NewzIntel.com

Category: Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Global: Engineering students explore how to ethically design and locate nuclear facilities in this college course

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Aditi Verma, Assistant Professor of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences, University of Michigan

    While nuclear power can reap enormous benefits, it also comes with some risks. Michel Gounot/GODONG/Stone via Getty Images

    Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.

    Title of course:

    Socially Engaged Design of Nuclear Energy Technologies

    What prompted the idea for the course?

    The two of us had some experience with participatory design coming into this course, and we had a shared interest in bringing virtual reality into a first-year design class at the University of Michigan.

    It seemed like a good fit to help students learn about nuclear technologies, given that hands-on experience can be difficult to provide in that context. We both wanted to teach students about the social and environmental implications of engineering work, too.

    Aditi is a nuclear engineer and had been using participatory design in her research, and Katie had been teaching ethics and design to engineering students for many years.

    What does the course explore?

    Broadly, the course explores engineering design. We introduce our students to the principles of nuclear engineering and energy systems design, and we go through ethical concerns. They also learn communication strategies – like writing for different audiences.

    Students learn to design the exterior features of nuclear energy facilities in collaboration with local communities. The course focuses on a different nuclear energy technology each year.

    In the first year, the focus was on fusion energy systems. In fall 2024, we looked at locating nuclear microreactors near local communities.

    The main project was to collaboratively decide where a microreactor might be sited, what it might look like, and what outcomes the community would like to see versus which would cause concern.

    Students also think about designing nuclear systems with both future generations and a shared common good in mind.

    The class explores engineering as a sociotechnical practice – meaning that technologies are not neutral. They shape and affect social life, for better and for worse. To us, a sociotechnical engineer is someone who adheres to scientific and engineering fundamentals, communicates ethically and designs in collaboration with the people who are likely to be affected by their work.

    In class, we help our students reflect on these challenges and responsibilities.

    Why is this course relevant now?

    Nuclear energy system design is advancing quickly, allowing engineers to rethink how they approach design. Fusion energy systems and fission microreactors are two areas of rapidly evolving innovation.

    Microreactors are smaller than traditional nuclear energy systems, so planners can place them closer to communities. These smaller reactors will likely be safer to run and operate, and may be a good fit for rural communities looking to transition to carbon-neutral energy systems.

    But for the needs, concerns and knowledge of local people to shape the design process, local communities need to be involved in these reactor siting and design conversations.

    Students in the course explore nuclear facilities in virtual reality.
    Thomas Barwick/DigitalVision via Getty Images

    What materials does the course feature?

    We use virtual reality models of both fission and fusion reactors, along with models of energy system facilities. AI image generators are helpful for rapid prototyping – we have used these in class with students and in workshops.

    This year, we are also inviting students to do some hands-on prototyping with scrap materials for a project on nuclear energy systems.

    What will the course prepare students to do?

    Students leave the course understanding that community engagement is an essential – not optional – component of good design. We equip students to approach technology use and development with users’ needs and concerns in mind.

    Specifically, they learn how to engage with and observe communities using ethical, respectful methods that align with the university’s engineering research standards.

    What’s a critical lesson from the course?

    As instructors, we have an opportunity – and probably also an obligation – to learn from students as much as we are teaching them course content. Gen Z students have grown up with environmental and social concerns as centerpieces of their media diets, and we’ve noticed that they tend to be more strongly invested in these topics than previous generations of engineering students.

    Aditi Verma receives funding from the Department of Energy. She is a board member for Good Energy Collective.

    Katie Snyder 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. Engineering students explore how to ethically design and locate nuclear facilities in this college course – https://theconversation.com/engineering-students-explore-how-to-ethically-design-and-locate-nuclear-facilities-in-this-college-course-248636

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The solution to workplace isolation might be in the gap − the generation gap

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Megan Gerhardt, Professor of Management, Farmer School of Business, Miami University

    The potential for friendships and mentorships between colleagues in different stages of life are often overlooked. OwenPrice/E+ via Getty Images

    Five years after the COVID-19 pandemic began, the United States finds itself in the midst of another public health crisis. This particular pandemic is a psychological one: widespread loneliness and isolation.

    About half of adults in the U.S. report feeling lonely – what former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has characterized as an epidemic. The increase in social isolation has extensive costs for “schools, workplaces, and civic organizations, where performance, productivity, and engagement are diminished,” he wrote in 2023.

    As a business school professor who studies intergenerational relationships, I believe that our workplaces hold untapped potential for alleviating isolation. When colleagues do form friendships at work, they often gravitate toward people their own age. But fostering meaningful connections across generational lines can benefit not just organizations, but workers’ own sense of purpose and mental health.

    Working solo

    The COVID-19 pandemic affected all ages differently. Prior to 2020, it seemed that younger generations were leading a strong push away from working in the office. Once many Americans were working remotely, however, Generation Z – those born 1997-2012 – reported the highest levels of loneliness.

    Remote work may be common for Gen Z, but that doesn’t mean they prefer it.
    Fiordaliso/Moment via Getty Images

    The problem, I’d argue, is how organizations’ early questions about working through the pandemic centered on efficiency. Was it possible do our jobs remotely? Would we be as productive? Was remote work viable long term? For many jobs, the answer was yes, resulting in persistent work-from-home options even after it became physically safe to return to offices.

    Yet companies overlooked crucial elements that contribute to employees’ commitment and well-being, particularly strong relationships between colleagues. These factors are especially vital during early career years as young workers establish networks, learn their roles and develop professional identities – all considerably more challenging in remote or hybrid environments.

    Just 31% of U.S. employees feel engaged on the job, according to January 2025 data from Gallup – a 10-year low. Only 39% of employees strongly feel that someone at work cares about them as a person, and only 30% strongly agree that someone cares about their development.

    Workers under 35, especially members of Gen Z, experienced a more significant decline in engagement than other age groups, dropping 5 points compared with the previous year.

    5 generations

    Since hybrid and remote work appear to be here to stay, we need innovative solutions to combat disconnectedness. One overlooked opportunity might lie in a demographic reality that many organizations view as a challenge.

    Today, there are five generations in the workplace, more than any other time in history. This increase in diversity is primarily due to older workers remaining in the workforce longer than in the past, whether because of economic necessity or increased longevity and health.

    In 2024, 18% of the U.S. workforce belonged to Gen Z. They’ve surpassed the baby boomers, born 1946-1964, who make up 15%. Gen X, meanwhile – the generation born 1965-1980 – comprise 31%. The largest group are millennials, born 1981-1996, who represent 36% of workers. Finally, 1% of the workforce belong to the Silent Generation, born 1928-1945.

    While such age diversity presents challenges, it also holds unique potential.

    The importance of workplace friendships is well documented. Research has found positive workplace relationships are beneficial to teamwork, career development and building a sense of community, and they help employees find more meaning in their work. Workplace friendships can help offset job stress and exhaustion and contribute to mental health. The benefits of such relationships can reach beyond the workplace, increasing overall well-being.

    However, these friendships rarely cross generational lines. A phenomenon known as “age similarity preference” often causes us to gravitate toward people similar in age, including among our co-workers. This broader tendency to connect with people we deem most similar to ourselves is well documented, and age can be a particularly visible sign of surface-level difference – one that leads people to assume, often incorrectly, that they hold similar views.

    Employees talk in the cafeteria of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., in 2023.
    Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    While natural, this tendency limits interactions and relationships,
    leading to higher levels of conflict. Not only do intergenerational connections at work bring professional benefits, but they can combat isolation.

    For example, relationships with colleagues from different generations tend to have fewer feelings of competition and pressure, as they likely occupy different life and career stages. An older colleague who has navigated office politics or balanced raising young children with career demands can provide valuable advice and support to co-workers facing these challenges for the first time.

    Forming intergenerational friendships can help break down negative stereotypes about people who are older or younger by revealing areas of common interest.

    Beyond Gen Z

    The benefits of these relationships extend beyond younger generations, especially given how widespread post-pandemic loneliness is.

    Cross-generational relationships don’t just magically happen – companies can help foster them.
    Tempura/E+ via Getty Images

    Adults in mid-to-late career stages – Gen Xers and baby boomers – are in their prime years for “generativity”: the life stage when people are most likely to be motivated to share knowledge and expertise, preparing the next generation for success. Generativity leads to benefits for the mentors too, such as higher self-esteem.

    People of all ages benefit from meaningful intergenerational relationships, but it takes an effort to create them. Employers can help by setting up opportunities to connect. For example, a mutual mentoring program can be a fantastic way to encourage not only learning, but unexpected friendships as well.

    Jonna, a Gen Xer I met through my generational consulting work, sought out a Gen Z mentor at her office and was grateful for her insight, as well as the chance to give advice. “I like to believe I am someone with a growth mindset and in touch with current realities, but I quickly learned that Hannah had perspectives on many things that stretched me and my thinking,” she said. “Our partnership has helped me approach every situation with curiosity instead of judgment.”

    Hannah, her mentor-mentee, found the partnership just as beneficial. The experience was “a reminder that regardless of age, we all have something to contribute, and bridging generational gaps can lead to innovative solutions and a richer understanding of the world.”

    Reaching out to colleagues who are significantly older or younger might seem unexpected. But it may also build a more connected, resilient workforce, where wisdom and innovation flow freely across generational divides.

    Megan Gerhardt 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. The solution to workplace isolation might be in the gap − the generation gap – https://theconversation.com/the-solution-to-workplace-isolation-might-be-in-the-gap-the-generation-gap-250571

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s desire to ‘un-unite’ Russia and China is unlikely to work – in fact, it could well backfire

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Linggong Kong, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science, Auburn University

    Presidents Xi Jinping of China and Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Getty Images

    Is the U.S. angling for a repeat of the Sino-Russian split?

    In an Oct. 31, 2024, interview with right-wing pundit Tucker Carlson, President Donald Trump argued that the United States under Joe Biden had, in his mind erroneously, pushed China and Russia together. Separating the two powers would be a priority of his administration. “I’m going to have to un-unite them, and I think I can do that, too,” Trump said.

    Since returning to the White House, Trump has been eager to negotiate with Russia, hoping to quickly bring an end to the war in Ukraine. One interpretation of this Ukraine policy is that it serves what Trump was getting at in his comments to Carlson. Pulling the U.S. out of the European conflict and repairing ties with Russia, even if it means throwing Ukraine under the bus, can be seen within the context of a shift of America’s attention to containing Chinese power.

    Indeed, after a recent call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump told Fox News: “As a student of history, which I am – and I’ve watched it all – the first thing you learn is you don’t want Russia and China to get together.”

    The history Trump alludes to is the strategy of the Nixon era, in which the U.S. sought to align with China as a counterbalance to the Soviet Union, encouraging a split between the two communist entities in the process.

    Yet if creating a fissure between Moscow and Beijing is indeed the ultimate aim, Trump’s vision is, I believe, both naive and shortsighted. Not only is Russia unlikely to abandon its relationship with China, but many in Beijing view Trump’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine war –- and his foreign policy more broadly – as a projection of weakness, not strength.

    A growing challenge

    Although Russia and China have at various times in the past been adversaries when it suited their interests, today’s geopolitical landscape is different from the Cold War era in which the Sino-Soviet split occurred. The two countries, whose relationship has grown steadily close since the fall of the Soviet Union，have increasingly shared major strategic goals – chief among them, challenging the Western liberal order led by the U.S.

    Soviet soldiers keep watch on the Chinese-Soviet border during a monthslong conflict in 1969.
    Keystone/Getty Images

    Both China and Russia have, in recent years, adopted an increasingly assertive stance in projecting military strength: China in the South China Sea and around Taiwan, and Russia in former Soviet satellite states, including Ukraine.

    In response, a unified stance formed by Western governments to counter China and Russia’s challenge has merely pushed the two countries closer together.

    Besties forever?

    In February 2022, just as Russia was preparing its invasion of Ukraine, Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping announced a “friendship without limits” – in a show of unified intent against the West.

    China has since become an indispensable partner for Russia, serving as its top trading partner for both imports and exports. In 2024, bilateral trade between China and Russia reached a record high of US$237 billion, and Russia now relies heavily on China as a key buyer of its oil and gas. This growing economic interdependence gives China considerable leverage over Russia and makes any U.S. attempt to pull Moscow away from Beijing economically unrealistic.

    That doesn’t mean the Russian-Chinese relationship is inviolable; areas of disagreement and divergent policy remain.

    Indeed, there are areas that Trump could exploit if he were to succeed in driving a wedge between the two countries. For example, it could serve Russia’s interests to support U.S. efforts to contain China and discourage any expansionist tendencies in Beijing – such as through Moscow’s strategic ties with India, which China views with some alarm – especially given that there are still disputed territories along the Chinese-Russian border.

    Putin know who his real friends are

    Putin isn’t naive. He knows that with Trump in office, the deep-seated Western consensus against Russia – including a robust, if leaky, economic sanctions regime – isn’t going away anytime soon. In Trump’s first term, the U.S. president likewise appeared to be cozying up to Putin, but there is an argument that he was even tougher on Russia, in terms of sanctions, than the administrations of Barack Obama or Joe Biden.

    So, while Putin would likely gladly accept a Trump-brokered peace deal that sacrifices Ukraine’s interests in favor of Russia, that doesn’t mean he would be rushing to embrace some kind of broader call to unite against China. Putin will know the extent to which Russia is now reliant economically on China, and subservient to it militarily. In the words of one Russian analyst, Moscow is now a “vassal” or, at best, a junior partner to Beijing.

    Transactional weakness

    China for its part views Trump’s peace talks with Russia and Ukraine as a sign of weakness that potentially undermines U.S. hawkishness toward China.

    While some members of the U.S. administration are undoubtedly hawkish on China – Secretary of State Marco Rubio views the country as the “most potent and dangerous” threat to American prosperity – Trump himself has been more ambivalent. He may have slapped new tariffs on China as part of a renewed trade war, but he has also mulled a meeting with President Xi Jinping in an apparent overture.

    Beijing recognizes Trump’s transactional mindset, which prioritizes short-term, tangible benefits over more predictable long-term strategic interests requiring sustained investment.

    This changes the calculation over whether the U.S. may be unwilling to bear the high costs of defending Taiwan. Trump, in a deviation from his predecessor, has failed to commit the country to defending Taiwan, the self-governing island claimed by Beijing.

    Rather, Trump had indicated that if the Chinese government were to launch a military campaign to “reunify” Taiwan, he would opt instead for economic measures like tariffs and sanctions. His apparent openness to trade Ukraine territory for peace now has made some in Taiwan concerned over Washington’s commitment to long-established international norms.

    Insulating the economy

    China has taken another key lesson from Russia’s experience in Ukraine: The U.S.-led economic sanctions regime has serious limits.

    Even under sweeping Western sanctions, Russia was able to stay afloat through subterfuge and with support from allies like China and North Korea. Moreover, China remains far more economically intertwined with the West than Russia, and its relatively dominant global economic position means that it has significant leverage to combat any U.S.-led efforts to isolate the country economically.

    Indeed, as geopolitical tensions have driven the West to gradually decouple from China in recent years, Beijing has adapted to the resulting economic slowdown by prioritizing domestic consumption and making the economy more self-reliant in key sectors.

    A souvenir shopkeeper displays Matryoshka dolls featuring Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump.
    Misha Friedman/Getty Images

    That in part also reflects China’s significant global economic and cultural strength. Coupled with this has been a domestic push to win countries in the Global South around to China’s position. Beijing has secured endorsements from 70 countries officially recognizing Taiwan as part of China.

    China’s turn to exploit a split?

    As such, Trump’s plan to end the Russia-Ukraine war by favoring Russia in the hope of drawing it into an anti-China coalition is, I believe, likely to backfire.

    While Russia may itself harbor concerns about China’s growing power, the two country’s shared strategic goal of challenging the Western-led international order — and Russia’s deep economic dependence on China — make any U.S. attempt to pull Moscow away from Beijing unrealistic.

    Moreover, Trump’s approach exposes vulnerabilities that China could exploit. His transactional and isolationist foreign policy, along with his encouragement of right-wing parties in Europe, may strain relations with European Union allies and weaken trust in American security commitments. Beijing, in turn, may view this as a sign of declining U.S. influence, giving China more room to maneuver, noticeably in regard to Taiwan.

    Rather than increasing the chances of a Sino-Russia split, such a shift could instead divide an already fragile Western coalition.

    Linggong Kong 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. Trump’s desire to ‘un-unite’ Russia and China is unlikely to work – in fact, it could well backfire – https://theconversation.com/trumps-desire-to-un-unite-russia-and-china-is-unlikely-to-work-in-fact-it-could-well-backfire-252243

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump is not a king – but that doesn’t stop him from reveling in his job’s most ceremonial and exciting parts

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Shannon Bow O’Brien, Associate Professor of Instruction, The University of Texas at Austin

    President Donald Trump speaks with Elon Musk next to a Tesla Model S on the South Lawn of the White House on March 11, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    Heads of state are the symbolic leader of a country. Some of them, like King Charles III of the United Kingdom, carry out largely ceremonial roles these days. Others, like Saudi Arabian King Salman, are absolute monarchs and involved in governing the country’s day-to-day activities and policies. It also means that the Saudi monarch gets to do whatever he wants without much consequence from others.

    In the United States, the president is both the head of state and head of government. The head of government works with legislators and meets with other world leaders to negotiate agreements and navigate conflicts, among other responsibilities.

    Some presidents, like Jimmy Carter, got so bogged down in the specifics that the nighttime comedy show “Saturday Night Live” made fun of it in 1977. “SNL” spoofed Carter responding in extreme, mundane detail to a question about fixing a post office’s letter sorting machines.

    As a political scientist who studies American presidents, I see that President Donald Trump loves the power and prestige that comes with being head of state, but does not seem to particularly enjoy the responsibility of being head of government.

    Trump rarely talks about the often-tedious process of governing, and instead acts with governance by decree by signing a flurry of executive orders to avoid working with other parts of the government. He has also likened himself to a king, writing on Feb. 19, 2025, “Long Live the King!”

    As much as Trump loves hosting sports teams and talking about paving over the White House’s rose garden in a remodeling project, he seems to begrudgingly accept the role of head of government.

    President Donald Trump is driven around the track prior to the Daytona 500 in Daytona Beach, Fla., on Feb. 16, 2025.
    Chris Graythen/Getty Images

    ‘You have to be thankful’

    Trump revels in social events where he is heralded as the most important person in the room. On Feb. 9, 2025, Trump became the first sitting president to attend a Super Bowl. A week later, he attended the Daytona 500 at Daytona Beach, Florida, where his limousine led drivers in completing a ceremonial lap.

    Trump’s preference for serving as head of state and not head of government was on full display during his now infamous Feb. 28, 2025, White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

    In the televised Oval Office meeting, Trump repeatedly told Zelenskyy, “You have to be thankful.”

    Trump was demanding deference from Zelenskyy to show his inferior and submissive position as a recipient of U.S. aid and military support. These are mannerisms of absolute kings, not elected officials.

    Governing through executive orders

    The beginning of Trump’s second term in office has been filled with announcements of changes – mostly through executive actions. The Trump administration has ordered the Pentagon to stop cyber operations against Russia and fired hundreds of employees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The administration has also closed the Social Security Administration’s civil rights office and, among many other things, named the president chair of the Kennedy Center, a performance arts venue in Washington.

    Trump has enacted policy changes almost exclusively through executive orders, instead of working with Congress on legislation.

    Executive orders do not have to be negotiated with the legislative branch and can be written by a small team of advisers and approved by presidents. Within the first six weeks, Trump has signed more than 90 executive orders. By comparison, former President Joe Biden signed 162 executive orders during his four years in office.

    Many of Trump’s executive orders are being challenged in court, and some have been found to likely not be constitutional.

    More importantly, Trump’s successor can turn executive orders into confetti in an instant, simply with a signature. Trump himself has signed at least two executive orders that rescind over 60 previous executive orders, mostly signed by Biden.

    The fact that Trump has removed almost all of Biden’s executive orders highlights how the orders can create change for a moment, or a few years. But when it comes to long-term policy change, congressional action is needed.

    President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders at the White House on March 6, 2025.
    Alex Wong/Getty Images

    Trump gets bored

    Early in Trump’s first term in 2017, the administration planned themed weeks called “Made in America” and “American Heroes,” for example, to emphasize changes it intended to pursue.

    Trump’s staff launched, stopped and then relaunched a themed infrastructure week seven times in 2019. This happened after Trump repeatedly derailed infrastructure events to focus on a more interesting event or topic, ranging from defending his comments that seemed to suggest support for white supremacists to discussing the reboot of Roseanne Barr’s sitcom.

    In his second term, Trump has farmed out many head of government tasks to other people, notably billionaire Elon Musk, who is leading the new so-called Department of Government Efficiency. By mid-February 2025, Trump gave Musk, who holds the title of special government employee, oversight for hiring decisions at every governmental agency.

    But as DOGE has initiated widespread cuts at different government agencies and offices in an effort to trim government waste, Musk has reportedly clashed with Trump’s cabinet members. This includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as well as other independent agencies funded by Congress.

    Government agencies, funding recipients and others are pushing back against the cuts and at times are succeeding in getting court rulings that halt the dismissal of government workers, or reinstate other workers at their jobs.
    Trump also seems to have abdicated most responsibility of bureaucracy to others by allowing Musk’s team unprecedented access to sensitive government programs and documents that include people’s personal information.

    Absolute kings, queens, emperors and dictators are heads of state who demand obedience because they hold the nation in their grip.

    Presidents from elected democracies may, as in the case of the U.S., have a ceremonial aspect to the job, but it is only a part of it. The people democratically elect American presidents to serve everyone and provide the best government possible.

    Shannon Bow O’Brien 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. Trump is not a king – but that doesn’t stop him from reveling in his job’s most ceremonial and exciting parts – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-not-a-king-but-that-doesnt-stop-him-from-reveling-in-his-jobs-most-ceremonial-and-exciting-parts-251445

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Amid U.S. threats, Canada’s national security plans must include training in non-violent resistance

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Richard Sandbrook, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Toronto

    Canadians are currently learning tough lessons about national security thanks to United States President Donald Trump’s repeated annexation threats.

    It’s clear that American proclamations of support for universal human rights, national sovereignty and a rules-based international order can vanish with a change of leadership. These ideals, though tarnished by some past U.S. actions, have now been replaced by the predatory dictum known as “might makes right.”

    Although it seems unthinkable that Trump will invade Canada, we live in an increasingly unstable world and Canadians need to be prepared for the worst. In the midst of a federal election campaign, party leaders need to present innovative ideas to fight Trump and potential American aggression.



    Read more:
    An American military invasion of Canada? No longer unthinkable, but highly unlikely

    More than military defence

    Unfortunately, the common assumption is that national security depends wholly on military strength and alliances. But the emergency Canada is now facing demands a rethink.

    Of course, Canada would not dispense with its military. It’s needed, especially to defend Canada’s northern frontier. However, Canada cannot match the U.S. in military power, nor would anything be achieved if it broke its commitments to the United Nations’ Non-Proliferation Treaty — a pact designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons — by acquiring nukes.

    Either of these tactics would be suicidal. Canada’s real strength is its unity and institutions.

    Canadians can paralyze military might through civil, non-violent resistance. Familiarity with these techniques could empower Canadian citizens to preserve a vibrant democracy.

    Non-violent resistance can not only a more effective defence, but also much less devastating in terms of lives lost and property destroyed. Responding to an invasion with military force would only mean widespread casualties and the destruction of Canada’s largest cities.

    Canada should therefore aim to subvert the will of the occupying force, not drive it, through armed defence, to fear, hatred and further violence.

    What is civil defence?

    Non-violent resistance involves using a country’s citizens and institutions to deter an invasion, and if that fails, to defeat and drive out the invaders. It has a long history both as a spiritual practice and a strategic weapon.

    Civil defence, however, only emerged as a strategic concept in the 1980s and 1990s. It is a system of deterrence and defence that relies on a united and resolute citizenry employing only non-violent tactics.

    An early American proponent was the Albert Einstein Institution’s Gene Sharp, an American political scientist. Recent advocates from around the world — Srdja Popovic, Erica Chenoworth and Michael Beer — follow in Sharp’s footsteps.

    Civil defence is not merely a theory. There is a long history of improvised civilian resistance to invasions, most recently in Ukraine.

    Ukrainians undertook many inspirational acts of non-violent resistance following the Russian invasion in 2022. They blocked tanks and convoys, berated or cajoled Russian soldiers to undermine their resolve, gave the wrong directions to Russian convoys, refused to co-operate and mounted spontaneous protests in occupied towns. But then the bloody carnage on both sides overwhelmed civilian defence.

    Countries that include Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Germany and Lithuania have institutionalized civil defence at various times. In Canada, civil defence was part of the mandate of Public Safety Canada during the Cold War. The idea then faded, being replaced by emergency management.

    Public Safety Canada protected Canadians from both human-made and natural disasters. The agency, now the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada, should be resuscitated. The toll being exacted by climate disasters is reason enough.

    Making Canada ungovernable

    Non-violent resistance involves determined citizens deterring an aggressor by signalling that the targeted country is united in opposition to a takeover.

    A potential aggressor fears contagion from the democratic ethos of these citizens. If invaded, the civilians defeat the invaders by rendering their society ungovernable by the aggressor.

    When the Warsaw Pact army invaded Czechoslovakia to crush the “Prague Spring” in 1968, the commanders soon learned that tanks and heavily armed soldiers were useless against unarmed civilians who refused to comply. The country was unruleable. Soviet troops were also infected with the democratic spirit and had to be rotated out of the country. It took several months and concessions from the Soviet Union before order could be restored.

    The invader cannot consolidate control if citizens and their institutions refuse to comply with its rule. The tactics involve a complete refusal to co-operate with the occupying force along with open defiance.

    That means that governments at all levels in the invaded nation continue to supply only basic services: clean water, electricity and policing, for example. Governments resign and civil servants find ways to subvert every order issued by the invader.

    Crowds fill urban squares in silent or derisory defiance of orders, making it apparent to all — the occupiers, the dictator’s audience back home, less committed citizens and global observers — who are the true purveyors of violence against non-violent people

    Throughout the occupation, citizens and non-governmental organizations focus on subverting the loyalty and morale of the occupying troops and functionaries and rallying international support.

    In Canada’s case, the long history of friendship with Americans would likely mean that the morale of the occupiers would be low. The aim is to encourage defections by soldiers and functionaries, and erode the support base of the dictator. This erosion of support could lead to the overthrow of the leader, or at least to his concoction of a compromise to cover a retreat.

    Attracting international support to Canada’s cause would not be a challenge. Trump has already alienated most of humankind and foreign governments during his first weeks in office.

    Obstacles

    Non-violent resistance is most effective with nation-wide training, organization and leadership. The national government is best equipped to provide the facilities. Training of volunteers could include responding to natural disasters and emergencies, as well as implementing a civil defence strategy.

    Yet partisan divides and apathy make such nationwide training difficult. It would likely be viewed with suspicion by right-wing populist forces in this era of conspiracy theories and misinformation.



    Read more:
    How conspiracy theories polarize society and provoke violence

    Apathy might also be a problem.

    These considerations suggest that top-down, apolitical training in civilian defence may not work. If so, training and organization should be the goal of as many existing civil society associations as possible: churches, synagogues, temples, civil rights groups, unions, Indigenous rights organizations, peace advocates and climate groups, for example.

    The manual authored by Michael Beer, the longtime director of the Nonviolence International non-governmental organization, includes more than 300 tactics. Widespread training and organization can not only deter aggression but ensure countries remain free of tyrants.

    Canada’s leverage

    Amid the ongoing threats against Canadian sovereignty, Canada is an ideal candidate for effective civil defence. Although it might be unlikely Trump will order a military invasion of Canada, a united country capable of non-violent resistance decreases the risk.

    Canada cannot match the U.S. in firepower or economic strength. But it shares with America a language, a history of common struggles, myriad cross-border personal relationships and basic democratic values still considered important by many Americans, if not Trump.

    All of these factors give Canada considerable leverage.

    Richard Sandbrook is Vice-President of Science for Peace, a registered charity.

    – ref. Amid U.S. threats, Canada’s national security plans must include training in non-violent resistance – https://theconversation.com/amid-u-s-threats-canadas-national-security-plans-must-include-training-in-non-violent-resistance-252451

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Polarisation: poor countries disagree over the economy, richer countries on social issues – new findings

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Francesco Rigoli, Reader in Psychology, City St George’s, University of London

    Shutterstock/Lightspring

    It is hard nowadays to find topics on which people agree. Ironically, though, all agree on one point: that disagreement has reached peak levels. People are united in recognising that society has become polarised.

    Why has this happened? In a new study, I examined which characteristics of a country fuel polarisation – and whether economics is a factor. I found that poorer countries such as Ethiopia, Myanmar, Guatemala and Zimbabwe are indeed usually more polarised than richer countries. In fact, the poorer the nation, the greater the division on attitudes towards the economy, gender equality and immigration.

    This helps explain why poorer countries are also more vulnerable to revolutions and civil wars. They are more divided and slide more easily into actual armed conflict. It is not a coincidence that communist revolutions, which are often sparked by economic polarisation, have never occurred in rich countries, but in those at an early stage of industrialisation – think of Russia in 1917, China in 1949 and Ethiopia in 1974.

    However, people in rich countries such as France, Germany and the US report more polarised opinions on abortion, divorce, suicide and homosexuality. It is social norms, rather than economic views, that divide. Anyone who has paid attention to the culture wars raging in the west can attest to this. Think of the anti-abortion stance of evangelical Christians in the US and to the traditional family cherished by European parties like the Alternative for Germany and Brothers of Italy, and compare them with the growing importance of LGBTQ issues among liberals in the west.

    Why are rich countries more polarised on social customs? The study shows that people in poor countries have conservative views on these issues – for example, claiming that abortion and divorce are never justified. There is little margin for disagreement in these countries as far as social norms are concerned. By contrast, opinion on social norms in rich countries is split between liberals and conservatives. Conformity pressures are weak on these topics, boosting polarisation.

    Education may also play a role. I found that poorly educated people prefer redistribution and state intervention in the economy more than the highly educated. This divergence is greater in poor countries, partially explaining why attitudes on the economy are more polarised in poor countries.

    Meanwhile, my study found that highly educated people profess more liberal opinions on social norms than the poorly educated, but the divergence is greater in richer countries. In other words, in poor countries education is more divisive on economic attitudes, while in rich countries it is more divisive on social norms.

    Inequality and polarisation

    A 2021 study found that polarisation is higher in countries where the income distribution is more unequal. Interestingly, this applies across various domains, including opinions about the economy, immigration and social norms. This adds another important layer to the picture. It suggests that the increase in polarisation is linked to the increase in economic inequality over the past few decades.

    Wealthier nations polarise along social lines.
    norbu gyachung/unsplash

    Some researchers predict that, as people get richer, polarisation over social norms is destined to fade in the west. In their view, the west is polarised because the population is gradually shifting from a conservative to a liberal stance on social customs. In this view, our current polarisation is essentially an epochal shift. Economic prosperity, the argument goes, will ultimately lead western societies to converge to liberal views, deflating polarisation.

    There are two reasons to be cautious about such an assessment. First, the multiple crises faced today by the world, and by the west in particular, may stunt economic prosperity, implying that people may continue to be divided on social norms rather than converging on liberal views.

    Second, there is no evidence that economic inequality is going down in the west, and as the research shows, this is not a promising sign in terms of decreasing polarisation. So, citizens of western countries better get used to culture wars for the foreseeable future.

    Francesco Rigoli 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. Polarisation: poor countries disagree over the economy, richer countries on social issues – new findings – https://theconversation.com/polarisation-poor-countries-disagree-over-the-economy-richer-countries-on-social-issues-new-findings-252552

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Albanese government bids for votes with ‘top-up’ tax cuts for all

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Tax cuts are the centrepiece of the Albanese government’s cost-of-living budget bid for re-election in May. The surprise tax measures mean taxpayers will receive an extra tax cut of up to A$268 from July 1 next year and up to $536 every year from July 1 2027.

    Delivering his fourth budget on Tuesday night, Treasurer Jim Chalmers described the tax relief as “modest”. It will cost the budget $3 billion in 2026-27, $6.7 billion in 2027-28 and just over $17 billion over the forward estimates.

    From July 1 2026 the 16% tax rate – which applies to taxable income between $18,201 and $45,000 – will be reduced to 15%. From July 1 2027, this will be further reduced to 14%.

    While cost of living is at the heart of the budget, apart from the tax changes, almost all the other measures have been announced. These include about $8.5 billion to strengthen Medicare (mostly to boost bulk billing) and $150 per household to extend energy relief until the end of the year. The government has also previously announced measures on cheaper medicines and improved access to childcare.

    The opposition has so far refused to say what a Coalition government would do on tax. It will now be under pressure to quickly produce a counter tax policy for the election, which is likely to be called this weekend.

    Chalmers presented a cautiously optimistic picture on the economy, while stressing the uncertain international times ahead.

    “Our economy is turning the corner,” he said. “This budget is our plan for a new generation of prosperity in a new world of uncertainty.”

    “It’s a plan to help finish the fight against inflation [and] rebuild living standards.”



    Read more:
    A ‘modest’ tax bribe, delivered against dark clouds of Trump-induced uncertainty

    After delivering two budget surpluses, this budget has deficits for the foreseeable future.

    This financial year’s deficit is estimated at $27.6 billion, rising to $42.1 billion in 2025-26 (in the December 2024 update it was expected to be $46.9 billion). The cumulative deficits across the forward estimates reach $179.5 billion.

    The budget predicts 335,000 in net migration in 2024-25, which is a fall of 100,000 from the previous year. It projects 260,000 for 2025-26.

    Chalmers described the global economy as “volatile and unpredictable” with “storm clouds” gathering. “Trade disruptions are rising China’s growth is slowing, war is still raging in Europe and a ceasefire in the Middle East is breaking down,” he told parliament.

    “Treasury expects the global economy to grow 3.25% for the next three years, its slowest since the 1990s. It’s already forecasting the two biggest economies in the world will slow next year – with risks weighing more heavily on both,” he said.

    Chalmers said Australia was “neither uniquely impacted nor immune” from the international pressures. “But we are among the best placed to navigate them.”

    Australia’s economic growth is forecast to increase from 1.5% this financial year to 2.5% in 2026-27, with the private sector “resuming its rightful place as the main driver of this growth.”



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

    Unemployment is projected to peak at 4.25%, lower than previously anticipated. Employment and real wage growth will be stronger and inflation was coming down faster, Chalmers said.

    “Treasury now expects inflation to be sustainably back in the [2%-3%] target band six months earlier than anticipated,” he said. “The worst is now behind us and the economy is heading in the right direction.”

    Chalmers told his Tuesday afternoon conference the budget is a “story of Australian exceptionalism”.

    He called the tax cuts “top up tax cuts” that built on the recalibrated stage 3 tax cuts. He claimed the average household with two earners would save $15,000 over four years through a combination of all these tax cuts and energy bill relief.



    Read more:
    Tax cuts are coming, but not soon, in a cautious budget

    Michelle Grattan 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. Albanese government bids for votes with ‘top-up’ tax cuts for all – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-bids-for-votes-with-top-up-tax-cuts-for-all-253021

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Tax cuts are coming, but not soon, in a cautious budget

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra

    Today’s budget is a cautious and responsible response to the cost-of-living pressures facing voters.

    As noted ahead of budget night, many of the major spending initiatives had already been announced.

    But, in the only major surprise, there are income tax cuts for all income taxpayers. Even if we need to be patient. The new tax cuts only start in July 2026, with a second round in July 2027.

    And as Treasurer Jim Chalmers himself said, they are “modest” cuts. A worker on average earnings will receive A$268 in the first year, rising to $536 in the second year.

    Combined with the government’s first round of tax cuts in last year’s budget, this will add up to $2,190 per year in 2027.

    The cost to the budget of the latest tax cuts in 2026-27 will be $3 billion, and over three years will be $17.1 billion. The cuts still need to pass parliament.

    But calls by economists such as Chris Richardson and Ken Henry for major tax reform have not been heeded. Major reforms inevitably create losers as well as winners. So, big changes were never likely just weeks before an election.

    And there is still bracket creep (increases in tax revenues as taxpayers move into higher tax brackets) over the next decade. Total tax receipts are projected to rise from 25.3% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2024-25 to 26.8% in 2035-36. This will do most of the work in the very gradual windback of the budget deficit.

    How concerned should we be about the budget moving into deficit?

    In the first back-to-back surpluses for almost 20 years, there were budget surpluses in 2022-23 and 2023-24. This year we are returning to deficit and further deficits are expected for about a decade. Should we be alarmed?

    A balanced or surplus budget is not necessarily a good budget. What we want is a budget appropriate to current economic conditions and sustainable in the long run.

    The Australian economy has only been growing modestly in recent years and is forecast to grow 1.5% in the current year. Inflation is near the target range in underlying terms. So, a modest deficit is not unreasonable.

    The longer run projections show a very gradual return to balance. But this assumes no recession and no further income tax cuts, for a decade. It might be better to rebuild the fiscal position more quickly so as to be better placed to provide fiscal stimulus in the event of a global recession or another pandemic.

    ‘A new world of uncertainty’

    As Chalmers said, we are in a “new world of uncertainty” with “the threat of a global trade war”. The volume of Australian exports is forecast to only expand by 2.5% in 2025-26 and 2026-27, but it could be lower.

    In February, the Reserve Bank forecast headline inflation would rebound above the 2% to 3% target range when the electricity rebates expired. The extension of the rebates in Tuesday’s budget as well as the reductions in the price of prescription medicines will help keep inflation below 3%. Headline inflation is forecast to improve to 2.5% in 2026-27.

    In the December 2024 budget update, the unemployment rate was forecast to be around 4.5% in mid-2025 and stay around that level for the next couple of years. Given the unemployment rate was steady at 4.1% in February, the reduction to 4.25% seems plausible.

    What will it mean for interest rates?

    One reason the government went for a modest tax cut rather than a wild “cash splash” is it did not want to undermine the narrative there will be future interest rate cuts by stimulating household spending too much.

    If households were given immediate cash to spend, this could drive up inflation.

    The Reserve Bank is unlikely to change interest rates at its April 1 meeting. But it would be very unhelpful for the government’s electoral prospects if the minutes showed the central bank had become more concerned about inflation and less likely to cut interest rates at future meetings.

    The Reserve Bank is unlikely to feel this budget contains enough government spending to boost economic activity in the near term and therefore change its view on the economic outlook.

    So, a further interest rate cut remains possible at the bank’s following meeting on May 20.

    And any further relief on interest rates would be welcomed by households – as well as whoever might be in government by then.

    John Hawkins was a formerly a senior economist at the Treasury and Reserve Bank.

    – ref. Tax cuts are coming, but not soon, in a cautious budget – https://theconversation.com/tax-cuts-are-coming-but-not-soon-in-a-cautious-budget-253027

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The 2025 budget has few savings and surprises but it also ignores climate change

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Bartos, Professor of Economics, University of Canberra

    By the standards of pre-election budgets, this one is surprisingly modest. There are only a handful of new revenue and spending initiatives. The Budget Paper 2 book, which contains new measures, is a slim document.

    In part, this is because many of the most significant new spending proposals have been announced already – support for more bulk billing, the Future Made in Australia program, funding for schools and pre-schools and the Housing Australia Future Fund.

    It can be hard to discern the new initiatives from the old. For example, the budget commits the government to support wage growth by “funding wage increases for aged care workers and early childhood educators” and “advocating for increases to award wages”. It will also ban non-compete clauses (contract provisions that hinder workers from moving between employers) for low- and middle-income workers.

    These should in theory significantly shift wages upwards. Yet the economic forecast for the wage price index barely moves – from 4.1% in 2023-24 to 3% in 2024-25 and 3.25% in 2025-26. That is because the forecasts had already built in assumptions on the impact of things like aged care and childcare wage rises – they aren’t new.

    The non-compete reform is a new initiative and over the longer term has the potential to improve wages as people move jobs. More importantly, it will improve flexibility in the labour market and improve productivity.

    Overall, the deficits are forecast to continue for the foreseeable future.

    Some more tax cuts on the way

    The one surprising element of the budget is tax cuts. In essence, they return some bracket creep to low- and middle-income earners for a couple of years, after which revenue estimates return to trend. Bracket creep refers to increases in tax revenues as taxpayers move into higher tax brackets.

    It is one of the reasons why governments have resisted calls to index the income tax brackets to inflation. Giving back bracket creep from time to time in the form of a tax cut, especially when an election looms, is more politically attractive.

    There were few savings initiatives. The main one was the old chestnut of more funding to the Australian Taxation Office for compliance.

    The Taxation Office receives an additional A$999 million over four years to combat tax avoidance including non-compliance, under reporting of income and illicit tobacco. This is expected to recoup $3.2 billion over five years, while increasing payments by $1.4 billion – some of the additional tax collected will go to GST payments to the states. So in net terms therefore this is also a modest saving.

    One thing to look for in every budget is the provision for “decisions taken but not yet announced”. This refers to money put aside in the budget for future announcements – such as election promises.

    It is not clear what the government might have planned. Revenue drops in 2025-26, but it climbs back up again in the following two years. Spending decisions include $323 million next year, which is relatively small change in the overall budget.

    For transparency, we should not have any undisclosed decisions but at least the ones in this budget are far from extravagant.

    Public service numbers

    On staffing in the public service, there has been a large increase since the government took office. There will be some 33,000 more public servants – the majority outside Canberra – in 2025-26 than in 2022-23. However, the rate of increase is slowing. Not all agencies have had staff increases in this budget.

    Nevertheless, the government has devoted ten pages to arguments for investing in the public service, and why the public service is a valuable resource. This is probably to emphasise one of the few points of difference between it and the opposition.

    The defence budget saw almost no change. The treasurer was asked in his budget lockup press conference why this was, given the uncertain geopolitical environment documented in the budget papers.

    Chalmers agreed “the world is a dangerous place right now” but pointed to increases in defence spending in previous budgets and argued these had positioned Australia to respond.

    One missing element of the budget is new spending to combat climate change. The threat of climate change to the budget estimates has grown significantly. This is acknowledged briefly with a half page in the budget’s “statement of risks” – “climate change is expected to have a significant impact on the budget”.

    However, that impact is not quantified – possibly because of “significant uncertainty”. Yes, there is uncertainty.

    But the same applies to other parts of the budget, including the international economy, which is discussed in much more depth. The climate change department is one of a handful that lose staff in this budget. It may take more severe disasters before it regains prominence in the budget papers.

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

    – ref. The 2025 budget has few savings and surprises but it also ignores climate change – https://theconversation.com/the-2025-budget-has-few-savings-and-surprises-but-it-also-ignores-climate-change-253026

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: At a glance: the 2025 federal budget

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Digital Storytelling Team, The Conversation, The Conversation

    What’s the theme?

    Many budget measures are aimed at easing cost of living. The headline announcement is tax cuts: everyone will get one, but not until July 1 2026. Other major spends are on Medicare, medicines and energy bill rebates. If this seems familiar, it’s because the government has already announced most of these measures before budget day.

    Your tax cut calculator

    Key announcements:

    Read the full analysis from our experts:

    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. At a glance: the 2025 federal budget – https://theconversation.com/at-a-glance-the-2025-federal-budget-252637

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Fiji solidarity group condemns Rabuka plans for Israeli embassy in Jerusalem

    Asia Pacific Report

    A Fiji-based Pacific solidarity group supporting the indigenous Palestine struggle for survival against the Israeli settler colonial state has today issued a statement condemning Fiji backing for Israel.

    In an open letter to the “people of Fiji”, the Fijians for Palestine Solidarity Network (F4P) has warned “your government openly supports Israel despite its genocidal campaign against Palestinians”.

    “It is directly complicit in Israel’s genocide against Palestinians and history will not forgive their inaction.”

    The group said the struggle resonated with all who believed in justice, equality, and the fundamental rights of every human being.

    Fijians for Palestine has condemned Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s coalition government plans to open a Fijian embassy in Jerusalem with Israeli backing and has launched a “No embassy on occupied land” campaign.

    The group likened the Palestine liberation struggle to Pacific self-determination campaigns in Bougainville, “French” Polynesia, Kanaky and West Papua.

    Global voices for end to violence
     The open letter on social media said:

    “Our solidarity with the Palestinian people is a testament to our shared humanity. We believe in a world where diversity, is treated with dignity and respect.

    “We dream of a future where children in Gaza can play without fear, where families can live without the shadow of war, and where the Palestinian people can finally enjoy the peace and freedom they so rightly deserve.

    “We join the global voices demanding a permanent ceasefire and an end to the violence. We express our unwavering solidarity with the Palestinian people.

    “The Palestinian struggle is not just a regional issue; it is a testament to the resilience of a people who, despite facing impossible odds, continue to fight for their right to exist, freedom, and dignity. Their struggle resonates with all who believe in justice, equality, and the fundamental rights of every human being.

    “The images of destruction, the stories of families torn apart, and the cries of children caught in the crossfire are heart-wrenching. These are not mere statistics or distant news stories; these are real people with hopes, dreams, and aspirations, much like us.

    “As Fijians, we have always prided ourselves on our commitment to peace, unity, and humanity. Our rich cultural heritage and shared values teach us the importance of standing up for what is right, even when it is not popular or convenient.

    “We call on you to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people this Thursday with us, not out of political allegiance but out of a shared belief in humanity, justice, and the inalienable human rights of every individual.

    “There can be no peace without justice, and we stand in unity with all people and territories struggling for self-determination and freedom from occupation. The Pacific cannot be an Ocean of Peace without freedom and self determination in Palestine, West Papua, Kanaky and all oppressed territories.

    “To the Fijian people, please know that your government openly supports Israel despite its genocidal campaign against Palestinians. It is directly complicit in Israel’s genocide against Palestinians and history will not forgive their inaction.”

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Why is the US group chat on Houthi attack plans so concerning? A military operations expert explains

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Parker, Adjunct Fellow, Naval Studies at UNSW Canberra, and Expert Associate, National Security College, Australian National University

    A report in The Atlantic today sent shockwaves through Washington and beyond: senior US officials shared military operations for a bombing campaign against Houthi rebels in Yemen in a Signal group chat that inadvertently included the magazine’s editor.

    Military planning of this nature is highly classified, which is why some media outlets are characterising it as “an extraordinary breach of American national security intelligence”.

    Here are three key reasons why this incident is so concerning, and how such conversations are typically handled.

    What are the potential consequences of this kind of breach?

    From an operational and strategic level, this incident could have had significant implications.

    Had the Houthis or their Iranian backers managed to access this information, they could have moved the individuals or equipment that was being targeted, making the strikes ineffective.

    In addition, depending on what military assets the US was using to conduct the strikes – for example, ships and aircraft – the information could have given away their positions. This could have allowed the Houthis to pre-emptively target these assets, which is another significant concern.

    Or, the Houthis could have pre-emptively attacked something else, such as oil facilities in neighbouring Saudi Arabia, which they have targeted successfully in the past.

    At the strategic level, this breach provides an insight into the dynamics of the people involved in the key defence decision-making in the Trump administration. Many names were reportedly shared, including an active intelligence officer.

    If America’s adversaries were able to access this information, they could use it to target these people or people around them.

    More broadly, this incident is just a bad look. This is a classified discussion about military planning being conducted on an unclassified platform that was accessed by a journalist who didn’t have high-level clearances and shouldn’t have had access to the information.

    How are classified conversations usually conducted?

    During my time in the Australian Defence Force, I was a former director of operations of a 38-nation coalition of maritime forces in the Middle East.

    And I was quite surprised to see these US plans being discussed on Signal.

    Normally, operations of this kind are discussed strictly on secure, classified devices only, such as phones or laptops. Military commanders are contactable on these devices at all hours of the day or night.

    These devices are “cleaned” before they’re issued by the Department of Defence and regularly checked. You can’t plug a foreign device into them, which ensures they can’t be compromised in any way. Any communications that take place on these devices would also be encrypted.

    In addition, on a classified network, it would be impossible to add someone to a conversation in the way the Atlantic editor was, unless they had access to the same secure technology.

    I would be highly surprised if the US secretary of defence, Pete Hegseth, and the national security advisor, Mike Waltz, do not have access to these devices. They may have chosen to have this conversation on Signal for ease, but it clearly makes the information much more vulnerable.

    If high-level conversations do need to happen on an unclassified platform like Signal, the participants would normally use a code word that doesn’t give away what they’re talking about. This keeps a conversation encrypted to a degree until a secure device can be accessed.

    Should America’s allies worry about intelligence lapses, too?

    The US’ key partners and allies should seek to have a conversation with the Americans behind closed doors to understand the context of what happened.

    The big questions are: what does this kind of lapse mean and what is the US doing to address it?

    The US National Security Council has already said it intends to look at the situation in depth.

    So, at this stage, I don’t think America’s Five Eyes partners should necessarily be concerned about the potential for other intelligence breaches.

    Jennifer Parker 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 is the US group chat on Houthi attack plans so concerning? A military operations expert explains – https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-us-group-chat-on-houthi-attack-plans-so-concerning-a-military-operations-expert-explains-253029

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: A budget splash to conserve 30% of Australia’s lands will save species – if we choose the right 30%

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Watson, Professor in Conservation Science, School of the Environment, The University of Queensland

    Hans Wismeijer/Shutterstock

    In 2022, Australia and many other nations agreed to protect 30% of their lands and waters by 2030 to arrest the rapid decline in biodiversity.

    Since then, the Albanese government has protected large new areas of ocean, taking the total up to 52% of territorial waters. In tonight’s federal budget, the government is expected to announce A$250 million in funding to protect an additional 30 million hectares of land over the next five years. At present, Australia protects 22% of its lands through its National Reserve System. This would take the total to 30%.

    You might expect conservationists to be ecstatic. But we’re not. Large new areas of desert and arid areas are likely to be protected under this scheme, because these areas have minimal population and are not sought after by farming. But these ecosystems are already well protected.

    We have to come back to the point of the 30 by 30 agreement: protect biodiversity. That means the government has to protect representative samples of all ecosystems – including in areas sought for farming or other human uses.

    This cropped map shows Australia’s protected lands and waters as of 2022. Subantarctic islands are not included.
    Australian Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, CC BY

    Buying land is only a fraction of the task

    For years, Australia’s National Reserve System of national parks, state parks and Indigenous Protected Areas has languished. The last big infusion of funding and political interest came between 2007 and 2010 under a previous Labor government, when Peter Garrett was environment minister. Then, the government expanded the reserve system, grew Indigenous Protected Areas and ensured new reserves would preserve a representative sample of Australia’s ecosystems.

    Since then, conservation efforts have largely not been up to scratch. Funding has stagnated. National parks are riddled with invasive species and other environmental problems.

    On funding grounds alone, the $250m announced by Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek is welcome. It is, however, just a fraction of what’s needed to properly protect the right areas.

    In 2023, environmental organisations called for a $5 billion fund to buy and protect important habitat – and to pay for maintenance.

    The purchase of land represents perhaps 10% of the overall cost of conservation. If you buy land and do nothing, it can be overrun by invasive species. Australia’s ever-larger number of threatened species are often threatened because of these species, as well as the growing threat of land clearing in Queensland and the Northern Territory. Fire management is another cost.

    Feral pigs and other invasive species place pressure on many ecosystems.
    Russ Jenkins/Shutterstock

    Which lands actually need protection?

    As successive governments have backed away from conservation, non-government organisations such as the Australian Land Conservation Alliance, Bush Heritage Australia and Australian Wildlife Conservancy have stepped up. These organisations are doing fine work in protecting land and doing the necessary on-ground land management to safeguard threatened species and ecosystems, but they do not have access to resources at a government scale.

    So how will this government funding be used? It’s likely we will see further growth in Indigenous Protected Areas – areas managed by Traditional Owners alongside authorities to protect biodiversity.

    These areas are often located where low rainfall often means they are not viable for farming. This means there’s less conflict over what to do with the land. If our government is determined to meet the 30% target as quickly and cheaply as possible, we may well see more arid lands and desert protected.

    When you set a target of 30% protected land by 2030, governments often see the top-line figure and aim for that alone. But the text of the international agreement stresses the need to prioritise “areas of particular importance for biodiversity”.

    Governments have a choice: the easy, less effective way or the hard but effective way. The recent growth in marine protected areas suggests the government is taking the easy path. Even though the science is clear that marine parks bolster fish stocks in and outside the park, they are still controversial among fishers who believe they are being locked out.

    As a result, Australia’s marine park system has made greatest gains where there are very few humans who might protest, such as quadrupling the protected areas around the very remote Heard and McDonald Islands in the sub-Antarctic region. (The government has expanded marine parks at a smaller scale closer to population centres too.)

    This same story may well play out on land.

    What would it look like if our government was willing to do what was necessary? It would involve actively seeking out the ecological communities in clear decline, such as native grasslands, brigalow woodlands and swamps, and buying up remaining habitat.

    The oceans off Heard and McDonald Islands are now better protected – but was this the easy option? Pictured: Heard Island from satellite.
    zelvan/Shutterstock

    Saving here, clearing there

    On the one hand, 22% of Australia’s land and 52% of seas come under some form of protection. But on the other, over the last two decades an area the size of Tasmania has been cleared – largely for livestock farming and mining. Satellite analyses show land clearing is actually increasing in many parts of the country.

    Land clearing places further pressure on threatened species. In fact, most species considered threatened with extinction are largely in this situation because the land they live on has attributes prized by farmers or graziers, such as grass and water.

    Australia’s environment faces real challenges in the next few years. Intensified land clearing, worsening climate change and whiplash drought-flood cycles, to say nothing of ballooning feral populations.

    If we protect the right 30% of Australia, we have a chance to ensure most of our ecosystems have areas protected. But if we protect the wrong 30% and leave the rest open to bulldozers, we will only lock in more extinctions.

    James Watson has received funding from the Australian Research Council, National Environmental Science Program, South Australia’s Department of Environment and Water, Queensland’s Department of Environment, Science and Innovation as well as from Bush Heritage Australia, Queensland Conservation Council, Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wilderness Society and Birdlife Australia. He serves on the scientific committee of BirdLife Australia and has a long-term scientific relationship with Bush Heritage Australia and Wildlife Conservation Society. He serves on the Queensland government’s Land Restoration Fund’s Investment Panel as the Deputy Chair.

    – ref. A budget splash to conserve 30% of Australia’s lands will save species – if we choose the right 30% – https://theconversation.com/a-budget-splash-to-conserve-30-of-australias-lands-will-save-species-if-we-choose-the-right-30-252918

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Technology has shaped human knowledge for centuries. Generative AI is set to transform it yet again

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Vivienne Bentley, Research Scientist, Responsible Innovation, Data61, CSIRO

    Cristóbal Ascencio & Archival Images of AI & AIxDESIGN/Better Images of AI, CC BY-SA

    Where would we be without knowledge? Everything from the building of spaceships to the development of new therapies has come about through the creation, sharing, and validation of knowledge. It is arguably our most valuable human commodity.

    From clay tablets to electronic tablets, technology has played an influential role in shaping human knowledge. Today we stand on the brink of the next knowledge revolution. It is one as big as — if not more so — the invention of the printing press, or the dawning of the digital age.

    Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is a revolutionary new technology able to collect and summarise knowledge from across the internet at the click of a button. Its impact is already being felt from the classroom to the boardroom, the laboratory to the rainforest.

    Looking back to look forward, what do we expect generative AI to do to our knowledge practices? And can we foresee how this may change human knowledge, for better or worse?

    The power of the printing press

    While printing technology had a huge immediate impact, we are still coming to grips with the full scale of its effects on society. This impact was largely due to its ability to spread knowledge to millions of people.

    Of course, human knowledge existed before the printing press. Non-written forms of knowledge date back tens of thousands of years, and researchers are today demonstrating the advanced skills associated with verbal knowledge.

    In turn, scribal culture played an integral role in ancient civilisations. Serving as a means to preserve legal codes, religious doctrines, or literary texts, scribes were powerful people who traded hand-written commodities for kings and nobles.

    But it was the printing press – specifically the process of using movable type allowing for much cheaper and less labour-intensive book production – that democratised knowledge. This technology was invented in Germany around 1440 by goldsmith Johannes Gutenberg. Often described as the speaking of one-to-many, printing technology was able to provide affordable information to entire populations.

    This exponential increase in knowledge dissemination has been associated with huge societal shifts, from the European Renaissance to the rise of the middle classes.

    The printing press was invented in Germany around 1440.
    Daniel Chodowiecki/Wikipedia

    The revolutionary potential of the digital age

    The invention of the computer – and more importantly the connecting of multiple computers across the globe via the internet – saw the arrival of another knowledge revolution.

    Often described as a new reality of speaking many-to-many, the internet provided a means for people to communicate, share ideas, and learn.

    In the internet’s early days, USENET bulletin boards were digital chatrooms that allowed for unmediated crowd-sourced information exchange.

    As internet users increased, the need for content regulation and moderation also grew. However, the internet’s role as the world’s largest open-access library has remained.

    Computers set in motion another knowledge revolution, providing a means for people to communicate, share ideas, and learn at an unprecedented scale.
    Masini/Shutterstock

    The promise of generative AI

    Generative AI refers to deep-learning models capable of generating human-like outputs, including text, images, video and audio. Examples include ChatGPT, Dall-E and DeepSeek.

    Today, this new technology promises to function as our personal librarian, reducing our need to search for a book, let alone open its cover. Visiting physical libraries for information has been unnecessary for a while, but generative AI means we no longer need to even scroll through lists of electronic sources.

    Trained on hundreds of billions of human words, AI can condense and synthesise vast amounts of information, across a variety of authors, subjects, or time periods. A user can pose any question to their AI assistant, and for the most part, will receive a competent answer. Generative AI can sometimes, however, “hallucinate”, meaning it will deliver unreliable or false information, instead of admitting it doesn’t know the answer.

    Generative AI can also personalise its outputs, providing renditions in whatever language and tone required. Marketed as the ultimate democratiser of knowledge, the adaptation of information to suit a person’s interests, pace, abilities, and style is extraordinary.

    But, as an increasingly prevalent arbitrator of our information needs, AI marks a new phase in the history of the relationship between knowledge and technology.

    It challenges the very concept of human knowledge: its authorship, ownership and veracity. It also risks forfeiting the one-to-many revolution that was the printing press and the many-to-many potential that is the internet. In so doing, is generative AI inadvertently reducing the voices of many to the banality of one?

    Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT can condense and synthesise vast amounts of information, across a variety of authors, subjects, or time periods.
    Ascannio/Shutterstock

    Using generative AI wisely

    Most knowledge is born of debate, contention, and challenge. It relies on diligence, reflexivity and application. The question of whether generative AI promotes these qualities is an open one, and evidence is so far mixed.

    Some studies show it improves creative thinking, but others do not. Yet others show that while it might be helping individuals, it is ultimately diminishing our collective potential. Most educators are concerned it will dampen critical thinking.

    More generally, research on “digital amnesia” tells us that we store less information in our heads today than we did previously due to our growing reliance on digital devices. And, relatedly, people and organisations are now increasingly dependent on digital technology.

    Using history as inspiration, more than 2,500 years ago the Greek philosopher Socrates said that true wisdom is knowing when we know nothing.

    If generative AI risks making us information rich but thinking poor (or individually knowledgeable but collectively ignorant), these words might be the one piece of knowledge we need right now.

    Sarah Vivienne Bentley 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. Technology has shaped human knowledge for centuries. Generative AI is set to transform it yet again – https://theconversation.com/technology-has-shaped-human-knowledge-for-centuries-generative-ai-is-set-to-transform-it-yet-again-252616

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Wage theft is now a criminal offence in NZ – investigating it shouldn’t be left to the police

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Irene Nikoloudakis, PhD Candidate in Law, University of Adelaide

    Getty Images

    Being robbed is a horrible experience under any circumstances. But being robbed by your employer involves a unique betrayal of trust.

    So it was a sign of real progress when “wage theft” finally became a crime in New Zealand earlier this month with the passage of the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Act.

    Heralded by trade unions and the Labour Party as a victory for workers, the new law makes it a criminal offence under the Crimes Act for an employer to intentionally (and without reasonable excuse) fail to pay workers what they’re entitled to.

    Wage theft can include deliberately underpaying wages or holiday pay, or making unlawful deductions from pay packets. The question now is how well the new law will be enforced.

    While there is little research on how widespread wage theft in New Zealand is, we do know it all too often affects temporary migrant workers and those in labour-intensive industries such as hospitality, construction and horticulture.

    But if, as seems likely, the police are tasked with investigating allegations of wage theft, the new law may struggle to be enforced effectively.

    Who investigates wage theft?

    Until the law change, wage theft was only addressed through the civil system, not the criminal courts. Underpaid employees could take an employer to court to recover what was owed – if they had the means to navigate what could be a complex process.

    It took an initiative by former Labour MP Ibrahim Omer – who as a refugee in New Zealand had experienced wage theft – to begin the reform process. He introduced a members’ bill to parliament in 2023 seeking to make wage theft a criminal offence.

    Under the new law, the maximum penalties for wage theft are the same as for general theft. For serious offences, this means employers can be imprisoned for stealing their workers’ pay.

    The trouble is, the law doesn’t state which government agency will be responsible for investigating such crimes. This is important because adequately enforcing the law is the whole point.

    A 2024 report by the Ministry of Justice had suggested investigative responsibility might sit with New Zealand’s workplace regulator, the Labour Inspectorate. This seemed a logical move.

    But when the legislation was being debated in parliament, it became clear MPs assumed enforcement responsibility would lie with police. Confirming the law change this month, Labour MP Camilla Bellich said:

    Theft is theft, and before this bill was law workers had to take up a civil case. Civil wage claims are difficult for any employee to initiate and often time consuming and expensive. Now workers can go to the police and report wage theft as a crime.

    Former Labour MP Ibrahim Omer’s experience of wage theft as a refugee inspired him to change the law.
    Getty Images

    How Australia does it

    On the face of it, the police might seem like the logical enforcement agency. They investigate crimes and play an important role in crime prevention. But wage theft isn’t an area they have dealt with before. And uncovering wage theft in practice is very difficult.

    First, those most at risk – such as migrant workers and young employees – are the least likely to report it, often for fear of the consequences or because they simply don’t know how to make a formal complaint.

    Secondly, bad employers are good at covering their tracks, leaving no paper trail or fudging the books.

    Without specialised knowledge or experience in these areas – as well as dealing with their existing resourcing challenges – the police will potentially struggle to uncover wage theft offending.

    A better model might be Australia’s criminal wage theft regime, which came into effect at the start of this year. Overall, it is tougher and more targeted than New Zealand’s.

    The Australian law applies hefty maximum penalties for wage theft offences – up to ten years’ imprisonment and monetary fines in the millions. Investigations are the responsibility of the national workplace regulator, the Fair Work Ombudsman.

    This makes sense, because it’s the Fair Work Ombudsman which has significant experience in uncovering breaches of national employment laws, not the police.

    Put the Labour Inspectorate in charge

    The equivalent enforcement agency in New Zealand is the Labour Inspectorate, whose entire remit is to uncover breaches of employment standards.

    The Labour Inspectorate, far more than the police, will understand the intricacies of wage theft, including which workers and industries are most vulnerable, and what methods dodgy employers use to hide wage theft.

    If necessary, the inspectorate’s powers and resources could be reviewed and modified to ensure it has the tools to conduct criminal investigations, including the ability to search and seize evidence.

    Finally, empowering an agency with the right tools, knowledge and experience to investigate wage theft would leave the police to deal with the other serious crimes already demanding their attention.

    Irene Nikoloudakis 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. Wage theft is now a criminal offence in NZ – investigating it shouldn’t be left to the police – https://theconversation.com/wage-theft-is-now-a-criminal-offence-in-nz-investigating-it-shouldnt-be-left-to-the-police-252712

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: PNG ‘test ban’ blocks Facebook – governor Bird warns of tyranny risk

    By Scott Waide, RNZ Pacific PNG correspondent

    The Papua New Guinea government has admitted to using a technology that it says was “successfully tested” to block social media platforms, particularly Facebook, for much of the day yesterday.

    Police Minister Peter Tsiamalili Jr said the “test” was done under the framework of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2024, and sought to address the growing concerns over hate speech, misinformation, and other harmful content online.

    Tsiamalili did not specify what kind of tech was used, but said it was carried out in collaboration with the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary (RPNGC), the National Information and Communications Technology Authority (NICTA), and various internet service providers.

    “We are not attempting to suppress free speech or restrict our citizens from expressing their viewpoints,” Tsiamalili said.

    “However, the unchecked proliferation of fake news, hate speech, pornography, child exploitation, and incitement to violence on platforms such as Facebook is unacceptable.

    “These challenges increasingly threaten the safety, dignity, and well-being of our populace.”

    However, government agencies responsible for communications and ICT, including NICTA, said they were not aware.

    ‘Confidence relies on transparency’
    “Public confidence in our digital governance relies on transparency and consistency in how we approach online regulation,” NICTA chief executive Kilakupa Gulo-Vui said.

    “It is essential that all key stakeholders, including NICTA, law enforcement, telecommunications providers, and government agencies, collaborate closely to ensure that any actions taken are well-understood and properly executed.”

    He said that while maintaining national security was a priority, the balance between safety and digital freedom must be carefully managed.

    Gulo-Vui said NICTA would be addressing this matter with the Minister for ICT to ensure NICTA’s role continued to align with the government’s broader policy objectives, while fostering a cohesive and united approach to digital regulation.

    The Department of Information Communication and Technology (DICT) Secretary, Steven Matainaho, also stated his department was not aware of the test but added that the police have powers under the new domestic terrorism laws.

    Papua New Guinea’s recently introduced anti-terror laws are aimed at curbing both internal and external security threats.

    Critics warn of dictatorial control
    However, critics of the move say the test borders on dictatorial control.

    An observer of Monday’s events, Lucas Kiap, said the goal of combating hate speech and exploitation was commendable, but the approach risks paving way for authoritarian overreach.

    “Where is PNG headed? If the government continues down this path, it risks trading democracy for control,” he said.

    Many social media users, however, appeared to outdo the government, with many downloading and sharing Virtual Area Network (VPN) apps and continuing to post on Facebook.

    “Hello from Poland,” one user said.

    East Sepik Governor Allan Bird said today that the country’s anti-terrorism law could target anyone because “the definition of a terrorist is left to the Police Minister to decide”.

    ‘Designed to take away our freedoms’
    “During the debate on the anti-terrorism bill in Parliament, I pointed out that the law was too broad and it could be used against innocent people,” he wrote on Facebook.

    He said government MPs laughed at him and used their numbers to pass the bill.

    “Yesterday, the Police Minister used the Anti-terrorism Act to shut down Facebook. That was just a test, that was step one,” Governor Bird said.

    “There is no limit to the powers the Minister of Police can exercise under this new law. It is draconian law designed to take away our freedoms.

    “We are now heading into dangerous territory and everyone is powerless to stop this tyranny,” he added.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The ICC showed its might by arresting Rodrigo Duterte. Its reputation will take longer to fix

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria, Lecturer in International Law, Curtin University

    Only five days after the arrest warrant against former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte was issued, he was apprehended and immediately put on a plane to The Hague to face charges before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

    The prompt action – and the fact he is the first former Asian head of state before the ICC – have been heralded as “a pivotal moment for the court”.

    While this is a rare success story in the court’s tumultuous history, many challenges remain. The successful arrest of one defendant will unfortunately do little to change negative perceptions of the court or remove the many obstacles it faces in prosecuting cases.

    A long history of criticism

    The ICC was conceived as a “court of last resort” in 1998 under the Rome Statute, the treaty that established it. The aim was to try individuals accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression in cases where a state’s domestic courts refuse or are unable to do so.

    Shortly after it began its work in 2002, however, the ICC faced criticism for its perceived focus on Africa.

    In more recent years, it has also been criticised for its limited effectiveness, its perceived hypocrisy, and a lack of support from major powers, such as the US, China and Russia, which are not members.

    The court has long faced a public relations crisis it may never be able to resolve. When it does not investigate a potential case, it is said to be ineffective. And when it does initiate investigations, it is often said to be biased or acting beyond its capabilities.

    Putin and Netanyahu

    Currently, the ICC has 12 ongoing investigations, mostly in Africa and Asia. It has issued 56 arrest warrants, half of which have yet to be executed.

    As the focus of the court is limited to those who bear the greatest responsibility for international crimes, the cases frequently involve high-profile individuals.

    Current arrest warrants, for example, have been issued against Russian President Vladimir Putin on charges of allegedly deporting Ukrainian children to Russia and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes committed in Gaza.

    These two cases have been among the court’s most controversial. Critics say the ICC lacks jurisdiction because:

    • the alleged crimes did not occur in their own states
    • their states are not parties to the Rome Statute
    • the UN Security Council did not refer these cases to the ICC for investigation.

    Others have accused the court of selective prosecution and bias for pursuing a case against Netanyahu, specifically, instead of prioritising cases in states run by dictators, such as Syria.

    And some complain the court should be focusing on crimes allegedly committed by Western leaders in places like Iraq.

    Indicting leaders of states raises additional legal challenges. International law dictates that heads of state enjoy immunity in other states’ courts – unless this immunity is expressly waived by their own governments.

    The ICC defends its actions as fair. It argues it does have jurisdiction in the cases against Putin and Netanyahu because the alleged crimes took place in Ukraine and Palestine, two states who have explicitly accepted its jurisdiction.

    And Article 27 of the Rome Statute says the ICC can exercise jurisdiction over people with state immunity, although it’s debatable whether this must be first waived for leaders of states not party to the Rome Statute.

    Cooperation remains key

    The ICC is not only constrained by these complex legal questions, but also by the limited cooperation of states around the world.

    It relies on close cooperation with its 125 state parties, among others. But some states have been reluctant or even refused to cooperate with the court in executing the arrest warrants of controversial figures.

    For example, Putin was not arrested when he visited Mongolia, an ICC member, last year, in part, because Mongolia relies heavily on Russian energy. South Africa similarly refused to arrest Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir when he visited in 2015.

    Even when state parties do cooperate, the political fallout can impact the court’s reputation.

    Following Duterte’s arrest last week, a Filipino senator (the sister of the current president) launched an urgent investigation to ensure due process was followed and Duterte’s legal rights were upheld and protected. She acknowledged the arrest has “has deeply divided the nation”.

    The lack of support from the US – arguably, still the world’s most powerful democracy – remains a perennial problem, as well.

    While the US has generally supported the court’s mandate over the years, it has been wary of its jurisdiction over American citizens and those of its allies accused of crimes. Last month, President Donald Trump authorised new sanctions against ICC officials in an attempt to paralyse the international organisation.

    Although 79 states did declare their support for the ICC following the sanctions, the Trump adminstration’s rejection of the court’s jurisdiction, legitimacy and authority has had significant consequences for its operations.

    It remains to be seen how the case against Duterte will play out. Securing a conviction is not assured.

    However, his arrest demonstrates the court can fulfil its mandate and remain a relevant force in the fight against the gravest of crimes. It is also a significant moment for the families of those killed during Duterte’s rule, who have long sought justice for their loved ones.

    Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria 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 ICC showed its might by arresting Rodrigo Duterte. Its reputation will take longer to fix – https://theconversation.com/the-icc-showed-its-might-by-arresting-rodrigo-duterte-its-reputation-will-take-longer-to-fix-252509

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Why does my kid eat so well at childcare but not at home?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Fuller, Clinical Trials Director, Department of Endocrinology, RPA Hospital, University of Sydney

    Maria Symchych/Shutterstock

    If you’ve ever picked up your child from childcare and wondered if they’re living a double life, you’re not alone.

    Parents often receive rave reports from educators about kids’ adventurous eating habits, only to face a different reality at home, when the child who devoured a veggie-packed curry at lunchtime morphs into a fussy eater refusing anything but dinosaur-shaped chicken nuggets.

    While this confusing behaviour is frustrating, it’s completely normal.

    Here’s why it happens and what you can do.

    How kids’ tastes and eating behaviour develops

    To understand why kids eat differently in different settings, we need first to understand two factors that shape their tastes and food preferences:

    1. Genetics. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors developed physiological responses for survival that are embedded in our genes and influence taste preferences from birth. These include developing “food fussiness” – a natural aversion to unfamiliar foods and bitter flavours to avoid ingesting toxins – and learning to seek palatable foods rich in natural sugars, fat and protein to avoid starvation.

    2. Eating environment. As kids grow, their surroundings at mealtimes – namely carers’ eating habits, feeding practices, routines and social cues conveyed – shape what they actually eat and enjoy.

    The interaction between these two factors drives how fussy kids will be, their likes and dislikes and how open they are to new foods.

    Why eating behaviour differs between childcare and home

    The simple reason kids may eat differently at childcare comes down to the eating environment. Here’s what typically makes childcare different to home:

    1. Childcare has strict routines

    Childcare runs to a strict schedule, teaching kids to expect meals and snacks at set times and places. Meals are also planned to ensure kids sit down to eat when they’re hungry, and food is offered for a limited time – factors that help kids focus on eating.

    When mealtimes are less structured at home, it often leads to kids snacking, reducing their appetite at dinnertime. Distractions, like screens, also take kids’ attention away from eating.

    2. Kids are exposed to peer influence and different role models

    Kids are natural copycats, so seeing friends enjoying healthy food makes them more willing to try it. This behaviour is supported by a study showing that seating a preschooler who dislikes a vegetable next to a peer who enjoys it can gradually shift their preference, leading them to eat the previously disliked vegetable.

    Additionally, the social nature of eating in a group setting encourages kids to try new foods and eat more.

    Research also shows carers – who are trained to model enthusiasm for nutritious foods – shape healthy eating habits and help kids learn other valuable behaviours like table manners.

    At home, time constraints and limited knowledge can make it harder for parents to model these same behaviours.

    3. Childcare regularly exposes kids to new foods

    At childcare, meals are carefully planned according to Australian Dietary Guidelines and are focused on exposing kids to new foods regularly and repeatedly to get them comfortable with different tastes and textures.

    At home, busy family lives often lead to repetitive meal routines.

    4. Kids are offered limited choices

    At childcare, meals are planned with military precision and served without negotiation, teaching kids to try to eat what’s provided.

    At home, mealtimes can involve high-stakes negotiations when kids refuse certain foods, leading parents to surrender and offer alternatives – a tactic that only reinforces fussy eating and teaches kids to hold out for favourite foods.

    5. Kids are given some control over what they eat

    Kids have very little control over their daily lives – we’re constantly telling them what to do and when they’ll do it.

    However, one way kids assert control is by refusing to eat certain foods at home.

    Childcare cleverly gives kids the control they seek, encouraging them to serve themselves from shared platters, making them more willing to try new foods.

    6. Kids experience less attention and pressure

    At home, we naturally focus on what our child is eating (and not eating) which makes mealtimes stressful for kids.

    At childcare, kids don’t have an audience watching their every bite, so they feel less pressure, eat more freely and are more willing to try different foods.



    Read more:
    5 picky eating habits – and how to help your child overcome them

    Six ways to bring childcare eating habits home

    1. Stick to a strict routine

    Serve meals around the same time each day and establish snack times, ensuring they’re two hours before mealtimes so your child sits down hungry and ready to eat. Your routine should include putting devices away so your child’s full attention is on eating.

    2. Be a positive role model

    Because kids observe and mimic what they see, if you show enthusiasm for trying new foods and healthy eating your child will do the same.

    3. Get creative

    Take a leaf out of childcare’s book and ensure your child’s plate features different colours, textures and flavours presented in fun ways to capture and hold their interest in new foods.

    And just like childcare, do this regularly, as repeated exposure is key – it can take eight to ten exposures before your child will accept eating a new food.

    4. Limit food choices (but in a fun way)

    Offer limited choices but in a way that gives your child some control, like serving platter-style meals where they can choose what they want.

    Don’t give into food demands. While it’s tempting to offer alternatives when meals are refused, this creates more problems than it solves, reinforcing food fussiness and narrowing their diet.

    5. Encourage independence

    Actively involve your child in meal preparation, asking them to pick healthy recipes, help you shop and complete simple tasks like washing veggies and mixing ingredients. This can make them curious to taste the meal they’ve helped prepare.

    6. Make mealtimes stress-free

    Prioritise sitting down to eat as a family and ensure mealtimes are relaxed and fun – especially when you’re introducing new foods – to create positive associations with healthy eating.

    Nick Fuller is the author of Healthy Parents, Healthy Kids – a clinically proven blueprint to overcoming food fussiness.

    A/Professor Nick Fuller works for the University of Sydney and RPA Hospital and has received external funding for projects relating to the treatment of overweight and obesity. He is the author and founder of the Interval Weight Loss program, and the author of Healthy Parents, Healthy Kids with Penguin Books.

    – ref. Why does my kid eat so well at childcare but not at home? – https://theconversation.com/why-does-my-kid-eat-so-well-at-childcare-but-not-at-home-247447

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Nerve-wracking twists, remarkable stardom and jet-black comedy: the 5 best films of the 2025 French Film Festival

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben McCann, Associate Professor of French Studies, University of Adelaide

    The Divine Sarah Bernhardt.
     Memento

    This year’s Alliance Française French Film Festival showcases a diverse selection of films from blockbusters and biopics to comedies and gripping thrillers for Australian audiences.

    I’ve written before about how this annual event, now in its 36th edition, is, in terms of tickets sold and films screened, the largest film festival dedicated to contemporary French cinema outside of France.

    The 2025 program once more shines a spotlight on the established icons and rising stars of French cinema.

    In the this year’s festival, 30% of the films are directed by women and thorny issues such as slavery, consent and caregiving are presented sensitively and provocatively.

    But from a competitive bunch, here are the best five films I saw this year.

    How To Make A Killing

    It’s Christmas in the Jura, France’s picturesque eastern region full of mountains, snow and pine trees. When Michel (Frank Dubosc) accidentally crashes his truck into a car, killing its driver and passenger, his wife Cathy (Laure Calamy) tells him he may have left fingerprints at the crime scene.

    They return – and discover two million euros in the car boot, and a loaded gun in the glove box.

    From this point on, How To Make A Killing features one improbable but amusingly nerve-wracking twist after another. There’s a local policeman in over his head and drug lords and contract killers who want their money back.

    Oh, and a black bear is on the loose.

    Writer-director Dubosc pays homage to the Coen brothers and sprinkles in a typically Gallic dose of black humour. What really gives the film zip and pizzazz is the fabulous Calamy. She has risen to the apex of contemporary French stardom and her performance is a delight.

    The Divine Sarah Bernhardt

    Sarah Bernhardt can lay claim to being the first film celebrity. Born in Paris in 1844, Bernhardt was first a legendary stage actress, performing Shakespeare and Racine across the world (including Melbourne and Sydney in 1891) before gravitating to silent cinema.

    Known for her extraordinary talent and intense stage presence (hence “divine”), she refused to play just female roles, famously playing Hamlet. Her eccentricity was equally renowned: she often travelled with an extensive menagerie of exotic pets.

    Guillaume Nicloux’s sumptuous biopic unfolds in a radical way. Rather than tracing Bernhardt’s career in the fairly bog-standard biopic way, Nicloux jumps around, focusing on key events from her life – the amputation of a leg, her death, her bisexuality, her hedonistic lifestyle.

    Through this bold achronological prism comes another daring choice: we never see Bernhardt act on stage or film. Her stardom emerges through the extraordinary effect she has on people who enter her orbit.

    At the centre is a remarkable performance by Sandrine Kiberlain. She captures Bernhardt’s glamour and narcissism but also taps into her vulnerability to reveal her gradual hollowing out as the vagaries of fame take their toll.

    It’s a cautionary tale that speaks to our current ambivalence towards stage-managed celebrity and “stardom at all costs”.

    My Brother’s Band

    Ever since its Cannes debut last May, Emmanuel Courcol’s My Brother’s Band has received rave reviews. It is sure to be an instant classic.

    Two brothers are separated at birth and are only reunited decades later when Thibaut (Benjamin Lavernhe) needs a bone marrow transplant. The only suitable donor is long-lost Jimmy (rising star Pierre Lottin).

    All that bonds the two is a shared love of music. Thibaut is an esteemed orchestra conductor while Jimmy plays the trombone in a local brass band.

    Lavernhe’s and Lottin’s scenes together are wonderfully wry and tender as the two brothers learn to appreciate each other’s lifestyles and ways of seeing the world. We also see how music can bind communities together during times of personal and collective crisis.

    Courcol shuttles between the stuffy, cathedral-like spaces of a Paris conservatorium and the cramped parish halls of northern France. Think Brassed Off meets Tár. My Brother’s Band brings the feel-good to the festival.

    When Fall is Coming

    When Fall is Coming, the latest work by prolific auteur François Ozon, is a broody family drama set in Burgundy.

    Behind the autumnal landscapes and off-the-beaten-track villages lies hidden trauma. Michelle (the outstanding Hélène Vincent, now 81) nervously awaits the arrival of her grandson and the daughter from whom she is long estranged (for reasons we don’t understand until much later).

    An innocuous first night meal turns to tragedy, and kickstarts a deeply engrossing, often menacing film. Pierre Lottin features again, this time as an ex-con slowly drawn into this unsettling web of secrets and lies.

    The “fall” in the title can be read any number of ways. Suffice to say, this slow-burner reminds us of Ozon’s knack in withholding plot points and revealing them gradually. With its blend of spiteful intimacy and startling revelations, When Fall is Coming quietly chills. You’ll not look at mushrooms in the same way again.

    Lucky Winners

    French filmgoers love to laugh. The top ten grossing French films in history are all comedies.

    Lucky Winners is a jet-black comedy about four different winners of France’s national lottery. Each becomes a millionaire overnight – but that’s when their troubles begin. Romain Choay and Maxime Govare’s witty film features a fine ensemble cast and a healthy dose of cruelty and squabbling.

    The dream sours. Money does not bring happiness, only guilt, revenge and greed. Feel-good quickly descends into feel-bad. I imagine Hollywood will be remaking this very soon.

    The Alliance Française French Film Festival is in cinemas around Australia on various dates until April 27.

    Ben McCann 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. Nerve-wracking twists, remarkable stardom and jet-black comedy: the 5 best films of the 2025 French Film Festival – https://theconversation.com/nerve-wracking-twists-remarkable-stardom-and-jet-black-comedy-the-5-best-films-of-the-2025-french-film-festival-250153

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What’s the difference between freckles, sunspots and moles?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mike Climstein, Associate Professor, Faculty of Health, Southern Cross University

    Cottonbro Studio/Pexels

    You’ve got a new brown spot on your face, but is it a freckle or a sunspot? Or perhaps you’ve found a spot on your back that looks like a mole but is flatter than your other ones – is it a mole or a dark freckle?

    Here’s how to tell the difference between freckles, sunspots and moles – and when you need to get a spot checked to see if it’s skin cancer.

    Freckles

    Freckles, known as ephelides, are small, flat, light brown spots that appear on people with fair skin, or red or light-coloured hair.

    These people are more likely to have the MC1R gene, which leads to freckles forming.

    Freckles are caused by sun exposure and are more noticeable in summer. When sunlight hits the skin, cells called melanocytes produce melanin, the pigment that gives skin its colour.

    In people prone to freckles, the melanin doesn’t spread evenly. Instead, it clumps together, creating freckles.

    Melanin doesn’t spread evenly in people prone to freckles.
    Chermiti Mohamed/Unsplash

    Freckles generally appear in childhood and may fade with age, especially if sun exposure reduces. As we age we produce less melanin, or it can break down or disperse, resulting in lighter or fewer freckles.

    Using sunscreen and wearing protective clothing can help prevent new freckles from developing, especially on the face and arms.

    While freckles are completely harmless, they are a sign that someone is genetically at higher risk of developing skin cancer.

    Sunspots

    Sunspots are also called age spots or actinic keratoses (or liver spots, but they have nothing to do with the liver). They are larger than freckles: sometimes the size of a small coin, and appear as flat brown spots.

    Sunspots develop over time due to long-term sun exposure, which leads to excessive melanin production. They tend to appear on skin with greater sun exposure, such as the face, hands, shoulders and arms.

    Sunspots develop after years of sun exposure.
    Zay Nyi Nyi/Shutterstock

    Unlike freckles, which tend to get lighter with less sun exposure, sunspots will not fade with time, and may further darken with continued sun exposure.

    However, some people try to remove their sunspots for cosmetic reasons using either a laser, chemical peel or a prescription topical cream.

    While sunspots are not dangerous, they do increase your risk of other skin cancers in that area.

    It’s also important to monitor them, as slow-growing melanomas may initially look like sunspots. If you see the spot changes in size, shape or colour, see your doctor to rule out skin cancer.

    Moles

    Moles are often dark, raised or flat skin growths that can appear anywhere on your body.

    Although moles can exist from birth, they typically grow during childhood, adolescence and early adulthood (including during pregnancy, when hormones are changing), until around the age of around 40. Moles can increase in size, and new ones can also appear.

    Most adults have between ten and 40 moles on their body. A person with a high mole count has 50 or more, while someone with a very high mole count has 100 or more.

    Some moles are raised while others are flat.
    Pixel-Shot/Shutterstock

    Moles form when melanocytes grow in clusters instead of spreading evenly throughout the skin.

    Moles can either be raised or flat, depending upon their type, depth and age.

    Raised moles, referred to as compound nevi, have both flat and raised portions and typically have pigment that is deeper in the skin.

    Dermal nevi are skin-coloured or light brown moles that are also raised.

    Most moles are harmless. Some may have hair growing from them and some may disappear, whereas other moles may darken or alter with age or hormonal changes.

    However, some moles can develop into melanoma, a dangerous form of skin cancer.

    When to see your doctor

    While freckles and sunspots are completely harmless, moles do require more attention, especially if they change in size, shape, colour or texture.

    If a mole shows any of the following warning signs, see your doctor, who will use the ABCDE rule to detect if a lesion is a skin cancer:

    • asymmetry: if one half of the mole looks different from the other half

    • border: if your mole is shaped irregularly, jagged or has poorly defined edges

    • colour: varied shades or sudden changes in colour of the mole

    • diameter: if it is larger than 6 millimeters (about the size of a pencil eraser)

    • evolving: if your mole has any changes in its size, shape, colour, or sensation such as itching or bleeding for more than a few weeks.

    Our research shows only 21.7% of people can correctly identify melanoma on their own, so professional checks are essential.

    How to prevent skin damage

    Since freckles, sunspots and some moles are influenced by exposure to the sun, you can protect your skin by:

    • avoiding the sun when ultraviolet rays are strongest

    • wearing sunscreen with SPF 50 every day, even when it’s cloudy. Apply it 20 minutes before going outside and reapply every two hours

    • wearing protective clothing, including a wide-brimmed hat to cover your face, neck and ears, and long-sleeved shirts and pants to protect your arms and legs.

    Mike Climstein received funding from Johnson & Johnson

    Jeremy Hudson receives funding from Agaibey Enterprises Ltd.

    Michael Stapelberg receives funding from Johnson & Johnson.

    Nedeljka Rosic received research funding from Johnson & Johnson

    – ref. What’s the difference between freckles, sunspots and moles? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-freckles-sunspots-and-moles-250768

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Breast cancer screening is ripe for change. We need to assess a woman’s risk – not just her age

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carolyn Nickson, Associate Professor, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne; Adjunct Associate Professor, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney

    Pablo Heimplatz/Unsplash

    Australia’s BreastScreen program offers women regular mammograms (breast X-rays) based on their age. And this screening for breast cancer saves lives.

    But much has changed since the program was introduced in the early 90s. Technology has developed, as has our knowledge of which groups of women might be at higher risk of breast cancer. So how we screen women for breast cancer needs to adapt.

    In a recent paper, we’ve proposed a fundamental shift away from an age-based approach to a screening program that takes into account women’s risk of breast cancer.

    We argue we could save more lives if screening tests and schedules were personalised based on someone’s risk.

    We don’t yet know exactly how this might work in practice. We need to consult with all parties involved, including health professionals, government and women, and we need to begin Australian trials.

    But here’s why we need to rethink how we screen for breast cancer in Australia.

    Why does breast screening need to change?

    Australia’s BreastScreen program was introduced in 1991 and offers women regular mammograms based on their age. Women aged 50–74 are targeted, but screening is available from the age of 40.

    The program is key to Australia’s efforts to reduce the burden of breast cancer, providing more than a million screens each year.

    Women who attend BreastScreen reduce their risk of dying from breast cancer by 49% on average.

    Breast screening saves lives because it makes a big difference to find breast cancers early, before they spread to other parts of the body.

    Despite this, around 75,000 Australian women are expected to die from breast cancer over the next 20 years if we continue with current approaches to breast cancer screening and management.

    Who’s at high risk, and how best to target them?

    International evidence confirms it is possible to identify groups of women at higher risk of breast cancer. These include:

    • women with denser breasts (where there’s more glandular and fibrous tissue than fatty tissue in the breasts) are more likely to develop breast cancer, and their cancers are harder to find on standard mammograms

    • women whose mother, sisters, grandmother or aunts have had breast or ovarian cancer, especially if there are multiple relatives and the cancers occurred at young ages

    • women who have been found to carry genetic mutations that lead to a higher risk of breast cancer (including women with multiple moderate risk mutations, as indicated by what’s known as a polygenic risk score).

    For some higher-risk women, could MRI be an option?
    VesnaArt/Shutterstock

    Women in these and other high-risk groups might warrant a different form of screening. This could include screening from a younger age, screening more frequently, and offering more sensitive tests such as digital breast tomosynthesis (a 3D version of mammography), MRI or contrast-enhanced mammography (a type of mammography that uses a dye to highlight cancerous lesions).

    But we don’t yet know:

    • how to best identify women at higher risk

    • which screening tests should be offered, how often and to whom

    • how to staff and run a risk-based screening program

    • how to deliver this in a cost-effective and equitable way.

    The road ahead

    This is what we have been working on, for Cancer Council Australia, as part of the ROSA Breast project.

    This federally funded project has estimated and compared the expected outcomes and costs for a range of screening scenarios.

    For each scenario we estimated the benefits (saving lives or less intense treatment) and harms (overdiagnosis and rates of investigations in women recalled for further investigation after a screening test who are found to not have breast cancer).

    Of 160 potential screening scenarios we modelled, we shortlisted 19 which produced the best outcomes for women and were the most cost effective. The shortlisted scenarios tended to involve either targeted screening technologies for higher-risk women or screening technologies other than mammography for all screened women.

    For example, in our estimates, making no change to the target age range or screening intervals but offering a more sensitive screening test to the 20% of women deemed to be at highest risk would save 113 lives over ten years.

    Alternatively, commencing targeted screening from age 40 and offering a more sensitive screening test annually to the 20% of women at highest risk, and three-yearly screening (of the current kind) to the 30% of women at lowest risk, would save 849 lives over ten years.

    However, less frequent screening of the lower risk group was expected to lead to small increases in breast cancer deaths in that group.

    How do we best assess women for their risk of breast cancer? At this stage, there’s no one answer.
    Tint Media/Shutterstock

    We also outlined 25 recommendations to put into action, and set out a five-year roadmap of how to get there. This includes:

    • a large scale trial to find out what is feasible, effective and affordable in Australia

    • making sure women at higher risk in different parts of Australia are offered suitable options regardless of where they live and who they see

    • better data collection and reporting to support risk-based screening

    • testing how we assess women for their risk of breast cancer, including whether these assessments work as intended and make sense to women from a range of backgrounds

    • clinical studies of screening technologies to determine the best delivery models and associated costs

    • ongoing engagement with groups including women, health professionals and government.

    Breast cancer screening review out soon

    Federal health minister Mark Butler said a review of the BreastScreen program would consider our recommendations. The results of this review are expected soon.

    We’re not alone in calling for a move towards risk-based breast cancer screening. This is backed by national and international submissions to government, policy briefing documents and the Breast Cancer Network Australia.

    We’ve provided an evidence-based roadmap towards better screening for breast cancer. Now is the time to commit to this journey.

    We acknowledge Louiza Velentzis from the Daffodil Centre, and Paul Grogan and Deborah Bateson from the University of Sydney, who co-authored the paper mentioned in this article.

    Carolyn Nickson led the ROSA Project for Cancer Council Australia. She receives funding from the Australian government Department of Health and Aged Care, the Medical Research Future Fund, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Melbourne Health.

    Bruce Mann works as a surgeon at Northwestern BreastScreen in Melbourne. He was a board member of the Breast Cancer Network Australia, which has improved screening as a key strategic objective. He is director of research at Breast Cancer Trials.  If trials are done in this space, Breast Cancer Trials may be involved. He was a member of the ROSA Project coordination group and jointly chaired the project advisory groups.

    Karen Canfell was executive lead for the ROSA Project discussed in this article. She has received grants from the Australian government’s Department of Health and Aged Care and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Medical Research Future Fund, the US National Cancer Institute and CDC, Cancer Research UK, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and government agencies in several countries. She co-leads an investigator-initiated trial of cervical screening, Compass, run by the Australian Centre for Prevention of Cervical Cancer (ACPCC), which is a government-funded not-for-profit charity. Compass receives infrastructure support from the Australian government and the ACPCC has received equipment and a funding contribution from Roche Molecular Diagnostics, USA.  She also co-leads an implementation program Elimination of Cervical Cancer in the Indo-Pacific which has received support from the Australian government and the Minderoo Foundation, and equipment donations from Cepheid and Microbix.  

    – ref. Breast cancer screening is ripe for change. We need to assess a woman’s risk – not just her age – https://theconversation.com/breast-cancer-screening-is-ripe-for-change-we-need-to-assess-a-womans-risk-not-just-her-age-252182

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Will $1 on your ticket help save Australian live music? A UK model is much more ambitious

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sam Whiting, Vice-Chancellor’s Senior Research Fellow in Music Industries and Cultural Economy, RMIT University

    iam_os/Unsplash

    The Australian Music Venue Foundation launched this month to advocate for and potentially administer an arena ticket levy to support grassroots live music venues. Funds would be raised through a small levy, approximately A$1 per ticket, on the price of tickets to large music events, over 5,000 capacity.

    The foundation is partly modelled on the United Kingdom’s Music Venue Trust, a charity and advocacy body founded in 2014 that has advocated for a big ticket levy.

    While the proposed levy would certainly help to level the playing field between grassroots music venues and the big end of touring, the Music Venue Trust was founded on much more radical principles and ambitions than simple redistribution.

    Socialising live music

    Although the Music Venue Trust has moved into advocacy and policy work, such as vocal support for the big ticket levy, the trust’s original and continuing mission is to socialise grassroots music venues. This means they work to help venues transition away from for-profit models and towards alternative ownership structures.

    The trust’s “Own Our Venues” campaign spawned Music Venue Properties, a charitable landlord funded by the broader music community. The scheme has now purchased five grassroots venues around the UK, leased on the condition they continue to run as live music venues.

    The goal is to take the profit motive out of running a venue. Surplus is reinvested into venue spaces, ensuring their long-term sustainability.

    As the trust’s founder and CEO Mark Davyd states, “[the community] is the best person to own a venue”.

    We don’t want money going to private landlords, we want it in the cultural economy because that’s the way we generate more great artists and give more people the opportunity to be involved in music.

    Acknowledging that such radical ambitions require funding, the trust have been long term advocates for a big ticket levy. However, this advocacy has always accompanied their greater goal of socialising live music venues.

    The trust have helped to change the broader cultural understanding of grassroots venues in the UK. Between 2014 and 2022, the proportion of music venues in the country run as not-for-profit ventures increased from 3% to 26%.

    The Australian context

    Melbourne’s Gasometer Hotel and Brisbane’s The Bearded Lady are the latest small, but culturally significant, live music venues to face closure. The number of venues licensed for live music in Australia is falling, with the greatest reductions in the small-to-medium range.

    The recent parliamentary inquiry into the live music industry found costs like insurance and rent have risen sharply in the last five years. Meanwhile, income from alcohol sales – a core revenue source for smaller venues – has dropped in connection with changing youth culture, the cost-of-living crisis, and excises hitched to inflation.

    Costs to run music venues have increased, while income from avenues like alcohol sales have fallen.
    Frankie Cordoba/Unsplash

    Surveys of young people and other groups affirm that Australians value live music, and most people would like to attend more. The most commonly cited barrier is cost, followed by distance from appropriate venues, especially in regional areas.

    An arena ticket levy was a key recommendation of the inquiry, with the committee recommending government agency Music Australia should manage the funds.

    The committee proposed a levy could enable Music Australia to fund:

    • performances with minimum pay rates for musicians

    • capital improvements to venues, such as sound-proofing or disability access

    • festivals promoting regional, all-ages, First Nations and community participation.

    Neither the Labor government nor the opposition have indicated a position on this recommendation, which would require legislation.

    The industry proposal

    The Australian Music Venue Foundation is asking big music businesses to opt in to an industry-managed ticket levy to fund grassroots live music.

    While there has been advocacy for such a voluntary arrangement in the UK, this is yet to come to fruition. The UK government’s deadline for the arrangement of a voluntary scheme by the end of March is approaching, opening up the alternative scenario of a legislated mandatory levy.

    Australian advocates believe they may have the relationships to create a different outcome, arguing all industry players have a stake in a healthy music ecosystem.

    In the proposed Australian scheme, the recipients and use of funding would be decided by a board of industry professionals. This raises questions around potential conflicts of interest. The foundation has applied for charity status, which requires transparency around operations and finances. However, there are broader questions about priorities.

    The foundation argues all levels of the industry have a stake in their being a healthy ecosystem of venues.
    Austin/Unsplash

    If the scheme gets up, the foundation will need to consider whether to restrict its support to Australian-owned, independent venues of a certain size. Alternatively, funds may be available to venues that are part-owned by the same major, for-profit, international companies paying into the scheme.

    To replace the proposed government levy, the foundation would also need to find ways of supporting access to live music for regional, all-ages, First Nations, and other disadvantaged communities, as recommended by the inquiry’s report.

    To ensure benefits flow to artists, venue support could also be made conditional on paying a minimum performer’s fee, something venue’s have previously opposed.

    The foundation could promote social objectives such as performer diversity, patron safety, and environmental sustainability, but there are no guarantees of this under an industry-led scheme.

    These examples demonstrate the issues that can arise when economic redistribution is managed within an industry, rather than by government.

    Lofty ambitions

    The Music Venue Trust has successfully argued for grassroots music venues as a public good, worthy of longterm community and public investment as well as a structural approach to support.

    Through their work, they have provided a new narrative for live music in the UK, supporting innovative ownership and operating models that go beyond the default of a commercially-leased space run as a for-profit small business.

    Ambition and innovation has made the trust much more than another industry association advocating for the interests of a particular group of businesses. The Australian Music Venue Foundation should aspire to similar heights if it is to have the same level of influence and impact.

    Sam Whiting receives funding from RMIT University and the Winston Churchill Trust.

    Ben Green receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Will $1 on your ticket help save Australian live music? A UK model is much more ambitious – https://theconversation.com/will-1-on-your-ticket-help-save-australian-live-music-a-uk-model-is-much-more-ambitious-252733

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Academic publishing is a multibillion-dollar industry. It’s not always good for science

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lucy Montgomery, Dean of Research, Humanities, Curtin University

    Mykhailo Kopyt/Shutterstock

    In December 2024, the editorial board of the Journal of Human Evolution resigned en masse following disagreements with the journal’s publisher, Elsevier. The board’s grievances included claims of inadequate copyediting, misuse of artificial intelligence (AI), and the high fees charged to make research articles publicly available.

    The previous year, more than 40 scientists who made up the entire academic board of a leading journal for brain imaging also walked off the job. The journal in question, Neuroimage, is also published by Elsevier, which the former board members accused of being “too greedy”.

    Elsevier has previously denied using AI and has disputed that its business practices are untoward.

    Mass resignations of journal editors are becoming more frequent. They highlight the tension between running a for-profit publishing business and upholding research integrity.

    From a niche to a multibillion-dollar business

    The world’s first academic journal was called Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. It was established in 1665 as a publication that allowed scientists to share their work with other scientists.

    For a long time, academic journals were a niche branch of publishing. They were run by and for research communities. But this started to change from the second world war onwards.

    The expansion of research, combined with an influx of commercial publishing players and the rise of the internet in the 1990s, have transformed journal publishing into a highly concentrated and competitive media business.

    Elsevier is the biggest player in this business. It publishes roughly 3,000 journals and in 2023 its parent company, Relx, recorded a profit of roughly A$3.6 billion. Its profit margin was nearly 40% – rivalling tech giants such as Microsoft and Google.

    Along with Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, SAGE, and Taylor & Francis make up what are known as the “big five” in academic publishing. Collectively, these publishers are responsible for roughly 50% of all research output.

    Many of the most trusted and prestigious research journals are owned by commercial publishers. For example, The Lancet is owned by Elsevier.

    A key factor in their profitability is volunteer labour provided by researchers. Traditional models of peer review are a good example of this. Academics provide publishers with content, in the form of journal articles. They also review their peers’ work for free. University libraries then pay for access to the final published journal on behalf of their research community.

    Alongside the pressure on academics to publish, the push to “speed up science” through these systems of peer-review only contribute to issues of trust in research.

    In 2023, academic publisher Elsevier recorded a profit of roughly $3.6 billion.
    T.Schneider/Shutterstock

    Profit at the expense of research integrity

    The increasing frequency of editorial board resignations reflects the tension between researchers trying to uphold scientific and research integrity, and publishers trying to run a for-profit business answerable to shareholders.

    Research is most often built on spending taxpayers’ money.

    Yet there is often little alignment between the profit imperatives of large, multinational publishers and the expectations of the communities and funding bodies that pay for the costs of research.

    For example, for-profit publishing models mean the results of research often end up locked behind paywalls. This has implications for the dissemination of research findings. It also means the public may not be able to access information they need most, such as medical research.

    The business of academic publishing also doesn’t always sit comfortably with the values and motives of scholarly inquiry and researchers.

    Publishers may focus on maximising shareholder gains by publishing research outputs, rather than on the content of the research or the needs of the research community.

    As Arash Abizadeh, a former editor of Philosophy & Public Affairs – a leading political philosophy journal – wrote in The Guardian in July 2024:

    Commercial publishers are incentivised to try to publish as many articles and journals as possible, because each additional article brings in more profit. This has led to a proliferation of junk journals that publish fake research, and has increased the pressure on rigorous journals to weaken their quality controls.

    The world’s first academic journal, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, was established in 1665.
    Henry Oldenburg/Philosophical Transactions, CC BY

    Better publishing practices

    What could alternative academic publishing practices that safeguard the integrity of research look like?

    The “publish-review-curate” model is one example.

    This model has been adopted by community research
    initiative MetaROR. It involves authors publishing their work as “preprints” which are immediately accessible to the community.

    The work then goes through an open peer review process. Finally, an assessment report is produced based on the reviews.

    This model aims to accelerate the dissemination of knowledge. It also aims to encourage a more transparent, collaborative, and constructive review process.

    Another important advantage of preprints is that they are not locked behind paywalls. This makes it faster and easier for research communities to share new findings with other researchers quickly.

    There are some drawbacks to this model. For example, preprints can cause confusion if they are publicised by the media too early.

    The question of who should pay for and maintain online preprint servers, on which global research communities depend, is also a subject of continuing debate.

    As the academic ecosystem continues to evolve, we will need publishing models that can adapt to the changes and needs of the research community and beyond.

    Lucy Montgomery is part of the Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative, and serves on Advisory Boards for several not-for-profit organisations involved in scholarly publishing and open access. She is a member of the UWA Press Board; as well as Chair of the Scientific Committee for the Directory of Open Access Books. She has received funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Arcadia Fund, and has previously consulted to both commercial and non-commercial scholarly presses.

    Emilia Bell receives funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship for their doctoral research. They are a non-executive director of the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) and Manager, Research and Digital Services at Murdoch University Library. Emilia is also affiliated with several organisations in the wider not-for-profit, higher education, and library sectors.

    Karl Huang is affiliated with the Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative (COKI) project, which receives or has received funding from Curtin University, Mellon Foundation, and Arcadia Fund. COKI also works closely with non-profit partners internationally and in Australia. Karl is also affiliated with the Centre for Culture and Technology, as its current Director, at Curtin University.

    – ref. Academic publishing is a multibillion-dollar industry. It’s not always good for science – https://theconversation.com/academic-publishing-is-a-multibillion-dollar-industry-its-not-always-good-for-science-250056

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Plants breathe with millions of tiny mouths. We used lasers to understand how this skill evolved

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Brodribb, Professor of Plant Physiology, University of Tasmania

    Stomata – the breathing ‘mouths’ of leaves – under the microscope. Barbol / Shutterstock

    Plant behaviour may seem rather boring compared with the frenetic excesses of animals. Yet the lives of our vegetable friends, who tirelessly feed the entire biosphere (including us), are full of exciting action. It just requires a little more effort to appreciate.

    One such behaviour is the dynamic opening and closing of millions of tiny mouths (called stomata) located on each leaf, through which plants “breathe”. In this process they let out water extracted from the soil in exchange for precious carbon dioxide from the air, which they need to produce sugar in the sunlight-powered process of photosynthesis.

    Opening the stomata at the wrong time can waste valuable water and risk a catastrophic drying-out of the plant’s vascular system. Almost all land plants control their stomata very precisely in response to light and humidity to optimise growth while minimising the damage risk.

    How plants evolved this extraordinary balancing act has been the subject of considerable debate among scientists. In a new paper published in PNAS we used lasers to find out how the earliest stomata may have operated.

    Tiny valves, global consequences

    Much depends on the way stomata behave: plant productivity, sensitivity to drought, and indeed the pace of the global carbon and water cycles.

    However, they are difficult to observe in action. Each stomata is like a tiny, pressure-operated valve. They have “guard cells” surrounding an opening or pore which lets water vapour out and carbon dioxide in.

    When pressure increases in stomata guard cells, the pore opens – and vice versa.
    Artemide / Shutterstock

    When fluid pressure increases inside the stomata’s guard cells, they swell up to open the pore. When pressure drops, the cells deflate and the pore closes. To understand stomata behaviour, we wanted to be able to measure the pressure in the guard cells – but it’s not easy.

    Lasers, bubbles and evolution

    Enter Craig Brodersen of Yale University with a newly developed microscope-guided laser. It can create microscopic bubbles inside the individual cells that operate the stomatal pore.

    When Brodersen spent a sabbatical at the University of Tasmania (where I am based), we found we could determine the pressure inside stomatal cells by tracking the size of these bubbles and how quickly they collapsed. This involved theoretical calculations guided by bubble expert Philippe Marmottant, of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) in Grenoble.

    This new tool gave us the perfect opportunity to explore how the behaviour of stomata is different among major plant groups. The aim was to test our hypothesis that the evolution of stomatal behaviour follows a predictable trajectory through the history of plant evolution.

    We argue it began with a relatively simple ancestral passive control state, currently represented in living ferns and lycophytes, and developed to a more active hormonal control mechanism seen in modern conifers and flowering plants.

    Against this hypothesis, some researchers have previously reported complex behaviours in some of the most ancient of stomata-bearing plants, the bryophytes. We wanted to test this finding using our newly developed laser instrument.

    400 million years of development

    What we found was firstly that our laser pressure probe technique worked extremely well. We made nearly 500 measurements of stomatal pressure dynamics in the space of a few months. This was a marked improvement on the past 45 years, in which fewer than 30 similar measurements had been made.

    Secondly, we found that the stomata of our representative bryophytes (hornworts and mosses) lacked even the most basic responses to light found in all other land plants.

    The stomata of hornworts and mosses showed no response to changes in light.
    Gondronx Studio / Shutterstock

    This result supported our earlier hypothesis that the first stomata found in ancestors of the modern bryophytes 450 million years ago should have been very simple valves. They would have lacked the complex behaviours seen in modern flowering plants.

    Our results suggest that stomatal behaviour has changed substantially through the process of evolution, highlighting critical changes in functionality that are preserved in the different major land plant groups that currently inhabit the Earth.

    How plants will survive the future

    We can now say with confidence that stomata in mosses, ferns, conifers and flowering plants all behave in very different ways. This has an important corollary: they will all respond differently to the heaving changes in atmospheric temperature and water availability that they face now and into the near future. Predicting stomatal behaviour in the future will help us to predict these impacts and highlight plant vulnerability.

    In terms of agricultural benefit, our new laser method should be fast and sensitive enough to reveal even small differences in the the behaviour of closely related plants. This may help to identify crop variants that use water in a more efficient or productive way, which will assist plant breeders to find varieties that better translate increasingly unpredictable soil water supplies into food.

    So next time you look upon a leaf, consider the frantic pace of dynamic calculation and adjustment of millions of little mouths, reacting as your breath falls upon them. Realise that our own fate, tied to the performance of forests and crops in future climates, hangs on the behaviour of the stomata of different species. A good reason for us to understand these unassuming little valves.

    Tim Brodribb receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Plants breathe with millions of tiny mouths. We used lasers to understand how this skill evolved – https://theconversation.com/plants-breathe-with-millions-of-tiny-mouths-we-used-lasers-to-understand-how-this-skill-evolved-249362

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: America’s democratic decline has critical lessons for Canadian voters

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Matthew Lebo, Professor, Department of Political Science, Western University

    Canadians are soon heading to the polls as they watch American democracy crumble.

    United States President Donald Trump recently argued “he who saves his country does not violate any Law” as he ignores Congress and the courts, governs by executive order and threatens international laws and treaties.



    Read more:
    Is Donald Trump on a constitutional collision course over NATO?

    Once stable democratic institutions are failing to hold an authoritarian president in check.

    What lessons are there to protect Canadian democracy as the federal election approaches?

    Elites lead the way

    First, it’s important to delve into how so many Americans have become tolerant of undemocratic actions and politics in the first place. It’s not that Republican voters first became more extreme and then chose a representative leader. Rather, public opinion and polarization are led by elites.

    Republican leaders moved dramatically to the right, and the primary system allowed the choice of an extremist. Republican voters then aligned their opinions with his. Trump’s disdain for democratic fundamentals spread quickly. Partisans defending their team slid away from democratic values.

    Canada’s more centrist ideological spectrum is not foolproof against this type of extremism. Public opinion can be moved when our leaders take us there.

    Decline can start slowly and then accelerate. America’s democratic backsliding in the first weeks of Trump’s second presidency follows the erosion of democratic norms over decades. Republican attacks on institutions, the opposition, the media and higher education corrosively undermined public faith in the truth, including election results.

    Trust in government is holding steady in Canada, however. That provides an important guardrail for Canadian democracy.

    The dangers of courting the far right

    There are also lessons for our political parties. To maximize their seats, Republicans accepted extremists like Marjorie Taylor Greene, but soon needed those types of politicians for key votes.

    The so-called Freedom Caucus, made up of MAGA adherents, forced the choice of a new, more extreme, leader of the House of Representatives. This provides a clear lesson that history has shown many times: it is dangerous for the party on the political right to accommodate the far right, which can quickly take control.

    Once established within the ruling party, extremists can hold their party hostage.

    At a recent meeting of the Munich Security Conference, Vice-President JD Vance pushed European parties to include far-right parties, and Elon Musk outright endorsed the far-right Alternative for Germany party.

    Austria recently avoided the inclusion of the far right in its new coalition, and now Germany is working to do the same. As Canada’s Conservatives look for every vote, courting far-right voters and candidates risks destabilizing the system.

    Can it happen in Canada?

    How safe is Canada’s Westminster-style parliamentary democracy?

    The fusion of legislative and executive power in parliamentary systems like Canada’s seems prone to tyranny. America’s Constitutional framers thought so when they designed a system with separate legislative, executive and judicial branches that could check each other’s power.

    They clearly did not imagine party loyalty negating the safeguards that protect democracy from an authoritarian-minded president. The Constitution gives Congress the power to legislate and impeach, limits the executive’s power to spend and make appointments, gives the judiciary power to hold an executive accountable and contains the 25th amendment allowing cabinet to remove a president.

    But when one party controls the legislative and executive branches during a time of hyper-partisanship, these mechanisms may not constrain an authoritarian. Today, Republican loyalty has eroded these checks and balances and American courts are struggling to step up to their heightened role.

    Although counter-intuitive, parliamentary systems like Canada’s are usually less susceptible to authoritarianism than presidential ones because the cabinet or the House of Commons can turn against a lawless leader.

    Still, if popular, authoritarian leaders can still retain their party’s support — and then things can slide quickly. The rightward pull of extremists seen in the U.S. House would be more dangerous here since the Canadian House of Commons includes our executive.

    Guarding against xenophobia

    Lastly, Canada should be wary of xenophobic rhetoric.

    “America First” is not simply shopping advice. It began as an isolationist slogan during the First World War but was soon adopted by pro-fascists, American Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. These entities questioned who is really American and wanted not only isolationism, but racist policies, immigration restrictions and eugenics.

    Trump did not revive the phrase accidentally. It’s a call to America’s fringes. Alienating domestic groups is a sure sign of democratic decline.

    “Canada First” mimics that century-long dark theme in America. In combination with contempt for the opposition, it questions the right of other parties to legitimately hold power if used as a message by one party.

    Also, asserting that “Canada is broken” — as Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre often does — mimics Trump’s talk of American carnage, language and imagery he uses to justify extraordinary presidential authority.

    Such language erodes citizens’ trust in democratic institutions and primes voters to support undemocratic practices in the name of patriotism. Canadian parties and politicians should exit that road.

    Ultimately, institutions alone do not protect a country from the rise of authoritarianism. Democracy can be fragile. As a federal election approaches in Canada, it’s important to know the warning signs of extremism and anti-democratic practices that are creeping into our politics.

    Matthew Lebo 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. America’s democratic decline has critical lessons for Canadian voters – https://theconversation.com/americas-democratic-decline-has-critical-lessons-for-canadian-voters-251544

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Hudson’s Bay liquidation: What happens when a company goes bankrupt?

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael R. King, Associate Professor, Gustavson School of Business and Lansdowne Chair in Finance, University of Victoria

    An Ontario court has approved the liquidation of nearly all Hudson’s Bay Company’s stores, marking the end of Canada’s oldest company, which has been in operation for 355 years. The liquidation is set to begin March 24, and will continue until June 15, leaving only six stores in operation.

    The court’s decision came shortly after Hudson’s Bay filed for creditor protection, signalling the company’s struggle to manage its mounting debt.

    With widespread layoffs sure to follow, this corporate collapse is both shocking and distressing. But the court documents suggest it was not unexpected. Hudson’s Bay lost $329.7 million in the 12 months leading up to Jan. 31, 2025. As of that date, Hudson’s Bay had only $3.3 million in cash and owed more than $2 billion in debt and leases.

    The final straw appears to have been trade tensions between Canada and the U.S., with the increased geopolitical and economic uncertainty leading lenders to shun Hudson’s Bay as it sought more financing, according to court documents.

    What bankruptcy looks like

    The downfall of a major company like Hudson’s Bay brings with it a wave of financial jargon. Understanding the differences between insolvency, bankruptcy, restructuring and liquidation is crucial to fully grasp the situation.

    Insolvency occurs when a business runs out of cash and cannot pay its bills. At the start of March, it was $5 million behind on rent and supplier payments, and within days of missing payroll.

    Bankruptcy is a legal process under Canada’s Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act where a company files for protection from its creditors. The goal is to avoid the social and economic costs of liquidation, preserve jobs and protect the interests of affected stakeholders. If granted, the judge sets a “stay period” where the company works out a restructuring plan with its creditors.

    Hudson’s Bay has more than 2,000 creditors, including $430 million in secured term loans, $724 million in mortgages and $512 million to unsecured creditors, mostly owed to suppliers. Hudson’s Bay also owes payroll remittances, federal sales taxes and over $60 million in customer gift cards and loyalty points. Gift cards are good until April 6.

    A restructuring wipes out the equity holders and allows a company to negotiate a reduction in its debts. The business continues to operate under the supervision of a court-appointed monitor, using interim financing to pay bills. If successful, the company re-emerges from bankruptcy and continues to do business.

    If restructuring is not successful, the company asks the court for permission to liquidate. Liquidation means a “fire sale” of all assets such as inventory, shelving, real estate, leases and trademarks. Items are sold at a deep discount, leading to potential bargains.

    The Ontario Superior Court denied the initial request to liquidate on March 14, telling Hudson’s Bay and its creditors to “lower the temperature” and work on a deal. With only limited progress and some concessions made to support Hudson’s Bay’s joint venture with RioCan REIT, the court gave permission for the liquidation on March 21.

    Many will lose, some will win

    The collapse of Hudson’s Bay will leave many facing financial losses, while a select few stand to gain.

    Secured creditors, some suppliers and Hudson’s Bay pensioners are expected to be protected by the courts. However, many others, including thousands of customers and more than 1,800 unsecured creditors, will suffer a financial hit.

    The hardest impact will be felt by the more than 9,300 employees losing their jobs. Employees will lose their income, health and disability benefits, and life insurance, significantly impacting families across the country.

    However, employees will not lose their pension benefits. The company’s pension plan is fully funded and in surplus position. This was not the case for Sears Canada when it went bankrupt in 2018. A surplus means the value of investments is greater than the promised benefits and is good news for retirees.



    Read more:
    Sears Canada tarnishes the gold standard of pensions

    Mall landlords will also lose out. Hudson’s Bay drove foot traffic in malls across the country where it was the anchor-tenant. There will likely be painful ripple effects for smaller Hudson’s Bay store owners, including falling sales, defaults on mortgages and business failures.

    That said, some stand to benefit. For example, the American financial services company Restore Capital LLC is providing interim debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing, charging a hefty fee in the process. The lawyers and accountants involved in the bankruptcy may also benefit.

    Priority of proceeds

    When a company is liquidated, the proceeds from selling its assets are used to repay claimants based on their priority in bankruptcy. This is sometimes referred to as the waterfall of “who gets what.” Think of it as a queue with people lining up to get paid.

    Interim DIP financing is paid off first, together with legal and accounting fees related to the bankruptcy. Essential operating costs during the restructuring are also paid, including employee wages.

    Next come secured creditors. These lenders provided funding backed by specific assets, known as collateral. Collateral may include inventory and real estate. A similar process happens on a personal residence; if a homeowner defaults on their mortgage payments, the bank may take possession of the house.

    Third in line are debts granted priority by the courts. Employees receive unpaid wages up to a certain cap, just under $9,000, under the federal Wage Earner Protection Program. Pension benefits are paid out and outstanding payroll and sales tax remittances are paid.

    As the pool of assets gets smaller, unsecured creditors are paid off next including suppliers, landlords and employees owed additional wages or termination benefits.

    Last in the queue from the wind-up are equity holders — the residual claimants — who control the company through their common and preferred shares.

    In 2020, Hudson’s Bay’s CEO Richard Baker and a group of investors took the company private, meaning it was no longer publicly traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange, buying out shareholders for approximately $2 billion. This stake is now wiped out.

    Disappointing, but not surprising

    Hudson’s Bay’s current financial situation is disappointing, but not surprising. The COVID-19 pandemic made times tough for brick-and-mortar retailers. On top of this, under-investment and a failed e-commerce strategy left the company struggling to compete in an increasingly digital retail landscape.

    With tariffs and trade uncertainty hurting the Canadian economy, the unfolding trade war is expected to have far-reaching consequences for Canadian households and businesses. Hudson’s Bay was not immune to these effects.

    In the end, Hudson’s Bay backed itself into a corner, arguably waiting too long to secure funding and ultimately losing control of its own destiny. Its bankruptcy is a major blow to Canadian retail, marking the end of a era for a company that lasted more than three-and-a-half centuries.

    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. Hudson’s Bay liquidation: What happens when a company goes bankrupt? – https://theconversation.com/hudsons-bay-liquidation-what-happens-when-a-company-goes-bankrupt-252784

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump silences the Voice of America: end of a propaganda machine or void for China and Russia to fill?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Valerie A. Cooper, Lecturer in Media and Communication, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    Getty Images

    Of all the contradictions and ironies of Donald Trump’s second presidency so far, perhaps the most surprising has been his shutting down the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) for being “radical propaganda”.

    Critics have long accused the agency – and its affiliated outlets such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia – of being a propaganda arm of US foreign policy.

    But to the current president, the USAGM has become a promoter of anti-American ideas and agendas – including allegedly suppressing stories critical of Iran, sympathetically covering the issue of “white privilege” and bowing to pressure from China.

    Propaganda is clearly in the eye of the beholder. The Moscow Times reported Russian officials were elated by the demise of the “purely propagandistic” outlets, while China’s Global Times celebrated the closure of a “lie factory”.

    Meanwhile, the European Commission hailed USAGM outlets as a “beacon of truth, democracy and hope”. All of which might have left the average person understandably confused: Voice of America? Wasn’t that the US propaganda outlet from World War II?

    Well, yes. But the reality of USAGM and similar state-sponsored global media outlets is more complex – as are the implications of the US agency’s demise.

    Public service or state propaganda?

    The USAGM is one of several international public service media outlets based in western democracies. Others include Australia’s ABC International, the BBC World Service, CBC/Radio-Canada, France Médias Monde, NHK-World Japan, Deutsche Welle in Germany and SRG SSR in Switzerland.

    Part of the Public Media Alliance, they are similar to national public service media, largely funded by taxpayers to uphold democratic ideals of universal access to news and information.

    Unlike national public media, however, they might not be consumed – or even known – by domestic audiences. Rather, they typically provide news to countries without reliable independent media due to censorship or state-run media monopolies.

    The USAGM, for example, provides news in 63 languages to more than 100 countries. It has been credited with bringing attention to issues such as protests against COVID-19 lockdowns in China and women’s struggles for equal rights in Iran.

    On the other hand, the independence of USAGM outlets has been questioned often, particularly as they are required to share government-mandated editorials.

    Voice of America has been criticised for its focus on perceived ideological adversaries such as Russia and Iran. And my own research has found it perpetuates stereotypes and the neglect of African nations in its news coverage.

    Leaving a void

    Ultimately, these global media outlets wouldn’t exist if there weren’t benefits for the governments that fund them. Sharing stories and perspectives that support or promote certain values and policies is an effective form of “public diplomacy”.

    Yet these international media outlets differ from state-controlled media models because of editorial systems that protect them from government interference.

    The Voice of America’s “firewall”, for instance, “prohibits interference by any US government official in the objective, independent reporting of news”. Such protections allow journalists to report on their own governments more objectively.

    In contrast, outlets such as China Media Group (CMG), RT from Russia, and PressTV from Iran also reach a global audience in a range of languages. But they do this through direct government involvement. CMG subsidiary CCTV+, for example, states it is “committed to telling China’s story to the rest of the world”.

    Though RT states it is an autonomous media outlet, research has found the Russian government oversees hiring editors, imposing narrative angles, and rejecting stories.

    A Voice of America staffer protests outside the Washington DC offices on March 17 2025, after employees were placed on administrative leave.
    Getty Images

    Other voices get louder

    The biggest concern for western democracies is that these other state-run media outlets will fill the void the USAGM leaves behind – including in the Pacific.

    Russia, China and Iran are increasing funding for their state-run news outlets, with China having spent more than US$6.6 billion over 13 years on its global media outlets. China Media Group is already one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, providing news content to more than 130 countries in 44 languages.

    And China has already filled media gaps left by western democracies: after the ABC stopped broadcasting Radio Australia in the Pacific, China Radio International took over its frequencies.

    Worryingly, the differences between outlets such as Voice of America and more overtly state-run outlets aren’t immediately clear to audiences, as government ownership isn’t advertised.

    An Australian senator even had to apologise recently after speaking with PressTV, saying she didn’t know the news outlet was affiliated with the Iranian government, or that it had been sanctioned in Australia.

    Switched off

    Trump’s move to dismantle the USAGM doesn’t come as a complete surprise, however. As the authors of Capturing News, Capturing Democracy: Trump and the Voice of America described, the first Trump administration failed in its attempts to remove the firewall and install loyalists.

    This perhaps explains why Trump has resorted to more drastic measures this time. And, as with many of the current administration’s legally dubious actions, there has been resistance.

    The American Foreign Service Association says it will challenge the dismantling of the USAGM, while the Czech Republic is seeking EU support to keep Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty on the air.

    But for many of the agency’s journalists, contractors, broadcasting partners and audiences, it may be too late. Last week the New York Times reported some Voice of America broadcasts had already been replaced by music.

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

    – ref. Trump silences the Voice of America: end of a propaganda machine or void for China and Russia to fill? – https://theconversation.com/trump-silences-the-voice-of-america-end-of-a-propaganda-machine-or-void-for-china-and-russia-to-fill-252901

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How dreams, prophecies and intuitions can impact the decision to migrate

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Kwateng-Yeboah, Assistant Professor, Department for the Study of Religion, Saint Mary’s University

    Aspirations transform migration from mere physical movement into a deeply personal conviction, reshaping how individuals see themselves and their futures.
     (NEOM/Unsplash)

    When governments, policymakers or the news media discuss migration, the focus is almost exclusively on those who physically cross borders, seek asylum or arrive at ports of entry. But migration does not begin at at the moment of departure or upon arrival. It starts much earlier, as an aspiration.

    Recent surveys show a sharp rise in global migration aspirations. In Canada, a Gallup poll found that 20 per cent of the population surveyed want to leave and much of this increase occurred since 2021.

    In the United States, that figure has hit a record 21 per cent. These figures challenge the common assumption that Canada and the U.S. are simply migration destinations. Increasingly, they are also places people aspire to leave. But what fuels migration desire?

    As a scholar of religion and migration, my recently published research focuses on aspiring migrants: those who dream and plan for a future elsewhere, even if they never leave.

    While studies have shown how religion might aid or hinder a person’s integration into new societies, I explore how religion shapes who wants to migrate in the first place and why.

    Not everyone who wants to migrate will ultimately do so, but their aspirations matter. Migration aspirations influence education, career choices, family formation and even political engagement. Yet, the forces behind these aspirations remain largely understudied.

    Migration aspirations influence education, career choices, family formation and even political engagement.
    (Evangeline Shaw/Unsplash)

    Who wants to migrate?

    My interviews with young Ghanaians between the ages of 20 and 35 reveal that migration is not just about where people go. It’s also about who they believe they are meant to be.

    Analyzing 565 surveys and 25 in-depth interviews, I found that the aspiraton to migrate was widespread, with nearly 78 per cent of those surveyed expressing a desire to migrate. However, aspirations were not evenly distributed.

    University students were the most eager to migrate, often viewing higher education abroad as a stepping stone. Family history also shaped migration aspirations. Those with relatives abroad and no prior travel experience were significantly more likely to want to leave, suggesting the influence of migrant social networks.

    Yet the strongest predictors of migration aspirations among participants were experiences like dreams, prophecies and intuitions that were considered religiously significant.

    Individuals who reported having migration-related dreams were more than twice as likely to express a strong desire to migrate, while those who believed migration was part of a divine plan were more than three times as likely. These findings challenge the traditional idea that migration is purely an economic decision, highlighting the role of religion and spirituality.

    Spiritual experiences and migration

    Dreams, prophecies and intuitions do more than inspire migration desires. They shape how people perceive and legitimize migration. These experiences transform migration from mere physical movement into a deeply personal conviction, reshaping how they see themselves and their futures.

    Participants in my study who had migratory dreams described them as vivid, immersive experiences in which they found themselves leaving their homeland, boarding airplanes or settling in foreign countries.

    These dreams transported them into sensory encounters with airports, unfamiliar climates like snowfall and racially diverse communities. Such dreams made migration feel imminent, influencing behaviours such as preparing travel documents and expanding social networks.

    Prophecy in many religious traditions are declarations made by spiritual leaders, often perceived as divine revelations about an individual’s life, future or destiny. In the context of migration, these prophecies foretell a person’s foreseeable journey abroad, shaping their understanding of the future.

    Dreams, prophecies and intuitions do more than inspire migration desires. They shape how individuals perceive and legitimize migration.
    (Adedotun Adegborioye/Unsplash)

    Migratory prophecies are often delivered in Pentecostal-Charismatic churches, through sermons, prayer sessions or direct pronouncements from pastors. Their significance lies not in predictive accuracy, but in their ability to inspire, shape emotions, and guide behaviours regarding migration.

    These prophecies legitimize a person’s migration aspirations as part of a divine plan, enhancing the aspiring migrant’s self-perception as one destined for success. They foster an internalized identity of a successful migrant even before the individual embarks on their journey, highlighting their potential to elevate social status and bring honour to their families and communities.

    Intuitions attributed to divine prompting also generate an inner certainty about migration. People feel an inexplicable but profound conviction that they must migrate, leading them to align their life decisions with what they perceive as a higher plan.

    By reinforcing deeply held aspirations, spiritual experiences do not just shape the desire to migrate; they construct the migrant’s very sense of self, embedding migration into their personal identity long before they ever set foot on foreign soil.

    Informing policy

    Most migration policies focus on border control, but rarely consider the social and cultural dynamics that shape migration. Dreams, prophecies and intuitions act as indicators of unmet aspirations.

    Understanding these experiences can help migration policymakers create strategies that are cross-culturally sensitive and context-specific. These strategies should move beyond the economics of migration to address the full spectrum of human motivations.

    Additionally, governments and news media must confront idealized narratives of migration destinations portrayed as utopias of opportunity. When such expectations clash with the stark realities of labour exploitation, cultural alienation and systemic racism, the resulting disillusionment can profoundly affect the well-being of individuals and communities.

    A responsible approach to migration must present a balanced view, acknowledging both opportunities and challenges, while preparing aspiring migrants for the complexities of their journeys and recognizing their aspirations as integral to their personhood.

    James Kwateng-Yeboah 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 dreams, prophecies and intuitions can impact the decision to migrate – https://theconversation.com/how-dreams-prophecies-and-intuitions-can-impact-the-decision-to-migrate-250736

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Heeding the lessons of COVID-19 in the face of avian influenza

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Matthew S Miller, Executive Director, Global Nexus and M.G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research, McMaster University

    If the H5N1 avian flu virus learns to spread efficiently from person to person, it could pose an imminent threat to humanity. (CDC and NIAID), CC BY

    Infectious disease outbreaks have a bad habit of piling on at the worst possible times.

    The 1918 flu pandemic, also known as the Spanish flu, caught the world by surprise just as the First World War was coming to an end. It was responsible for killing three to five per cent of the world’s population (50-100 million people, equivalent to about 400 million today).

    Now, as we reflect on five years since the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic and face economic uncertainty imposed by the United States administration — as well as lingering conflicts in places such as the Middle East and Ukraine — it’s the steady march of avian influenza, or “bird flu,” that poses an imminent threat to humanity.

    Walter Reed hospital flu ward in Washington, D.C. during the flu epidemic of 1918-19, which killed three to five per cent of the world’s population.
    (Shutterstock)

    Bird flu has been causing a flurry of human infections, especially in U.S. cattle workers. If the virus learns to spread effectively from human to human, it could change the course of history. Even though our weary world already feels maxed out, we have to make room to avert yet another crisis.



    Read more:
    Bird flu in cattle: What are the concerns surrounding the newly emerging bovine H5N1 influenza virus?

    The good news is that we know how to minimize risk and mobilize resources quickly, before the virus starts moving from human-to-human.

    Heading off a bird flu pandemic

    Knowing what to do and actually doing it, though, are very different, as we saw all too well five years ago when COVID-19 shut down much of the world, killing more than seven million people worldwide. And it’s not through with us yet.

    The question is whether we will act in time to head off a bird flu pandemic. The Spanish Flu was the first of five influenza pandemics since the end of the First World War.

    A sixth is inevitable without co-ordinated global action. Otherwise, the only questions are when it will it come and how bad it will be.



    Read more:
    Combatting the measles threat means examining the reasons for declining vaccination rates

    Infectious diseases constitute a permanent threat to society, especially as vaccine hesitancy and misinformation grow. Fighting pandemics needs to be a full-time, ongoing priority for governments everywhere.

    After the arrival of COVID-19, there were some impressive investments in infrastructure and science to support pandemic preparedness, but many were essentially one-time projects.

    Canada needs to establish permanent capacity to prevent and respond to health emergencies. Government agencies specifically dedicated to supporting the development of medical countermeasures for pathogens that pose a pandemic risk, like the recently established Health Emergencies Readiness Canada (HERC), are a step in the right direction.

    However, we must also re-prioritize investments in the fundamental research that is the birthplace of new medical and non-medical solutions to pandemic preparedness — where we currently lag far behind essentially all of our G7 counterparts. This has never been more important than in the current global political context.

    The cost of acting to prevent or limit a pandemic is infinitesimal compared to the price of letting one happen, whether one measures the toll in human lives, or in dollars.

    The world needs to adopt a collective mentality that we are “all in” on prevention if we want to maximize our chances of avoiding the next pandemic. We cannot sit on our hands and hope we get lucky. That strategy has failed us in the past and will doom us in the future.

    H5N1 avian flu

    Today, as we stand on the brink of an avian influenza pandemic that could be significantly worse than COVID-19, too much of the world seems unaware, unprepared or largely disengaged.

    Globally, more than 900 humans are known to have been infected by H5N1 avian influenza so far. The death rate associated with these human infections is a staggering one in two, placing it on par with threats such as Ebola.

    Death rates resulting from human infections of the most prevalent currently circulating H5N1 virus in the U.S. (clade 2.3.4.4b) have been much lower — though the very narrow demographic characteristics of the individuals that have been infected leaves many questions regarding the true danger that this virus poses to the population at-large.
    Avian influenza has become more prevalent than ever in our environment. Having adapted to spread efficiently among cattle and other mammals, the virus will follow its biological imperative to adapt and survive.

    No responsible country can ignore the possibility that person-to-person spread could start anywhere and quickly wash over the planet.



    Read more:
    An ounce of prevention: Now is the time to take action on H5N1 avian flu, because the stakes are enormous

    Certainly, Canada is treating the issue seriously, as I know from my work with the Public Health Agency of Canada, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, the Ontario Immunization Advisory Committee and other bodies.

    But the effort to stop or at least slow avian influenza needs to include all countries and to engage everyday people, especially those who work directly with birds, cattle and other wild and domestic animals.

    Targeted interventions

    The best tactics to stave off a pandemic, at least at this point, are relatively unintrusive, targeted interventions. It’s critical that farm workers, veterinarians and others who work with animals follow careful protocols such as wearing masks and goggles, sanitizing equipment and continuing to cull poultry flocks where exposure is identified.

    We also need to educate hunters about protective measures to lower their risk of exposure.

    Most mitigation measures are entirely non-medical — though offering vaccines to those at high risk of exposure, as Finland has done, would be prudent. It’s much easier to target vaccination programs to high-risk groups than to organize a global vaccine campaign after a pandemic has begun.

    We need to encourage these groups to take every possible action to protect themselves — and therefore the world — and to provide financial supports that enable them to comply without cost.

    If avian flu becomes established among humans, which could happen rapidly and with very little warning, COVID-19 has shown that only a swift, decisive and truly global approach can fend off disaster.

    A significant lesson from COVID-19 is that we have to support pandemic prevention and response efforts for people in every corner of the world, however remote they may be, and that we must reach vulnerable populations within wealthy countries, such as elderly, frail and marginalized people, and those affected by poverty. These are the people always impacted most by infectious diseases.

    A selective distribution of resources among the planet’s wealthiest populations will not provide the protection the world needs and will only enlarge and extend the reach of a new pandemic.

    We must remember what it was like to close down schools, workplaces and public gatherings and to have hospitals overflowing with patients as clinicians risked their lives to care for them.

    We could have saved so many people and so much money by taking the threat more seriously from the outset, including providing better public education about evidence-based measures such as masking and vaccines.

    It’s past time we made pandemic prevention and response a permanent priority, no matter what else is happening in the world.

    Matthew S Miller is co-founder and Chief Scientific Officer of AeroImmune Inc. He has received compensation from Seqirus, Sanofi, GSK, Roche, Grifols, and Aramis Biotechnologies for participating on advisory boards and for supporting educational activities. He has received research funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Canada Research Chairs Program, the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, Ontario Centre of Innovation, Bay Area Health Trust, Providence Therapeutics, JN Nova Pharma, Lactiga, and Zentek. He is a member of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization COVID-19 Working Group and H5N1 Influenza Working Group. He is also a member of the Ontario Immunization Advisory Committee and the Public Health Agency of Canada Expert Panel on Avian Influenza A(H5Nx).

    – ref. Heeding the lessons of COVID-19 in the face of avian influenza – https://theconversation.com/heeding-the-lessons-of-covid-19-in-the-face-of-avian-influenza-252161

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Google’s AI-generated search feature hasn’t yet changed how users interact with search results

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sylvain Senecal, Professor of Marketing and RBC Financial Group Chair of E-Commerce, HEC Montréal

    AI Overviews offers Google users AI-generated answers by sourcing and summarizing information from different websites. (Shutterstock)

    Google announced the launch of AI Overviews, its generative artificial intelligence-fuelled search feature, in May 2023. Initially named Search Generative Experience, AI Overviews offers Google users AI-generated answers by sourcing and summarizing information from different websites.

    These AI responses are positioned at the top of the page for immediate visibility. The aim is to improve user experience by providing an alternative and more straightforward way to access information while enhancing the relevance of search results.

    This feature has slowly been offered to the public, having initially been made available exclusively in the United States. AI Overviews is available worldwide and has been rolled out to more than 100 additional countries, including Canada.

    AI Overviews represents a key effort by Google to capitalize on the rapid emergence of generative AI technology amid fierce competition between AI-enabled search engines in the market. It’s a direct response to Open AI’s SearchGPT and Microsoft Bing’s Deep Search, which is powered by OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

    At the same time, conversational AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Copilot and Google’s Gemini continue to resonate with users worldwide. Google’s investment in AI is critical to its ability to stay in the AI race among the other tech giants.

    Concerns about AI-assisted search

    The implementation of AI Overviews, however, has raised concerns among businesses, website managers and online advertisers.

    AI Overviews represents a key effort by Google to capitalize on the rapid emergence of generative AI technology.
    (Shutterstock)

    Critics worry this feature could decrease traffic to their websites if users were to rely too heavily on AI Overviews and ignore the links to websites displayed in the search results.

    Paid advertisements and sponsored content play a pivotal role in the revenue streams of companies and website operators. If traffic to websites diminishes, the incentive for these companies to invest in these advertising formats could decline, potentially disrupting the multi-billion-dollar online advertising industry.

    To better understand this, we conducted a study at HEC Montréal’s Tech3Lab to investigate the potential impact of search generative AI features like AI Overviews on user perceptions and behaviours compared to those associated with regular online search queries.

    User search behaviour and perceptions

    We developed a set of four Google search scenarios, either AI-assisted or non-AI-assisted. The two AI-assisted scenarios included an AI-generated overview at the top of the search results, while the two non-AI-assisted scenarios consisted of a regular Google search experience.

    For each scenario pair, participants performed a search for informational purposes and another search related to a product purchase. During each search task, users’ click behaviour (the number of clicks), cognitive load (the mental effort required to process information) and visual attention were measured.

    We used pupillometry — measuring pupil size and reactivity — and analyzed screen recordings to track these metrics. After completing each task, participants shared their perceptions through questionnaires.

    Through this experimental approach, we were able to achieve two goals. First, we determined whether AI-generated overviews in search results significantly impact user perceptions of the relevance, usefulness and satisfaction with search results.

    Second, we observed whether such generative AI summaries significantly impacted user behaviour in terms of the number of clicks on links appearing in the search results. This provided insight into the potential impact generative AI summaries might have on organic search traffic.

    What did we find?

    The results of our study suggest that the presence of AI-generated overviews has no significant impact on user perceptions of relevance, usefulness and satisfaction with search results. There was also no significant impact on the clickthrough rate — the ratio of clicks on a link — on links in the search results.

    The presence of AI Overviews did not significantly reduce the users’ interaction with Google’s classic list of suggested pages. While this finding indicates AI Overviews might not lead to an immediate or significant shift in website traffic, it’s important to note that user interactions could evolve over time as people become more familiar with this new feature.

    As such, the competition among the market leaders operating in the online search space will likely continue to intensify. For example, earlier this month, Google rolled out a new feature called AI mode that delivers additional AI-generated results for some users.

    Tech giants like Google and Microsoft will continue to vie for dominance in the market, aiming to create more engaging, higher-value search experiences for their online users.

    Co-researchers Alexander J. Karran, Thadde Rolon-Merette, Eugene Yuzan Guo, Fabien Poivré and Mehdi Benbousta co-authored this article.

    Sylvain Senecal receives funding from Ivado, Prompt, and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

    Constantinos K. Coursaris receives funding from Ivado, Prompt, and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

    Pierre-Majorique Léger receives funding from IVADO, Prompt, and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

    Sylvain Amoros 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. Google’s AI-generated search feature hasn’t yet changed how users interact with search results – https://theconversation.com/googles-ai-generated-search-feature-hasnt-yet-changed-how-users-interact-with-search-results-244607

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –