk back its strategy, rehiring humans for customer support this year. BuzzFeed’s AI content push failed to save its struggling business, and its news division later shut down. Tech media company CNET published AI-generated articles riddled with errors, damaging its credibility.

    These are not isolated incidents. They’re signals that AI, like blockchain, was being over hyped.

    Why do companies chase tech hype?

    There are three main forces at play: inflated expectations, short-term view and flawed implementation. Tech companies, under pressure from investors and media narratives, overpromise what AI can do.

    Leaders pitch vague and utopian concepts of “transformation” without the infrastructure or planning to back them up. And many rush to implement, riding the hype wave.

    They are often hindered by a short-term view of what alignment with the new tech hype can do for their company, ignoring the potential downsides. They roll out untested systems, underestimate complexity or even the necessity, and hope that novelty alone will drive the return on investment.

    The result is often disappointment – not because the technology lacks potential, but because it’s applied too broadly, too soon, and with too little planning and oversight.

    Where to from here?

    Like blockchain, AI is a legitimate technological innovation with real, transformative potential.

    Often, these technologies simply need time to find the right application. While the initial blockchain hype has faded, the technology has found a practical niche in areas like “asset tokenization” within financial markets. This allows assets like real estate or company shares to be represented by digital tokens on the blockchain, enabling easier, faster and cheaper trading.

    The same pattern can be expected with generative AI. The current AI hype cycle appears to be tapering off, and the consequences of rushed or poorly thought-out implementations will likely become more visible in the coming years.

    However, this decline in hype doesn’t signal the end of generative AI’s relevance. Rather, it marks the beginning of a more grounded phase where the technology can find the most suitable applications.

    One of the clearest takeaways so far is that AI should be used to enhance human productivity, not replace it. From people pushing back against the use of AI to replace them, to AI making frequent and costly mistakes, human oversight paired with AI-enhanced productivity is increasingly seen as the most likely path forward.

    Recognising the patterns of tech hype is essential for making smarter decisions. Instead of rushing to adopt every new innovation based on inflated promises, a measured, problem-driven approach leads to more meaningful outcomes.

    Long-term success comes from thoughtful experimentation, implementation, and clear purpose, not from chasing trends or short-term gains. Hype should never dictate strategy; real value lies in solving real problems.

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

    – ref. The AI hype is just like the blockchain frenzy – here’s what happens when the hype dies – https://theconversation.com/the-ai-hype-is-just-like-the-blockchain-frenzy-heres-what-happens-when-the-hype-dies-258071

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The ASX is shrinking – a plan to get more companies to float does not go far enough

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Humphery-Jenner, Associate Professor of Finance, UNSW Sydney

    Whenever a high-profile company lists on the Australian stock market it attracts much excitement. Employees and founders enjoy some financial gains and investors get a chance to invest in a potentially exciting stock.

    For these reasons, fast-food chain Guzman Y Gomez was one of the biggest financial events of 2024. It undertook an initial public offering which meant for the first time, its
    shares were available to the public and started being traded on the stock exchange.

    However, such public offerings have become rare with many companies remaining private instead of listing on the market.

    Indeed, the number of businesses in Australia listed on the stock exchange is declining. This has been described as the worst public offering drought “since the global financial crisis”.

    The number of initial public offerings since 2000

    In response, on Monday, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) announced measures to encourage more listings by streamlining the initial public offering process.

    How do companies list on the stock exchange?

    Firms undertake an initial public offering by filing documents with ASIC. These includes a “prospectus”, which details the information investors might need to evaluate whether to buy shares.

    ASIC reviews the documentation and then decides if changes are necessary or whether to let the business list.

    Typically, this requires the business to use an investment bank to manage the process and a law firm to prepare the documentation. The business will also engage an underwriter to evaluate the offering and ensure it raises enough capital. All these services cost money.

    When they are trading, the business must comply with additional regulations imposed by ASIC and the Australian Securities Exchange. These include meeting corporate governance, continuous disclosure and other operating requirements.

    Why should a business lists its shares?

    There are many potential gains for a business and the public to list on the stock exchange.

    Companies can encourage employees by paying them with shares in the business. This gives workers buy-in to the company they help to build. This is much easier when it is listed because employees can identify the value of that incentive and sell shares when they choose.

    Being listed can also help raise capital. Having shares listed helps the business raise money to expand. In a direct sense, initial public offerings do this by enabling the firm to sell shares directly to the public rather than being restricted to the subset of investors who can invest in unlisted stocks.

    In an indirect sense, being publicly listed forces businesses to comply with even more stringent disclosure rules. This can give lenders and investors more confidence in the firm.

    Further, because the shares are now readily traded in the market, they can now be more easily used to acquire, or merge with, another company.

    What does ASIC intend to do?

    The commission believes one of the biggest barriers to listing on the market is the initial documentation and administrative requirements. They believe if they can slash red tape there will be more listings.

    The goal is to help them get their documents in order from the beginning, to reduce the potential number of changes that may be needed. ASIC believes it will make the process cheaper and quicker, and enable firms to better time the initial public offerings for periods of strong demand.

    The fast track process would only be open to businesses with a market capitalisation of at least A$100 million and firms that had no ASX escrow requirement.

    An escrow is a financial and legal agreement designed to protect buyers and sellers in a transaction. An independent third party holds payment for a fee, until everyone fulfils their transaction responsibilities.

    What else could ASIC do?

    ASIC’s plan to reduce red tape will help but there are other barriers to businesses listing on the sharemarket. These include:

    • share structures and control: founders are often psychologically invested in their companies and prefer to retain control over the business they built after listing.

    This is part of the reason “dual-class” share structures exist in the United States. These give some shareholders supernormal voting rights, enabling them to retain control. Singapore and Hong Kong also offer dual class structures.

    Australia doesn’t have a dual-class system, but enabling such structures could make the market more attractive

    • disclosure and expense: the initial public offering process is expensive. ASIC’s plan does partly address this, but only for larger businesses, which ironically have greater financial resources to pay the service providers.

    • governance requirements: the ASX imposes corporate governance requirements on businesses that publicly list on the market. These requirements take a one-size-fits-all to factors such as who should be on the board of directors. These requirements appear to cost extra with an unclear financial gain. And the ASX’s rules appear not to be evidence-backed.

    • escrows: ASIC’s fast track process is only available if the firm does not have to satisfy an escrow requirement. An escrow requirement typically applies when an early investor, or a founder, is involved. This is to stop such people from opportunistically selling shares at an inflated process, which then nosedives. It is not clear why ASIC excluded such businesses from fast track review. Smaller companies are some of the most likely to be subject to escrow. So they are the most likely to benefit from reducing the cost-barriers to listing.

    ASIC has tried to reduce red tape for larger businesses, but the changes don’t go far enough and more work is necessary to address the underlying factors that cause firms to stay private for longer.

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

    – ref. The ASX is shrinking – a plan to get more companies to float does not go far enough – https://theconversation.com/the-asx-is-shrinking-a-plan-to-get-more-companies-to-float-does-not-go-far-enough-258557

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Those ‘what I eat in a day’ TikTok videos aren’t helpful. They might even be harmful

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Houlihan, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, University of the Sunshine Coast

    Iren_Geo/Shutterstock

    You may have come across those “what I eat in a day” videos on social media, where people – usually conventionally attractive influencers wearing activewear – list everything they consumed that day.

    They might seem like harmless fun but in fact they can reinforce dangerous ideas about food, weight and body image.

    I’ve worked with people with eating disorders who watch these videos and have seen first hand how harmful this content can be.

    Here’s what the research says and what you need to know.

    Videos that promote ‘health’ can be unhealthy

    “What I eat in a day” videos have been popular for over a decade, with views reaching in the billions.

    They target both men and women and many claim to promote health and nutrition. Yet videos such as these can do more harm than good.

    Very few of these creators have formal qualifications in health or nutrition, increasing the potential for misinformation.

    They often depict low calorie diets, exclude entire food groups or promote “clean eating” (a problematic idea at best).

    Some even encourage dangerous behaviours such as skipping meals, eating very little or using laxatives to purge food.

    They can also send harmful messages about body image. Many such videos use beauty filters to create images promoting unrealistic body ideals.

    These videos often feature shots of how the person looks from the front, the side, in the gym, and in tight, form-fitting clothes. There may even be some “before and after” weight loss pics, sending the harmful message this should be everyone’s goal.

    The subtext is clear: “eat what I eat in a day and you can look like me”.

    But that’s not just a dangerous idea – it’s a totally false and erroneous one.

    Knowing what a certain person “eats in a day” doesn’t mean you’ll look like them if you follow their lead.

    In fact, a 24-hour rundown of one person’s food intake doesn’t even provide accurate information about that person’s nutritional health – let alone yours.

    These videos can target both men and women.
    Veja/Shutterstock

    You are not them

    Like our health, our nutritional needs are unique to us and can vary day to day.

    What constitutes a “healthy” choice for one person might be totally different for another depending on things such as:

    Links between health and diet are best examined over time, not in a single day.

    Basing our food intake on a brief snapshot of what someone else eats is unlikely to lead to better health. It might leave you worse off overall.

    5 ways these videos can affect mental health

    What we watch online can affect our mood, behaviour and body image.

    Alarm bells should ring if you frequently see these videos and notice you’re doing or experiencing these five things:

    1. disordered eating. Eating less than your body needs, skipping meals, cutting out entire food groups, binge eating and purging are all signs of disordered eating that can lead to serious mental health problems such as eating disorders

    2. low mood. Watching videos promoting low-calorie diets can worsen our mood; you might find yourself feeling deflated after comparing yourself to others (or rather, to the version of themselves they promote online)

    3. poor body image. Research shows watching “what I eat in a day” videos can leave people feeling worse about their bodies and appreciating them less

    4. obsessive thinking and anxiety. Obsessing over the “perfect” diet can increase anxiety about food and eating. Diets that encourage a very detailed approach to nutrition – including breaking meals down into components such as carbohydrates and proteins or weighing food – can further fuel obsessive thoughts

    5. narrow life focus. Having your social media feed filled with these types of videos can create an overemphasis on the importance of food, eating and body image on your self-worth. This ultimately affects your health and wellbeing.

    What we watch online can affect our mood, behaviour, and body image.
    GaudiLab/Shutterstock

    OK, so what can I do?

    If you’re encountering “what I eat in a day” videos often and find they’re affecting your mood, eating behaviour or sense of self-worth you can try to:

    • understand that these videos are not tailored to your individual health or nutritional needs and that many contain harmful messaging
    • avoid engaging with videos that promote disordered eating, idealised beauty standards or that make you feel bad after you watch them
    • unfollow accounts that regularly post such videos, or tap “not interested” on the TikTok video to stop the algorithm showing you more of them
    • balance your social media feed with content focused on other areas of life besides food and eating (such as art, design, animals, books, sports or travel). Fill your feed with interests that improve your personal sense of wellbeing
    • consider taking regular breaks from social media and seeing if you feel better overall.

    If you do want to view posts about food, seek out creators attempting to buck these negative trends by focusing more on fun and taste.

    And if you’re experiencing low mood, disordered eating or body image issues, seek help from your local GP. They can connect you with practitioners who provide evidence-based therapies such as cognitive behavioural therapy.

    If you have a history of an eating disorder or suspect you may have one, you can contact the Butterfly Foundation’s national helpline on 1800 334 673 (or via their online chat).

    Ultimately, “what I eat in a day” videos aren’t really helpful. They contain very little useful information to guide your health or nutritional goals.

    If you are considering making changes to your diet, it’s important to consult a qualified professional, such as an accredited practising dietitian, who can learn about your situation and monitor any risks.

    Catherine Houlihan consults with an eating disorders service owned and operated by the Butterfly Foundation.

    – ref. Those ‘what I eat in a day’ TikTok videos aren’t helpful. They might even be harmful – https://theconversation.com/those-what-i-eat-in-a-day-tiktok-videos-arent-helpful-they-might-even-be-harmful-257127

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Why does the US still have a Level 1 travel advisory warning despite the chaos?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samuel Cornell, PhD Candidate in Public Health & Community Medicine, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

    No travel can be considered completely safe. There are inherent risks from transportation, criminal activity, communicable diseases, injury and natural disasters.

    Still, global travel is booming — for those who can afford it.

    To reduce the chances of things going wrong, governments issue official travel advisories: public warnings meant to help people make informed travel decisions.

    Sometimes these advisories seem puzzling – why, for example, does the US still have the “safest” rating despite the ongoing volatility in Los Angeles?

    How do governments assess where is safe for Australians to travel?

    A brief history of travel advisories

    The United States pioneered travel advisories in 1978, with other countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom and Ireland following.

    Australia started providing travel advisories in 1996 and now runs its system under the Smart Traveller platform.

    To determine the risk level, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) draws on diplomatic reporting, assessments from Australian missions overseas about local security conditions, threat assessments from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and advice from Five Eyes intelligence sharing partners (Australia, the US, United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada).

    The goal is to create “smart, responsible informed travellers”, not to restrict tourism or damage foreign relationships.

    DFAT has stressed its system is not influenced by “commercial or political considerations”.

    Soft power and safety

    In theory, these advisories are meant to inform travellers, keep them safe and reduce the burden on consular services.

    However, they can also subtly reflect politics and alliances.

    While travel advisories are presented as neutral, fact-based risk assessments, they may not always be free from political bias.

    Research shows governments sometimes soften their warnings for countries they are close with and overstate risks in others.

    A detailed analysis of US State Department travel warnings from 2009 to 2016 found only a weak correlation between the number of American deaths in a country and the warnings issued.

    In some cases, destinations with no record of US fatalities received frequent warnings, while places with high death tolls had none.

    In early 2024, Australia issued a string of warnings about rising safety concerns in the US and extremely strict entry conditions even with an appropriate visa.

    Yet, the US kept its Level 1 rating – “exercise normal safety precautions” – the same advice given for places such as Japan or Denmark.

    Meanwhile, Australia’s warning for France was Level 2 — “exercise a high degree of caution” — due to the potential threat of terrorism.

    Experts have also criticised Australia’s travel warnings for being harsher toward developing countries.

    The UK, a country with lower crime rates than the US, also sits at Level 2 — putting it in the same risk level as Saudi Arabia, Nicaragua and South Africa.



    Read more:
    In Trump’s America, the shooting of a journalist is not a one-off. Press freedom itself is under attack

    Inconsistencies and grey areas

    The problem is, the advisory levels themselves are vague: a Level 2 warning can apply to countries with very different risk profiles.

    It’s used for places dealing with terrorism threats like France, or vastly different law and respect for human rights such as Saudi Arabia, or countries recovering from political unrest such as Sri Lanka.

    Until early June 2025, Sweden was also rated Level 2 due to localised gang violence, despite relatively low risks for tourists. Its rating has since been revised down to Level 1.

    Travel advisories often apply a blanket rating to an entire country, even when risks vary widely within its borders.

    For instance, Australia’s Level 1 rating for the US doesn’t distinguish between different regional threats.

    In June 2025, 15 people were injured in Boulder, Colorado after a man attacked a peaceful protest with Molotov cocktails.

    Earlier in 2025, a major measles outbreak in West Texas resulted in more than 700 cases reported in a single county.

    Despite this, Australia continues to classify the entire country as a low-risk destination.

    This can make it harder for travellers to make informed, location-specific decisions.

    Recent travel trends

    Recent data indicate a significant downturn in international travel to the US: in March 2025, overseas visits to the US fell by 11.6% compared to the previous year, with notable declines from Germany (28%), Spain (25%) and the UK (18%).

    Australian visitors to the US decreased by 7.8% compared to the same month in 2024, marking the steepest monthly drop since the COVID pandemic.

    This trend suggests travellers are reassessing risk on their own even when official advisories don’t reflect those concerns.

    The US case shows how politics can affect travel warnings: the country regularly experiences mass casualty incidents, violent protests and recently has been detaining and deporting people from many countries at the border including Australians, Germans and French nationals.

    Yet it remains at Level 1.

    What’s really going on has more to do with political alliances than safety: increasing the US travel risk level could create diplomatic friction.

    What travellers can do now

    If you’re a solo female traveller, identify as LGBTQIA+, are an academic, come from a visible minority or have spoken out online against the country you’re visiting, your experience might be very different from what the advice suggests.

    So, here are some tips to stay safe while travelling:

    • Check multiple sources: don’t rely solely on travel advisories – compare travel advice from other countries

    • Get on-the-ground updates: check local news for coverage of events. If possible, talk to people who’ve recently visited for their experiences

    • For broader safety trends, tools like the Global Peace Index offer data on crime, political stability and healthcare quality. If you’re concerned about how locals or police treat certain groups, consult Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, or country-specific reports from Freedom House

    • Consider identity-specific resources: there are travel guides and safety indexes for LGBTQIA+ travellers like Equaldex, women travellers (Solo Female Travelers Network) and others. These may highlight risks general advisories miss.

    Travel advisories often reflect whom your country trusts, not where you’re actually safe. If you’re relying on them, make sure you understand what they leave out.

    Samuel Cornell receives funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program
    Scholarship.

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

    – ref. Why does the US still have a Level 1 travel advisory warning despite the chaos? – https://theconversation.com/why-does-the-us-still-have-a-level-1-travel-advisory-warning-despite-the-chaos-258182

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The AI hype is just like the blockchain frenzy – here’s what happens when the hype dies

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gediminas Lipnickas, Lecturer in Marketing, University of South Australia

    Izf/Shutterstock

    In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has taken centre stage across various industries. From AI-generated art to chatbots in customer service, every sector is seemingly poised for disruption.

    It’s not just in your news feed every day – venture capital is pouring in, while CEOs are eager to declare their companies “AI-first”. But for those who remember the lofty promises of other technologies that have since faded from memory, there’s an uncanny sense of déjà vu.

    In 2017, it was blockchain that promised to transform every industry. Companies added “blockchain” to their name and watched stock prices skyrocket, regardless of whether the technology was actually used, or how.

    Now, a similar trend is emerging with AI. What’s unfolding is not just a wave of innovation, but a textbook example of a tech hype cycle. We’ve been here many times before.

    Understanding the hype cycle

    The tech hype cycle, first defined by the research firm Gartner, describes how emerging technologies rise on a wave of inflated promises and expectations, crash into disillusionment and, eventually, find a more realistic and useful application.


    The Conversation, CC BY-ND

    Recognising the signs of this cycle is crucial. It helps in distinguishing between genuine technological shifts and passing fads driven by speculative investment and good marketing.

    It can also mean the difference between making a good business decision and a very costly mistake. Meta, for example, invested more than US$40 billion into the metaverse idea while seemingly chasing their own manufactured tech hype, only to abandon it later.



    Read more:
    Why the metaverse isn’t ready to be the future of work just yet

    When buzz outpaces reality

    In 2017, blockchain was everyone’s focus. Presented as a revolutionary technology, blockchain offered a decentralised way to record and verify transactions, unlike traditional systems that rely on central authorities or databases.

    US soft drinks company Long Island Iced Tea Corporation became Long Blockchain Corporation and saw its stock rise 400% overnight, despite having no blockchain product. Kodak launched a vague cryptocurrency called KodakCoin, sending its stock price soaring.

    These developments were less about innovation and more about speculation, chasing short-term gains driven by hype. Most blockchain projects never delivered real value. Companies rushed in, driven by fear of missing out and the promise of technological transformation.

    But the tech wasn’t ready, and the solutions it supposedly offered were often misaligned with real industry problems. Companies tried everything, from tracking pet food ingredients on blockchain, to launching loyalty programs with crypto tokens, often without clear benefits or better alternatives.

    In the end, about 90% of enterprise blockchain solutions failed by mid-2019.

    The generative AI déjà vu

    Fast-forward to 2023, and the same pattern started playing out with AI. Digital media company BuzzFeed saw its stock jump more than 100% after announcing it would use AI to generate quizzes and content. Financial services company Klarna replaced 700 workers with an AI chatbot, claiming it could handle millions of customer queries.

    The results were mostly negative. Klarna soon saw a decline in customer satisfaction and had to walk back its strategy, rehiring humans for customer support this year. BuzzFeed’s AI content push failed to save its struggling business, and its news division later shut down. Tech media company CNET published AI-generated articles riddled with errors, damaging its credibility.

    These are not isolated incidents. They’re signals that AI, like blockchain, was being over hyped.

    Why do companies chase tech hype?

    There are three main forces at play: inflated expectations, short-term view and flawed implementation. Tech companies, under pressure from investors and media narratives, overpromise what AI can do.

    Leaders pitch vague and utopian concepts of “transformation” without the infrastructure or planning to back them up. And many rush to implement, riding the hype wave.

    They are often hindered by a short-term view of what alignment with the new tech hype can do for their company, ignoring the potential downsides. They roll out untested systems, underestimate complexity or even the necessity, and hope that novelty alone will drive the return on investment.

    The result is often disappointment – not because the technology lacks potential, but because it’s applied too broadly, too soon, and with too little planning and oversight.

    Where to from here?

    Like blockchain, AI is a legitimate technological innovation with real, transformative potential.

    Often, these technologies simply need time to find the right application. While the initial blockchain hype has faded, the technology has found a practical niche in areas like “asset tokenization” within financial markets. This allows assets like real estate or company shares to be represented by digital tokens on the blockchain, enabling easier, faster and cheaper trading.

    The same pattern can be expected with generative AI. The current AI hype cycle appears to be tapering off, and the consequences of rushed or poorly thought-out implementations will likely become more visible in the coming years.

    However, this decline in hype doesn’t signal the end of generative AI’s relevance. Rather, it marks the beginning of a more grounded phase where the technology can find the most suitable applications.

    One of the clearest takeaways so far is that AI should be used to enhance human productivity, not replace it. From people pushing back against the use of AI to replace them, to AI making frequent and costly mistakes, human oversight paired with AI-enhanced productivity is increasingly seen as the most likely path forward.

    Recognising the patterns of tech hype is essential for making smarter decisions. Instead of rushing to adopt every new innovation based on inflated promises, a measured, problem-driven approach leads to more meaningful outcomes.

    Long-term success comes from thoughtful experimentation, implementation, and clear purpose, not from chasing trends or short-term gains. Hype should never dictate strategy; real value lies in solving real problems.

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

    – ref. The AI hype is just like the blockchain frenzy – here’s what happens when the hype dies – https://theconversation.com/the-ai-hype-is-just-like-the-blockchain-frenzy-heres-what-happens-when-the-hype-dies-258071

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The Project really did do news differently. Its demise is our loss

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Dodd, Professor of Journalism, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

    The most unsettling thing about the closure of Network Ten’s The Project is that it might come to be seen as the moment commercial network television gave up on young audiences for news programming.

    If that’s what’s happening, it’s a worrying thought. Bringing news and current affairs to young audiences is exactly what The Project has done so well over its 16-year lifespan, and it’s hard to imagine how the channel will replace it in ways that work for audiences already disengaged with mainstream media.

    The Project will be missed. Perhaps not by those such as a caller to ABC Melbourne’s Drive program yesterday afternoon, who described The Project as Behind the News for grown-ups.

    The caller’s tone signalled an insult but that discredits both the long-running ABC program for schoolchildren and the goal of engaging young adult audiences in news and current affairs.

    Declining numbers

    In 2010, a year after the program launched, it was rating 1.1 million in the country’s capital cities, which made it competitive with other commercial TV news services.

    By last weekend, the program was drawing an average national audience of 270,000 across the regions as well as the capital cities, according to media commentator, Tim Burrowes’, Unmade newsletter. Even allowing for the overall decline in the number of people watching television since 2010, those ratings figures are dismal.

    Burrowes, the author of Media Unmade: Australian Media’s Most Disruptive Decade, suggests the controversial hiring of former Nine Network star, Lisa Wilkinson, in 2017, to present the program’s Sunday edition may have unsettled The Project’s internal harmony after the Bruce Lehrmann defamation trial she was involved in.

    A winning format for younger audiences

    The Project’s formula of combining news with comedy emerged from the success of The Panel, the weekly show produced in the late 1990s by Working Dog and featuring the D-Generation team of Rob Sitch, Santo Cilauro and Tom Gleisner, along with Kate Langbroek, Glenn Robbins and, for a while, Jane Kennedy.

    The Panel opening theme song, Working Dog Productions.

    It was edgy and topical. It bounced off current events with short piss-take scene-setting video grabs, followed by wry observations and silly gags.

    It was just as much comedy as it was current affairs, and it was all about appealing to young and disenfranchised viewers.

    The Panel anticipated the exodus away from the po-faced solemnity of commercial terrestrial TV news well before streaming had taken hold.

    Rove McManus and his production company saw its potential, as did Ten, which knew it needed to try new things. It could not compete with Seven and Nine, who were then – and in many ways still are – locked in a perpetual ratings war while being almost identical to one another.

    The Project’s producers knew they had a winning format. They ensured the show was rarely boring and avoided the predictability of worthiness. They weren’t afraid to ask the non-PC question, or laugh at themselves, or debate or discuss or delve.

    But that didn’t mean they resorted to meanness or took pleasure in others’ misfortune. Admittedly, Steve Price did need to be reined in from time to time.

    The format encouraged audiences to stick with them and in the process they actually learnt stuff. Young, disengaged kids saw politicians discussing matters of substance, with the show challenging assumptions.

    News for the social media era

    As increasing numbers of young people stopped turning on TVs, The Project became consumable in bite-size chunks on social media.

    The show’s producers cottoned on to this earlier than most and began crafting segments that could be easily shared. Waleed Aly became an Instagram star for his impassioned, informed editorialising about racial issues, along the way earning nominations for several Logie awards, and winning the Gold Logie in 2016.

    Peter Helliar, Dave Hughes and Charlie Pickering made audiences laugh. And another Gold Logie winner, Carrie Bickmore, made them care, especially in 2013 when she broke the fourth wall of television to talk about the need to improve public awareness of brain cancer following a story about a potential cure for the disease in ten years’ time. A few years previously Bickmore’s husband had died of the disease.

    The loss of another media town square

    While The Project was on air, the network was at least making an effort to inform a section of the market that had long been under-served by the news media.

    With relatively recent entrants, like the Daily Aus, stepping in to that gap, perhaps Ten thought it was becoming too crowded?

    We’ll have to assess what the network does next to see if it thinks investing in current affairs is no longer worth the effort.

    With the ABC threatening to walk away from Q&A, it looks like commercial and public networks are coming to the same view: that panel-based current affairs programming is a turn-off for audiences, regardless of whether they’re young or old.

    This is especially troubling because the closure of each program means the loss of another media town square, where the capacity to listen to, and learn from one another, in civil ways also disappears.

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

    – ref. The Project really did do news differently. Its demise is our loss – https://theconversation.com/the-project-really-did-do-news-differently-its-demise-is-our-loss-258588

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Novelty, negativity and no politicians: research reveals what makes some images more engaging than others

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By T.J. Thomson, Senior Lecturer in Visual Communication & Digital Media, RMIT University

    T.J. Thomson

    We see hundreds or thousands of images each day – but not all of them stand out to us. Why are some visuals more engaging than others? In an attention economy, where creators and organisations battle for our eyeballs, knowing the answer has never been more important.

    To address this question, we asked about 100 people across three different communities in Australia to rank photos from least to most engaging. We analysed the rankings, and interviewed respondents to understand the “why” behind their choices.

    Our new research reveals three interrelated criteria that affect why audiences engage with some images more than others. These are: the content of an image, how the images is presented, and who is seeing and reacting to it.

    What content makes for an engaging image?

    Who or what is shown, and how, markedly affects how someone engages with an image.

    We found viewers generally considered images with other people in them – and particularly images with faces – as more engaging than those without.

    The number of people or objects in the frame also mattered. Fewer objects resulted in simpler compositions that were easier to parse and, as a result, more eye-catching.

    Along the same lines, images were generally more engaging when they had a focal point (which would ideally be offset from the centre of the frame), compared to those with a lack of a focal point and arbitrary framing.

    However, centring the focal point worked well in symmetrical compositions, or when the frame was square.

    Participants ranked posed photos as less engaging than seemingly candid shots – appreciating the authenticity of the latter. They also ranked text-heavy images, such as those with people standing by or holding signs, as less engaging than action shots.

    In terms of emotional tone, images that showed negativity, conflict, or drama were ranked as more engaging than those that showed positivity. In the words of one interviewee:

    People always have a weird interest in yucky things. You’re like, ‘Oh, is
    someone dead?’ or you’re interested in the ‘Why?’ It’s intriguing.

    Participants preferred images that showed something they didn’t see every day, such as a rare double rainbow, or a visit from a prominent figure to a community.

    Novel camera angles also generated interest. This is partly why drone shots are so popular. They provide a new perspective and tend to be less “cluttered” than vision captured from the ground.

    In terms of visual depth, images with a clear foreground, mid-ground, and background were found to be more visually interesting than those with just a mid-ground and background.

    Presentation factors

    If you’re always tempted to apply black and white or muted filters to your images, think again.

    Our participants regarded images with bright and bold colours as more engaging than drab ones. This was even true for photos with conventionally boring subject matter. Colour, we found, can make or break an image.

    Size mattered, too. Viewers generally regarded larger images as more engaging than their smaller counterparts. Larger images were more eye-catching and could accommodate “busier” compositions, compared to smaller images that might be viewed on smaller smartphone screens.

    Viewers also relied on captions or accompanying descriptions to determine whether an image was relevant, local, or produced by trustworthy or notable figures – all three of which played a role in how “engaging” they found a particular image.

    What you bring to the viewing

    Your personal attributes and experiences shape how you interact with visual media.

    For instance, seeing a photo of the Sydney Opera House when you’ve never been there is different to seeing a photo after you’ve seen it in person. In the latter case, you bring your own memories and experiences to the viewing, and these can positively or negatively affect your engagement.

    We found engagement with an image was likely to be higher if the image depicted faces or places that were “local” to the viewer. For most viewers, obviously posed stock images were forgettable.

    To a degree, engagement behaviours were also shaped by what was interesting to a viewer’s friends, families, and other people they deemed important. As one 70-year-old participant explained:

    My grandchildren play sport, so I’m always interested in [seeing photos of] that.

    Winning and losing themes

    On average, some topics were considered more engaging than others. For example, images related to health and crisis situations were more widely relevant and engaging than sports or education.

    That said, not all widely relevant topics were necessarily engaging. For example, our participants ranked photos of politicians as unengaging. Although they acknowledged politics is important, many said these photos were boring or off-putting.

    How to stand out with your images

    The above insights into engagement behaviours can be used by anyone looking to spruce up their photos.

    When you’re making, editing, or publishing an image, carefully consider its content, the presentation circumstances and your audience.

    One key piece of advice is to focus on the action rather than the outcome. For instance, rather than showing an award-winner with their trophy, show what they did to earn that trophy. Also remember to keep your audience’s attributes in mind, and try to cater for them.

    Doing so will give your images the best chance to stand out among the billions of others circulating online each day.

    T.J. Thomson receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is an affiliated researcher with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making & Society.

    Rachael Anderson 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. Novelty, negativity and no politicians: research reveals what makes some images more engaging than others – https://theconversation.com/novelty-negativity-and-no-politicians-research-reveals-what-makes-some-images-more-engaging-than-others-255612

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Assessment in the age of AI – unis must do more than tell students what not to do

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Corbin, Research fellow, Center for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning, Deakin University

    Matheus Bertelli/ Pexels , CC BY

    In less than three years, artificial intelligence technology has radically changed the assessment landscape. In this time, universities have taken various approaches, from outright banning the use of generative AI, to allowing it in some circumstances, to allowing AI by default.

    But some university teachers and students have reported they remain confused and anxious, unsure about what counts as “appropriate use” of AI. This has been accompanied by concerns AI is facilitating a rise in cheating.

    There is also a broader question about the value of university degrees today if AI is used in student assessments.

    In a new journal article, we examine current approaches to AI and assessment and ask: how should universities assess students in the age of AI?



    Read more:
    Researchers created a chatbot to help teach a university law class – but the AI kept messing up

    Why ‘assessment validity’ matters

    Universities have responded to the emergence of generative AI with various policies aimed at clarifying what is allowed and what is not.

    For example, the United Kingdom’s University of Leeds set up a “traffic light” framework of when AI tools can be used in assessment: red means no AI, orange allows limited use, green encourages it.

    For example, a “red” light on a traditional essay would indicate to students it should be written without any AI assistance at all. An “amber” marked essay would perhaps allow AI use for “idea generation” but not for writing elements. A “green” light would permit students to use AI in any way they choose.

    In order to help ensure students comply with these rules, many institutions, such as the University of Melbourne, require students to declare their use of AI in a statement attached to submitted assessments.

    The aim in these and similar cases is to preserve “assessment validity”. This refers to whether the assessment is measuring what we think it is measuring. Is it assessing students’ actual capabilities or learning? Or how well they use the AI? Or how much they paid to use it?

    But we argue setting clear rules is not enough to maintain assessment validity.

    Our paper

    In a new peer-reviewed paper, we present a conceptual argument for how universities and schools can better approach AI in assessments.

    We begin by making the distinction between two approaches to AI and assessment:

    • discursive changes: only modify the instructions or rules around an assessment. To work, they rely on students understanding and voluntarily following directions.

    • structural changes: modify the task itself. These constrain or enable behaviours by design, not by directives.

    For example, telling students “you may only use AI to edit your take-home essay” is a discursive change. Changing an assessment task to include a sequence of in-class writing tasks where development is observed over time is a structural change.

    Telling a student not to use AI tools when writing computer code is discursive. Developing a live, assessed conversation about the choices a student has made made is structural.

    A reliance on changing the rules

    In our paper, we argue most university responses to date (including traffic light frameworks and student declarations) have been discursive. They have only changed the rules around what is or isn’t allowed. They haven’t modified the assessments themselves.

    We suggest only structural changes can reliably protect validity in a world where AI use means rule-breaking is increasingly undetectable.

    So we need to change the task

    In the age of generative AI, if we want assessments to be valid and fair, we need structural change.

    Structural change means designing assessments where validity is embedded in the task itself, not outsourced to rules or student compliance.

    This won’t look the same in every discipline and it won’t be easy. In some cases, it may require assessing students in very different ways from the past. But we can’t avoid the challenge by just telling students what to do and hoping for the best.

    If assessment is to retain its function as a meaningful claim about student capability, it must be rethought at the level of design.

    Phillip Dawson receives funding from the Australian Research Council, and has in the past recieved funding from the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), the Office for Learning and Teaching, and educational technology companies Turnitin, Inspera and NetSpot.

    Danny Liu and Thomas Corbin 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. Assessment in the age of AI – unis must do more than tell students what not to do – https://theconversation.com/assessment-in-the-age-of-ai-unis-must-do-more-than-tell-students-what-not-to-do-257469

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Do you talk to AI when you’re feeling down? Here’s where chatbots get their therapy advice

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Centaine Snoswell, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland

    Pexels/Mikoto

    As more and more people spend time chatting with artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots such as ChatGPT, the topic of mental health has naturally emerged. Some people have positive experiences that make AI seem like a low-cost therapist.

    But AIs aren’t therapists. They’re smart and engaging, but they don’t think like humans. ChatGPT and other generative AI models are like your phone’s auto-complete text feature on steroids. They have learned to converse by reading text scraped from the internet.

    When someone asks a question (called a prompt) such as “how can I stay calm during a stressful work meeting?” the AI forms a response by randomly choosing words that are as close as possible to the data it saw during training. This happens so fast, with responses that are so relevant, it can feel like talking to a person.

    But these models aren’t people. And they definitely are not trained mental health professionals who work under professional guidelines, adhere to a code of ethics, or hold professional registration.

    Where does it learn to talk about this stuff?

    When you prompt an AI system such as ChatGPT, it draws information from three main sources to respond:

    1. background knowledge it memorised during training
    2. external information sources
    3. information you previously provided.

    1. Background knowledge

    To develop an AI language model, the developers teach the model by having it read vast quantities of data in a process called “training”.

    Where does this information come from? Broadly speaking, anything that can be publicly scraped from the internet. This can include everything from academic papers, eBooks, reports, free news articles, through to blogs, YouTube transcripts, or comments from discussion forums such as Reddit.

    Are these sources reliable places to find mental health advice? Sometimes.
    Are they always in your best interest and filtered through a scientific evidence based approach? Not always. The information is also captured at a single point in time when the AI is built, so may be out-of-date.

    A lot of detail also needs to be discarded to squish it into the AI’s “memory”. This is part of why AI models are prone to hallucination and getting details wrong.

    2. External information sources

    The AI developers might connect the chatbot itself with external tools, or knowledge sources, such as Google for searches or a curated database.

    When you ask Microsoft’s Bing Copilot a question and you see numbered references in the answer, this indicates the AI has relied on an external search to get updated information in addition to what is stored in its memory.

    Meanwhile, some dedicated mental health chatbots are able to access therapy guides and materials to help direct conversations along helpful lines.

    3. Information previously provided

    AI platforms also have access to information you have previously supplied in conversations, or when signing up to the platform.

    When you register for the companion AI platform Replika, for example, it learns your name, pronouns, age, preferred companion appearance and gender, IP address and location, the kind of device you are using, and more (as well as your credit card details).

    On many chatbot platforms, anything you’ve ever said to an AI companion might be stored away for future reference. All of these details can be dredged up and referenced when an AI responds.

    And we know these AI systems are like friends who affirm what you say (a problem known as sycophancy) and steer conversation back to interests you have already discussed. This is unlike a professional therapist who can draw from training and experience to help challenge or redirect your thinking where needed.

    What about specific apps for mental health?

    Most people would be familiar with the big models such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, or Microsofts’ Copilot. These are general purpose models. They are not limited to specific topics or trained to answer any specific questions.

    But developers can make specialised AIs that are trained to discuss specific topics, like mental health, such as Woebot and Wysa.

    Some studies show these mental health specific chatbots might be able to reduce users’ anxiety and depression symptoms. Or that they can improve therapy techniques such as journalling, by providing guidance. There is also some evidence that AI-therapy and professional therapy deliver some equivalent mental health outcomes in the short term.

    However, these studies have all examined short-term use. We do not yet know what impacts excessive or long-term chatbot use has on mental health. Many studies also exclude participants who are suicidal or who have a severe psychotic disorder. And many studies are funded by the developers of the same chatbots, so the research may be biased.

    Researchers are also identifying potential harms and mental health risks. The companion chat platform Character.ai, for example, has been implicated in ongoing legal case over a user suicide.

    This evidence all suggests AI chatbots may be an option to fill gaps where there is a shortage in mental health professionals, assist with referrals, or at least provide interim support between appointments or to support people on waitlists.

    Bottom line

    At this stage, it’s hard to say whether AI chatbots are reliable and safe enough to use as a stand-alone therapy option.

    More research is needed to identify if certain types of users are more at risk of the harms that AI chatbots might bring.

    It’s also unclear if we need to be worried about emotional dependence, unhealthy attachment, worsening loneliness, or intensive use.

    AI chatbots may be a useful place to start when you’re having a bad day and just need a chat. But when the bad days continue to happen, it’s time to talk to a professional as well.

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

    Laura Neil receives funding through the Australian government Research Training Program Scholarship.

    Centaine Snoswell 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. Do you talk to AI when you’re feeling down? Here’s where chatbots get their therapy advice – https://theconversation.com/do-you-talk-to-ai-when-youre-feeling-down-heres-where-chatbots-get-their-therapy-advice-257732

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Family law changes will better protect domestic violence victims – and their pets

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Meri Oakwood, Lecturer in Law, Southern Cross University

    Zivia Kerkez/Shutterstock

    Welcome changes to family law come into effect this week to better support victims of domestic violence in property settlements.

    Importantly, the Family Law Amendment Bill 2024 will provide a new framework for determining ownership of the family pet in divorce and separation proceedings. Pets will no longer be recognised merely as property, but as “companion animals”.

    Family law courts must now consider animal abuse, including threats to harm pets, when deciding which partner is awarded ownership.

    Research suggests up to 15% of all animal cruelty cases involve domestic violence offending. Therefore, the new laws will provide some relief to partners whose beloved pets have suffered abuse.

    Part of the family

    Australia has high pet ownership, with 69% of households owning an animal companion. Some 48% have dogs and 33% have cats.

    For victims of violence, the bond with their pet is very important for emotional support. Because of this attachment, abusers often target animals as one of the ways to control their victims.

    The new laws recognise the strong emotional bond between owners and pets.
    Ksenia Raykova/Shutterstock

    Disturbing research has found animals living in violent households may be kicked, punched, held by their ears, thrown and poisoned. Injuries are common. Pets can be killed.

    When a person experiences family violence in their home, they are often asked “Why don’t you just leave?” The reasons are complicated. Perpetrators of coercive control can make their victims fearful for their own safety and their children’s – and for the safety and wellbeing of their pets.

    If victims do leave an abusive relationship, family pets are often left behind because it is too hard to find suitable accommodation. Also, the pet may be registered in the name of the abuser.

    Court’s past view of pets

    Previously, if a victim asked for ownership of their pet, courts could not consider the animal’s safety or wellbeing.

    In Australian family law, pets were viewed as personal property, similar to other possessions such as cars, furniture and electronic equipment.

    In any dispute about pets, courts would consider the following:

    • who paid for it?
    • was it a gift?
    • whose name is on the ownership documents?
    • who has possession?
    • who paid the expenses?

    In deciding custody, courts were not thinking about where the pet would be out of harm’s way. Instead the focus was on who had the superior right to title, a common question in personal property law.

    The safety and survival of a dog or cat was irrelevant in decision-making.

    Hope on the horizon

    Many Australians do not view pets as just another item of personal property. They see them as treasured family members who should be protected.

    The amended Family Law Act redefines pets as companion animals, rather than as mere property. The shift recognises the deep emotional attachments between pets and their owners.

    Any species of animal owned by a couple as a companion will be covered under the new sections of the Act. However, disputes in family law are more commonly about dogs.

    When a marriage or de facto relationship breaks down, the court will consider any past cruelty towards a pet when deciding future ownership.

    Matters for consideration will include:

    • was there family violence?
    • was there animal abuse, actual or threatened?
    • who has ownership or possession of the animal?
    • is there any attachment by an adult or child to the animal?
    • how much did each person in the household care for the animal?

    Courts will only be able to assign ownership to one party. There will be no joint custody to prevent ongoing disputes over the ownership of the pet.

    Under the new laws, custody of a pet will not be awarded to an abuser.
    Nejec Vesel/Shutterstock

    If an abused partner is confident they would be allowed to keep their companion animal if they leave a violent relationship, there is a greater chance they will seek safety.

    If a victim has fled to accommodation where they cannot keep their pet, the new laws will allow for a court order to transfer the animal to another person. A safe person.

    The sentience of animals – their ability to feel pain and fear – is still not recognised in Australian family law.

    Nevertheless, this week’s changes should lead to large numbers of companion animals gaining protection from future abuse.

    Financial abuse may constitute family violence

    Other changes to family law also come in to force this week.

    Family law courts must consider the economic effects of family violence on the victim when making decisions about property and finances after separation.

    Critically, the definition of family violence is being broadened. It will now include economic or financial abuse-related conduct, such as sabotaging the victim’s employment, forcibly controlling their money or forcing them to go into debt.

    Not paying child support for a long time might also count. Intentionally damaging a property to reduce its value will also be in the equation.

    There will also be greater protections to prevent the misuse of sensitive information that arise from confidential conversations with healthcare professionals, or with specialist support services.

    The property changes will apply to all new and existing proceedings, except where a final hearing has already commenced.

    These reforms to better protect victim-survivors of family violence and the animals they love, are long overdue.

    Meri Oakwood 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. Family law changes will better protect domestic violence victims – and their pets – https://theconversation.com/family-law-changes-will-better-protect-domestic-violence-victims-and-their-pets-258189

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Visual feature: Scanning Australia’s bones

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vera Weisbecker, Associate Professor in Evolutionary Biology, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University

    ➡️ View the full interactive version of this article here.

    Vera Weisbecker receives funding from the Australian Research council. She is member of the Australian Greens Party and the Australian Mammal Society.

    Erin Mein is a member of the Australian Archaeological Association and Australian Mammal Society.

    Pietro Viacava performed this work as a research associate at Flinders University, before becoming affiliated with CSIRO.

    Jacob van Zoelen and Thomas Peachey 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. Visual feature: Scanning Australia’s bones – https://theconversation.com/visual-feature-scanning-australias-bones-257119

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: With so many parties ‘ruling out’ working with other parties, is MMP losing its way?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Shaw, Professor of Politics, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

    There has been a lot of “ruling out” going on in New Zealand politics lately. In the most recent outbreak, both the incoming and outgoing deputy prime ministers, ACT’s David Seymour and NZ First’s Winston Peters, ruled out ever working with the Labour Party.

    Seymour has also advised Labour to rule out working with Te Pāti Māori. Labour leader Chris Hipkins has engaged in some ruling out of his own, indicating he won’t work with Winston Peters again. Before the last election, National’s Christopher Luxon ruled out working with Te Pāti Māori.

    And while the Greens haven’t yet formally ruled anyone out, co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has said they could only work with National if it was prepared to “completely U-turn on their callous, cruel cuts to climate, to science, to people’s wellbeing”.

    Much more of this and at next year’s general election New Zealanders will effectively face the same scenario they confronted routinely under electoral rules the country rejected over 30 years ago.

    Under the old “first past the post” system, there was only ever one choice: voters could turn either left or right. Many hoped Mixed Member Proportional representation (MMP), used for the first time in 1996, would end this ideological forced choice.

    Assuming enough voters supported parties other than National and Labour, the two traditional behemoths would have to negotiate rather than impose a governing agenda. Compromise between and within parties would be necessary.

    Government by decree

    By the 1990s, many had tired of doctrinaire governments happy to swing the policy pendulum from right to left and back again. In theory, MMP prised open a space for a centrist party which might be able to govern with either major player.

    In a constitutional context where the political executive has been described as an “elected dictatorship”, part of the appeal of MMP was that it might constrain some of its worst excesses. Right now, that is starting to look a little naive.

    For one thing, the current National-led coalition is behaving with the government-by-decree style associated with the radical, reforming Labour and National administrations of the 1980s and 1990s.

    Most notably, the coalition has made greater use of parliamentary urgency than any other government in recent history, wielding its majority to avoid parliamentary and public scrutiny of contentious policies such as the Pay Equity Amendment Bill.

    Second, in an ironic vindication of the anti-MMP campaign’s fears before the electoral system was changed – that small parties would exert outsized influence on government policy – the two smaller coalition partners appear to be doing just that.

    It is neither possible nor desirable to quantify the degree of sway a smaller partner in a coalition should have. That is a political question, not a technical one.

    But some of the administration’s most unpopular or contentious policies have emerged from ACT (the Treaty Principles Bill and the Regulatory Standards legislation) and NZ First (tax breaks for heated tobacco products).

    Rightly or wrongly, this has created a perception of weakness on the part of the National Party and the prime minister. Of greater concern, perhaps, is the risk the controversial changes ACT and NZ First have managed to secure will erode – at least in some quarters – faith in the legitimacy of our electoral arrangements.

    The centre cannot hold

    Lastly, the party system seems to be settling into a two-bloc configuration: National/ACT/NZ First on the right, and Labour/Greens/Te Pāti Māori on the left.

    In both blocs, the two major parties sit closer to the centre than the smaller parties. True, NZ First has tried to brand itself as a moderate “common sense” party, and has worked with both National and Labour, but that is not its position now.

    In both blocs, too, the combined strength of the smaller parties is roughly half that of the major player. The Greens, Te Pāti Māori, NZ First and ACT may be small, but they are not minor.

    In effect, the absence of a genuinely moderate centre party has meant a return to the zero-sum politics of the pre-MMP era. It has also handed considerable leverage to smaller parties on both the left and right of the political spectrum.

    Furthermore, if the combined two-party share of the vote captured by National and Labour continues to fall (as the latest polls show), and those parties have nowhere else to turn, small party influence will increase.

    For some, of course, this may be a good thing. But to those with memories of the executive-centric, winner-takes-all politics of the 1980s and 1990s, it is starting to look all too familiar.

    The re-emergence of a binary ideological choice might even suggest New Zealand – lacking the constitutional guardrails common in other democracies – needs to look beyond MMP for other ways to limit the power of its governments.

    Richard Shaw 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. With so many parties ‘ruling out’ working with other parties, is MMP losing its way? – https://theconversation.com/with-so-many-parties-ruling-out-working-with-other-parties-is-mmp-losing-its-way-257974

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: World’s most powerful ex-New Yorker gets a DC military parade, not a ticker-tape celebration in Manhattan’s Canyon of Heroes

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Lincoln Mitchell, Lecturer, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University

    Heavy equipment and military vehicles arrive in Jessup, Md., for the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary parade on June 14, 2025, which coincides with President Donald Trump’s 79th birthday. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

    Donald Trump’s plan for a military parade on June 14, 2025, officially to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army as well as coinciding with the president’s 79th birthday, is yet another indication of his affinity for authoritarian leaders and regimes.

    Although the parade, which will include 6,000 soldiers, 150 military vehicles and 50 helicopters − and will temporarily close Reagan National Airport and cost more than US$45 million − is ostensibly to celebrate the military, the idea is pure Trump.

    When pressed about his desire for the parade, the president has explained his reasoning for having the parade.

    “We had more to do with winning World War II than any other nation. Why don’t we have a Victory Day? So we’re going to have a Victory Day for World War I and for World War II.”

    While big military parades in Washington, D.C., other than immediately following a major military victory, are largely without precedent, there is another American city that has a much richer tradition of parades. That city is New York.

    Melania Trump and President Donald Trump joined French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, to watch the annual Bastille Day military parade in Paris on July 14, 2017, an event that inspired Trump to seek a parade in Washington, D.C.
    Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

    Trump vs. NYC

    New York is a parade town. It’s also a city with which Trump has a long, complex relationship.

    Trump was born in New York and began his business career there. Before Trump was a politician, or even a reality TV star, he was a fixture in the New York tabloids. His marriages, divorces, dating life and business successes and failures were splashed across more headlines than can be easily counted beginning in the early 1980s, but Trump was always presented as a clownish figure, albeit a very rich one.

    In those years, continuing into the first decade of this century, the local media always presented him as gaudy, loud and not quite as business savvy as he claimed – hence the coverage of his bankruptcies.

    While much of the rest of the country bought the Trump narrative that he was a brilliant businessman surrounded by beautiful women, doting staff and fawning celebrities, many New Yorkers never did.

    New Yorkers, including me, remembered an earlier Trump who almost ran the family business into the ground over many years. Nonetheless, New York has always been important to Trump. Although he still is a well-done steak with ketchup kind of guy, while New York is a soup dumplings, or bagels and lox, or arroz con pollo, or even caviar kind of town, Trump still has a connection to this city and wants to be celebrated here.

    Politicians, heroes and ticker tape

    And the city celebrates with big parades honoring everything from sports championships, which used to be much more common for New York teams, to the U.S. winning wars, most recently following the first Gulf War in 1991. Additionally, New York has parades for many of the hundreds of ethnic groups that make up the city.

    For decades on Thanksgiving Day, as they roast their turkey, prepare the stuffing and finalize preparations for the traditional feast, millions of Americans have watched the Thanksgiving parade, which is always held in Manhattan, frequently referred to as the Macy’s Day parade because Macy’s has long sponsored the event.

    In many of New York City’s legendary parades, including those celebrating LGBTQ+ pride, the Puerto Rican Day Parade, St. Patrick’s Day, West Indian American Day and others, politicians march, often in the lead, alongside their constituents.

    Some, like the Thanksgiving parade, have their own rituals, such as watching the balloons being inflated behind the American Museum of Natural History on the evening before Thanksgiving.

    However, the most famous of all parade types in New York is the ticker-tape parade. Dating from the days when paper, not computers, dominated trading floors and offices, people would throw ticker tape and other papers out their windows as the parade passed through the Financial District area that became known as the Canyon of Heroes.

    Not all New York parades are the same. Some, like the Thanksgiving parade, are simply fun and celebratory. Ticker-tape parades honor individuals or groups that have accomplished something significant, like landing on the Moon or winning the Super Bowl. They can recognize important foreign guests and dignitaries, while other parades celebrate the contributions of various peoples or groups of New Yorkers.

    But New Yorkers never throw parades for their politicians and tend to favor drums and floats rather than tanks and soldiers at these events.

    An avalanche of confetti rains down on Aug. 13, 1969, honoring the three astronauts of the Apollo 11 mission, who became the first people to walk on the Moon.
    Bettman/Getty Images

    No ticker tape for Trump

    While there are parades for all kinds of people and events in New York, there has never been a parade there for Donald Trump. There was a pretty massive street party in the city when it was announced that Trump had lost the 2020 election.

    Although Trump changed his primary residence to Florida in 2019, Trump was a New Yorker for many years and like many longtime residents had the chance to see many heroes – Mickey Mantle, John Glenn, Tom Seaver, Derek Jeter, Eli Manning, Nelson Mandela, American war veterans, numerous foreign leaders and many others – feted with a parade down the Canyon of Heroes. Jeter was celebrated five times, John Glenn and Mickey Mantle twice.

    It is impossible to know Trump’s motivations for pushing the parade in the nation’s capital. But we also know that he is a man who holds himself in high regard and craves attention. Trump will likely never get a parade in his erstwhile hometown, so Washington must be the next best thing.

    Trump’s newfound parade fetish underscores his love-hate relationship with New York.

    New York is the city that made him famous and made his family, primarily because of his father’s work, very rich. It is also the city that has repeatedly rejected Trump. It is the home of some of his worst real estate deals, the place where the business community lost patience with his antics and unwillingness to pay contractors, and where three times the voters turned out in huge numbers against him.

    A Washington, D.C., parade celebrating an unappreciated New Yorker who years ago decamped to Florida and Washington is a pale imitation of the Canyon of Heroes, where New Yorkers honor beloved leaders, war heroes, explorers and their favorite sports stars. But it is all Trump has.

    Lincoln Mitchell 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. World’s most powerful ex-New Yorker gets a DC military parade, not a ticker-tape celebration in Manhattan’s Canyon of Heroes – https://theconversation.com/worlds-most-powerful-ex-new-yorker-gets-a-dc-military-parade-not-a-ticker-tape-celebration-in-manhattans-canyon-of-heroes-258110

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: PKK’s decision to disband shows the benefit of engaging in politics rather than an armed struggle

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rebecca Lucas, Senior Analyst – Defence Economics and Acquisition, RAND Europe

    The recent decision by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) to disarm and disband has important lessons for any country facing a seemingly intractable insurgency. On May 12, the group stated that following its 12th Congress it will “dissolve the PKK’s organizational structure and end the armed struggle method”. The organisation has said that it will now pursue its goals “through democratic politics”.

    The PKK’s decision follows talks between the Turkish government and the group’s leader, Abdullah Ocalan, who has been in Turkish custody since 1998. Regional dynamics, Turkish domestic politics, and personal ambition have all played key roles in bringing the conflict to this point.

    Much uncertainty remains. The PKK and Turkey have embarked on peace processes before, only to return to conflict. But the group’s formal announcement of its intention to disband marks an important step towards ending an insurgency that has lasted over 40 years. If so, it will bring to an end a conflict that has cost all sides involved tens of thousands of lives.

    The possibility of ending this insurgency not only raises questions about this specific conflict, but also what we know more broadly about how insurgencies end.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    The PKK has a long track record of combining military action with political struggle. As with many other insurgent organisations, the group has worked to gain and maintain public support among ethnic Kurds, despite its use of violence.

    Its strategy has also evolved over the years to adapt to circumstances. It moved away from the its original Marxist beginnings with the end of the cold war and over the years changed its fundamental aim from separatism to increased regional autonomy and local government, through the system of what it calls democratic confederalism. Over the decades the group and its affiliates have also decreased their use of terrorism in Europe and western Turkey.

    This is in keeping with characteristics that researchers have found facilitate the transformation of organisations from armed groups to participants in institutional politics. There are a large number of cases in which insurgencies or terrorist organisations shifted – successfully or unsuccessfully – to either transform into a political party or combine with one.

    There’s no doubt that military pressure has been important in downgrading the PKK as an insurgency. But military victories over the PKK have failed to end the conflict – in fact military oppression against the PKK has often backfired and reinforced public support for the group.

    Many of the factors that have made it possible for the PKK to transform itself have been political, rather than narrowly military. Research by the RAND Corporation thinktank has found that rather than simply aiming to defeat an insurgency, it’s usually more effective to combine military pressure with political reform that aims to remove the reasons for the insurgency.

    Combining armed force with political pressure

    Turkey has taken this mixed approach, something many analysts have attributed to the foreign minister, Hakan Fidan. Ankara has pursued parallel tracks of negotiation and force. This has included improved counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency techniques, investment in drones and other military pressure.

    But Ankara has in parallel cut off financial flows to the organisation, while strengthening economic opportunities for Kurdish citizens – particularly in western Turkey. Many Kurds moved west to escape violence in the traditionally Kurdish regions in Turkey’s southeast: Istanbul is now the city with the largest Kurdish population in Turkey.

    The Turkish government has also strengthened its relationships with other Kurdish groups, primarily the Kurdistan Democratic Party in northern Iraq, to provide both military and political support.

    This case is another example of the importance of blending strictly military tactics with diplomacy, economic policy and strategic communications. The celebrated Prussian military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz said that war is politics by other means – and many insurgencies are fundamentally political in nature. So this requires multiple lines of effort to be pursued in parallel to effectively respond to this – with an emphasis on political solutions rather than just the use of force.

    This has been seen in conflicts with a number of insurgent groups in recent years – including the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc) or the Bangsamoro Islamic Armed Forces (Biaf) and Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines. In all of these cases, central governments have engaged in constructive political dialogue, providing amnesty and other incentives for fighters to demobilise while offering broader concessions in order to build a more sustainable peace.

    Successfully bringing insurgencies to and through a negotiated settlement requires long-term investment and effort. The issues that caused the insurgency in the first place do not simply disappear when the document is signed. In the case of the PKK, there are a number of ways in which this recent progress could be reversed. Concerns have been raised about whether the Turkish government will deliver on promised constitutional reforms or prisoner releases. There is also the question of whether PKK fighters will be willing and able to demobilise and reintegrate into society.

    Research has indicated that states with flawed democracies have more difficulty ending insurgencies on favourable terms. Freedom House and similar organisations currently rank Turkey as “Not Free”. The country has been backsliding for years under the presidency of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

    Despite these misgivings, the initial success of Turkey’s approach support previous research on how insurgencies end, and how armed groups might turn instead to politics. For the governments of countries facing insurgency, it means taking a comprehensive and multi-sectoral approach to encourage this to happen. Governments may also need to move away from a binary definition of “winning” or “losing” to a more nuanced understanding of how all parties stand to gain from the end of an insurgency.

    Rebecca Lucas 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. PKK’s decision to disband shows the benefit of engaging in politics rather than an armed struggle – https://theconversation.com/pkks-decision-to-disband-shows-the-benefit-of-engaging-in-politics-rather-than-an-armed-struggle-258221

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How far-right ideas in Canada are working their way into mainstream politics

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Lisa Gasson-Gardner, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, Mount Royal University

    The fortunes of the Conservative Party and its leader Pierre Poilievre in Canada’s April 2025 election seemed to have shifted dramatically after United States President Donald Trump called for Canada to become the 51st state.

    Political pundits regarded Mark Carney and the Liberal Party’s victory — along with the failure of Poilievre to retain his own seat — as a “Trump slump” and a repudiation of both Trump’s and Poilievre’s style of politics.

    But is that an accurate assessment? The Conservative Party received its largest vote share since Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Exit polling data suggested stronger support for the Conservative Party among people aged 18-34 than among people aged 55 and older.

    Although Trump has said Poilievre is “not a MAGA guy,” some political analysts have likened the rhetoric of Poilievre and other Canadian Conservatives to American Republicans who lean towards far-right Christian nationalist politics..

    As an inter-religious humanities scholar of the U.S. far right, I have observed alarming parallels between the rise of the far right in mainstream politics in the U.S. and the scene in Canada.



    Read more:
    A ‘Trump slump’ has lifted the left in Canada and now Australia – what are the lessons for NZ?

    Christian nationalism’s role in politics

    In the U.S., both scholars and news media have been highlighting the connections between far-right Christian ideology and politics.

    Trump’s first presidential term ended with the Jan. 6, 2021 violent attack on the U.S. Capitol. Scholars like Matthew Taylor, author of The Violent Take it by Force, have pointed to Christian nationalism and other far-right ideologies as factors that motivated the rioters.

    In February 2025, Trump appointed televangelist Paula White-Cain to head the newly created White House Faith Office. White-Cain’s appointment followed an executive order establishing a task force to eradicate anti-Christian bias.

    Thea appointment adds to the the narrative that U.S. Christians are facing persecution, a refrain since at least the 1970s and heightened during Barack Obama’s presidency. Scholars have linked the assertion that “Christianity is under attack” to the rise of Christian nationalism in mainstream politics.



    Read more:
    Trump may have emboldened hate in Canada, but it was already here

    What is Christian nationalism?

    American sociologists Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry define Christian nationalism as “a cultural framework that blurs distinctions between Christian identity and American identity, viewing the two as closely related and seeking to enhance and preserve their union.”

    It’s tempting to read “Christian idenity” and “American identity” and assume it does not affect Canada.

    But Christian nationalist ideologies were present during the so-called Freedom Convoy in Ottawa in 2022. According to Canadian scholars, national identity is blurred in online spaces, allowing U.S. nationalist ideals to take hold in Canada.]

    Christian nationalism is not synonymous with Christianity or any specific branch of Christianity, like evangelical Christianity.

    According to U.S. sociologist Daniel Miller, Christian nationalism is not a set list of ideological or religious beliefs. Instead, Miller says, Christian nationalism emerges when people identify with “a very narrow, idealized prototype of the ‘real or ‘authentic’ American.”

    He says two mechanisms connect people to Christian nationalism. The first is perceived loss of power by the people who historically held power. This is known as a “power devaluation crisis.” The second is a narrative of decline — known as a a “declensionist narrative” — which asserts that American society has declined since the 1960s and needs repair and reclamation.

    Poilievre’s signals to Christian nationalists

    Poilievre is not open about his religion and does not call for Canada to be a Christian nation. But whether Poilievre intends to stir up Christian nationalists, some of his rhetoric has indicated support for the classic definitions of Christian nationalism.

    According to Miller, support for Christian nationalism is not always direct. It can be activated by stoking a crisis of lost power, like the decline of the “traditional” family or by asserting a narrative of decline, like “Canada is broken.”

    For example, Poilievre’s 2025 campaign mobilized both of the narrative mechanisms that attract Christian nationalist mentioned by sociologists: a power devaluation crisis and the narrative of decline.

    In the lead-up to his 2025 campaign, Poilievre repeatedly called Canada “broken.”. He cited increased crime, addiction, high grocery prices and more as evidence of Canada’s brokenness, accusing the Liberal government of erasing Canada’s past.

    When Poilievre calls Canada “broken,” it affirms the world view of Christian nationalists.

    Poilievre courts conservative Christians

    Another strategy Poilievre reportedly adopted from Trump was his work to court conservative Christians.

    In an 2024 interview with The Tyee, religious right scholar Carmen Celestini of Waterloo University said Poilievre had “ramped up” his presence at churches. Additionally, The Globe and Mail reported there were fewer photos ops of Poilievre visiting mosques in 2024.

    Of course, visits to churches are not enough to signal alignment with Christian nationalists. And Poilievre has not espoused any Christian evangelical ideals in any public speech.

    But it’s still important for Canadians to remain alert about Christian nationalists and their ambitions to become part of mainstream politics.

    Canadian Christian nationalism

    A study from the U.S. has linked the rise in Christian nationalist ideologies to attacks on religious minorities. The 2024 qualitative data from the study indicates that when politicians rhetorically supported Christian nationalist values, there was a increased violence against minority groups.

    According to Statistics Canada, the violent crime rate in Canada rose 13 per cent from 2021-2022.. Police-reported hate crimes increased 32 per cent from 2022 to 2023. Crimes targeting religion rose 67 per cent in 2023, primarily targeting Jewish and Muslim communities.

    While I know of no studies showing the rise of the far right is directly leading to violence in Canada, Canadians should be aware of the pattern in the U.S. Research shows that growing Christian nationalists and far-right world views south of the border are, in fact, connected to a rise in violence.

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

    – ref. How far-right ideas in Canada are working their way into mainstream politics – https://theconversation.com/how-far-right-ideas-in-canada-are-working-their-way-into-mainstream-politics-238965

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why more youth are landing in the ER with vomiting from cannabis use

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jamie Seabrook, Professor, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics; Professor, Department of Paediatrics; Professor, Brescia School of Food and Nutritional Sciences, Western University

    As cannabis use among youth rises in Canada — and THC potency reaches record highs — emergency departments are seeing a surge in cases of a once-rare condition: cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS).

    Characterized by relentless vomiting, abdominal pain and temporary relief through compulsive hot showers or baths, CHS is increasingly affecting adolescents and young adults. Yet few people — including many clinicians — know it exists.

    As public health and substance use researchers, and authors of a recent review on CHS in youth, we are struck by how misunderstood and misdiagnosed this condition remains.

    A silent side-effect of heavy cannabis use

    Canada ranks among the highest globally for youth cannabis use, with 43 per cent of 16-19-year-olds reporting use in the past year. Usage peaks among those 20–24 years, with nearly half (48 per cent) reporting past-year use.

    This rise in regular, heavy use coincides with a 400 per cent increase in THC potency since the 1980s. Strains with THC levels above 25 per cent are now common. As cannabis becomes more potent and accessible, clinicians are seeing more cases of CHS, a condition virtually unheard of before 2004.

    What is CHS?

    CHS unfolds in three phases:

    1. Prodromal phase: Nausea and early morning discomfort begin. Users increase cannabis consumption, thinking it will relieve symptoms.

    2. Hyperemetic phase: Intense vomiting, dehydration and abdominal pain follow. Hot showers or baths provide temporary relief — a hallmark of CHS.

    3. Recovery phase: Symptoms resolve after stopping cannabis entirely.

    Diagnosis is often delayed. One reason is because CHS mimics conditions like gastroenteritis or eating disorders, leading to costly CT scans, MRIs and gastric emptying tests. One telltale sign — compulsive hot bathing — is frequently overlooked, despite its strong diagnostic value.

    Nausea and early morning discomfort begin in the early stages of CHS.
    (Shutterstock)

    Why CHS is dangerous for youth

    Youth face unique risks. The brain continues to develop until about age 25, and THC exposure during this critical window can impair cognitive functions like memory, learning and emotional regulation. Heavy cannabis use is associated with heightened risks of anxiety, depression, psychosis and self-harm.

    Some youth use cannabis to self-medicate for mental health concerns and increase their use when symptoms of CHS appear, mistakenly believing cannabis will help. Others are reluctant to disclose their use due to stigma, fear of judgment or legal consequences.

    In our recent review, we found that CHS is frequently misdiagnosed as bulimia nervosa because of the vomiting and unintended weight loss. But unlike bulimia, CHS-related vomiting is involuntary and not motivated by body image concerns. A clue is that those with CHS often return to normal eating and bathing patterns during symptom-free periods, which is not typical for an eating disorder.

    Compulsive hot bathing is a telltale sign of CHS.
    (Shutterstock)

    A burden on the health system and individual

    CHS doesn’t just take a toll on youth — it strains the health-care system. Emergency department visits for CHS have spiked in recent years, with a study in Ontario showing a significant rise after cannabis commercialization following legalization in 2018. Repeated ER visits, missed school or work and emotional distress compound the burden. In rare cases, CHS can lead to kidney failure due to severe dehydration and electrolyte imbalance.

    Unfortunately, anti-nausea medications like ondansetron often fail. Studies have shown temporary relief from topical capsaicin or low-dose haloperidol, but no acute treatment consistently works unless cannabis use stops.

    What can be done?

    The most effective long-term solution to treating CHS is cannabis cessation. For youth who use cannabis to cope with anxiety, quitting can lead to withdrawal symptoms and distress. This makes harm reduction strategies critical: gradual reduction plans, mental health supports and non-judgmental conversations between providers and patients.

    Clinicians should systematically screen youth presenting with cyclic vomiting for cannabis use and hot bathing behaviour. Youth are more likely to disclose cannabis use when asked in an empathetic, stigma-free way.

    Public health campaigns can play a major role. We need honest, accessible education — in schools, clinics and online — that explains what CHS is, how to recognize it and how to seek help. In our view, the addition of CHS content to youth health curriculums, pediatric training programs and cannabis use screening tools is overdue.

    A preventable crisis

    CHS is a preventable but growing consequence of chronic cannabis use in young people. As legalization continues to reshape social norms and access, it is essential to ensure that youth — and those who care for them — are informed about the full spectrum of cannabis-related health risks.

    This story was co-authored by Morgan Seabrook, an undergraduate research assistant at the Human Environments Analysis Laboratory at Western University.

    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. Why more youth are landing in the ER with vomiting from cannabis use – https://theconversation.com/why-more-youth-are-landing-in-the-er-with-vomiting-from-cannabis-use-258375

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Chatbots can help clinicians become better communicators, and this could boost vaccine uptake

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jaigris Hodson, Associate Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies, Royal Roads University

    Strengthening doctors’ communications skills is a public health benefit. (Shutterstock)

    Measles is back. In recent months, outbreaks have re-emerged across North America including 2,968 cases in Canada as of May 31, 2025. At the heart of many of these surges lies missed childhood vaccinations — not just because of access barriers, but also due to conversations that didn’t happen.

    Many clinicians want to support their patients in making protective health decisions, but these are not simple conversations. Trust is essential, and clinicians need to accept that these may be complex discussions and learn how to build trust when medical misinformation and misunderstandings are in play.

    These conversations are important, but clinicians’ and patients’ time together is often limited, and it’s hard to demonstrate trustworthiness and build trust. That’s where we believe — and evidence suggests — artificial intelligence (AI) can help.

    A surprising use for AI

    AI is already being used to support diagnostic decisions and streamline administrative tasks in health care. But it also offers promise as a training tool for the human side of care.

    We’re part of a team researching how chatbots can be developed to help clinicians practise difficult conversations about vaccines. These tools have the potential to provide low-cost, emotionally engaging and psychologically safe simulations for health professionals like doctors, nurse practitioners and pharmacists.

    These kinds of tools are especially valuable in rural and remote areas, where access to in-person workshops or continuing education may be limited. Even for busy clinicians in well-resourced areas, chatbots can offer a flexible way to hone communication skills and to learn about circulating concerns.

    Improving communication

    Research consistently shows that clinicians can increase vaccine uptake by using better communication strategies. Even brief interventions — such as training in motivational interviewing — have measurable impacts on patient trust and behaviour.

    Chatbots provide an opportunity to deliver this kind of training at scale. In recent work, computational social scientist David Rand and colleagues have demonstrated how AI-based agents can be trained to engage in social conversations and generate responses that effectively persuade.

    These principles can be applied to the clinician–patient setting, allowing professionals to test and refine different ways of engaging with vaccine hesitancy before stepping into real-world conversations.

    In research conducted in Hungary, clinicians reported feeling more confident and prepared after interacting with simulated patients. The opportunity to rehearse responses, receive feedback and explore multiple conversational pathways helped clinicians understand what to say — and how and when to say it.

    Simulating conversations between clinicians and patients can help clinicians prepare for actual encounters.
    (Shutterstock)

    Practising communication

    We believe chatbots can be used to train clinicians in a type of presumptive language known as the AIMS method (announce, inquire, mirror and secure trust). Similar approaches, drawing on motivational interviewing, have been tested in Québec, where it has demonstrated success in helping clinicians increase vaccine confidence and uptake among new parents.

    This kind of intervention will simulate conversations with patients with vaccine questions, allowing physicians to practice AIMS techniques in a low-stakes environment. For example, the chatbot could play the role of a parent, and the physician would begin by announcing that it is time for the parents to vaccinate their children.

    Then, if the “parent” (the chatbot) expresses vaccine hesitancy, the physician would inquire about what is driving the hesitancy. Importantly, when the “parent” responds to the questions, the AIMS approach teaches the physician not to respond directly to the concerns, but instead first mirror the response to show the parent that they are being heard and understood.

    Finally, and sometimes after multiple rounds of inquiry and mirroring, the physician can move on to securing the parent’s trust.

    Becoming adept at methods of conversational approaches like AIMS takes practice. That’s what a chatbot can offer: repeated, flexible, low-risk rehearsal. Think of it like a flight simulator for conversations.

    Staying ahead of misinformation

    The landscape of misinformation is constantly shifting. New conspiracy theories, viral videos and misleading anecdotes can gain traction in days. Clinicians shouldn’t have to confront these narratives for the first time during a brief patient visit.

    By having the AI model underlying the chatbot constantly trawling the web for the latest misleading claims and updating chatbot scenarios regularly, we can help clinicians recognize and respond to the kinds of misinformation circulating now. This is especially important when trust in institutions is wavering and personalized, empathetic responses are most needed.

    Conversations build trust

    While we propose chatbots can be used to teach doctors how to address vaccine skepticism, motivational interviewing has already been employed via AI-based chatbots to address smoking cessation, with some promising results.

    A similar approach has also been used to encourage the uptake of stress-reduction behaviours. Though the use of chatbots in education is a growing area of inquiry, the specific use of chatbots to train physicians in motivational interviewing approaches is a new field of study.

    Using this approach as part of (continuing) clinical education could help better prepare the frontlines to serve as a successful bulwark against vaccine concerns not rooted in science.

    In the face of falling vaccination rates and rising distrust, clinicians are on the front lines of public health. We owe them better tools to prepare and build trust.

    Trust isn’t built in a moment. It’s built in conversation. And those can be practised.

    Jaigris Hodson is on the advisory board of the Clarity Foundation. She receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Heather Lanthorn is a senior advisor to the Clairity Foundation.

    David Rand has received funding from Google, Meta, and the Gates Foundation.

    Heather Lanthorn is the Senior Advisor to the Clarity Foundation.

    – ref. Chatbots can help clinicians become better communicators, and this could boost vaccine uptake – https://theconversation.com/chatbots-can-help-clinicians-become-better-communicators-and-this-could-boost-vaccine-uptake-255045

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Sly Stone: influential funk pioneer who embodied the contradictions at the heart of American life

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adam Behr, Senior Lecturer in Popular and Contemporary Music, Newcastle University

    There’s immense variety in popular music careers, even beyond the extremes of one-hit wonders and the long-haulers touring stadiums into their dotage. There are those who embody a specific era, burning briefly and brightly, and those whose legacy spans decades.

    Straddling both of those, and occupying a distinctive space in popular music history, is Sylvester Stewart, better known as Sly Stone, who died at the age of 82 on Monday June 9.

    A pioneer of funk whose sound spread far beyond the genre, his band Sly and the Family Stone synthesised disparate strands of American popular music into a unique melange, tracking the musical and social shifts as the 1960s wore into the 1970s.

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

    A musical prodigy and multi-instrumentalist from a young age, Stone was born in Texas in 1943 and raised in California, in a religious Pentecostal family. He had put out his first single aged 13 – a locally released gospel song with three of his siblings, who would later join him in Sly and the Family Stone.

    A record producer and DJ by his early twenties, he imbibed the music of British acts like The Beatles and Rolling Stones, and applied his eclectic tastes and musical versatility to producing local psychedelic and garage rock acts in the emergent San Francisco scene.

    By the time commercial popular culture had flowered into a more exploratory “counterculture” in 1967’s Summer of Love, the ebb and flow of personnel across local bands had coalesced into a line-up including the Stone siblings – Sly, Freddie, and their sister Vaetta, with their other sister Rose joining in 1968. Pioneering socially, as well as aesthetically, Sly and the Family Stone had diversity at its core – a mixed sex, multi-racial and musically varied band.

    This was notable for a mainstream act in an America still emerging from the depths of segregation, and riven with strife over the struggle for civil rights. While their first album in 1967 A Whole New Thing enjoyed comparatively little traction, 1968‘s Dance to the Music presaged a run of hits.

    Their sonic collision of sounds from across the commercial and social divide – psychedelic rock, soul, gospel and pop – struck a chord with audiences simultaneously looking forward with hope to changing times, and mindful of the injustice that was still prevalent.

    Singles like Everyday People, Stand, and I Want to Take You Higher, melded a party atmosphere with social statements. They were calls for action, but also for unity: celebratory, but pushing the musical envelope.

    While the band wore its innovations lightly at first, their reach was long. Bassist Larry Graham was a pioneer of the percussive slap bass that became a staple of funk and fusion. And their overall sound brought a looser, pop feel to the funk groove, in comparison to the almost militaristic tightness of that other funk pioneer, James Brown.

    Where Brown’s leadership of his group was overt, exemplified by his staccato musical directions in the songs, and the call and response structure, Stone’s band had more of an ensemble feel. Musical lines and solos were overlaid upon one another, often interweaving – more textured rather than in lock-step. It was a sound that would reach an almost chaotic apogée with George Clinton’s Funkadelic later in the 1970s.

    The party couldn’t last. As the optimism of the 1960s gave way to division in the 1970s, Stone’s music took a darker turn, even if the funk remained central. The album There’s A Riot Going On (1971), and its lead single It’s Family Affair contained lyrics depicting social ills more explicitly. The music – mostly recorded by Sly himself – was sparser, the vocals more melancholic.

    The unity of the band itself was also fracturing, under pressure from Stone’s growing cocaine dependency. The album Fresh (1973) featured classics like In Time and If You Want Me To Stay, but they were running out of commercial road by 1974’s Small Talk, and broke up soon after.

    Periodic comebacks were punctuated by a troubled personal life, including, at its nadir, reports of Stone living out of a van in Los Angeles, and arrests for drug possession. By the time he achieved a degree of stability, his star may have faded, but his legacy was secure.

    Stone embodied the contradictions of American popular music – arguably even America itself: brash and light-hearted on the one hand, with a streak of darkness and self-destructiveness on the other.

    The handclaps and joyous shouts harked back to his gospel roots, but his embrace of electric instruments aligned soul with rock and pop. He was a funk artist who played at the archetypal hippie festival, Woodstock, and a social commentator whose party sounds were shot through with urgency.

    He paved the way for the likes of Prince and Outkast, but also informed jazz and fusion. Jazz pioneer Miles Davis acknowledged Stone’s influence on his own turn towards electric and funk sounds in the late 1960s and early 1970s on landmark albums like Bitches Brew.

    Sly Stone’s joyful provocations may not have lasted at the commercial centre, but his mark was indelible. His struggles were both personal and social, but his sense of groove, and of a collective voice, demonstrated the value of aligning traditions with new ideas – a musical America that was fractious, but still a family affair.

    Adam Behr has received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council

    – ref. Sly Stone: influential funk pioneer who embodied the contradictions at the heart of American life – https://theconversation.com/sly-stone-influential-funk-pioneer-who-embodied-the-contradictions-at-the-heart-of-american-life-258616

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The political opportunism behind Reform UK’s support for abolition of the two-child limit on benefits

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chris Grover, Professor in Social Policy, Lancaster University

    The leader of Reform UK, Nigel Farage, recently announced that if in government, his party would abolish the two-child limit on benefits. This social security policy restricts the payment of means-tested benefits to the first two children of a family.

    Farage explained the announcement as being pro-natalist – intended to encourage a higher birth rate – as well as being “pro-worker”. Farage said that the abolition of the two-child limit “makes having children just a little bit easier” for “lower paid workers”.

    He noted that Reform wanted “to encourage people to have children”. Such arguments are familiar in the European political right, although the UK’s Conservative opposition criticised Reform’s proposal.

    To be in government, Reform has two possible routes: to build a coalition of voters for it, or to split left-leaning voters. Its proposal to abolish the two-child limit may be aimed at both.

    On the one hand, it might be supported by left-leaning voters who are able to accept Reform’s broader policy agenda. On the other hand, it might be aimed at encouraging left-leaning voters who find Reform’s agenda problematic to move to parties (such as the Greens and Liberal Democrats) who are less equivocal in their commitment to abolishing the two-child limit than the Labour government.

    Social security policies winning votes

    Social security policies have long been used as part of political strategising. The situation with the two-child limit is complicated, though, because both anti- and pro-natalist views of social security (and it predecessors) have been popular at particular moments.

    Political and popular arguments have long been made that supporting the poorest families leads to them having too many children. This, so the argument goes, reproduces, rather than addresses, the poverty they face. Examples can be found, for instance, in the 1834 poor law commission report in relation to “bastardy” and large families, Sir Keith Joseph’s 1970s focus upon the “cycle of deprivation”, as well as “underclass” arguments in the 1980s and 1990s.

    The two-child limit was announced in the 2015 budget and introduced in 2017 with the reasoning that “those in receipt of tax credits should face the same financial choices about having children as those supporting themselves solely through work.”

    The two-child limit on benefits restricts welfare payments for children to the first two children in a family.
    Len44ik/Shutterstock

    In contrast, the architect of the British welfare state, William Beveridge, noted in 1942 that children’s allowances (now child benefit) would help “housewives as mothers” in their “vital work in ensuring the adequate continuance of the British race and of British ideals in the world.” The 1945 Labour election victory in support of the welfare state suggests pro-natalist policies can contribute to electoral success.

    The expansion of tax credits in the 1990s and 2000s were partly explained in pro-natalist terms. Tony Blair, for instance, noted: “The working tax credit enables half a million mothers to choose to stay at home.” That, in other words, tax credits enabled women to choose having and raising children over paid work.

    Recent polling, however, suggests that the anti-natalist two-child limit polls well among voters, especially Reform voters. In 2024, for example, YouGov found 60% of Britons thought the two-child limit should be kept. The figure was 84% for Reform voters.

    Targeting voters

    The abolition of the two-child limit may have been adopted to increase Reform’s appeal to left-leaning voters. Providing additional support for families through social security may be attractive to voters concerned with social injustice. The two-child limit increases child poverty. Affected families are unable to provide even the most basic needs, such as food, clothing and heating.

    Nevertheless, Reform’s proposal is also embedded in caveats and would be paid for through means appealing to its existing voters. So, for example, Farage emphasised that the abolition of the two-child limit would be restricted to only British families. It would not be extended to families “who come into the country and suddenly decide to have a lot of children”.

    By keeping the two-child limit for migrant families, Reform’s proposals are consistent with existing immigration and asylum policies. It has been observed in an inquiry by All Party Parliamentary Groups on poverty and on migration that policies like this are, at least in part, “designed to push people into poverty in the hope that it will deter others from moving to the UK.” And, therefore, the abolition of the two-child limit can be seen as part of Reform’s pledge to severely curtail immigration.

    Farage also argued that the abolition of the two-child limit would be paid for by other policies that are central to Reform’s electoral agenda. These include stopping asylum seekers being housed in hotels and the abolition of net zero policies. It is also consistent with Reform’s view that jobs in Britain should be filled by British people. This, it believes, will help reduce reliance on migrant labour from overseas.

    There is little evidence that the introduction of the two-child limit had the desired impact on lowering poorer households’ birth rates. And it is unclear whether the proposed abolition of the two-child limit rooted in a British-only, pro-natalist agenda is enough to attract left-leaning voters.

    These voters might, for example, be more concerned with Reform’s position on immigration and asylum seeking, as well as the social injustice of the undoubted poverty in which families subjected to the two child limit on benefits live.

    Reform’s strategy then may be to further encourage those voters to turn from its closest rival – the Labour party – to other political parties. Whichever is the case, the situation will undoubtedly shift if the Labour government does take the step of abolishing the two-child limit.

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

    – ref. The political opportunism behind Reform UK’s support for abolition of the two-child limit on benefits – https://theconversation.com/the-political-opportunism-behind-reform-uks-support-for-abolition-of-the-two-child-limit-on-benefits-258042

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Spending review: Rachel Reeves is about to make a £600 billion gamble on growth

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steve Schifferes, Honorary Research Fellow, City Political Economy Research Centre, City St George’s, University of London

    UK chancellor Rachel Reeves faces her biggest test with the government’s departmental spending plans for the three years from next April until the general election. With nearly £600 billion a year to spend, her decisions will impact on every aspect of public life and shape the political weather for years to come.

    She believes the key to reviving Labour’s fortunes as its poll ratings tumble lies in boosting economic growth.

    So the government has promised that its policies will increase the UK’s anaemic growth rate and enhance productivity. Reeves is looking to capital spending on big projects that will boost the economy, such as the £14.2 billion government investment in a new nuclear power plant at Sizewell in Suffolk.

    Last year she revised the government’s fiscal rules to give herself the space to borrow an extra £113 billion over three years to transform Britain’s ageing infrastructure. She has already made it clear that she wants to boost transport investment outside of London, as well as invest in research and development, including green energy.

    But there are challenges ahead. In the first place, the effect of infrastructure investment takes a long time to feed through. This is partly because of the lag between planning the projects and when they come on-stream.

    It will take time before the full effect will be felt on productivity, which has been growing more slowly than expected. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) suggested in March that the latest government plans for planning reform might increase productivity by just 0.2% in the longer term.

    There are also some real trade-offs as to where the increased capital investment will go – and which sectors will benefit most. The chancellor has emphasised her commitment to putting more money into projects outside London and south-east England that have had less public investment in the past.

    But London and the south-east is where productivity is highest and where further investment might have a bigger effect on economic growth.

    It appears that there may be less funding for social housing, which may threaten the government’s ambitious target of building 1.5 million homes over the parliament. There may also be less available to repair schools and hospitals.

    And the plans to boost defence spending on expensive military equipment – such as frigates and fighter planes – will also count as capital spending. As such, it could further reduce the amount available for infrastructure investment.

    The departmental trade-offs

    Despite the relative abundance of cash for infrastructure, the tighter fiscal rules on day-to-day spending mean that many departments are facing a squeeze on their budgets. The government plans to allow total day-to-day departmental spending on average to rise by just 1.2% per year in real terms during the next three years. This probably spells a real-terms cut for some “unprotected” departments.

    This is because the money will not be distributed equally. The Department of Health and Social Care gets 40% of all departmental spending and is likely to be the big winner.

    It has already received a big increase in the last spending round, with an 11% increase in capital spending is likely to get even more to realise an ambitious ten-year plan for improving services in the NHS in England.

    If health spending were to go up by 2.5% (well under its historic average), this could mean very little increase for many other government departments. And if it is increased by 3.5% this will imply real-terms cuts for other areas.

    The situation is made more difficult by the government’s decision to prioritise two other areas: defence and schools. For defence, it is committed to raising spending to 2.5% by 2027 and to 3% in the next parliament.

    And for education, Reeves has pledged an extra £4.5 billion per year for more teachers, childcare places and free school meals. The decisions have a strong political dimension, as health and education tend to be the most popular spending priorities among the public.

    Boosting the education spend tends to play well with the UK public.
    Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock

    The spending review, however, only covers half of total government spending. The more unpredictable part is annually managed expenditure, mainly on benefits and interest payments on government debt.

    The Treasury sets an overall target (known as the spending envelope) on how much will be spent in these areas. But it now faces a crunch point over the unpopular decisions to cut disability benefits and keep the two-child benefit cap.

    Reeves’ partial U-turn on the winter fuel payment, which will now be paid to 9 million pensioners, will cost an additional £1.25 billion a year but may have been a political necessity.

    But a full U-turn on the two other issues will be much more expensive. Taken together, such a change might breach the fiscal rules, which give only £10 billion of “headroom” in a total government budget of more than £1.2 trillion. So while there will be some rowing back, the finances suggest any more major U-turns are unlikely.

    To make matters worse, these spending plans are based on an economic forecast made by the OBR in March. This did not include the effect of US president Donald Trump’s tariff plans. Since then, both the IMF and the OECD downgraded their UK growth forecasts for both 2025 and 2026, and despite a recent small upgrade by the IMF, growth is still significantly lower than previously expected.

    Even though Britain seems to have secured a deal with the US, the effect of tariffs on global growth will still damage the UK’s prospects as a trading nation.

    This will make it harder for the government to meet its fiscal targets in the autumn budget while sticking to the departmental spending plans. The chancellor will then have three options. She can look for more cuts in benefits spending.

    She could try to find other sources of tax revenue, for example by tweaking the rules on taxing pensions or extending the freeze on upgrading tax bands. Or, more radically, she could modify the fiscal rules to give herself more flexibility – for example by having only one economic forecast a year, as the IMF has suggested.

    Ultimately Labour’s electoral prospects will depend on whether it has succeeded in boosting living standards. While the productivity drive could work, the UK economy remains at the mercy of wider global economic forces.

    Steve Schifferes 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. Spending review: Rachel Reeves is about to make a £600 billion gamble on growth – https://theconversation.com/spending-review-rachel-reeves-is-about-to-make-a-600-billion-gamble-on-growth-258526

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why ultra wealthy donors like Elon Musk and Zia Yusuf may just be fundamentally incompatible with the politics of the radical right

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sam Power, Lecturer in Politics, University of Bristol

    Former chairman Zia Yusuf has rejoined Reform after quitting days previously. Yusuf had said he no longer wanted to work to get the party into government when new MP Sarah Pochin called for a ban on burqas in the UK. However, he seems to have had a change of heart and will return, ostensibly to lead the party’s “department of government efficiency”.

    Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s bromance, however, is on much rockier ground. There’s no sign of the world’s richest man reconciling with the US president, his former employer.

    These spats, at first glance, might seem like little more than, put politely, teething problems in (relatively) new political operations. Or, a little less politely, the unedifying spectacle of people in or seeking power being completely unable to act like adults.

    However, it also points to something more akin to a canary in the coalmine for radical right parties around the world. Their increasing reliance on an ultra-wealthy donor class presents an ideological puzzle that may not be solvable.

    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

    Reform currently operates on what has been described as vibes alone. That is to say, there’s very little meaningful common ground between the people who vote for Reform and the party elite. The only continuity is their sense of anger at the current political system.

    This, as we are seeing in election after election, is an incredibly powerful (and compelling) force. The problem is, of course, that you can’t oppose forever. You often end up having to actually do something. All boxers, Mike Tyson will be glad to tell you, have a plan – until they get punched in the face.

    And what makes them such a powerful force at the moment, is precisely that which may cause challenges further down the line. At least for me, given it’s my bread and butter research-wise, I see this when I follow the money.

    And I’m increasingly asked a lot of questions about the kind of people who are either giving money to Reform – or who Reform are courting (and at the moment it is decidedly the latter which is the case).

    My position is that they very broadly fit into three categories. First are disaffected traditional Conservatives who are increasingly seeing a party – in the words of Farage – “worth investing in”. In the donations figures released on June 10, these are represented by bussinessmen Bassim Haidar and Mohammed Amersi.

    Then you have a Silicon Valley-reared tech-bro libertarian. This group already runs on a “move fast and break things” philosophy so the idea of an insurgent party which proclaims, on entering parliament, that “the fox is in the henhouse” naturally appeals.

    The final pot of money is filled via small donations, ballooning membership and a whole chunk of votes from a disaffected white working-class population to whom the language of economic and cultural grievances resonates.

    There are some places where the interests of these groups align – most notably a distaste for government interference and red tape (though not necessarily a smaller state in terms spending on public services). They also share a sense that progressive politics, broadly defined, ought to be pegged back a bit (but with an emphasis on a bit).

    They differ on a great deal else, to the extent that you can only really please two out of the three, but never everybody. And, unfortunately, without all three the project starts collapsing. This is what we have been seeing in the fractious relationships between Trump and Musk and Farage and Yusuf.

    Two out of three ain’t bad – but it’s not enough

    Yusuf (and Musk) are very much representative of the new tech-bro class. And, when Yusuf called questions about banning the burqa “dumb” he was speaking at both an ideological and organisational level.

    At the ideological level it is, frankly, a bit rich for his blood, because “philosophically I am always a bit uneasy about banning things which, for example, would be unconstitutional in the United States”.

    Organisationally, it pushes Reform much closer to what journalist Fraser Nelson calls “a tactic more akin to the old BNP”. Indeed, Reform started “just asking questions” about burqas at the same time as it started twisting footage to claim that Anas Sarwar, leader of Scottish Labour, wants to prioritise the needs of Pakistanis.

    This kind of dog-whistle politics appeals to some, but puts off a lot more, including, I think, some of the (saner) tech-bro right.

    Indeed, Ian Ward at Politico perceptively notes that if we want to explain the current Musk-Trump meltdown we should look back to Christmas 2024, when cracks first started appearing over immigration policy.

    The tech-bro right are, generally speaking, much less hardline on the flow of people than the Maga-populist right (think Steve Bannon and Tommy Robinson). In fact, they are pro-high skilled immigration as it tends to benefit them and their business interests.

    Tech-bros also like the idea of moving fast and breaking things in theory. But when things start moving fast and actually breaking in practice (or Tesla stocks start to plummet), they tend to get a bit freaked out.

    In other words, it’s not just that they don’t like government, they don’t like governing and the inevitable compromise that comes with it. When they say move fast and break things, I get the sense what they really mean is “leave me alone so I can make billions in peace”.

    This, of course, is quite appealing to traditional hedge-fund conservatives, but is also the politics that literally built the economic grievances that much of the white-working class support for the populist radical right is, in turn, built on.

    Two out of three ain’t bad, but you do need all three. So, don’t be surprised if despite Farage’s seemingly genuine affection for Yusuf, it all falls apart again before long.

    Ultimately, Reform will need to decide how they are going to spin these plates. The good news is that it might well be that they can, indeed, get by on vibes alone until the next general election. The bad news, unfortunately, is that winning an election is the easy bit. Just ask Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer. After all, everyone has a plan.

    Sam Power receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

    – ref. Why ultra wealthy donors like Elon Musk and Zia Yusuf may just be fundamentally incompatible with the politics of the radical right – https://theconversation.com/why-ultra-wealthy-donors-like-elon-musk-and-zia-yusuf-may-just-be-fundamentally-incompatible-with-the-politics-of-the-radical-right-258512

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What the new British zoo standards mean for animal welfare

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Samantha Ward, Associate Professor of Zoo Animal Welfare, Nottingham Trent University

    Mila Supinskaya Glashchenko/Shutterstock

    If you visit a zoo, you might be captivated by the animals you see — majestic lions, curious meerkats, soaring birds of prey. But this is not always the case. Some zoos don’t always give us that impression of “happy animals” where they can behave naturally and be left alone by visitors if they wish.

    The UK, Scottish and Welsh governments recently released new zoo standards for Great Britain. So what does this mean for the future of zoos?

    I have been working in and with zoos for over 20 years. I am a bit of a zoo-nerd but that doesn’t mean that I like them all. I am an advocate for good animal welfare in zoos and so I can recognise the ones that are good and not so good.

    Britain is one of a few countries such as Belgium, South Korea and New Zealand that have specific zoo legislation. The new British standards will be enforced in 2027, giving below-par zoos two years to up their game.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    I speak here in my role as associate professor of zoo animal welfare at Nottingham Trent University, but I also sit on the UK Zoos Expert Committee and helped to write the new standards. One of the biggest changes is the replacement of the word “should” with “must”. The standards now say: “Zoos must provide appropriate accomodation”. This makes all elements of the guidance much more enforceable.

    One of the most common complaints I hear when I say I work with zoos is that the animals don’t have as much space as they do in the wild. That is correct: zoos cannot provide the same amount of space for a lot of species. But good quality space can allow these animals to behave like they would in wild habitats.

    One of the most controversial animals when talking about space is elephants. In 2017 the UK government issued updated requirements for them which brought in enclosure-size requirements, something that had never happened for any species in British zoos before.

    Under the new standards, zoos will have until 2040 to increase their elephant provisions. Indoor space allocation for a herd of up to four females has been doubled to 600m². This then increases by 100m² for each additional elephant (compared to 80m² in the 2017 requirements).

    Bull facilities – zoos that house individual male elephants – need to provide 320m² of indoor space per bull. Outdoor areas for bull and cow elephants must provide a minimum shared space of 20,000m² (or 2.8 UK sized football pitches) for up to five group-living adults. This must be increased by at least 2,500m² for each additional animal over two years old. This is over 30 times larger than the current standards.

    The new standards stipulate that zoos must provide more natural habitats that better replicate how elephants live in the wild. There are also requirements for more detailed behavioural monitoring and things that help keep elephants active and engaged in their environment.

    Howver, animal welfare charity the RSPCA still feels that these updates are not good enough. It believes that elephants (and some other species) are not suitable for captivity as they have complex cognitive needs and space requirements.

    From my perspective, Britain has the most specific (and now) welfare-driven standards for elephants in the world. If Britain were to ban the housing of elephants, we would be shipping them to lower quality habitats, care and monitoring. Is this really what we want for the elephants in British zoos?

    What else is changing

    Another area where there has been much criticism in the past relates to providing animals from specific climates or environments with the correct conditions, such as reptiles, amphibians, tropical birds and primates. While a high number of animals seem to cope well in the UK’s colder climate, there is research to show that some animals need specialised environments, without which they can suffer from severe health problems, low welfare and even death.

    The new standards require zoos to develop detailed environmental management plans for species that rely on artificial life-support systems such as aquariums, vivariums, tropical houses or desert habitats. Animals also cannot be removed from their enclosures for interactions or talks with the public.

    These environmental management plans outline the environmental parameters required for that animal to thrive and behave naturally, and they need to be monitored to ensure that provisions do not slip.

    Birds of prey have new welfare protections in British zoos.
    chrisdorney/Shutterstock

    There are also extra requirements for birds of prey. Although controversial, tethering is currently a recognised management practice for birds of prey, including owls, hawks and falcons. You don’t need to be a welfare scientist to understand how a bird might feel about being tethered to a post for long periods of time.

    The 2012 standards stipulated that tethered birds should be flown at least four times per week, though there were no time restrictions on how long they could be tethered. The new standards emphasise that birds can only be tethered for a maximum of four hours in a 24 hour period and only as a management tool that benefits the bird (such as training for flight displays, transportation or veterinary treatment).

    There is new emphasis on what is known as behavioural enrichment. Whether it’s puzzle feeders for primates, scent trails for big cats or novel objects for parrots, enrichment helps prevent boredom, reduce stress and promote natural behaviour.

    Enrichment can be resource intensive and therefore difficult to implement, but the new standards make it a core requirement. Enrichment activities must aim to replicate natural behaviour such as foraging, climbing or problem solving. Zoos are required to document and evaluate these activities, track how animals respond and adjust strategies accordingly.

    These updates reflect a deeper understanding of what animals need to thrive, not just survive. As a zoo welfare scientist, I feel there is always more that can be done to improve the welfare of animals in zoos (such as banning touch pools and tethering altogether).

    But it is important that zoos and aquariums evaluate the costs (to the animals) and benefits (to the visitors) to make ethical and welfare-based decisions themselves.

    These new standards will improve the conditions for animals in zoos, as well as help zoos to make the right decisions about the animals they house and care for.

    Samantha Ward is the welfare specialist on the Zoo Experts Committee, part of DEFRA, who helped write the new zoo standards.

    – ref. What the new British zoo standards mean for animal welfare – https://theconversation.com/what-the-new-british-zoo-standards-mean-for-animal-welfare-258001

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Rosebank oilfield: why more UK oil means more global emissions

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Fergus Green, Associate Professor in Political Theory and Public Policy, UCL

    Frode Koppang / shutterstock

    The UK government will soon face a momentous decision over whether to approve production in the Rosebank oilfield off the coast of Shetland.

    Rosebank is the UK’s biggest undeveloped field. Its proponents – the largest of which is Norwegian state-owned petroleum company, Equinor – estimate that it will produce the equivalent of up to 500 million barrels of oil between 2026 and 2051. When burned, this oil will generate up to 200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which is more than the combined annual emissions of 28 low-income countries.

    Thanks to recent court cases, the climate effects of those “combustion emissions” will need to be taken into account by the government when it decides whether to approve production at Rosebank. In a new report, two colleagues and I reviewed the evidence concerning the implications of new oil and gas fields in the UK.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    There is a rapidly dwindling global carbon budget for holding temperature increases to below 1.5°C of warming (the more conservative end of the Paris agreement’s temperature goal).

    Globally, the emissions from burning the fossil fuels in oil and gas fields and coalmines that are already operating or under development far exceed that budget. In this context, Rosebank’s combustion emissions are highly significant, as they add considerably to that excess.

    We also found that the projected production from existing fields is sufficient to meet or exceed global oil and gas demand in modelled economic scenarios in which climate warming is restrained to within 1.5°C. This is further evidence that new fields are not consistent with achieving globally agreed temperature goals.

    However, it is often asserted by supporters of new fields that keeping UK oil in the ground won’t reduce global emissions, because another producer will supply the demand and reap the benefits. This is a gross and dangerous oversimplification which, according to the United Nations Environment Programme, “defies basic economics of supply and demand”.

    Allowing a new field like Rosebank would increase the supply of oil globally, resulting in a fall in its price which, though small, would cause more oil to be consumed. As UK government advisers at the Climate Change Committee have acknowledged, new petroleum projects “support a larger global market overall” for petroleum. Stopping Rosebank would have the opposite effect, and lead to less oil consumed.

    Rosebank is found about 80 miles west of Shetland and its puffins.
    Philippe Clement / shutterstock

    The oil industry likes to trumpet the UK’s relatively low upstream emissions – that is, from the process of extracting oil – compared with those of competitors overseas. But this is a distraction from the bigger issue: the additional greenhouse gases emitted from consuming the extra oil that new fields produce.

    A recent peer-reviewed study by economists and experts in the emissions-intensity of oil and gas production concluded that limiting oil supply will almost always lead to lower overall emissions, regardless of the intensity of upstream emissions from different fields. It is highly likely that leaving Rosebank’s oil in the ground will result in lower global greenhouse gases than would occur if the field were developed.

    However, this focus on Rosebank’s aggregate emissions ignores two further reasons the field’s development consent should be refused on climate grounds.

    A litmus test of climate leadership

    First, exploiting new sources of oil supply like Rosebank locks in future oil and gas production, ultimately making it economically, politically and legally harder to wind the industry down.

    Second, as the Climate Change Committee also stated, decisions by the UK government concerning petroleum production have an important “signalling effect” internationally and at home.

    Internationally, the UK government has rightly acknowledged that climate action “must be accelerated drastically” to keep the average global temperature rise “below 1.5°C”.

    The UK has a proud reputation for climate leadership. It was the first country to enact a legally binding framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it rapidly phased out coal-fired power generation, and in 2019 it became the first country to adopt a net zero emissions target.

    Building on this legacy, the foreign secretary David Lammy has vowed to “push for the ambition needed to keep 1.5 degrees alive”. But approving Rosebank would signal to the world that the UK government is not sincere about keeping the Paris agreement’s 1.5°C goal “alive”, after all.

    Some might think that aspirations to climate leadership are futile given the Trump administration’s “drill, baby, drill” approach to fossil fuels. But Trump’s recklessness at a critical time for global climate efforts makes UK climate leadership more important than ever.

    The UK already chairs a suite of international energy transition alliances focused on the international phase-out of coal-fired power, the scale-up of renewables, and the financing of these transitions. It could plug a gap in its influence by rejecting Rosebank and joining the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance, a “club” of (currently) 25 national and sub-national governments that are working to phase-out oil and gas production and persuade other countries to follow suit.

    And it could deepen cooperation with the EU to drive down oil and gas demand and scale up clean energy throughout the region, yielding benefits that will outlive the Trump administration.

    Domestically, rejecting Rosebank would send a powerful signal to investors about the sincerity of the government’s commitment to achieve economic growth by becoming a “clean energy superpower”, as the governing Labour party pledged to do at the last election.

    But the benefits of clean prosperity must extend to the people and communities caught up in the transition, too. The UK’s North Sea oil and gas reserves, along with the jobs their production supports, are in terminal decline.

    Oil and gas workers and the communities in which they are based already face a volatile future. New fields like Rosebank would create some additional jobs in this declining industry. But they cannot arrest its long-term decline.

    The government recognises that this transition is already taking place and will continue. With targeted regional and industrial investment, support for workers and their families, and careful planning that meaningfully involves affected communities, the UK has an opportunity to demonstrate to the world how to achieve a just transition away from oil and gas.

    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.

    Fergus Green has received consulting fees from and provided expert evidence on behalf of an environmental nongovernmental organisation engaged in climate-related litigation against a fossil fuel company. He informally consults with a number of environmental nongovernmental organisations in relation to fossil fuel production issues in the UK and elsewhere. He is a member of the Just Transition Expert Group of the Powering Past Coal Alliance (the role is unremunerated).

    – ref. Rosebank oilfield: why more UK oil means more global emissions – https://theconversation.com/rosebank-oilfield-why-more-uk-oil-means-more-global-emissions-253055

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why the salmon on your plate contains less omega-3 than it used to – and how the industry can address that

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Richard Newton, Lecturer in Aquaculture, University of Stirling

    Maria_Usp/Shutterstock

    Farmed Atlantic salmon has become one of the most highly traded food commodities in the world, enjoyed for its versatility as much as for its health benefits. It has long been known that eating oily fish such as salmon is the best way to consume long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. These are essential for brain development, mental health and cognition.

    In salmon, omega-3 fatty acids must come from the fish’s diet. For farmed fish, this means fishmeal and fish oil – so–called “marine ingredients” made from ground-up wild fish such as anchovy and fish by-products.

    But the global supply of omega-3s is severely limited, whether from farmed or wild seafood. Many of the key fisheries supplying marine ingredients reached full exploitation in the mid-1990s. Since the growth of salmon aquaculture, increasing volumes of the limited marine ingredients supply have been taken up by fish farming.

    This has raised concerns over sustainability and inflated the cost of these ingredients. The result has been a steady decline in the proportion of fish oil in farmed salmon diets, which has been replaced by plant oils. But these oils do not contain long-chain omega-3s.

    In turn, the amount of omega-3s in a portion of salmon halved between 2006 and 2015. However, the salmon industry increasingly uses omega-3 as a key selling point for its product – two portions of farmed Scottish salmon per week would meet the recommended intake for an adult at current levels.

    If the salmon industry is to continue to grow and maintain the omega-3 targets, it must be more efficient. And the seafood industry as a whole must do more to prevent omega-3 losses through its value chains. Part of the efficiency journey has been to produce more fish oil.

    This can be done by harnessing the value of fishery and aquaculture byproducts such as trimmings, skins and heads, so that more omega-3s are kept in the food (and feed) system.

    There is a growing incentive to use the whole fish – consequently there has been good progress in improving the use of byproducts. It is now estimated that around half of global fish oil supply is sourced from fishery, and particularly aquaculture, processing sources. However, there is still a lot of waste and logistical difficulties in storing and transporting seafood byproducts.

    Much of the industry incentive to use byproducts has been economic, as the global shortage of fish oil pushed prices above US$8,000 (£5,900) per tonne in 2024. Evidence from the past 20 years suggests that overall use of wild fish in the European salmon industry has dropped (replaced by plant ingredients), while production has grown several-fold.

    Despite improvements and reductions in the use of marine ingredients, the industry still comes under huge pressure from NGOs and conservation groups. They are concerned about the use of fish as feed, which may damage public perceptions of the aquaculture industry.

    To assess the use of fish as feed in aquaculture, the “fish in fish out” (Fifo) ratio was conceived, which measures the ratio of fish biomass included in fish feeds to the biomass of fish ultimately produced for consumption. The goal is for more fish to be produced for human consumption than is used as feed, and this would result in a Fifo of less than 1.

    New measure for nutrients

    Certification bodies such as the Aquaculture Stewardship Council and Best Aquaculture Practices have adopted different forms of the Fifo metric. However, until now, Fifo has not addressed one of the fundamental reasons for including marine ingredients in aquafeeds – providing omega-3s to consumers. It has neither considered the omega-3 content within feed fish, nor in the final product.

    Similarly, studies examining nutrient retention in salmon have only looked at that from feed to the farmed fish. The omega-3 lost in the process of turning the fish raw material in feed is not currently measured. By introducing our new measure, the nutrient Fifo (nFifo), nutrients can be followed from wild fish capture, its separation into meal and oil, and through to the final product sold to consumers.

    Certification bodies like the Aquaculture Stewardship Council could adopt the new metric for nutrition.
    T. Schneider/Shutterstock

    The method used in nFifo favours the use of byproduct resources over virgin raw materials, so that diets containing byproducts receive a lower nFifo. In theory, this should promote circular economy initiatives.

    This is crucial in the marine ingredients industry. Seafood is highly perishable and the byproducts especially so. But they are also some of the richest sources of omega-3s, such as from herring or mackerel.

    However, the cost of retaining, stabilising, storing and transporting byproducts is often prohibitive. This is especially true on board fishing boats, where space is at a premium and byproducts are often dumped at sea.

    Introducing metrics that prevent bioresources being wasted is essential for sustainable food production. Current salmon feed contains around 20% to 25% marine ingredients, but only around 5% is from byproducts. This results in a nFIFO of 2.17.

    Incorporating only marine ingredients sourced from byproducts reduces that nFifo to below 0.5. Crucially, this still provides the same level of omega-3s to the consumer.

    If the seafood industry is serious about sustainable production, it needs to become much more efficient with resources. The nFifo metric links the use of wild fish to omega-3s consumed in farmed salmon for the first time – but it could also be applied to other species and nutrients.

    The methodology is similar to that used for environmental impact indicators for climate change, land or water use. It makes it possible to assess the trade-offs of including and substituting marine ingredients in fish diets at different points of production.

    For example, while marine ingredients may raise concerns around their impact on fisheries, they have comparatively low carbon footprints and almost no land or water footprints compared to plant ingredients. This could potentially lead to more balanced and sustainable approaches to seafood production.

    It is hoped that the nFifo metric and an accessible tool for calculating it (there is one provided on the Blue Food Performance website) will be adopted by certifiers. It could also lead to more complex sustainability indicators becoming mainstream, letting consumers make informed choices about the nutritional and environmental credentials of the products they buy.

    Richard Newton is the Chair of the Climate Action Committe for Best Aquaculture Practice and the Stakeholder Advisory Group for Seafood Watch. He has previously received funding in 2019 and 2013 from the International Fishmeal Fishoil Organisation to map supplies of underutilised by-product resources.

    Dave Little has received funding from various organisations supporting sustainable aquaculture development and has been affiliated to various organisations working to to improve farmed seafood assurance

    – ref. Why the salmon on your plate contains less omega-3 than it used to – and how the industry can address that – https://theconversation.com/why-the-salmon-on-your-plate-contains-less-omega-3-than-it-used-to-and-how-the-industry-can-address-that-258228

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Beards and microbes: what the evidence shows

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Primrose Freestone, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Microbiology, University of Leicester

    Bernardo Emanuelle/Shutterstock.com

    Beards have long attracted suspicion, sometimes seen as stylish, sometimes as unsanitary. But how dirty are they, really?

    Human skin is home to billions of microorganisms – mainly bacteria, but also fungi and viruses – and facial hair provides a unique environment for them to thrive. Research shows that beards, in particular, support a dense and diverse microbial population, which has fuelled a persistent belief that they are inherently unhygienic. The Washington Post recently reported that some toilets contain fewer germs than the average beard.

    But are beards truly a hygiene risk? A closer look at the evidence reveals a nuanced picture.

    The microbial population on skin varies by location and is influenced by factors such as temperature, pH, humidity and nutrient availability. Beards create a warm, often moist environment where food debris and oils can accumulate – ideal conditions for microbial growth.

    These microbes thrive not just because of the warm, moist conditions beards provide, but also because of constant exposure to new contaminants and microbes, especially from hands that frequently touch surfaces and the face.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Concerns among scientists about beard hygiene date back over 50 years. Early studies showed that facial hair could retain bacteria and bacterial toxins even after washing. This led to the enduring idea that beards act as bacterial reservoirs and could pose an infection risk to others.

    For healthcare workers, this has made beards a point of controversy, especially in hospitals where pathogen transmission is a concern. However, hospital-based research has shown mixed results. One study found that bearded healthcare workers had higher bacterial loads on their faces than clean-shaven colleagues.

    Another investigation, looking at whether it would be hygienic to evaluate dogs and humans in the same MRI scanner, found that most men’s beards contained significantly more microbes than dog fur, including a greater presence of harmful bacteria. The researchers concluded: “Dogs are no risk to humans if they use the same MRI.”

    Dogs and humans can share the same MRI scanner.
    Dmytro Zinkevych/Shutterstock.com

    However, other studies have challenged the idea that beards increase infection risk. For example, one investigation found no significant difference in bacterial colonisation between bearded and clean-shaven healthcare workers.

    The same study also reported that bearded doctors were less likely to carry Staphylococcus aureus, a major cause of hospital infections, and that there was no increase in infection rates among patients treated by bearded surgeons wearing surgical masks.

    Beards can sometimes spread skin infections, such as impetigo — a contagious rash often caused by S aureus, which is commonly found in facial hair.

    In rare cases, parasites like pubic lice – which usually live in the groin area – can also show up in beards, eyebrows or eyelashes, particularly in cases of poor hygiene or close contact with an infected person.

    The case for good beard hygiene

    Neglected beards can foster irritation, inflammation and infection. The skin beneath a beard – rich in blood vessels, nerve endings and immune cells – is highly sensitive to microbial and environmental stressors. When sebum, dead skin, food debris and pollutants accumulate, they can irritate the skin and provide fuel for fungal and bacterial growth.

    Experts strongly recommend washing your beard and face every day. Doing so removes dirt, oils, allergens and dead skin, helping prevent microbial buildup.

    Dermatologists also advise moisturising to prevent dryness, using a beard comb to clear debris, and trimming to control loose hairs and reduce shedding. These steps help maintain not only hygiene but also beard health and appearance.

    So, are beards dirty? Like most things, it depends on how well you care for them. With daily hygiene and proper grooming, beards pose little risk and may even be healthier than we once thought.

    Primrose Freestone 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. Beards and microbes: what the evidence shows – https://theconversation.com/beards-and-microbes-what-the-evidence-shows-256917

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The National Gallery at 200: is this rehang a bold relaunch or rinse and repeat?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Conlin, Professor of Modern History, University of Southampton

    The National Gallery has recently rehung its entire collection. Taking hundreds of paintings off the wall and replacing them in a new arrangement requires considerable mental and physical labour on the part of curators, conservators and technicians.

    A rehang tends to elicit strong reactions from anyone with a stake in the collection – and in the case of a public gallery, “anyone” means “everyone”.
    Unsurprisingly then, it has only been done twice at the National Gallery since the second world war.

    Last month, I attended a launch party for the gallery’s new Sainsbury Wing entrance. It marked the end of NG200, a year-long programme of events celebrating the gallery’s 200th birthday. As the author of the gallery’s authorised bicentenary history, I had written about the refurbishment, albeit with only computer-generated impressions of what it would look like. Now I could see for myself.

    Inside the launch party for the gallery’s new Sainsbury Wing entrance.
    Jonathan Conlin, CC BY-SA

    Back in 1946, the director of the National Gallery was eager to offer both reassurance about his rehang and the promise of striking new juxtapositions. “The traditional grouping by schools has been largely maintained,” Sir Philip Hendy noted, “but a good many exceptions have been made, partly for the sake of a more harmonious and stimulating ensemble and partly for the sake of historical truth.”

    The rehang, Hendy argued, would show how “the spirit of the time is usually more important than national boundaries, and that ideas can transcend both”. A striking example was Hendy hanging Bronzino’s An Allegory With Venus and Cupid (1545) next to Holbein’s The Ambassadors, painted just 12 years earlier.

    “I enjoyed the intellectual shocks provided, lavishly, in the juxtaposition of unexpected artists,” wrote one regular visitor from Godalming in Surrey. But she soon found herself wondering if there was “some subtle plan” behind “having the Botticellis all in different rooms, the Venetians just anywhere, and the Rembrandts torn asunder?”

    Evacuation of paintings from the National Gallery during the second world war, shortly before the last rehang.
    Imperial War Museum

    The Bronzino and the Holbein were split up fairly quickly, perhaps in response to criticism from other confused visitors. While they have not been reunited on the same wall, as I stood back from The Ambassadors in room four, I could turn my head to the left and see Venus and Cupid neatly framed by the door to neighbouring room two.

    At least, I could have seen it, had Neil MacGregor not been standing in front of it. The National Gallery’s director from 1987 to 2002, MacGregor oversaw the last complete rehang as well as the construction of the Sainsbury Wing, which opened in 1991.

    This article is part of our State of the Arts series. These articles tackle the challenges of the arts and heritage industry – and celebrate the wins, too.

    At that time, the gallery’s then-head of exhibitions, Michael Wilson, replaced the traditional grouping by schools with the wing system, which organised the hang around three broad pan-European epochs. It was a profound shift, perhaps linked to broader pan-European political visions that would lead to the introduction of a common European currency in 1999.

    Former National Gallery trustee Robert Benson (as drawn by John Singer Sargent) believed art should be hung chronologically.
    Wiki Commons

    This was a world away from the previous arrangement. “Pictures must be hung in historical sequence,” trustee Robert Benson noted in 1914. “A salon carré, or a Tribuna, of masterpieces of all schools is an objective far ahead.”

    For Benson, it was clear that the collection could only be understood “school by school”. Each painter “must be appreciated and judged in relation to the chef d’école of whose artistic lineage, or entourage, he forms part”. Collecting works from the “period of eclecticism and decadence” that followed each chef d’école (the initiator or leader of a school of painting) was of secondary importance.

    But as a result, in the National Gallery that Benson (a wannabe gallery director) helped create and that MacGregor inherited, there were shocks aplenty as the visitor jumped from one school to another.

    Having followed the French school through from Corneille de Lyon’s Man in a Black Biretta (c. 1538-61) through Jacques-Louis David’s Jacobus Blauw (1795) to Cézanne’s Hillside in Provence (c. 1890-1912), you then jumped four or more centuries back to start over again with the Dutch or the Italians.

    The redesigned wing

    These shocks were compounded by gestures towards period interiors: terrazzo tile for the Italians, dark wood panelling for the Dutch. Opened in 1975, the northern extension’s carpet, suspended ceilings and floating walls were hailed as “a model of discretion and reticence in comparison to the grandeur of the Victorian interiors”.

    Under MacGregor’s wing system, “the spirit of the time” came first – nowhere more so than in the Sainsbury Wing, designed to set up a conversation between the artists of the Northern Renaissance and the Italian Renaissance. The system recognised that the Alps had not been a barrier to the exchange of artistic ideas, and had been criss-crossed by many Renaissance artists, including Albrecht Dürer.

    The postmodern American architects chosen to design the Sainsbury Wing, Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown, larded their design with a series of knowing, sometimes mannered quotations from much older buildings.

    The redesign of this Grade I-listed building by the American architect Annabelle Selldorf has now opened up Venturi and Scott Brown’s dark, crypt-like ground floor foyer. Squat columns originally intended to create a sense of anticipation have been thinned and in some cases removed. As the Twentieth Century Society noted in its planning objection, “the key sense of compression” (released upon climbing the stair) has been lost.

    Artemisia Gentileschi’s Self-Portrait as Saint Catherine of Alexandria has not been hung in a specific women artists room.
    National Gallery

    A ‘tamer’ rehang

    Upstairs in the galleries, theme rooms have been introduced, scattered among the otherwise chronological hang. The choice of themes is tamer than the 2023 rehang of European paintings at the Metropolitan Museum in New York, where some of the themes feel forced – such as “Tiepolo and multiracial Europe”.

    The National Gallery has resisted the temptation to devote a gallery to women artists: Artemisia Gentileschi’s Self Portrait as Saint Catherine of Alexandria (c. 1615-17) hangs between Caravaggios in room three, not next to Elizabeth Vigée Le Brun’s Self Portrait in a Straw Hat (1782) in room 15.

    Those who admired the way in which MacGregor invited non-believers to engage with Christian art on an emotional level may nonetheless feel that an opportunity has been lost. This is a rehang that could have shocked more than it did.

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

    Jonathan Conlin is the author of the National Gallery’s authorised bicentenary history, The National Gallery: A History.

    – ref. The National Gallery at 200: is this rehang a bold relaunch or rinse and repeat? – https://theconversation.com/the-national-gallery-at-200-is-this-rehang-a-bold-relaunch-or-rinse-and-repeat-258334

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The world needs bold, equitable climate action at the 2025 G7 summit

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sharon E. Straus, Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto

    As climate change and disrupted weather patterns impact countries around the world, leaders must act to mitigate the negative effects on public health.

    Leaders from six western countries and Japan will soon gather in Kananaskis, Alta., for the Group of Seven (G7) meeting from June 15 to 17, 2025. In the lead-up to this meeting, the Royal Society of Canada hosted the Science 7 (S7). This is an engagement meeting of the leading academies of the G7 member countries.

    Following discussion and deliberation, three statements aimed at advancing science for society were published, entitled Advanced Technologies and Data Security, Sustainable Migration and Climate Action and Health Resilience.

    One of us (Sharon Straus) oversaw the S7 statement on Climate Action and Health Resilience. This statement draws attention to the health impacts of climate change and recommends several mitigation strategies.

    Wide-ranging health impacts

    Experts on health and climate change have outlined the growing impact of delayed climate action. The data are clear. Extreme weather events such as heat, floods, droughts and wildfires are having wide-ranging health impacts.

    In the 10 years between 2014-2023, there was a 167 per cent increase in heat-related deaths in those aged 65 years and older compared with the 10 years between 1990-99. Extreme weather events also directly impact food and water security, as well as infectious diseases and chronic diseases.

    The health consequences of climate change are not only the result of environmental factors. Of equal importance are recent decisions eliminating funding for programs that mitigate the risks of climate change.

    Consider for example, the multiple threats to recent progress in eliminating malaria. The World Malaria Report published in December 2024 by the World Health Organization estimated that 2.2 billion malaria cases and 12.7 million malaria deaths were averted between 2000 and 2023.

    Now, many countries anticipate a malaria resurgence. Antimalarial drug resistance, mosquito resistance to insecticides, changes in temperature and humidity affecting mosquito survival and the emergence of new mosquito species linked to climate change — combined with the recent abrupt funding freeze from the United States — are leading to a perfect storm.

    Economic impact of climate change

    The economic burden of climate change, which includes more health-care use, lost productivity, adaptation and mitigation expenses — to say nothing of the costs of rebuilding — is massive.

    Much of that burden is borne by those who live in low- and middle-income countries (80 per cent of the world’s population) and who are the lowest contributors to carbon dioxide emissions.

    To put this in perspective, in 2021, the United Nations Environment Program estimated the costs of annual adaptation for vulnerable countries at US$70 billion and predicted this would increase to US$140-300 billion by 2030.

    In addition to the costs of adaptation aimed at reducing vulnerability to climate change, there are the costs associated with losses resulting from climate change. The 2024 Lancet Countdown estimated that the average annual economic losses due to extreme weather-related events reached US$227 billion between 2019-2023. This value exceeds the gross domestic product of approximately 60 per cent of the world’s economies.

    What about Canada?

    In Canada, warming is happening at twice the global rate with resulting heat, wildfires and floods. There is also evidence of significant impacts on mental health and chronic diseases, leading to an increased need for health care.

    Indigenous communities, older adults and those who have experienced homelessness are disproportionately impacted by climate change. Indigenous Peoples, especially those living in remote and northern areas, are particularly vulnerable.

    Currently there are 37 long-term and 40 short-term drinking water advisories in First Nations communities across Canada. The lack of safe, clean drinking water can exacerbate climate-related food and water insecurity and lead to infectious disease transmission.

    The number of people experiencing homelessness is growing and many of these individuals are over 50 years old. These older adults are physiologically 15-20 years older than their housed counterparts and are at higher risk of chronic diseases, including those exacerbated by climate change.

    Similarly, frail older adults are at higher risk of health effects of climate change. It is worth remembering the impact of poor air quality and lack of air conditioning during the COVID-19 pandemic on those living in long-term care homes.

    Climate change costs health-care systems more each year. The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices recently estimated that health-related hospitalizations will increase by 21 per cent by mid-century. Our health systems are not prepared for this.

    In addition, the costs of death and reduced quality of life from heat-related climate change is estimated to rise between $3 billion and $3.9 billion by the middle of this century. Factoring in other impacts such as those from air pollution, flooding and wildfires, the total estimated costs are in the tens to hundreds of billions.

    S7’s recommendations

    The S7 statement on Climate Action and Health Resilience includes seven recommendations. Addressing the disproportionate impact of climate change on populations who are particularly vulnerable and investing in innovative solutions are among them. Particularly critical are societal and political innovations that involve affected communities, including Indigenous communities.

    The S7’s climate and health resilience recommendations include:

    • Developing and optimizing climate change mitigation strategies to transform health and social services (such as early warning infectious disease systems and biomonitoring).

    • Developing new regulations nationally and internationally to transform health, public health and social services, increasing their readiness and safeguarding health from climate change impact.

    • Providing economic and regulatory incentives to foster adaptation and resiliency of health systems.

    • Investing in innovative solutions (including vaccine development for emerging diseases, wastewater surveillance) to mitigate climate change and its health risks.

    The G7 summit is an opportunity to centre climate change discussions and act on the S7 recommendations. Bold investment in innovations that address the health challenges resulting from climate change will benefit us all and drive new economic activity and resilience.

    Climate change is a health issue, a social justice issue and an economic issue, and the time to act is now. Scientists, policymakers, clinicians and the public must work together.

    Sharon E. Straus receives research funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada. She is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.

    Françoise Baylis is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.

    – ref. The world needs bold, equitable climate action at the 2025 G7 summit – https://theconversation.com/the-world-needs-bold-equitable-climate-action-at-the-2025-g7-summit-256876

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –