NewzIntel.com

Category: Analysis

  • Are ‘ghost stores’ haunting your social media feed? How to spot and avoid them

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Gary Mortimer, Professor of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Queensland University of Technology

    CC BY

    The offer pops up in your social media feed. The website is professional and the imagery illustrates an Australian coastal region, or chic inner-CBD scene.

    The brand name indicates this exclusive fashion retailer is based in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, or an exclusive enclave such as Double Bay or Byron Bay.

    The businesses have history, having apparently been “established” 30–40 years ago, and a story. The owners have reluctantly decided to close or relocate, resulting in significant discounts.

    However, behind the illusion of prestige and luxury, is cheap, poorly manufactured clothing from Chinese factories.

    The recent growth of these online “ghost stores” has led the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission to issue public warning notices about four websites.

    Everly-melbourne.com, willowandgrace-adelaide.com, sophie-claire.com and doublebayboutique.com are the four named.

    A new type of scam

    The ACCC’s Targeting Scams report estimated Australians lost A$2.74 billion in 2023. Most losses were from investment scams ($1.3 billion), remote access scams ($256 million), and romance scams ($201.1 million).



    Read more:
    3.5 million Australians experienced fraud last year. This could be avoided through 6 simple steps

    However, online ghost store scams are so new, researchers and government agencies have not yet had time to measure the financial impact these businesses are having on consumers or legitimate fashion businesses.

    It is possible a consumer, once stung by a ghost store scam, will be less likely to shop with a legitimate online fashion retailer.

    This type of emerging scam was touched on in a 2015 report called Framework for a Taxonomy of Fraud. The report noted there were businesses selling “worthless or non-existent products”. Their sites made:

    misleading claims about products that are exaggerated, undervalued, or non-existent.

    Since the beginning of 2025, the ACCC reports it has received at least 360 complaints about 60 online ghost retailers. It says many more may be operating across several social media sites.

    Tricky tactics

    Ghost stores use a variety of tactics to attract unsuspecting customers.

    Price: Customers regularly assume higher prices mean higher quality. Most customers seeing a “leather” jacket for $19.74 on Temu would expect low quality. However, a silk maxi-dress from Everly Melbourne reduced from $209.95 to $82.95 – a 60% saving – seems reasonable and reflective of normal mid-season clearance pricing. That fact it’s still priced at more than $80 also implies good quality.

    Cosmopolitan localism: Researchers have reported that so-called cosmopolitan localism fosters meaningful consumer relationships with brands. Consumers are more likely to trust a business based in Melbourne or Byron Bay over one based internationally.

    Adding images of a physical store front creates credibility and “realness”. Customers feel confident to buy from a little business based in Melbourne, Sydney or somewhere well known to them.

    Storytelling: Storytelling can influence shoppers’ emotions and affect purchasing. It helps stimulate deeper emotional connections to a brand. Ghost stores will regularly create a narrative around “going out of business” to justify price discounts and pull on heart-strings.

    Layout: A professionally developed website, with high-quality images, detailed product information, online payment methods and order tracking, creates the illusion of authenticity. Researchers have found luxury brand website designs can create a strong sense of luxury. This increases a willingness to buy.

    How to spot a “ghost”

    When the post indicates “closing today” or “closing down sale ends tonight”, it is very easy to impulsively jump in to take advantage of the savings. However, before you click, check for these red flags:

    1. The website does not provide a contact phone number or physical address for the store. There might just be an email address or web form. Simply entering the suspected store into google maps will indicate no physical location.

    2. The website domain is “.com” rather than “.com.au”. This indicates the store is not an Australian-based business.

    3. Is the business registered? ABN Lookup is the free public view of the Australian Business Register – a quick search will identify that the Double Bay designer isn’t registered locally.

    4. Review platforms, including Trustpilot, often have negative reviews for the business, whereas the business’ website only features very positive reviews.

    5. The images of products or even the owner may be AI generated. For example, Harry – Melbourne, is apparently an artisan watchmaker. However, simply right-clicking on the image reveals Harry is an AI-generated image.

    A cautionary note

    Online shopping is risky. You can’t physically touch or interact with the product to determine its quality. Three types of risks are common when shopping online. These are performance risk (it doesn’t work, doesn’t fit well, or the quality is poor), financial risk (losing your money on a poor-quality product), and time-loss risk (refund processing takes weeks).

    As such, customers must trust the online retailer to act honestly and describe products accurately. When trust is breached, consumers will naturally become cautious even about legitimate online retailers.

    As ghost stores scams increasingly populate social media feeds, unsuspecting consumers will continue to get caught out. This will leave legitimate retailers exposed to scepticism and mistrust.

    The Conversation

    Gary Mortimer receives funding from the Building Employer Confidence and Inclusion in Disability Grant, AusIndustry Entrepreneurs’ Program, National Clothing Textiles Stewardship Scheme, National Retail Association and Australian Retailers Association.

    – ref. Are ‘ghost stores’ haunting your social media feed? How to spot and avoid them – https://theconversation.com/are-ghost-stores-haunting-your-social-media-feed-how-to-spot-and-avoid-them-260583

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Earth’s ‘oldest’ impact crater is much younger than previously thought – new study

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Aaron J. Cavosie, Senior Lecturer, School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University

    Outcrops of shocked rocks from the Miralga impact structure. Aaron Cavosie

    Ever been late because you misread a clock? Sometimes, the “clocks” geologists use to date events can also be misread. Unravelling Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history with rocks is tricky business.

    Case in point: the discovery of an ancient meteorite impact crater was recently reported in the remote Pilbara region of Western Australia. The original study, by a different group, made headlines with the claim the crater formed 3.5 billion years ago. If true, it would be Earth’s oldest by far.

    As it turns out, we’d also been investigating the same site. Our results are published in Science Advances today. While we agree that this is the site of an ancient meteorite impact, we have reached different conclusions about its age, size and significance.

    Let’s consider the claims made about this fascinating crater.

    One impact crater, two versions of events

    Planetary scientists search for ancient impacts to learn about Earth’s early formation. So far, nobody has found an impact crater older than the 2.23-billion-year-old Yarrabubba structure, also in Australia. (Some of the authors from both 2025 Pilbara studies were coauthors on the 2020 Yarrabubba study.)

    The new contender is located in an area called North Pole Dome. Despite the name, this isn’t where Santa lives. It’s an arid, hot, ochre-stained landscape.

    The sun sets on the arid landscape of North Pole Dome in the Pilbara region of Western Australia.
    Alec Brenner

    The first report on the new crater claimed it formed 3.5 billion years ago, and was more than 100 kilometres in diameter. It was proposed that such a large impact might have played a role in forming continental crust in the Pilbara. More speculatively, the researchers also suggested it may have influenced early life.

    Our study concludes the impact actually happened much later, sometime after 2.7 billion years ago. This is at least 800 million years younger than the earlier estimate (and we think it’s probably even younger; more on that in a moment).

    We also determined the crater was much smaller – about 16km in diameter. In our view, this impact was too young and too small to have influenced continent formation or early life.

    So how could two studies arrive at such different findings?

    Subtle clues of an impact

    The originally circular crater is deeply eroded, leaving only subtle clues on the landscape. However, among the rust-coloured basalts are unique telltale signs of meteorite impact: shatter cones.

    Outcrop photo of shatter cones in basalt at the Miralga impact structure. The black pen cap is 5cm long.
    Alec Brenner

    Shatter cones are distinctive fossilised imprints of shock waves that have passed through rocks. Their unique conical shapes form under brief but immense pressure where a meteorite strikes Earth.

    Both studies found shatter cones, and agree the site is an ancient impact.

    This new crater also needed a name. We consulted the local Aboriginal people, the Nyamal, who shared the traditional name for this place and its people: Miralga. The “Miralga impact structure” name recognises this heritage.

    Determining the timing of the impact

    The impact age was estimated by field observations, as neither study found material likely to yield an impact age by radiometric dating – a method that uses measurements of radioactive isotopes.

    Both studies applied a geological principle called the law of superposition. This states that rock layers get deposited one on top of another over time, so rocks on top are younger than those below.

    Example of the law of superposition, known as Hutton’s unconformity, at Siccar Point Scotland. The gently dipping layered rocks at the top left were deposited onto – and are therefore younger than – the nearly vertical layered rocks at the bottom right.
    Anne Burgess/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

    The first group found shatter cones within and below a sedimentary layer known to have been deposited 3.47 billion years ago, but no shatter cones in younger rocks above this layer. This meant the impact occurred during deposition of the sedimentary layer.

    Their observation seemed to be a “smoking gun” for an impact 3.47 billion years ago.

    As it turns out, there was more to the story.

    Our investigation found shatter cones in the same 3.47 billion-year-old rocks, but also in younger overlying rocks, including lavas known to have erupted 2.77 billion years ago.

    Outcrop of shatter cones in 2.77-billion-year-old basalt at the Miralga impact structure. These lavas are the youngest rocks in the area we found to have shatter cones. They have distinctive holes (vesicles) representing trapped gas bubbles. The pen is 15cm long.
    Aaron Cavosie

    The impact had to occur after the formation of the youngest rocks that contained shatter cones, meaning sometime after the 2.77-billion-year-old lavas.

    At the moment, we don’t know precisely how young the crater is. We can only constrain the impact to have occurred between 2.7 billion and 400 million years ago. We’re working on dating the impact by isotopic methods, but these results aren’t yet in.

    Smaller than originally thought

    We made the first map showing where shatter cones are found. There are many hundreds over an area 6km across. From this map and their orientations, we calculate the original crater was about 16km in diameter.

    A 16km crater is a far cry from the original estimate of more than 100km. It’s too small to have influenced the formation of continents or life. By the time of the impact, the Pilbara was already quite old.

    Artist’s depiction looking northwest across the Pilbara, over the 16km-wide Miralga crater. The crater is shown 3km above the modern land surface to account for the deep erosion that has since erased it. The crater size is based on the distribution of shatter cones (inset). The cones point up and back towards the original ‘ground zero’ of the impact. Maps produced using Google Earth Studio.
    Alec Brenner

    A new connection to Mars

    Science is a self-policing sport. Claims of discovery are based on data available at the time, but they often require modification based on new data or observations.

    While it’s not the world’s oldest, the Miralga impact is scientifically unique, as craters formed in basalt are rare. Most basalts there formed 3.47 billion years ago, making them the oldest shocked target rocks known.

    Prior to impact, these ancient basalts had been chemically altered by seawater. Sedimentary rocks nearby also contain the earliest well-established fossils on Earth. Such rocks likely covered much of early Earth and Mars.

    This makes the Miralga impact structure a playground for planetary scientists studying the cratered surface (and maybe early life) of Mars. It’s an easily accessible proving ground for Mars exploration instruments and imagery, right here on Earth.

    Aaron J. Cavosie receives or has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the US National Science Foundation, and NASA.

    Alec Brenner 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. Earth’s ‘oldest’ impact crater is much younger than previously thought – new study – https://theconversation.com/earths-oldest-impact-crater-is-much-younger-than-previously-thought-new-study-259803

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: A weakened Iran and Hezbollah gives Lebanon an opening to chart path away from the region’s conflicts − will it be enough?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Mireille Rebeiz, Chair of Middle East Studies and Associate Professor of Francophone and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Dickinson College. Adjunct Professor of Law at Penn State Dickinson Law., Dickinson College

    The national Lebanese flag hangs on a building amid a Hezbollah demonstration in the southern suburbs of Beirut on July 6, 2025. Photo by Nael Chahine / Middle East Images via AFP

    After a 12-day war launched by Israel and joined briefly by the United States, Iran has emerged weakened and vulnerable. And that has massive implications for another country in the region: Lebanon.

    Hezbollah, Tehran’s main ally in Lebanon, had already lost a lot of its fighters, arsenal and popular support during its own war with Israel in October 2024.

    Now, Iran’s government has little capacity to continue to finance, support and direct Hezbollah in Lebanon like it has done in the past. Compounding this shift away from Hezbollah’s influence, the U.S. recently laid down terms for a deal that would see the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon in return for the total disarmament of the paramilitary group – a proposal seemingly backed by the Lebanese government.

    As an expert on Lebanese history and culture, I believe that these changing regional dynamics give the Lebanese state an opening to chart a more neutral orientation and extricate itself from neighboring conflicts that have long exacerbated the divided and fragile country’s chronic problems.

    The shaping of modern Lebanon

    Ideologically, developments in Iran played a major role in shaping the circumstances in which Hezbollah, the Shiite Islamist political party and paramilitary group, was born.

    The Iranian Revolution of 1978-79 toppled the widely reviled and corrupt Western-backed monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza and led to the establishment of an Islamic republic. That revolution resonated among the young Shiite population in Lebanon, where a politically sectarian system that was intended to reflect a balanced representation of Muslims and Christians in the country had led to de facto discrimination against underrepresented groups.

    Since Lebanon’s independence from France in 1943, most of the power has been concentrated in the hands of the Maronite Christians and Sunnis, leaving Shiite regions in south Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley lacking in development projects, social services and infrastructure.

    At the same time, Lebanon for decades had been irreparably changed by the politics of its powerful neighbor in Israel.

    In the course of founding its state in 1948, Israel forcibly removed over 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland – what Palestinians refer to as the Nakba, or “catastophe.” Many fled to Lebanon, largely in the country’s impoverished south and Bekaa Valley, which became a center of Palestinian resistance to Israel.

    In 1978, Israel invaded Lebanon to push Palestinian fighters away from its northern borders and put an end to rockets launched from south Lebanon. This fighting included the massacre of many civilians and the displacement of many Lebanese and Palestinians farther north.

    In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon again with the stated purpose of eliminating the Palestinian Liberation Organization that had moved its headquarters to the country’s south. An estimated 17,000 to 19,000 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians and armed personnel were killed during the conflict and the accompanying siege of Beirut.

    It was in this cauldron of regional and domestic sectarianism and state abandonment that Hezbollah formed as a paramilitary group in 1985, buoyed by Shiite mobilization following the Iranian revolution and Israel’s invasion and occupation.

    Hezbollah’s domestic spoiler status

    Over time and with the continuous support of Iran, Hezbollah become an important player in the Middle East, intervening in the Syrian civil war to support the Assad regime and supporting the Kata’ib Hezbollah, a dominant Iraqi pro-Iranian militia.

    In 2016, Secretary General of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah officially recognized Iran’s role in funding their activities.

    People gather to stage a demonstration in support of Iran in front of the Iranian Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, on June 25, 2025.
    Photo by Houssam Shbaro/Anadolu via Getty Images

    With Tehran’s support, Hezbollah was effectively able to operate as a state within a state while using its political clout to veto the vast majority of Lebanese parliamentary decisions it opposed. Amid that backdrop, Lebanon endured three long presidential vacuums: from November 2007 to May 2008; from May 2014 to October 2016; and finally from October 2022 to January 2024.

    Lebanon also witnessed a series of political assassinations from 2005 to 2021 that targeted politicians, academics, journalists and other figures who criticized Hezbollah.

    How the equation has changed

    It would be an understatement, then, to say that Hezbollah’s and Iran’s weakened positions as a result of their respective conflicts with Israel since late 2023 create major political ramifications for Lebanon.

    The most recent vacuum at the presidential level ended amid Hezbollah’s military losses against Israel, with Lebanon electing the former army commander Joseph Aoun as president.

    Meanwhile, despite the threat of violence, the Lebanese opposition to Hezbollah, which consists of members of parliament and public figures, has increased its criticism of Hezbollah, openly denouncing its leadership and calling for Lebanon’s political neutrality.

    These dissenting voices emerged cautiously during the Syrian civil war in 2011 and have grown after the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks and the subsequent war on Gaza.

    During the latest Israel-Iran war, the Lebanese opposition felt emboldened to reiterate its call for neutrality. Enabled by the U.S’s growing tutelage over Lebanon, some opposition figures have even called to normalize relations with Israel.

    These efforts to keep Lebanon out of the circle of violence are not negligible. In the past, they would have been attacked by Hezbollah and its supporters for what they would have considered high treason. Today, they represent new movement for how leaders are conceiving of politics domestically and diplomacy across the region.

    The critical regional context going forward

    As the political system cautiously changes, Hezbollah is facing unprecedented financial challenges and is unable to meet its fighters’ needs, including the promise to rebuild their destroyed homes. And with its own serious internal challenges, Iran now has much less ability to meaningfully support Hezbollah from abroad.

    But none of that means that Hezbollah is defeated as a political and military force, particularly as ongoing skirmishes with Israel give the group an external pretext.

    The Hezbollah-Israel war ended with a ceasefire brokered by the United States and France on Nov. 27, 2024. However, Israel has been attacking south Lebanon on an almost daily basis, including three incidents over the course of 10 days from late June to early July that have left several people dead and more than a dozen wounded.

    Amid these violations, Hezbollah continues to refuse to disarm and still casts itself as the only defender of Lebanon’s territorial integrity, again undermining the power of the Lebanese army and state.

    Lebanon’s other neighbor, Syria, will also be critical. The fall of the Assad regime in December 2024 diminished Hezbollah’s powers in the region and land access to Iraq and Iran. And the new Syrian leadership is not interested in supporting the Iranian Shiite ideology in the region but rather in empowering the Sunni community, one that was oppressed under the Assad dictatorship.

    While it’s too early to say, border tensions might translate into sectarian violence in Lebanon or even potential land loss. Yet the new Syrian government also has a different approach toward its neighbors than its predecessor. After decades of hostility, Syria seems to be opting for diplomacy with Israel rather than war. It is unclear what these negotiations will entail and how they will impact Lebanon and Hezbollah. However, there are real concerns about new borders in the region.

    The U.S. as ever will play a major role in next steps in Lebanon and the region. The U.S. has been pressing Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, and the U.S Ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria Thomas Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” by Lebanon’s response thus far. But so far, there has been no fundamental shift on that front.

    Meanwhile, despite the calls for neutrality and the U.S pressure on Lebanon, it is hard to envision a new and neutral Lebanon without some serious changes in the region. Any future course for Lebanon will still first require progress toward peace in Gaza and ensuring Iran commits not to use Hezbollah as a proxy in the future.

    Mireille Rebeiz is affiliated with American Red Cross.

    – ref. A weakened Iran and Hezbollah gives Lebanon an opening to chart path away from the region’s conflicts − will it be enough? – https://theconversation.com/a-weakened-iran-and-hezbollah-gives-lebanon-an-opening-to-chart-path-away-from-the-regions-conflicts-will-it-be-enough-260031

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives shatters the church’s century-long effort to curate its own image

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Brenton Griffin, Casual Lecturer and Tutor in History, Indigenous Studies, and Politics, Flinders University

    Hulu

    Reality TV series The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives follows a number of social media influencers from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who rose to prominence through social media, and particularly TikTok.

    The show is based in Utah, United States, where the church has its headquarters. But it stands in stark contrast with the stereotypical perception of Mormons – and especially Mormon women – the church has promoted for more than a century.

    Through its exploration of traditionally “taboo” topics such as sex, marital issues, mental illness and sexual abuse, The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives clashes against the church’s carefully curated public image.

    Historical pariahs

    Historically, the church’s practice of polygamy placed it at odds with the mainstream sexual and familial norms of 19th century America.

    Polygamy had been practised by Mormons since at least the 1830s, and was officially announced as permissible by the church in 1852. The church now acknowledges its founder, Joseph Smith, married almost 40 women and teenage girls before his death in 1844.

    When Mormon missionaries began to proselytise throughout the world, newspapers criticised the practice, and Mormons were framed as sexual deviants and racialised “pariahs”. In other words, Mormons were presented as being racially different to the rest of white American society. This claim was even supported by doctors at the time.

    1904 Time cartoon by C.J. Rudd, captioned: ‘Mormon Elder Berry – out with his six year olds, who take after their mothers.’
    KUER/Religion of a Different Color: Mormonism and the Struggle for Whiteness’ (2017) by W. Paul Reeve.

    To Mormons, however, polygamy was a reintroduction of the correct form of marriage, and they pointed to biblical prophets to justify it.

    In 1862, the US congress passed a series of laws aimed at abolishing polygamy. This resulted in the arrest of church leaders and the confiscation of church-owned funds and properties in Utah.

    Then, in the 1870s, exposés written by former Mormons (particularly women) decried polygamy as evil, increasing hostility against Mormon leaders.

    Ann Eliza Webb Young, ex-wife of Mormon prophet Brigham Young, wrote the exposé ‘Wife No. 19, Or The Story of Life in Bondage’.
    Internet Archive Open Library

    In 1890, church leader Wilford Woodruff announced in a revelation known as the Manifesto that polygamy would cease. The Manifesto was accepted by most Mormons as the government’s harassment increased. However, breakaway groups called “fundamentalists” continued the practice.

    Today, Mormon scriptures continue to state polygamy is the correct form of marriage, and will exist in the afterlife.

    The stereotypical Mormon

    Since the ending of polygamy, the church has sought to establish itself as a moral equal to mainstream Christian norms, especially sexual norms. In 1995, it released a document titled Family: A Proclamation to the World which emphasised the view that heterosexual marriage and strict gender roles are divinely ordained.

    The 1995 official Mormon document, ‘The Family: A Proclamation to the World’.
    BYU Scholar Arcive

    As the church has grown, it has presented its members as model citizens of the nations they reside in.

    In doing so, it has promoted unique doctrines and practices, such as sexual abstinence before marriage, and a particular health code called the Word of Wisdom which bars alcohol, tea, coffee and tobacco.

    These doctrines, and existing stereotypes of Mormons, are examined in The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives.

    Colliding perceptions

    The 2024 release of the series caused waves in the Latter-day Saints community, with a number of Mormon-focused publications condemning it.

    Before the show was released, the church published a general statement saying media portrayals of Mormons “often rely on sensationalism and inaccuracies that do not fairly and fully reflect the lives of our Church members”. It has yet to directly comment on the show.

    Nonetheless, the representation of Mormons in The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives is problematic for the church, because it transgresses its highly curated image of Mormonism.

    As the influencers put it, there is a desire to push back against stereotypes around Mormonism, and particularly Mormon women. These stereotypes have been crystallised by the church to combat perceptions of Mormons as sexually abhorrent, due to past practices of polygamy.

    The women in the show wear clothing that would not cover “temple garments”, the mandatory Latter-day Saint undergarments which seek to impose sexual modesty.

    There is also a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement that while the church prohibits stimulants such as tea, coffee and alcohol, Mormons within Utah and surrounds still consume other, somewhat surprising, substances. For instance, the use of ketamine in therapy is allowed when administered by a healthcare professional.

    The series also engages with topics considered taboo in the church, such as marital issues, mental health struggles and consensual sex. Even if these are being played up by the cast or producers, such discussions are lacking in broader Mormon circles.

    Importantly, there are admissions by some cast members, including one of the husbands, of being sexually abused as children. According to the cast members themselves, these disclosures are intended to empower viewers who may have had similar experiences.

    This is a powerful critique, because the Mormon church has come under intense scrutiny for its failure to properly respond to child sexual assault, both in the US and globally.

    The next steps

    The show is having a marked impact on perceptions of Mormonism, despite the church’s stance it doesn’t represent the beliefs and lifestyle of Mormons more broadly.

    For many viewers, it might be their introduction to the religion. This is concerning for adherents, and particularly for the church’s leadership.

    The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives reunion special aired earlier this month.
    Hulu

    There are internal tools the church could use against the show’s cast members, such as disciplinary councils or excommunication. But these would be ineffective since only about half the members consider themselves “faithful” Mormons.

    It’s interesting the church has yet to condemn the show. Perhaps maintaining an image of reluctant acceptance is more important, as in recent years the church has been criticised for overreach against its own members.

    In this case, the show would be an uncomfortable reality the church will just have to live with. Either way, the damage to the stereotypical Mormon image is done.

    The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives is available to stream on Disney+.

    Brenton Griffin was raised as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but is no longer a practising member of the church. His research is focused on the religion’s place in Australian and New Zealand popular culture, politics, and society from the 19th century to present.

    – ref. The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives shatters the church’s century-long effort to curate its own image – https://theconversation.com/the-secret-lives-of-mormon-wives-shatters-the-churchs-century-long-effort-to-curate-its-own-image-260418

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: What is the Strait of Hormuz and why is it so important for global shipping?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Belinda Clarence, Law Lecturer, RMIT University

    During the recent conflict between Iran and Israel, Iran threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s major shipping routes.

    Would that be possible, and what effects would it have?

    The Strait of Hormuz is a choke point at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. It is used to transport about 20% of global daily oil consumption.

    Iran effectively controls this crucial shipping route because it is a coastal state bordering this narrow stretch of water. The strait is too narrow to avoid navigating waters claimed by Iran. This raises thorny legal questions about whether it is really possible for Iran to block the strait, and what recourse other states have if it does.

    This geographical reality is far from new, and the legal frameworks governing international maritime activity have developed over centuries. At its heart is the lex mercatoria — the “law of merchants” — a body of transnational commercial law that emerged organically from the practices of traders operating across borders.

    Within this broader framework sits the lex maritima, or customary maritime law, which has long adapted to the hazards of shipping across vast oceans.

    The lex maritima originated from the shared practices of seafarers and merchants. Its purpose? To manage the unpredictable nature of maritime trade that demands coherent and stable rules.

    One of the most enduring principles of this legal tradition is the idea of mare liberum, or “the free sea”, set out by Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1609. He argued the high seas should remain open to all for peaceful navigation and trade. This conveniently legitimised the ambitions of European colonial powers, granting them unfettered access to global maritime routes at a time when control over sea-based trade promised immense economic and strategic advantage.

    The shifting boundaries of maritime law

    One of the most fundamental questions in maritime law is: where do a nation’s territorial waters end, and the high seas begin?

    After the second world war, a series of conferences culminated in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), where the customary 3 nautical miles (5.56km) of territorial waters states could claim as their own was extended. This narrow limit was rooted more in historical naval range – the so-called “cannon shot rule” – than in modern geopolitical or environmental realities.

    In 1959, Iran took the unusual step of unilaterally extending its territorial sea to 12 nautical miles, despite not being a party to UNCLOS. Two decades later, following the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the US Embassy hostage crisis, Washington grew increasingly anxious about the security of oil flows from the Persian Gulf. These concerns intensified during the Iran-Iraq War, especially as Iran began using small islands in the Strait of Hormuz to deploy military forces and threaten commercial shipping.

    UNCLOS and the new rules of the sea

    One of the key compromises of UNCLOS was an extension of territorial waters for states that ratified the treaty. In exchange, UNCLOS replaced the older concept of “innocent passage” – which allowed only surface navigation through territorial seas – with the broader notion of “transit passage”. Under this regime, vessels and aircraft from other states are granted the right to travel not only on the surface, but also under the sea and through the air above straits used for international navigation.

    While 169 states have ratified UNCLOS, both Iran and the United States remain notable holdouts. This means Iran does not enjoy the broader 12-nautical-mile limit recognised under UNCLOS, and the US cannot claim the agreement’s protections for transit passage through strategic choke points.

    While the geopolitical and legal tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz may seem far removed from the world of private commerce, the global economy continues to function thanks to a powerful legal tool: the contract. Contracts offer a predictable framework that allows trade across borders without parties needing to trust one another personally.

    The Strait of Hormuz is bordered by active, assertive states such as Iran, which means the potential for interstate conflict is relatively high. This doesn’t mean commercial contracts are irrelevant to the recent dispute in the Strait of Hormuz — far from it. But their influence is more indirect.

    What can be learned?

    Without significant political change in Tehran, it’s unlikely either Iran or the US will shift its position on adopting UNCLOS. Yet despite Iran’s repeated threats to close the strait, it has never followed through — and the US Navy continues to maintain a steady presence in the region. For now, a fragile but persistent equilibrium holds.

    Belinda Clarence 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. What is the Strait of Hormuz and why is it so important for global shipping? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-strait-of-hormuz-and-why-is-it-so-important-for-global-shipping-260920

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Rugby headgear can’t prevent concussion – but new materials could soften the blows over a career

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nick Draper, Professor of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Canterbury

    The widely held view among rugby players, coaches and officials is that headgear can’t prevent concussion. If so, why wear it? It’s hot, it can block vision and hearing, and it can be uncomfortable.

    Headgear was originally designed to protect players from cuts and abrasions. But players still hope it will offer them a degree of protection against the collisions they experience in the game. Some players adopt it after previous concussions.

    We’re now seeing increasing numbers of professional players opting in. The Irish men’s team, for example, field up to five players each match sporting headgear. In Japan, it’s mandatory for juniors. And more parents in New Zealand are making their children wear it, too.

    The exact specifications for rugby match kit – boots, shorts, shoulder pads and
    headgear – are regulated through World Rugby’s Law 4 and Regulation 12. In 2019, the governing body launched a trial enabling players to wear headgear with new technical specifications in training and matches.

    The specifications have meant manufacturers can take advantage of novel “isotropic” materials that can potentially reduce the impact forces experienced by players.

    Conventional headgear is composed of soft foams that flatten when a player’s head collides with the ground or another player. As such, they can only minimally absorb those collision forces.

    Isotropic materials behave differently. They can absorb impacts from multiple directions and may offer a level of protection against the effects on a player’s head of a tackle or other collision event.

    Given these changes, and in light of recent research, we may need to change the narrative around rugby headgear: while it may not prevent concussion, it might reduce the total contact “burden” experienced by players in a game and over a whole season. And this could have benefits for long-term brain health.

    Impacts across seasons and careers

    Contact in rugby – through tackles, at the breakdown, and in scrums and lineouts – leads to players experiencing a number of collisions or “head acceleration events”. This contact is most commonly head to ground, head to body or head to head.

    By having players use “smart” mouthguards with embedded micro-accelerometers and gyroscopes to capture head movements, researchers can now measure each collision and each player’s contact load in a game – and potentially over a career.

    A player’s total contact load is found by adding together the magnitude of the impacts they experience in a game. These are measured as “peak linear accelerations” or “peak rotational accelerations”.

    While past research and media attention has focused on concussion, it has become clear the total contact burden in training and matches – the total “sub-concussive knocks” through head acceleration events – may be as important, if not more so.

    One of our own research projects involved following 40 under-16 players wearing smart mouthguards for all training and matches across one season. Peak Linear accelerations are measured as a g-force (g). Activities such as such as running, jumping and shaking the head would measure under 8g, for example, whereas heading a soccer ball might measure 31g.

    The results of our study showed the players differed greatly in their cumulative exposure over a whole season, from 300g to nearly 14,000g. These differences would be amplified further over an entire rugby career.

    Some of the variation is likely due to a player’s team position, with loose forwards having a greater burden than others. But it also seems some players just enjoy the contact aspects of the game more than others.

    Rugby is an impact sport: the Ireland and England women’s teams clash in 2025.
    Getty Images

    Potential benefits of new headgear materials

    Researcher Helen Murray at the University of Auckland has highlighted the need for more research into the burden of collisions, rather than just concussions, over a rugby career. In particular, we need to know more about its effect on future brain health.

    We hope to contribute to this by following our existing cohort of players through their careers. In the meantime, our research has examined the potential of existing rugby headgear and new isotropic materials to mitigate peak accelerations in rugby collisions.

    Using the field data collected from male and female players over the past four seasons, we have designed laboratory testing protocols to compare the conventional and newer materials.

    The results suggest the new forms of headgear do have the potential to reduce the impact burden for players.

    We found 55–90% of head acceleration events do involve direct contact with the head. As such, collision-mitigation headgear could be beneficial. And our laboratory testing produced an estimated 30% reduction in peak linear accelerations with the headgear compared to without.

    The nature of concussion is complex and related to the size of an impact as well as its direction and angle. For instance, we observed the concussions experienced by the junior players occurred between 12g and 62g – well below the male threshold of 70g requiring professional players to be removed from the field for a head injury assessment.

    Currently, it seems unlikely headgear can prevent concussion. But it does appear new headgear materials could significantly reduce the total impact burden for players during their careers. And this may help safeguard their future brain health.

    Nick Draper receives funding from the Health Research Council, Cure Kids, the Neurological Foundation, Canterbury Medical Research Foundation, Pacific Radiology Group, the Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust, and the UC Foundation.

    – ref. Rugby headgear can’t prevent concussion – but new materials could soften the blows over a career – https://theconversation.com/rugby-headgear-cant-prevent-concussion-but-new-materials-could-soften-the-blows-over-a-career-258912

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • Does Donald Trump deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? We asked 5 experts

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has formally nominated United States President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. He says the president is “forging peace as we speak, in one country, in one region after the other”.

    Trump, who has craved the award for years, sees himself as a global peacemaker in a raft of conflicts from Israel and Iran, to Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

    With the conflict in Gaza still raging, we ask five experts – could Trump be rewarded with the world’s most prestigious peace prize?

    The Conversation

    Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

    Jasmine-Kim Westendorf has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

    Shahram Akbarzadeh receives funding from Australia Research Council.

    Ali Mamouri and Ian Parmeter 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. Does Donald Trump deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/does-donald-trump-deserve-the-nobel-peace-prize-we-asked-5-experts-260801

  • Trump is aiming to silence public media in the US – and if he succeeds, his supporters here will take note

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Bruce Wolpe, Non-resident Senior Fellow, United States Study Centre, University of Sydney

    The ABC dodged a bullet in the Australian election. The Albanese government supports the ABC. In the United States, however, the 2024 presidential election severely wounded public media in America.

    Fresh from his decisive victory in Congress – passage of the One Big Beautiful bill that locks in the legislation to prosecute Trump’s domestic policy agenda – Trump is demanding Congress cancel funding for public media, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). Hardliners in the US House of Representatives have already voted to end all federal funding for public media. The Senate will vote on this issue in mid-July.

    We have tale of two vital and powerful media institutions in Australia and the US. What happens over there can affect what happens here.

    Towards the end of Australia’s election campaign, Peter Dutton, then leader of the Liberal Party, opened up on the ABC. He looped in The Guardian for good measure. And he implied other media deserved his words:

    Forget about what you have been told by the ABC, The Guardian and the other hate media.

    Dutton’s words embellished previous policies under Coalition governments, with budget cuts to the ABC of over $500 million, and several inquiries into the degree of ABC’s neutrality and objectivity in its coverage of news and current affairs.



    Read more:
    Peter Dutton calling the ABC and the Guardian ‘hate media’ rings alarm bells for democracy

    Kim Williams, chair of the ABC, said the network would “perform well” under any scrutiny from a Dutton government. Dutton himself, shortly before the election, demanded the ABC show “excellence” in order to prove to taxpayers that its almost $1.2 billion annual budget was justified.

    The Coalition’s defeat aided the ABC’s victory in its longstanding quest for financial stability and future growth. The ABC can continue to build on the commitments established by the Albanese Labor government in 2023 – even though there are choppy waters for the ABC as its new leadership makes programming and staffing decisions for the years ahead.

    With a new Coalition shadow cabinet in place, we will see as future budgets play out whether they have changed their tune on their approach to the ABC.

    We will see how both the government and the Coalition react to Kim Williams’ powerful case he recently presented for “more investment for much-needed renewal” in the ABC.

    Public media in Trump’s America

    In America today, public media are facing Trump’s wrath.

    Trump’s hatred of mainstream media is legendary. For the past decade, Trump has called the major media outlets the “enemy of the people” – the same label that Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin used against those who dared to oppose him.

    In his second term, Trump is engaged in aggressive muscling of the enemies he sees in the media. The Associated Press is barred from the pool of journalists covering the president. Trump has silenced the Voice of America. The US ABC and CBS television networks have both settled lawsuits filed by Trump to seek damages for their broadcast coverage of him and the 2024 presidential campaign. The price to help avoid regulatory punishment by the government of those two networks: $US16 million (A$24.5 million) each.

    For a country that established freedom of the press under its Constitution, Trump’s attacks on news media are an ongoing assault on America’s democracy.

    Trump’s attacks on PBS and NPR show the existential threat they face.

    In 1967, Congress established and funded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to bring to life public television and radio across America. Money from CPB supports the stations. The stations contract with PBS and NPR to help produce the programming they air, from the PBS NewsHour, Frontline and Sesame Street on PBS to Morning Edition and All Things Considered on NPR – and much more.

    Trump holds the same sentiment that Dutton expressed against the ABC – that the public broadcasters are biased toward the “extreme woke Marxist left”. Trump wrote on Truth Social that:

    Jim Jordan of Ohio, one of the most influential Republican leaders in the House of Representatives, was in-your-face direct on the case against public media:

    This bill’s real simple. Don’t spend money on stupid things, and don’t subsidize biased media.

    In late April, Trump ordered the firing of three of CPB’s five directors. On May 1, Trump issued an executive order that will savage public media’s existence:

    At the very least, Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage […] The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS.“

    Public media has filed red-hot lawsuits against Trump and his officials for crushing the First Amendment free-speech rights of public televion and radio stations, and for cancelling funds appropriated by Congress. The court rulings in these cases will be crucial to the outcome.

    The last near-fatal threat to public broadcasting was in 1981, when President Ronald Reagan sought Congress’ approval to decimate its funding. Under Reagan conservatism, media belong in the private sector. The conservative’s political bias against public broadcasting framed the push to cancel government funding.

    But Congress rose up successfully against the Reagan cuts – led not only by Democrats but with Senate Republicans from rural states who understood how important public broadcasting was to their communities. Their budgets were trimmed, but PBS and NPR were not decapitated.

    Lessons for the ABC

    The same is true here: ABC stations in country areas are similarly held in high regard.

    The cuts to public media passed the US House by one vote on June 12.

    The Senate will vote in the coming days. We will see if some Senate Republicans who voted against Trump’s One Big Beautiful bill last week will stand up again and vote to buck Trump on this issue and protect public media in their states.

    If Trump succeeds in silencing public media in America, the Trump echo chamber in Australia will take note. Some hard conservatives in Canberra and the Murdoch media will likely leverage Congress’ approval of Trump’s order that PBS and NPR be punished for their left-wing bias and that public media should become the province of the private sector. Defunding public media in the US will sustain the sentiment that one day, under a future government here, the scythe will be wielded at the ABC.

    If the US Senate supports Trump, the fight for the ABC in Australia – not just over money, but over its role, responsibilities and standing in Australia – may not be over.

    The Conversation

    Bruce Wolpe is a (non-resident) Senior Fellow at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. The views expressed herein are his own. Wolpe served on the staff of Prime Minister Julia Gillard. He worked on the Democratic staff in Congress on public broadcasting issues and was an executive with NPR. He is the author of two books on Trump and Australia.

    – ref. Trump is aiming to silence public media in the US – and if he succeeds, his supporters here will take note – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-aiming-to-silence-public-media-in-the-us-and-if-he-succeeds-his-supporters-here-will-take-note-260584

  • What is the Strait of Hormuz and why is it so important for global shipping?

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Belinda Clarence, Law Lecturer, RMIT University

    During the recent conflict between Iran and Israel, Iran threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s major shipping routes.

    Would that be possible, and what effects would it have?

    The Strait of Hormuz is a choke point at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. It is used to transport about 20% of global daily oil consumption.

    Iran effectively controls this crucial shipping route because it is a coastal state bordering this narrow stretch of water. The strait is too narrow to avoid navigating waters claimed by Iran. This raises thorny legal questions about whether it is really possible for Iran to block the strait, and what recourse other states have if it does.

    This geographical reality is far from new, and the legal frameworks governing international maritime activity have developed over centuries. At its heart is the lex mercatoria — the “law of merchants” — a body of transnational commercial law that emerged organically from the practices of traders operating across borders.

    Within this broader framework sits the lex maritima, or customary maritime law, which has long adapted to the hazards of shipping across vast oceans.

    The lex maritima originated from the shared practices of seafarers and merchants. Its purpose? To manage the unpredictable nature of maritime trade that demands coherent and stable rules.

    One of the most enduring principles of this legal tradition is the idea of mare liberum, or “the free sea”, set out by Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1609. He argued the high seas should remain open to all for peaceful navigation and trade. This conveniently legitimised the ambitions of European colonial powers, granting them unfettered access to global maritime routes at a time when control over sea-based trade promised immense economic and strategic advantage.

    The shifting boundaries of maritime law

    One of the most fundamental questions in maritime law is: where do a nation’s territorial waters end, and the high seas begin?

    After the second world war, a series of conferences culminated in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), where the customary 3 nautical miles (5.56km) of territorial waters states could claim as their own was extended. This narrow limit was rooted more in historical naval range – the so-called “cannon shot rule” – than in modern geopolitical or environmental realities.

    In 1959, Iran took the unusual step of unilaterally extending its territorial sea to 12 nautical miles, despite not being a party to UNCLOS. Two decades later, following the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the US Embassy hostage crisis, Washington grew increasingly anxious about the security of oil flows from the Persian Gulf. These concerns intensified during the Iran-Iraq War, especially as Iran began using small islands in the Strait of Hormuz to deploy military forces and threaten commercial shipping.

    UNCLOS and the new rules of the sea

    One of the key compromises of UNCLOS was an extension of territorial waters for states that ratified the treaty. In exchange, UNCLOS replaced the older concept of “innocent passage” – which allowed only surface navigation through territorial seas – with the broader notion of “transit passage”. Under this regime, vessels and aircraft from other states are granted the right to travel not only on the surface, but also under the sea and through the air above straits used for international navigation.

    While 169 states have ratified UNCLOS, both Iran and the United States remain notable holdouts. This means Iran does not enjoy the broader 12-nautical-mile limit recognised under UNCLOS, and the US cannot claim the agreement’s protections for transit passage through strategic choke points.

    While the geopolitical and legal tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz may seem far removed from the world of private commerce, the global economy continues to function thanks to a powerful legal tool: the contract. Contracts offer a predictable framework that allows trade across borders without parties needing to trust one another personally.

    The Strait of Hormuz is bordered by active, assertive states such as Iran, which means the potential for interstate conflict is relatively high. This doesn’t mean commercial contracts are irrelevant to the recent dispute in the Strait of Hormuz — far from it. But their influence is more indirect.

    What can be learned?

    Without significant political change in Tehran, it’s unlikely either Iran or the US will shift its position on adopting UNCLOS. Yet despite Iran’s repeated threats to close the strait, it has never followed through — and the US Navy continues to maintain a steady presence in the region. For now, a fragile but persistent equilibrium holds.

    The Conversation

    Belinda Clarence 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. What is the Strait of Hormuz and why is it so important for global shipping? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-strait-of-hormuz-and-why-is-it-so-important-for-global-shipping-260920

  • Rugby headgear can’t prevent concussion – but new materials could soften the blows over a career

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nick Draper, Professor of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Canterbury

    The widely held view among rugby players, coaches and officials is that headgear can’t prevent concussion. If so, why wear it? It’s hot, it can block vision and hearing, and it can be uncomfortable.

    Headgear was originally designed to protect players from cuts and abrasions. But players still hope it will offer them a degree of protection against the collisions they experience in the game. Some players adopt it after previous concussions.

    We’re now seeing increasing numbers of professional players opting in. The Irish men’s team, for example, field up to five players each match sporting headgear. In Japan, it’s mandatory for juniors. And more parents in New Zealand are making their children wear it, too.

    The exact specifications for rugby match kit – boots, shorts, shoulder pads and
    headgear – are regulated through World Rugby’s Law 4 and Regulation 12. In 2019, the governing body launched a trial enabling players to wear headgear with new technical specifications in training and matches.

    The specifications have meant manufacturers can take advantage of novel “isotropic” materials that can potentially reduce the impact forces experienced by players.

    Conventional headgear is composed of soft foams that flatten when a player’s head collides with the ground or another player. As such, they can only minimally absorb those collision forces.

    Isotropic materials behave differently. They can absorb impacts from multiple directions and may offer a level of protection against the effects on a player’s head of a tackle or other collision event.

    Given these changes, and in light of recent research, we may need to change the narrative around rugby headgear: while it may not prevent concussion, it might reduce the total contact “burden” experienced by players in a game and over a whole season. And this could have benefits for long-term brain health.

    Impacts across seasons and careers

    Contact in rugby – through tackles, at the breakdown, and in scrums and lineouts – leads to players experiencing a number of collisions or “head acceleration events”. This contact is most commonly head to ground, head to body or head to head.

    By having players use “smart” mouthguards with embedded micro-accelerometers and gyroscopes to capture head movements, researchers can now measure each collision and each player’s contact load in a game – and potentially over a career.

    A player’s total contact load is found by adding together the magnitude of the impacts they experience in a game. These are measured as “peak linear accelerations” or “peak rotational accelerations”.

    While past research and media attention has focused on concussion, it has become clear the total contact burden in training and matches – the total “sub-concussive knocks” through head acceleration events – may be as important, if not more so.

    One of our own research projects involved following 40 under-16 players wearing smart mouthguards for all training and matches across one season. Peak Linear accelerations are measured as a g-force (g). Activities such as such as running, jumping and shaking the head would measure under 8g, for example, whereas heading a soccer ball might measure 31g.

    The results of our study showed the players differed greatly in their cumulative exposure over a whole season, from 300g to nearly 14,000g. These differences would be amplified further over an entire rugby career.

    Some of the variation is likely due to a player’s team position, with loose forwards having a greater burden than others. But it also seems some players just enjoy the contact aspects of the game more than others.

    Rugby is an impact sport: the Ireland and England women’s teams clash in 2025.
    Getty Images

    Potential benefits of new headgear materials

    Researcher Helen Murray at the University of Auckland has highlighted the need for more research into the burden of collisions, rather than just concussions, over a rugby career. In particular, we need to know more about its effect on future brain health.

    We hope to contribute to this by following our existing cohort of players through their careers. In the meantime, our research has examined the potential of existing rugby headgear and new isotropic materials to mitigate peak accelerations in rugby collisions.

    Using the field data collected from male and female players over the past four seasons, we have designed laboratory testing protocols to compare the conventional and newer materials.

    The results suggest the new forms of headgear do have the potential to reduce the impact burden for players.

    We found 55–90% of head acceleration events do involve direct contact with the head. As such, collision-mitigation headgear could be beneficial. And our laboratory testing produced an estimated 30% reduction in peak linear accelerations with the headgear compared to without.

    The nature of concussion is complex and related to the size of an impact as well as its direction and angle. For instance, we observed the concussions experienced by the junior players occurred between 12g and 62g – well below the male threshold of 70g requiring professional players to be removed from the field for a head injury assessment.

    Currently, it seems unlikely headgear can prevent concussion. But it does appear new headgear materials could significantly reduce the total impact burden for players during their careers. And this may help safeguard their future brain health.

    The Conversation

    Nick Draper receives funding from the Health Research Council, Cure Kids, the Neurological Foundation, Canterbury Medical Research Foundation, Pacific Radiology Group, the Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust, and the UC Foundation.

    – ref. Rugby headgear can’t prevent concussion – but new materials could soften the blows over a career – https://theconversation.com/rugby-headgear-cant-prevent-concussion-but-new-materials-could-soften-the-blows-over-a-career-258912

  • Does AI actually boost productivity? The evidence is murky

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jon Whittle, Director, Data61, CSIRO

    Roman Samborskyi/Shutterstock

    There’s been much talk recently – especially among politicians – about productivity. And for good reason: Australia’s labour productivity growth sits at a 60-year low.

    To address this, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has convened a productivity round table next month. This will coincide with the release of an interim report from the Productivity Commission, which is looking at five pillars of reform. One of these is the role of data and digital technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI).

    This will be music to the ears of the tech and business sectors, which have been enthusiastically promoting the productivity benefits of AI. In fact, the Business Council of Australia also said last month that AI is the single greatest opportunity in a generation to lift productivity.

    But what do we really know about how AI impacts productivity?

    What is productivity?

    Put simply, productivity is how much output (goods and services) we can produce from a given amount of inputs (such as labour and raw materials). It matters because higher productivity typically translates to a higher standard of living. Productivity growth has accounted for 80% of Australia’s income growth over the past three decades.

    Productivity can be thought of as individual, organisational or national.

    Your individual productivity is how efficiently you manage your time and resources to complete tasks. How many emails can you respond to in an hour? How many products can you check for defects in a day?

    Organisational productivity is how well an organisation achieves its goals. For example, in a research organisation, how many top-quality research papers are produced?

    National productivity is the economic efficiency of a nation, often measured as gross domestic product per hour worked. It is effectively an aggregate of the other forms. But it’s notoriously difficult to track how changes in individual or organisational productivity translate into national GDP per hour worked.

    AI and individual productivity

    The nascent research examining the relationship between AI and individual productivity shows mixed results.

    A 2025 real-world study of AI and productivity involved 776 experienced product professionals at US multinational company Procter & Gamble. The study showed that individuals randomly assigned to use AI performed as well as a team of two without. A similar study in 2023 with 750 consultants from Boston Consulting Group found tasks were 18% faster with generative AI.

    A 2023 paper reported on an early generative AI system in a Fortune 500 software company used by 5,200 customer support agents. The system showed a 14% increase in the number of issues resolved per hour. For less experienced agents, productivity increased by 35%.

    But AI doesn’t always increase individual productivity.

    A survey of 2,500 professionals found generative AI actually increased workload for 77% of workers. Some 47% said they didn’t know how to unlock productivity benefits. The study points to barriers such as the need to verify and/or correct AI outputs, the need for AI upskilling, and unreasonable expectations about what AI can do.

    A recent CSIRO study examined the daily use of Microsoft 365 Copilot by 300 employees of a government organisation. While the majority self-reported productivity benefits, a sizeable minority (30%) did not. Even those workers who reported productivity improvements expected greater productivity benefits than were delivered.

    AI and organisational productivity

    It’s difficult, if not impossible, to attribute changes in an organisation’s productivity to the introduction of AI. Businesses are sensitive to many social and organisational factors, any one of which could be the reason for a change in productivity.

    Nevertheless, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has estimated the productivity benefits of traditional AI – that is, machine learning applied for an industry-specific task – to be zero to 11% at the organisational level.

    A 2024 summary paper cites independent studies showing increases in organisational productivity from AI in Germany, Italy and Taiwan.

    In contrast, a 2022 analysis of 300,000 US firms didn’t find a significant correlation between AI adoption and productivity, but did for other technologies such as robotics and cloud computing. Likely explanations are that AI hasn’t yet had an effect on many firms, or simply that it’s too hard to disentangle the impact of AI given it’s never applied in isolation.

    AI productivity increases can also sometimes be masked by additional human labour needed to train or operate AI systems. Take Amazon’s Just Walk Out technology for shops.

    Publicly launched in 2018, it was intended to reduce labour as customer purchases would be fully automated. But it reportedly relied on hiring around 1,000 workers in India for quality control. Amazon has labelled these reports “erroneous”.

    More generally, think about the unknown number (but likely millions) of people paid to label data for AI models.

    AI and national productivity

    The picture at a national level is even murkier.

    Clearly, AI hasn’t yet impacted national productivity. It can be argued that technology developments take time to affect national productivity, as companies need to figure out how to use the technology and put the necessary infrastructure and skills in place.

    However, this is not guaranteed. For example, while there is consensus that the internet led to productivity improvements, the effects of mobile phones and social media are more contested, and their impacts are more apparent in some industries (such as entertainment) than others.

    Productivity isn’t just doing things faster

    The common narrative around AI and productivity is that AI automates mundane tasks, making us faster at doing things and giving us more time for creative pursuits. This, however, is a naive view of how work happens.

    Just because you can deal with your inbox more quickly doesn’t mean you’ll spend your afternoon on the beach. The more emails you fire off, the more you’ll receive back, and the never-ending cycle continues.

    Faster isn’t always better. Sometimes, we need to slow down to be more productive. That’s when great ideas happen.

    Imagine a world in which AI isn’t simply about speeding up tasks but proactively slows us down, to give us space to be more innovative, and more productive. That’s the real untapped opportunity with AI.

    The Conversation

    Jon Whittle works at CSIRO which receives R&D funding from a wide range of government and industry clients.

    – ref. Does AI actually boost productivity? The evidence is murky – https://theconversation.com/does-ai-actually-boost-productivity-the-evidence-is-murky-260690

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Does AI actually boost productivity? The evidence is murky

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jon Whittle, Director, Data61, CSIRO

    Roman Samborskyi/Shutterstock

    There’s been much talk recently – especially among politicians – about productivity. And for good reason: Australia’s labour productivity growth sits at a 60-year low.

    To address this, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has convened a productivity round table next month. This will coincide with the release of an interim report from the Productivity Commission, which is looking at five pillars of reform. One of these is the role of data and digital technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI).

    This will be music to the ears of the tech and business sectors, which have been enthusiastically promoting the productivity benefits of AI. In fact, the Business Council of Australia also said last month that AI is the single greatest opportunity in a generation to lift productivity.

    But what do we really know about how AI impacts productivity?

    What is productivity?

    Put simply, productivity is how much output (goods and services) we can produce from a given amount of inputs (such as labour and raw materials). It matters because higher productivity typically translates to a higher standard of living. Productivity growth has accounted for 80% of Australia’s income growth over the past three decades.

    Productivity can be thought of as individual, organisational or national.

    Your individual productivity is how efficiently you manage your time and resources to complete tasks. How many emails can you respond to in an hour? How many products can you check for defects in a day?

    Organisational productivity is how well an organisation achieves its goals. For example, in a research organisation, how many top-quality research papers are produced?

    National productivity is the economic efficiency of a nation, often measured as gross domestic product per hour worked. It is effectively an aggregate of the other forms. But it’s notoriously difficult to track how changes in individual or organisational productivity translate into national GDP per hour worked.

    AI and individual productivity

    The nascent research examining the relationship between AI and individual productivity shows mixed results.

    A 2025 real-world study of AI and productivity involved 776 experienced product professionals at US multinational company Procter & Gamble. The study showed that individuals randomly assigned to use AI performed as well as a team of two without. A similar study in 2023 with 750 consultants from Boston Consulting Group found tasks were 18% faster with generative AI.

    A 2023 paper reported on an early generative AI system in a Fortune 500 software company used by 5,200 customer support agents. The system showed a 14% increase in the number of issues resolved per hour. For less experienced agents, productivity increased by 35%.

    But AI doesn’t always increase individual productivity.

    A survey of 2,500 professionals found generative AI actually increased workload for 77% of workers. Some 47% said they didn’t know how to unlock productivity benefits. The study points to barriers such as the need to verify and/or correct AI outputs, the need for AI upskilling, and unreasonable expectations about what AI can do.

    A recent CSIRO study examined the daily use of Microsoft 365 Copilot by 300 employees of a government organisation. While the majority self-reported productivity benefits, a sizeable minority (30%) did not. Even those workers who reported productivity improvements expected greater productivity benefits than were delivered.

    AI and organisational productivity

    It’s difficult, if not impossible, to attribute changes in an organisation’s productivity to the introduction of AI. Businesses are sensitive to many social and organisational factors, any one of which could be the reason for a change in productivity.

    Nevertheless, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has estimated the productivity benefits of traditional AI – that is, machine learning applied for an industry-specific task – to be zero to 11% at the organisational level.

    A 2024 summary paper cites independent studies showing increases in organisational productivity from AI in Germany, Italy and Taiwan.

    In contrast, a 2022 analysis of 300,000 US firms didn’t find a significant correlation between AI adoption and productivity, but did for other technologies such as robotics and cloud computing. Likely explanations are that AI hasn’t yet had an effect on many firms, or simply that it’s too hard to disentangle the impact of AI given it’s never applied in isolation.

    AI productivity increases can also sometimes be masked by additional human labour needed to train or operate AI systems. Take Amazon’s Just Walk Out technology for shops.

    Publicly launched in 2018, it was intended to reduce labour as customer purchases would be fully automated. But it reportedly relied on hiring around 1,000 workers in India for quality control. Amazon has labelled these reports “erroneous”.

    More generally, think about the unknown number (but likely millions) of people paid to label data for AI models.

    AI and national productivity

    The picture at a national level is even murkier.

    Clearly, AI hasn’t yet impacted national productivity. It can be argued that technology developments take time to affect national productivity, as companies need to figure out how to use the technology and put the necessary infrastructure and skills in place.

    However, this is not guaranteed. For example, while there is consensus that the internet led to productivity improvements, the effects of mobile phones and social media are more contested, and their impacts are more apparent in some industries (such as entertainment) than others.

    Productivity isn’t just doing things faster

    The common narrative around AI and productivity is that AI automates mundane tasks, making us faster at doing things and giving us more time for creative pursuits. This, however, is a naive view of how work happens.

    Just because you can deal with your inbox more quickly doesn’t mean you’ll spend your afternoon on the beach. The more emails you fire off, the more you’ll receive back, and the never-ending cycle continues.

    Faster isn’t always better. Sometimes, we need to slow down to be more productive. That’s when great ideas happen.

    Imagine a world in which AI isn’t simply about speeding up tasks but proactively slows us down, to give us space to be more innovative, and more productive. That’s the real untapped opportunity with AI.

    Jon Whittle works at CSIRO which receives R&D funding from a wide range of government and industry clients.

    – ref. Does AI actually boost productivity? The evidence is murky – https://theconversation.com/does-ai-actually-boost-productivity-the-evidence-is-murky-260690

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Does Donald Trump deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? We asked 5 experts

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has formally nominated United States President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. He says the president is “forging peace as we speak, in one country, in one region after the other”.

    Trump, who has craved the award for years, sees himself as a global peacemaker in a raft of conflicts from Israel and Iran, to Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

    With the conflict in Gaza still raging, we ask five experts – could Trump be rewarded with the world’s most prestigious peace prize?

    Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

    Jasmine-Kim Westendorf has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

    Shahram Akbarzadeh receives funding from Australia Research Council.

    Ali Mamouri and Ian Parmeter 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. Does Donald Trump deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/does-donald-trump-deserve-the-nobel-peace-prize-we-asked-5-experts-260801

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Trump is aiming to silence public media in the US – and if he succeeds, his supporters here will take note

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Bruce Wolpe, Non-resident Senior Fellow, United States Study Centre, University of Sydney

    The ABC dodged a bullet in the Australian election. The Albanese government supports the ABC. In the United States, however, the 2024 presidential election severely wounded public media in America.

    Fresh from his decisive victory in Congress – passage of the One Big Beautiful bill that locks in the legislation to prosecute Trump’s domestic policy agenda – Trump is demanding Congress cancel funding for public media, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). Hardliners in the US House of Representatives have already voted to end all federal funding for public media. The Senate will vote on this issue in mid-July.

    We have tale of two vital and powerful media institutions in Australia and the US. What happens over there can affect what happens here.

    Towards the end of Australia’s election campaign, Peter Dutton, then leader of the Liberal Party, opened up on the ABC. He looped in The Guardian for good measure. And he implied other media deserved his words:

    Forget about what you have been told by the ABC, The Guardian and the other hate media.

    Dutton’s words embellished previous policies under Coalition governments, with budget cuts to the ABC of over $500 million, and several inquiries into the degree of ABC’s neutrality and objectivity in its coverage of news and current affairs.



    Read more:
    Peter Dutton calling the ABC and the Guardian ‘hate media’ rings alarm bells for democracy

    Kim Williams, chair of the ABC, said the network would “perform well” under any scrutiny from a Dutton government. Dutton himself, shortly before the election, demanded the ABC show “excellence” in order to prove to taxpayers that its almost $1.2 billion annual budget was justified.

    The Coalition’s defeat aided the ABC’s victory in its longstanding quest for financial stability and future growth. The ABC can continue to build on the commitments established by the Albanese Labor government in 2023 – even though there are choppy waters for the ABC as its new leadership makes programming and staffing decisions for the years ahead.

    With a new Coalition shadow cabinet in place, we will see as future budgets play out whether they have changed their tune on their approach to the ABC.

    We will see how both the government and the Coalition react to Kim Williams’ powerful case he recently presented for “more investment for much-needed renewal” in the ABC.

    Public media in Trump’s America

    In America today, public media are facing Trump’s wrath.

    Trump’s hatred of mainstream media is legendary. For the past decade, Trump has called the major media outlets the “enemy of the people” – the same label that Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin used against those who dared to oppose him.

    In his second term, Trump is engaged in aggressive muscling of the enemies he sees in the media. The Associated Press is barred from the pool of journalists covering the president. Trump has silenced the Voice of America. The US ABC and CBS television networks have both settled lawsuits filed by Trump to seek damages for their broadcast coverage of him and the 2024 presidential campaign. The price to help avoid regulatory punishment by the government of those two networks: $US16 million (A$24.5 million) each.

    For a country that established freedom of the press under its Constitution, Trump’s attacks on news media are an ongoing assault on America’s democracy.

    Trump’s attacks on PBS and NPR show the existential threat they face.

    In 1967, Congress established and funded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to bring to life public television and radio across America. Money from CPB supports the stations. The stations contract with PBS and NPR to help produce the programming they air, from the PBS NewsHour, Frontline and Sesame Street on PBS to Morning Edition and All Things Considered on NPR – and much more.

    Trump holds the same sentiment that Dutton expressed against the ABC – that the public broadcasters are biased toward the “extreme woke Marxist left”. Trump wrote on Truth Social that:

    Jim Jordan of Ohio, one of the most influential Republican leaders in the House of Representatives, was in-your-face direct on the case against public media:

    This bill’s real simple. Don’t spend money on stupid things, and don’t subsidize biased media.

    In late April, Trump ordered the firing of three of CPB’s five directors. On May 1, Trump issued an executive order that will savage public media’s existence:

    At the very least, Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage […] The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS.“

    Public media has filed red-hot lawsuits against Trump and his officials for crushing the First Amendment free-speech rights of public televion and radio stations, and for cancelling funds appropriated by Congress. The court rulings in these cases will be crucial to the outcome.

    The last near-fatal threat to public broadcasting was in 1981, when President Ronald Reagan sought Congress’ approval to decimate its funding. Under Reagan conservatism, media belong in the private sector. The conservative’s political bias against public broadcasting framed the push to cancel government funding.

    But Congress rose up successfully against the Reagan cuts – led not only by Democrats but with Senate Republicans from rural states who understood how important public broadcasting was to their communities. Their budgets were trimmed, but PBS and NPR were not decapitated.

    Lessons for the ABC

    The same is true here: ABC stations in country areas are similarly held in high regard.

    The cuts to public media passed the US House by one vote on June 12.

    The Senate will vote in the coming days. We will see if some Senate Republicans who voted against Trump’s One Big Beautiful bill last week will stand up again and vote to buck Trump on this issue and protect public media in their states.

    If Trump succeeds in silencing public media in America, the Trump echo chamber in Australia will take note. Some hard conservatives in Canberra and the Murdoch media will likely leverage Congress’ approval of Trump’s order that PBS and NPR be punished for their left-wing bias and that public media should become the province of the private sector. Defunding public media in the US will sustain the sentiment that one day, under a future government here, the scythe will be wielded at the ABC.

    If the US Senate supports Trump, the fight for the ABC in Australia – not just over money, but over its role, responsibilities and standing in Australia – may not be over.

    Bruce Wolpe is a (non-resident) Senior Fellow at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. The views expressed herein are his own. Wolpe served on the staff of Prime Minister Julia Gillard. He worked on the Democratic staff in Congress on public broadcasting issues and was an executive with NPR. He is the author of two books on Trump and Australia.

    – ref. Trump is aiming to silence public media in the US – and if he succeeds, his supporters here will take note – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-aiming-to-silence-public-media-in-the-us-and-if-he-succeeds-his-supporters-here-will-take-note-260584

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • School smartphone bans reflect growing concern over youth mental health and academic performance

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Margaret Murray, Associate Professor of Public Communication and Culture Studies, University of Michigan

    New laws that ban smartphones or social media for youth are being introduced across several Western nations. SeventyFour/iStock via Getty Images

    The number of states banning smartphones in schools is growing.

    New York is now the largest state in the U.S. to ban smartphones in public schools. Starting in fall 2025, students will not be allowed to use their phones during the school day, including during lunch, recess or in between classes. This bell-to-bell policy will impact almost 2.5 million students in grades K-12.

    By banning smartphones in schools, New York is joining states across the country. The bans are happening in both traditionally liberal and conservative states.

    Alabama, Arkansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma and West Virginia all passed legislation in 2025 that requires schools to have policies that limit access to smartphones. The policies will go into effect in the 2025-2026 school year. This brings the total to 17 states, plus Washington, D.C., that have phone-free school legislation or executive orders.

    I’m a professor who studies communication and culture, and while writing a book about parenting culture, I’ve noticed the narrative around smartphones and social media shifting over the past decade.

    A turning tide

    A group of students stare down at their phones in a classroom.
    Statewide cellphone policies are gaining momentum, with many states aiming to restrict use of the devices in classrooms.
    Thomas Barwick/Digital Vision via Getty Images

    According to the Pew Research Center, 67% of American adults support banning smartphones during class time, although only 36% support banning them for the entire school day. Notably, a majority of Republican, Democratic and independent voters all support bans during class time.

    More broadly, parent-led movements to limit children’s use of smartphones, social media and the internet have sprung up around the country. For example, the Phone-Free Schools Movement in Pennsylvania was launched in 2023, and Mothers Against Media Addiction started in New York in March 2024. These organizations, which empower parents to advocate in their local communities, follow in the footsteps of organizations such as Wait Until 8th in Texas and Screen Time Action Network at Fairplay in Massachusetts, which were formed in 2017.

    The concerns of these parent-led organizations were reflected in the best-selling book “The Anxious Generation,” which paints a bleak picture of modern childhood as dominated by depression and anxiety brought on by smartphone addiction.

    Phone-free schools are one of the four actions the book’s author, Jonathan Haidt, recommended to change course. The other three are no smartphones for children before high school, waiting until 16 for social media access, and allowing more childhood independence in the real world.

    Haidt’s research team collaborated with The Harris Poll to survey Gen Z. They found that almost half of those age 18-27 wish social media had never been invented, and 21% wish smartphones had never been invented. About 40% of Gen Z respondents supported phone-free schools.

    The Pew Research Center found that almost 40% of kids age 8-12 use social media, and almost 95% of kids age 13-17 use it, with nearly half of teens reporting that they use social media almost constantly.

    Phone-free schools are also part of the larger trend of states and nations resisting Big Tech, the large technology companies that play a significant role in global commerce.

    In May 2025, two U.S. senators introduced the Stop the Scroll Act, which would require mental health warnings on social media.

    New laws that ban smartphones or social media for youth are being introduced across several Western nations. Australia has banned all social media for those under 16.

    After a fatal stabbing at a middle school in eastern France on June 10, French President Emmanuel Macron announced the same day that he wants the European Union to set the minimum age for social media at 15. He argued that social media is a factor in teen violence. If the EU doesn’t act within a few months, Macron has pledged to enact a ban in France as soon as possible.

    The impact on learning

    Students sit at a desk in a classroom using smartphones, while a teacher in the background looks on.
    Research suggests that students are less focused in class when they have access to cellphones.
    isuzek/E+ via Getty Images

    Although this trend of restricting use of phones in school is new, more states may adopt smartphone bans in the future. Bell-to-bell bans are viewed as especially powerful in improving academic performance.

    Some research has suggested that when children have access to a smartphone, even if they do not use it, they find it harder to focus in class. Initial research has found that academic performance improves after the bans go into effect.

    Test scores fell across the U.S. during the pandemic lockdown and have not returned to prepandemic levels. Some states, such as Maine and Oregon, are almost a full year behind grade level in reading. Not a single state has recovered in both math and reading.

    Statewide bans free local school districts from having to create their own technology bans, which can lead to heated debates. Although a majority of adults approve of banning smartphones in class, 24% oppose it for reasons such as wanting to be able to contact their kids throughout the day and wanting parents to set the boundaries.

    However, 72% of high school teachers say that phones are a major distraction. Anecdotally, schools report that students like the bans after getting used to the change.

    The Conversation

    I signed the Wait Until 8th pledge mentioned in the article, promising not to give my kids a smartphone or social media until at least the end of 8th grade.

    – ref. School smartphone bans reflect growing concern over youth mental health and academic performance – https://theconversation.com/school-smartphone-bans-reflect-growing-concern-over-youth-mental-health-and-academic-performance-259962

  • MIL-Evening Report: Dawn service held 40 years on from Rainbow Warrior bombing

    TVNZ 1News

    The Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior has sailed into Auckland to mark the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the original Rainbow Warrior in 1985.

    Greenpeace’s vessel, which had been protesting nuclear testing in the Pacific, sank after French government agents planted explosives on its hull, killing Portuguese-Dutch photographer Fernando Pereira.

    Today, 40 years on from the events on July 10 1985, a dawn ceremony was held in Auckland.

    Author Margaret Mills was a cook on board the ship at the time, and has written about her experience in a book entitled Anecdotage.

    Author Margaret Mills tells TVNZ Breakfast about the night of the Rainbow Warrior bombing 40 years ago. Image: TVNZ

    The 95-year-old told TVNZ Breakfast the experience on board “changed her life”.

    “I was sound asleep, and I heard this sort of bang and turned the light on, but it wouldn’t go on.

    She said when she left her cabin, a crew member told her “we’ve been bombed”.

    ‘I laughed at him’
    “I laughed at him, I said ‘we don’t get bombs in New Zealand, that’s ridiculous’.”

    She said they were taken to the police station after a “big boom when the second bomb came through”.

    “I realised immediately, I was part of a historical event,” she said.

    TVNZ reporter Corazon Miller talks to Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Russel Norman (centre) and journalist David Robie after the Rainbow Warrior memorial dawn service today. Image: TVNZ

    Journalist David Robie. who travelled on the Rainbow Warrior and wrote the book Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior published today, told Breakfast it was a “really shocking, shocking night”.

    “We were so overwhelmed by the grief and absolute shock of what had happened. But for me, there was no doubt it was France behind this.”

    “But we were absolutely flabbergasted that a country could do this.”

    He said it was a “very emotional moment” and was hard to believe it had been 40 years since that time.

    ‘Momentous occasion’
    “It stands out in my life as being the most momentous occasion as a journalist covering that whole event.”

    Executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa Russel Norman said the legacy of the ship was about “people who really stood up for something important”.

    “I mean, ending nuclear testing in the Pacific, imagine if they were still exploding bombs in the Pacific. We would have to live with that.

    “And those people back then they stood up and beat the French government to end nuclear testing.

    “It’s pretty inspirational.”

    He said the group were still campaigning on some key environmental issues today.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: School smartphone bans reflect growing concern over youth mental health and academic performance

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Margaret Murray, Associate Professor of Public Communication and Culture Studies, University of Michigan

    New laws that ban smartphones or social media for youth are being introduced across several Western nations. SeventyFour/iStock via Getty Images

    The number of states banning smartphones in schools is growing.

    New York is now the largest state in the U.S. to ban smartphones in public schools. Starting in fall 2025, students will not be allowed to use their phones during the school day, including during lunch, recess or in between classes. This bell-to-bell policy will impact almost 2.5 million students in grades K-12.

    By banning smartphones in schools, New York is joining states across the country. The bans are happening in both traditionally liberal and conservative states.

    Alabama, Arkansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma and West Virginia all passed legislation in 2025 that requires schools to have policies that limit access to smartphones. The policies will go into effect in the 2025-2026 school year. This brings the total to 17 states, plus Washington, D.C., that have phone-free school legislation or executive orders.

    I’m a professor who studies communication and culture, and while writing a book about parenting culture, I’ve noticed the narrative around smartphones and social media shifting over the past decade.

    A turning tide

    Statewide cellphone policies are gaining momentum, with many states aiming to restrict use of the devices in classrooms.
    Thomas Barwick/Digital Vision via Getty Images

    According to the Pew Research Center, 67% of American adults support banning smartphones during class time, although only 36% support banning them for the entire school day. Notably, a majority of Republican, Democratic and independent voters all support bans during class time.

    More broadly, parent-led movements to limit children’s use of smartphones, social media and the internet have sprung up around the country. For example, the Phone-Free Schools Movement in Pennsylvania was launched in 2023, and Mothers Against Media Addiction started in New York in March 2024. These organizations, which empower parents to advocate in their local communities, follow in the footsteps of organizations such as Wait Until 8th in Texas and Screen Time Action Network at Fairplay in Massachusetts, which were formed in 2017.

    The concerns of these parent-led organizations were reflected in the best-selling book “The Anxious Generation,” which paints a bleak picture of modern childhood as dominated by depression and anxiety brought on by smartphone addiction.

    Phone-free schools are one of the four actions the book’s author, Jonathan Haidt, recommended to change course. The other three are no smartphones for children before high school, waiting until 16 for social media access, and allowing more childhood independence in the real world.

    Haidt’s research team collaborated with The Harris Poll to survey Gen Z. They found that almost half of those age 18-27 wish social media had never been invented, and 21% wish smartphones had never been invented. About 40% of Gen Z respondents supported phone-free schools.

    The Pew Research Center found that almost 40% of kids age 8-12 use social media, and almost 95% of kids age 13-17 use it, with nearly half of teens reporting that they use social media almost constantly.

    Phone-free schools are also part of the larger trend of states and nations resisting Big Tech, the large technology companies that play a significant role in global commerce.

    In May 2025, two U.S. senators introduced the Stop the Scroll Act, which would require mental health warnings on social media.

    New laws that ban smartphones or social media for youth are being introduced across several Western nations. Australia has banned all social media for those under 16.

    After a fatal stabbing at a middle school in eastern France on June 10, French President Emmanuel Macron announced the same day that he wants the European Union to set the minimum age for social media at 15. He argued that social media is a factor in teen violence. If the EU doesn’t act within a few months, Macron has pledged to enact a ban in France as soon as possible.

    The impact on learning

    Research suggests that students are less focused in class when they have access to cellphones.
    isuzek/E+ via Getty Images

    Although this trend of restricting use of phones in school is new, more states may adopt smartphone bans in the future. Bell-to-bell bans are viewed as especially powerful in improving academic performance.

    Some research has suggested that when children have access to a smartphone, even if they do not use it, they find it harder to focus in class. Initial research has found that academic performance improves after the bans go into effect.

    Test scores fell across the U.S. during the pandemic lockdown and have not returned to prepandemic levels. Some states, such as Maine and Oregon, are almost a full year behind grade level in reading. Not a single state has recovered in both math and reading.

    Statewide bans free local school districts from having to create their own technology bans, which can lead to heated debates. Although a majority of adults approve of banning smartphones in class, 24% oppose it for reasons such as wanting to be able to contact their kids throughout the day and wanting parents to set the boundaries.

    However, 72% of high school teachers say that phones are a major distraction. Anecdotally, schools report that students like the bans after getting used to the change.

    I signed the Wait Until 8th pledge mentioned in the article, promising not to give my kids a smartphone or social media until at least the end of 8th grade.

    – ref. School smartphone bans reflect growing concern over youth mental health and academic performance – https://theconversation.com/school-smartphone-bans-reflect-growing-concern-over-youth-mental-health-and-academic-performance-259962

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What is the Strait of Hormuz and why is it so important for global shipping?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Belinda Clarence, Law Lecturer, RMIT University

    During the recent conflict between Iran and Israel, Iran threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s major shipping routes.

    Would that be possible, and what effects would it have?

    The Strait of Hormuz is a choke point at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. It is used to transport about 20% of global daily oil consumption.

    Iran effectively controls this crucial shipping route because it is a coastal state bordering this narrow stretch of water. The strait is too narrow to avoid navigating waters claimed by Iran. This raises thorny legal questions about whether it is really possible for Iran to block the strait, and what recourse other states have if it does.

    This geographical reality is far from new, and the legal frameworks governing international maritime activity have developed over centuries. At its heart is the lex mercatoria — the “law of merchants” — a body of transnational commercial law that emerged organically from the practices of traders operating across borders.

    Within this broader framework sits the lex maritima, or customary maritime law, which has long adapted to the hazards of shipping across vast oceans.

    The lex maritima originated from the shared practices of seafarers and merchants. Its purpose? To manage the unpredictable nature of maritime trade that demands coherent and stable rules.

    One of the most enduring principles of this legal tradition is the idea of mare liberum, or “the free sea”, set out by Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1609. He argued the high seas should remain open to all for peaceful navigation and trade. This conveniently legitimised the ambitions of European colonial powers, granting them unfettered access to global maritime routes at a time when control over sea-based trade promised immense economic and strategic advantage.

    The shifting boundaries of maritime law

    One of the most fundamental questions in maritime law is: where do a nation’s territorial waters end, and the high seas begin?

    After the second world war, a series of conferences culminated in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), where the customary 3 nautical miles (5.56km) of territorial waters states could claim as their own was extended. This narrow limit was rooted more in historical naval range – the so-called “cannon shot rule” – than in modern geopolitical or environmental realities.

    In 1959, Iran took the unusual step of unilaterally extending its territorial sea to 12 nautical miles, despite not being a party to UNCLOS. Two decades later, following the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the US Embassy hostage crisis, Washington grew increasingly anxious about the security of oil flows from the Persian Gulf. These concerns intensified during the Iran-Iraq War, especially as Iran began using small islands in the Strait of Hormuz to deploy military forces and threaten commercial shipping.

    UNCLOS and the new rules of the sea

    One of the key compromises of UNCLOS was an extension of territorial waters for states that ratified the treaty. In exchange, UNCLOS replaced the older concept of “innocent passage” – which allowed only surface navigation through territorial seas – with the broader notion of “transit passage”. Under this regime, vessels and aircraft from other states are granted the right to travel not only on the surface, but also under the sea and through the air above straits used for international navigation.

    While 169 states have ratified UNCLOS, both Iran and the United States remain notable holdouts. This means Iran does not enjoy the broader 12-nautical-mile limit recognised under UNCLOS, and the US cannot claim the agreement’s protections for transit passage through strategic choke points.

    While the geopolitical and legal tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz may seem far removed from the world of private commerce, the global economy continues to function thanks to a powerful legal tool: the contract. Contracts offer a predictable framework that allows trade across borders without parties needing to trust one another personally.

    The Strait of Hormuz is bordered by active, assertive states such as Iran, which means the potential for interstate conflict is relatively high. This doesn’t mean commercial contracts are irrelevant to the recent dispute in the Strait of Hormuz — far from it. But their influence is more indirect.

    What can be learned?

    Without significant political change in Tehran, it’s unlikely either Iran or the US will shift its position on adopting UNCLOS. Yet despite Iran’s repeated threats to close the strait, it has never followed through — and the US Navy continues to maintain a steady presence in the region. For now, a fragile but persistent equilibrium holds.

    Belinda Clarence 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. What is the Strait of Hormuz and why is it so important for global shipping? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-strait-of-hormuz-and-why-is-it-so-important-for-global-shipping-260920

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Rugby headgear can’t prevent concussion – but new materials could soften the blows over a career

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Draper, Professor of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Canterbury

    The widely held view among rugby players, coaches and officials is that headgear can’t prevent concussion. If so, why wear it? It’s hot, it can block vision and hearing, and it can be uncomfortable.

    Headgear was originally designed to protect players from cuts and abrasions. But players still hope it will offer them a degree of protection against the collisions they experience in the game. Some players adopt it after previous concussions.

    We’re now seeing increasing numbers of professional players opting in. The Irish men’s team, for example, field up to five players each match sporting headgear. In Japan, it’s mandatory for juniors. And more parents in New Zealand are making their children wear it, too.

    The exact specifications for rugby match kit – boots, shorts, shoulder pads and
    headgear – are regulated through World Rugby’s Law 4 and Regulation 12. In 2019, the governing body launched a trial enabling players to wear headgear with new technical specifications in training and matches.

    The specifications have meant manufacturers can take advantage of novel “isotropic” materials that can potentially reduce the impact forces experienced by players.

    Conventional headgear is composed of soft foams that flatten when a player’s head collides with the ground or another player. As such, they can only minimally absorb those collision forces.

    Isotropic materials behave differently. They can absorb impacts from multiple directions and may offer a level of protection against the effects on a player’s head of a tackle or other collision event.

    Given these changes, and in light of recent research, we may need to change the narrative around rugby headgear: while it may not prevent concussion, it might reduce the total contact “burden” experienced by players in a game and over a whole season. And this could have benefits for long-term brain health.

    Impacts across seasons and careers

    Contact in rugby – through tackles, at the breakdown, and in scrums and lineouts – leads to players experiencing a number of collisions or “head acceleration events”. This contact is most commonly head to ground, head to body or head to head.

    By having players use “smart” mouthguards with embedded micro-accelerometers and gyroscopes to capture head movements, researchers can now measure each collision and each player’s contact load in a game – and potentially over a career.

    A player’s total contact load is found by adding together the magnitude of the impacts they experience in a game. These are measured as “peak linear accelerations” or “peak rotational accelerations”.

    While past research and media attention has focused on concussion, it has become clear the total contact burden in training and matches – the total “sub-concussive knocks” through head acceleration events – may be as important, if not more so.

    One of our own research projects involved following 40 under-16 players wearing smart mouthguards for all training and matches across one season. Peak Linear accelerations are measured as a g-force (g). Activities such as such as running, jumping and shaking the head would measure under 8g, for example, whereas heading a soccer ball might measure 31g.

    The results of our study showed the players differed greatly in their cumulative exposure over a whole season, from 300g to nearly 14,000g. These differences would be amplified further over an entire rugby career.

    Some of the variation is likely due to a player’s team position, with loose forwards having a greater burden than others. But it also seems some players just enjoy the contact aspects of the game more than others.

    Rugby is an impact sport: the Ireland and England women’s teams clash in 2025.
    Getty Images

    Potential benefits of new headgear materials

    Researcher Helen Murray at the University of Auckland has highlighted the need for more research into the burden of collisions, rather than just concussions, over a rugby career. In particular, we need to know more about its effect on future brain health.

    We hope to contribute to this by following our existing cohort of players through their careers. In the meantime, our research has examined the potential of existing rugby headgear and new isotropic materials to mitigate peak accelerations in rugby collisions.

    Using the field data collected from male and female players over the past four seasons, we have designed laboratory testing protocols to compare the conventional and newer materials.

    The results suggest the new forms of headgear do have the potential to reduce the impact burden for players.

    We found 55–90% of head acceleration events do involve direct contact with the head. As such, collision-mitigation headgear could be beneficial. And our laboratory testing produced an estimated 30% reduction in peak linear accelerations with the headgear compared to without.

    The nature of concussion is complex and related to the size of an impact as well as its direction and angle. For instance, we observed the concussions experienced by the junior players occurred between 12g and 62g – well below the male threshold of 70g requiring professional players to be removed from the field for a head injury assessment.

    Currently, it seems unlikely headgear can prevent concussion. But it does appear new headgear materials could significantly reduce the total impact burden for players during their careers. And this may help safeguard their future brain health.

    Nick Draper receives funding from the Health Research Council, Cure Kids, the Neurological Foundation, Canterbury Medical Research Foundation, Pacific Radiology Group, the Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust, and the UC Foundation.

    – ref. Rugby headgear can’t prevent concussion – but new materials could soften the blows over a career – https://theconversation.com/rugby-headgear-cant-prevent-concussion-but-new-materials-could-soften-the-blows-over-a-career-258912

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Israel’s relocation plan for Palestinians and fading hopes for a ceasefire

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor

    This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

    It was revealing this week to read reports of Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting with Donald Trump (his third White House visit since Trump’s inauguration in January). There was no sense that the US president upped the pressure on the Israeli prime minister to soften Israel’s conditions in order to secure a ceasefire. Instead the pair appears to have discussed the prospect of moving large numbers of Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip to countries what would, as Netanyahu put it, “give Palestinians a better future”.

    If Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, has his way, the future for those Palestinians who want to stay put does indeed look pretty bleak. And the 57,000 people who, according to figures collated by the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry, have lost their lives since the Israeli assault on Gaza began back in October 2023, have no future at all.

    But the plan for the future of Gazan Palestinians that Katz unveiled this week will horrify many too. It involves the construction of a “humanitarian city” at Rafah, close to the Egyptian border at the very southern end of the Strip. Under the plan, people entering the city will be searched for weapons and checked for affiliation to Hamas. Once in, they will not be allowed to leave, except to depart from Gaza altogether.

    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

    This immediately prompted critics to accuse the Israeli government of ethnic cleansing. James Sweeney, an expert in human rights and international law at the University of Lancaster, believes that, if Israel were to carry out Katz’s plan, there would be strong case against political and military leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He argues that the plan amounts at the very least to the forcible transfer of civilians prohibited under the Geneva conventions and the Rome statute, which underpins the International Criminal Court (ICC).

    The snag, as Sweeney sees it, is going to be enforcing international law. While there is an ICC warrant out for the arrests of Netanyahu and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, the Israeli prime minister was able to visit Washington without fear of being apprehended. The US doesn’t recognise the ICC and, indeed, the prosecutor that issued the warrant against Netanyahu and Gallant is now subject to US sanctions.



    Read more:
    Plans to relocate Gazans to a ‘humanitarian city’ look like a crime against humanity – international law expert

    Of course, what happens in Gaza tends to reverberate throughout the region. If hundreds of thousands of Palestinian citizens are moved out of Gaza, it’s likely to be to one of the neighbouring countries. When the idea of a Trump Riviera was first mooted earlier this year, the US president said the Palestinian population could be rehomed in Egypt or Jordan – something both those countries pushed back against with alacrity.

    And the powerful Gulf States, which Trump was keen to woo as business partners when he made a tour of the region in May, are also deeply concerned about Israel’s conduct of its military campaign in Gaza. Geopolitics aside, their populations are broadly sympathetic to the Palestinian people, so a plan to force them out of their homes is unacceptable for Gulf leaders.

    Scott Lucas, an expert in Middle East politics at University College Dublin, gives us a broader view of the region. He describes what he calls two “kaleidoscope moments” when one event has changed the entire region. The first was the Hamas attack of October 7. This brought to an abrupt end the process of normalisation of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. The second was the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, which has further isolated Israel. Lucas believes for there to be any hope of regional stability and the furthering of Israeli relations with the rest of the region, the war in Gaza must end.



    Read more:
    As Netanyahu meets Trump in Washington, what hope for peace in Gaza? Expert Q&A

    Ali Mamouri, a Middle East scholar at Australia’s Deakin University doesn’t believe there’s much chance of this happening any time soon. Part of this is political: Netanyahu still depends on the far-right elements of his coalition represented by national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich. They remain steadfastly opposed to even a ceasefire and want to see Israel expel Palestinians by hook or by crook.

    Also, by prolonging the war, Netanyahu can keep delaying his corruption trial (incidentally, Donald Trump has called for the charges to be dropped altogether).

    And the idea of full statehood for Palestine remains anathema for Israel, as Netanyahu made clear this week talking with journalists after his meeting with Trump when he made clear his insistence that far from pulling Israeli troops out of Gaza, Israel would keep full control of all security matters there: “Now, people will say: ‘It’s not a complete state, it’s not a state.’ We don’t care,” he said.

    Mansour concludes: “The coming weeks will reveal whether Israel chooses the path of compromise and coexistence, or continues down a road that forecloses the possibility of lasting peace.”



    Read more:
    The US has high hopes for a new Gaza ceasefire, but Israel’s long-term aims seem far less peaceful

    Europe must step up over Ukraine

    Just as the picture remains bleak in Gaza, the prospects for peace remain very slim in Ukraine. Although given Donald Trump’s mercurial approach to foreign affairs, it’s also fair to say that anything is possible.

    This week the US president decided to recommence US arms supplies to Ukraine, having previously frozen military aid (although he insists this was done by his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, and that he was “blindsided” by the move). His relationship with Putin appears to have soured – for the present at least. He said: “We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He’s very nice all of the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.”

    And at the most recent Nato summit in The Hague on June 25, Trump put his signature to a declaration that Russia poses “long-term threat … to Euro-Atlantic security” and that Nato member states retain “their enduring sovereign commitments to provide support to Ukraine”.

    But Stefan Wolff, an expert in international security at the University of Birmingham, believes that Nato’s European members cannot bank on the US as a reliable long-term partner. There are few signs that the US is pressuring Russia to compromise on its maximalist aims, which remain unchanged since it invaded Ukraine in February 2022. So Russia remains the most urgent threat to European security. And it’s a threat that Europe will need to prepare to confront, if necessary without US assistance.

    But there are signs that many European countries are preparing to do just that, Wolff writes. Increased commitments to defence spending are a strong start. As he concludes: “They will not turn Europe into a military heavyweight overnight. But they will buy time to do so.”



    Read more:
    US backs Nato’s latest pledge of support for Ukraine, but in reality seems to have abandoned its European partners

    Understandably, much of the reporting of the war in Ukraine has focused on the human tragedy unfolding in the war-torn country: the enormous casualty list on both sides, civilians killed or forced from their homes in the fighting, and the Ukrainian citizens forced to live under Russian occupation.

    But a new film, which premiered recently at the Tribeca film festival, looks at War Through the Eyes of Animals. Janine Natalya Clark, an expert in transitional justice at the University of Birmingham, has done similar. Clark interviewed a number of Ukrainian natural scientists including botanists, ornithologists, herpetologists (who study reptiles and amphibians) and a marine biologist. She asked them to make sound recordings in their area to reflect on how the war is affecting Ukraine’s flora and fauna.

    What emerged was extraordinary and reflects how the conflict has affected the natural world in both positive and negative ways. Clark believes that this information will be invaluable when it comes to rebuilding Ukraine and in securing justice and reparations for the damage done – not just to humans, but to Ukraine’s animals and the habitats in which they live.



    Read more:
    Sound recordings can give us an animal-eye view of the war in Ukraine

    In Russia, meanwhile, a controversial measure introduced by the Putin government is dividing public opinion. In some parts of the country, schoolgirls who become pregnant are being paid more than 100,000 roubles (nearly £900) for giving birth and raising their babies.

    Jannifer Mathers, a Russia expert at Aberystwyth University, looks at the rise of pronatalism in the face of declining populations and finds it’s not just an issue in Russia, but for many other countries as well, including the US.



    Read more:
    Russia is paying schoolgirls to have babies. Why is pronatalism on the rise around the world?

    World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.

    – ref. Israel’s relocation plan for Palestinians and fading hopes for a ceasefire – https://theconversation.com/israels-relocation-plan-for-palestinians-and-fading-hopes-for-a-ceasefire-260933

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • Israel’s relocation plan for Palestinians and fading hopes for a ceasefire

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor

    This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

    It was revealing this week to read reports of Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting with Donald Trump (his third White House visit since Trump’s inauguration in January). There was no sense that the US president upped the pressure on the Israeli prime minister to soften Israel’s conditions in order to secure a ceasefire. Instead the pair appears to have discussed the prospect of moving large numbers of Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip to countries what would, as Netanyahu put it, “give Palestinians a better future”.

    If Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, has his way, the future for those Palestinians who want to stay put does indeed look pretty bleak. And the 57,000 people who, according to figures collated by the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry, have lost their lives since the Israeli assault on Gaza began back in October 2023, have no future at all.

    But the plan for the future of Gazan Palestinians that Katz unveiled this week will horrify many too. It involves the construction of a “humanitarian city” at Rafah, close to the Egyptian border at the very southern end of the Strip. Under the plan, people entering the city will be searched for weapons and checked for affiliation to Hamas. Once in, they will not be allowed to leave, except to depart from Gaza altogether.

    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

    This immediately prompted critics to accuse the Israeli government of ethnic cleansing. James Sweeney, an expert in human rights and international law at the University of Lancaster, believes that, if Israel were to carry out Katz’s plan, there would be strong case against political and military leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He argues that the plan amounts at the very least to the forcible transfer of civilians prohibited under the Geneva conventions and the Rome statute, which underpins the International Criminal Court (ICC).

    The snag, as Sweeney sees it, is going to be enforcing international law. While there is an ICC warrant out for the arrests of Netanyahu and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, the Israeli prime minister was able to visit Washington without fear of being apprehended. The US doesn’t recognise the ICC and, indeed, the prosecutor that issued the warrant against Netanyahu and Gallant is now subject to US sanctions.



    Read more:
    Plans to relocate Gazans to a ‘humanitarian city’ look like a crime against humanity – international law expert

    Of course, what happens in Gaza tends to reverberate throughout the region. If hundreds of thousands of Palestinian citizens are moved out of Gaza, it’s likely to be to one of the neighbouring countries. When the idea of a Trump Riviera was first mooted earlier this year, the US president said the Palestinian population could be rehomed in Egypt or Jordan – something both those countries pushed back against with alacrity.

    And the powerful Gulf States, which Trump was keen to woo as business partners when he made a tour of the region in May, are also deeply concerned about Israel’s conduct of its military campaign in Gaza. Geopolitics aside, their populations are broadly sympathetic to the Palestinian people, so a plan to force them out of their homes is unacceptable for Gulf leaders.

    Scott Lucas, an expert in Middle East politics at University College Dublin, gives us a broader view of the region. He describes what he calls two “kaleidoscope moments” when one event has changed the entire region. The first was the Hamas attack of October 7. This brought to an abrupt end the process of normalisation of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. The second was the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, which has further isolated Israel. Lucas believes for there to be any hope of regional stability and the furthering of Israeli relations with the rest of the region, the war in Gaza must end.



    Read more:
    As Netanyahu meets Trump in Washington, what hope for peace in Gaza? Expert Q&A

    Ali Mamouri, a Middle East scholar at Australia’s Deakin University doesn’t believe there’s much chance of this happening any time soon. Part of this is political: Netanyahu still depends on the far-right elements of his coalition represented by national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich. They remain steadfastly opposed to even a ceasefire and want to see Israel expel Palestinians by hook or by crook.

    Also, by prolonging the war, Netanyahu can keep delaying his corruption trial (incidentally, Donald Trump has called for the charges to be dropped altogether).

    And the idea of full statehood for Palestine remains anathema for Israel, as Netanyahu made clear this week talking with journalists after his meeting with Trump when he made clear his insistence that far from pulling Israeli troops out of Gaza, Israel would keep full control of all security matters there: “Now, people will say: ‘It’s not a complete state, it’s not a state.’ We don’t care,” he said.

    Mansour concludes: “The coming weeks will reveal whether Israel chooses the path of compromise and coexistence, or continues down a road that forecloses the possibility of lasting peace.”



    Read more:
    The US has high hopes for a new Gaza ceasefire, but Israel’s long-term aims seem far less peaceful

    Europe must step up over Ukraine

    Just as the picture remains bleak in Gaza, the prospects for peace remain very slim in Ukraine. Although given Donald Trump’s mercurial approach to foreign affairs, it’s also fair to say that anything is possible.

    This week the US president decided to recommence US arms supplies to Ukraine, having previously frozen military aid (although he insists this was done by his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, and that he was “blindsided” by the move). His relationship with Putin appears to have soured – for the present at least. He said: “We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He’s very nice all of the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.”

    And at the most recent Nato summit in The Hague on June 25, Trump put his signature to a declaration that Russia poses “long-term threat … to Euro-Atlantic security” and that Nato member states retain “their enduring sovereign commitments to provide support to Ukraine”.

    But Stefan Wolff, an expert in international security at the University of Birmingham, believes that Nato’s European members cannot bank on the US as a reliable long-term partner. There are few signs that the US is pressuring Russia to compromise on its maximalist aims, which remain unchanged since it invaded Ukraine in February 2022. So Russia remains the most urgent threat to European security. And it’s a threat that Europe will need to prepare to confront, if necessary without US assistance.

    But there are signs that many European countries are preparing to do just that, Wolff writes. Increased commitments to defence spending are a strong start. As he concludes: “They will not turn Europe into a military heavyweight overnight. But they will buy time to do so.”



    Read more:
    US backs Nato’s latest pledge of support for Ukraine, but in reality seems to have abandoned its European partners

    Understandably, much of the reporting of the war in Ukraine has focused on the human tragedy unfolding in the war-torn country: the enormous casualty list on both sides, civilians killed or forced from their homes in the fighting, and the Ukrainian citizens forced to live under Russian occupation.

    But a new film, which premiered recently at the Tribeca film festival, looks at War Through the Eyes of Animals. Janine Natalya Clark, an expert in transitional justice at the University of Birmingham, has done similar. Clark interviewed a number of Ukrainian natural scientists including botanists, ornithologists, herpetologists (who study reptiles and amphibians) and a marine biologist. She asked them to make sound recordings in their area to reflect on how the war is affecting Ukraine’s flora and fauna.

    What emerged was extraordinary and reflects how the conflict has affected the natural world in both positive and negative ways. Clark believes that this information will be invaluable when it comes to rebuilding Ukraine and in securing justice and reparations for the damage done – not just to humans, but to Ukraine’s animals and the habitats in which they live.



    Read more:
    Sound recordings can give us an animal-eye view of the war in Ukraine

    In Russia, meanwhile, a controversial measure introduced by the Putin government is dividing public opinion. In some parts of the country, schoolgirls who become pregnant are being paid more than 100,000 roubles (nearly £900) for giving birth and raising their babies.

    Jannifer Mathers, a Russia expert at Aberystwyth University, looks at the rise of pronatalism in the face of declining populations and finds it’s not just an issue in Russia, but for many other countries as well, including the US.



    Read more:
    Russia is paying schoolgirls to have babies. Why is pronatalism on the rise around the world?

    World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.

    The Conversation

    – ref. Israel’s relocation plan for Palestinians and fading hopes for a ceasefire – https://theconversation.com/israels-relocation-plan-for-palestinians-and-fading-hopes-for-a-ceasefire-260933

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘Fashion helped the pride come out’: First Nations fashion as resistance, culture and connection

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Treena Clark, Chancellor’s Indigenous Research Fellow, Faculty of Design and Society, University of Technology Sydney

    Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains images of deceased people.

    First Nations garments have always held deep meaning. What we wear tells stories about culture, Country and community.

    From the moment of invasion, clothing and adornment were removed and used to erase our cultural presence. But resistance never stopped.

    Today, First Nations designers, artists and community members continue to reclaim garments as acts of survival, empowerment and self-determination.

    Cultural practices like cloak-making and adornment are linked to wellbeing. They restore pride, connect to ancestors and Country, and build community.

    First Nations fashion designers and artists create exquisite items that represent culture, speak back to colonisation, and contribute to healing.

    A shared experience

    Like so many others, what I wear is deeply personal. I have my dad’s old Aboriginal rugby guernsey. He wore it for years. Now I wear it. It’s a piece of him I get to carry.

    It’s a part of what links me to my research in understanding First Nations fashion and style as living expressions of who we are.

    I had the chance to yarn with 20 Aboriginal Knowledge Holders from Tarntanya (Adelaide), Naarm (Melbourne) and Warrane (Sydney) about their fashion and style choices.

    Like many of the people I spoke to in this study, we use First Nations fashion and style as a way to stay connected to culture and community and express identity and resistance.

    Fashion as connection and solidarity

    For many of the Knowledge Holders I spoke with, wearing First Nations clothing and adornment connects them to culture and community.

    It becomes a way to share who they are and stand together in a world that has tried to silence and erase them.

    The Knowledge Holders wear everything from subtle pins and badges to bold hoodies, t-shirts and merch with Aboriginal flag motifs and slogans. Some choose delicate shawls or clothing with cultural artworks.

    As one Knowledge Holder put it, it’s “a contribution, a brick in the wall” that helps the building of identity and belonging.

    For mob living off-Country in cities or overseas, wearing culture becomes an important way to stay connected.

    This sense of connection can also show up in the most ordinary places.

    Several Knowledge Holders shared how wearing an Aboriginal shirt in places like the supermarket often sparks a moment of connection. Sometimes they approach others, sometimes they’re the ones approached.

    Fashion as pride and cultural practice

    For most of the Knowledge Holders, wearing First Nations clothing affirms their Aboriginality and gives them a sense of pride.

    For some, it’s about proudly showing who they are, especially in a society where racism still exists. That pride runs through generations.

    Some talked about how they weren’t always allowed to show their First Nations identity openly, but now they can wear cultural clothing freely, all of the time.

    The Knowledge Holders wear First Nations fashions at work, in shops, when travelling overseas, at graduations and especially at cultural events or protests.

    Another Knowledge Holder shared how fashion filled a gap, giving First Nations people the words and symbols to express their culture and identity.

    This Knowledge Holder declared, “fashion helped the pride come out”.

    Others shared that even though wearing these clothes can mean dealing with racism or ignorance, they still choose to show that pride.

    Fashion as identity and protest

    For many of the Knowledge Holders, First Nations fashion and style is a way to strengthen their identity, share culture and protest.

    They talked about wearing protest clothing as a clear political statement, especially at marches, NAIDOC events or on Invasion Day.

    For many, clothing is how they show who they are, both to themselves and to others.

    One Knowledge Holder said

    if I don’t wear something Indigenous, they wouldn’t know that I was.

    Some pointed out that First Nations fashion and style can be an important sign for them, especially if they feel they “pass” as non-Indigenous or look ethnically ambiguous.

    But not all Knowledge Holders use fashion to show their identity. One told me they only wear First Nations clothing in solidarity with others, not as personal expression.

    There’s more to learn and do

    First Nations fashion and style is so much more than just clothing. It’s memory, resistance and a story we carry on our bodies.

    As one of the Knowledge Holders put it:

    we wasn’t allowed to be proud of it. Now we can wear [an Aboriginal] t-shirt whenever, all day every day.

    That says it all. But there’s still work to do. We need to keep learning and understanding about all the different layers and identities that shape these experiences.

    There is more research to be done to include more voices, like those of diverse genders and sexualities, Torres Strait Islanders and regional fashion scenes.

    And it’s not just about research. We need more policies, more exhibitions, more programs and more platforms that celebrate First Nations fashion and style.

    Treena Clark has received funding through the University of Technology Sydney Chancellor’s Indigenous Research Fellowship scheme.

    – ref. ‘Fashion helped the pride come out’: First Nations fashion as resistance, culture and connection – https://theconversation.com/fashion-helped-the-pride-come-out-first-nations-fashion-as-resistance-culture-and-connection-258816

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump has flagged 200% tariffs on Australian pharmaceuticals. What do we produce here, and what’s at risk?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joe Carrello, Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne

    Tanya Dol/Shutterstock

    US President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs on Australia’s pharmaceutical exports to the United States has raised alarm among industry and government leaders.

    There are fears that, if implemented, the tariffs could cost the Australian economy up to A$2.8 billion. That’s both in direct exports and as inputs to third countries that produce drugs also hit by tariffs.

    The proposed tariffs come amid growing pressure from pharmaceutical lobby groups in the US for Trump to use trade negotiations as a tool to make changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and raise Australian drug prices.

    In response, Treasurer Jim Chalmers stated the government would not compromise the integrity of the PBS to do a deal with the Trump administration. Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie also confirmed bipartisan support for the PBS.

    Our largest export market for pharmaceuticals

    The US is Australia’s biggest pharmaceutical export market, accounting for 38% of total Australian pharmaceutical exports and valued at $2.2 billion last year.

    About 87% of exports to the US consist of blood plasma products, mainly from manufacturing giant CSL. These are used for transfusions in a range of medical and surgical situations.

    In a submission to the US Commerce Department, which is reviewing the sector, CSL called for tariffs to be phased in over five years, and for an exemption for certain biotech equipment.

    Trump floated proposed tariffs potentially as high as 200%. But he also said these would not be imposed for “about a year, a year and a half” to allow negotiations to take place.

    If tariffs are eventually implemented, there are fears domestic manufacturing may suffer, with negative flow-on effects for Australian research and innovation in the sector.

    How does the PBS work?

    The PBS is an Australian government program aimed at providing affordable prescription medicines to Australians.

    It helps reduce the cost of essential medications, ensuring access to treatments for a wide range of medical conditions. Medicines included on the PBS are subsidised by the government, with the patient making a capped co-payment. More than 900 medicines were listed on the scheme in 2023–24, costing the government $17.7 billion.

    Decisions to list medications on the PBS are made by the health minister based on recommendations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The committee evaluates the clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness (“value for money”) and estimated financial impact of new medications.

    If approved, the PBS uses this information to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies, helping to keep prices affordable.

    How does the US system compare?

    This contrasts with the US system, which operates more under free-market principles. In the US, pharmaceuticals are subsidised through private health insurance or government programs such as Medicaid. Neither directly negotiates with pharmaceutical companies.

    The fragmented nature of the US system enables pharmaceutical companies to maintain higher prices, as there is no central authority to enforce cost controls. Studies have shown that prices for pharmaceuticals in the US are, on average, 2.78 times those in 33 other countries.

    In addition, in the US pharmaceutical companies are granted extensive patent protections. These provide exclusive rights to sell their drugs for a certain period.

    This exclusivity often leads to monopolistic pricing practices, as generic competitors are barred from entering the market until the patent expires.

    In Australia, patents also exist. But the PBS mitigates their impact by negotiating prices and promoting the use of cost-effective alternatives, such as generics, once they become available.

    Industry lobbying

    US pharmaceutical industry bodies have long criticised the PBS. They claim the scheme “undervalues new innovative medicines by setting prices based on older inferior medicines and generics, and through use of low and outdated monetary thresholds per year of life gained from clinically proven treatments”.

    The slow process to list drugs on the PBS has also attracted criticism. The advisory committee meets only three times a year, with resources currently being stretched beyond capacity.

    In response to these criticisms, the Australian government commissioned a review, which was completed in 2024. It provided 50 recommendations to ensure Australians can continue to access effective, safe and affordable medicines in an equitable and timely way.

    The government has established an advisory group to work on implementing these recommendations. However, it is unclear whether proposed changes will appease the powerful US pharmaceutical industry.

    I am responsible for evaluating new health technologies for consideration of government subsidy through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS)

    – ref. Trump has flagged 200% tariffs on Australian pharmaceuticals. What do we produce here, and what’s at risk? – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-flagged-200-tariffs-on-australian-pharmaceuticals-what-do-we-produce-here-and-whats-at-risk-260909

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump has flagged 200% tariffs on Australian pharmaceuticals. What do we produce here, and what’s at risk?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joe Carrello, Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne

    Tanya Dol/Shutterstock

    US President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs on Australia’s pharmaceutical exports to the United States has raised alarm among industry and government leaders.

    There are fears that, if implemented, the tariffs could cost the Australian economy up to A$2.8 billion. That’s both in direct exports and as inputs to third countries that produce drugs also hit by tariffs.

    The proposed tariffs come amid growing pressure from pharmaceutical lobby groups in the US for Trump to use trade negotiations as a tool to make changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and raise Australian drug prices.

    In response, Treasurer Jim Chalmers stated the government would not compromise the integrity of the PBS to do a deal with the Trump administration. Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie also confirmed bipartisan support for the PBS.

    Our largest export market for pharmaceuticals

    The US is Australia’s biggest pharmaceutical export market, accounting for 38% of total Australian pharmaceutical exports and valued at $2.2 billion last year.

    About 87% of exports to the US consist of blood plasma products, mainly from manufacturing giant CSL. These are used for transfusions in a range of medical and surgical situations.

    In a submission to the US Commerce Department, which is reviewing the sector, CSL called for tariffs to be phased in over five years, and for an exemption for certain biotech equipment.

    Trump floated proposed tariffs potentially as high as 200%. But he also said these would not be imposed for “about a year, a year and a half” to allow negotiations to take place.

    If tariffs are eventually implemented, there are fears domestic manufacturing may suffer, with negative flow-on effects for Australian research and innovation in the sector.

    How does the PBS work?

    The PBS is an Australian government program aimed at providing affordable prescription medicines to Australians.

    It helps reduce the cost of essential medications, ensuring access to treatments for a wide range of medical conditions. Medicines included on the PBS are subsidised by the government, with the patient making a capped co-payment. More than 900 medicines were listed on the scheme in 2023–24, costing the government $17.7 billion.

    Decisions to list medications on the PBS are made by the health minister based on recommendations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The committee evaluates the clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness (“value for money”) and estimated financial impact of new medications.

    If approved, the PBS uses this information to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies, helping to keep prices affordable.

    How does the US system compare?

    This contrasts with the US system, which operates more under free-market principles. In the US, pharmaceuticals are subsidised through private health insurance or government programs such as Medicaid. Neither directly negotiates with pharmaceutical companies.

    The fragmented nature of the US system enables pharmaceutical companies to maintain higher prices, as there is no central authority to enforce cost controls. Studies have shown that prices for pharmaceuticals in the US are, on average, 2.78 times those in 33 other countries.

    In addition, in the US pharmaceutical companies are granted extensive patent protections. These provide exclusive rights to sell their drugs for a certain period.

    This exclusivity often leads to monopolistic pricing practices, as generic competitors are barred from entering the market until the patent expires.

    In Australia, patents also exist. But the PBS mitigates their impact by negotiating prices and promoting the use of cost-effective alternatives, such as generics, once they become available.

    Industry lobbying

    US pharmaceutical industry bodies have long criticised the PBS. They claim the scheme “undervalues new innovative medicines by setting prices based on older inferior medicines and generics, and through use of low and outdated monetary thresholds per year of life gained from clinically proven treatments”.

    The slow process to list drugs on the PBS has also attracted criticism. The advisory committee meets only three times a year, with resources currently being stretched beyond capacity.

    In response to these criticisms, the Australian government commissioned a review, which was completed in 2024. It provided 50 recommendations to ensure Australians can continue to access effective, safe and affordable medicines in an equitable and timely way.

    The government has established an advisory group to work on implementing these recommendations. However, it is unclear whether proposed changes will appease the powerful US pharmaceutical industry.

    I am responsible for evaluating new health technologies for consideration of government subsidy through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS)

    – ref. Trump has flagged 200% tariffs on Australian pharmaceuticals. What do we produce here, and what’s at risk? – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-flagged-200-tariffs-on-australian-pharmaceuticals-what-do-we-produce-here-and-whats-at-risk-260909

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • Why Texas Hill Country, where a devastating flood killed more than 120 people, is one of the deadliest places in the US for flash flooding

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

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

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

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

    In the early hours of July 4, 2025, a flash flood swept through an area of Hill Country dotted with summer camps and small towns about 70 miles northwest of San Antonio. More than 120 people died in the flooding. The majority of them were in Kerr County, including more than two dozen girls and counselors at one summer camp, Camp Mystic. Dozens of people were still unaccounted for a week later.

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

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

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

    What makes Hill Country so prone to flooding?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Why does the region get such strong downpours?

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

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

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

    A tour of the Guadalupe River and its flood risk.

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

    What can be done to improve flash flood safety?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Conversation

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

    – ref. Why Texas Hill Country, where a devastating flood killed more than 120 people, is one of the deadliest places in the US for flash flooding – https://theconversation.com/why-texas-hill-country-where-a-devastating-flood-killed-more-than-120-people-is-one-of-the-deadliest-places-in-the-us-for-flash-flooding-260555

  • MIL-Evening Report: Albanese’s China mission – managing a complex relationship in a world of shifting alliances

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Laurenceson, Director and Professor, Australia-China Relations Institute (UTS:ACRI), University of Technology Sydney

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese leaves for China on Saturday, confident most Australians back the government’s handling of relations with our most important economic partner and the leading strategic power in Asia.

    Albanese’s domestic critics have lambasted him for meeting Chinese leader Xi Jinping before United States President Donald Trump. They are also aggrieved at his refusal to label China a security threat.

    But neither criticism really stacks up.

    An Albanese-Trump meeting would have happened last month on the sidelines of a G7 gathering in Canada. It was Trump who left early, standing up more leaders than just Albanese.

    Nor is Albanese the first Australian prime minister to meet a Chinese president before an American one. His predecessor Tony Abbott caught up with Xi a few weeks after coming to office in 2013, before he had a chance to meet President Barack Obama.

    ‘Friends, not foes’

    Meanwhile, polling indicates just one in five Australians see the relationship with China first and foremost as “a threat to be confronted”. Rather, a clear two-thirds majority see it as “a complex relationship to be managed”.

    Albanese is also regarded as more competent than his opposition counterpart in handling Australia’s foreign policy generally – and better at managing the China relationship specifically.

    The prime minister’s Chinese hosts also have an incentive to ensure his visit is a successful one.

    In the past fortnight, China’s ambassador in Canberra, Xiao Qian, has penned opinion pieces in two of Australia’s biggest media outlets, insisting Australia and China are “friends, not foes” and touting the “comprehensive turnaround” in bilateral ties since Labor won government in May 2022.

    Beijing and Washington view each other as their geopolitical priority. Beijing can make it harder for Washington to enlist security allies such as Canberra in this rivalry by maintaining its own strong and constructive bilateral ties with Australia.

    And quite apart from the competition with the US, China relied on Australia last year as its fifth largest import source.

    Plenty of complaints

    None of this is to say Albanese’s visit will be easy, because Australia-China relations are rarely smooth.

    Canberra continues to have many complaints about China’s international behaviour.

    For example, Foreign Minister Penny Wong recently signed a joint statement with her counterparts in Washington, Tokyo and New Delhi expressing “serious concerns regarding dangerous and provocative actions” by China in the East and South China Seas, and the “abrupt constriction […] of key supply chains”.

    Wong has also said the government remains “appalled” by the treatment of Australians imprisoned in China, including Dr Yang Jun, who is facing espionage charges he strongly denies.

    Defence Minister Richard Marles has voiced Canberra’s alarm at Beijing’s “no limits agreement” with Moscow, and claimed China has

    engaged in the biggest conventional military build-up since the end of the second world war.

    However, this assessment is contested by independent Australian analysts.

    Beijing also has plenty of complaints. They include Canberra’s ongoing pursuit of closer military cooperation with the US and UK through the AUKUS pact.

    There is also the commitment to forcing the sale of the lease to operate the Port of Darwin that is currently held by a Chinese company.

    Reliable trading partner

    Albanese has already made clear his visit to China will have a strong economic focus.

    While grappling with security challenges, any Australian government, Labor or Coalition, must face the reality that last year, local companies sold more to China – worth A$196 billion – than our next four largest markets combined.

    China is also, by far, Australia’s biggest supplier, putting downward pressure on the cost of living.

    Research produced by Curtin University, commissioned by the Australia-China Business Council, finds trade with China increases disposable income of the average Australian household by $2,600, or 4.6% per person.

    In an ideal world, Australia would have a more diversified trading mix.

    But again, any Australian government or business must grapple with the reality that obvious major alternative markets, like the US, are not only less interested in local goods and services, but are walking away from their past trade commitments.

    Under the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement signed two decades ago, Australian exporters selling to the US faced an average tariff of just 0.1%. But nowadays Washington applies a baseline tariff of 10% on most Australian imports.

    Meanwhile, owing to the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement struck in 2015, Beijing applies an average tariff of just 1.1%.

    No wonder more Australians now say China is a more reliable trading partner than the US.

    This also explains Alabese’s response when he was asked in April if he would support Trump’s trade war against China:

    It would be extraordinary if the Australian response was “thank you” and we will help to further hurt our economy

    Likewise, Trade Minister Don Farrell is adamant Australia’s interests will determine the Albanese government’s choices, not “what the Americans may or may not want”.

    We don’t want to do less business with China, we want to do more business with China.

    Deeper trade ties with Asia, including China, are not just about making a buck. Wong has stressed the national security implications of a strong economic relationship:

    [It is] an investment in our security. Stability and prosperity are mutually reinforcing.

    All of this means Albanese’s six-day visit to China is shaping up to be time well spent.

    James Laurenceson 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’s China mission – managing a complex relationship in a world of shifting alliances – https://theconversation.com/albaneses-china-mission-managing-a-complex-relationship-in-a-world-of-shifting-alliances-260404

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Does AI actually boost productivity? The evidence is murky

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jon Whittle, Director, Data61, CSIRO

    Roman Samborskyi/Shutterstock

    There’s been much talk recently – especially among politicians – about productivity. And for good reason: Australia’s labour productivity growth sits at a 60-year low.

    To address this, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has convened a productivity round table next month. This will coincide with the release of an interim report from the Productivity Commission, which is looking at five pillars of reform. One of these is the role of data and digital technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI).

    This will be music to the ears of the tech and business sectors, which have been enthusiastically promoting the productivity benefits of AI. In fact, the Business Council of Australia also said last month that AI is the single greatest opportunity in a generation to lift productivity.

    But what do we really know about how AI impacts productivity?

    What is productivity?

    Put simply, productivity is how much output (goods and services) we can produce from a given amount of inputs (such as labour and raw materials). It matters because higher productivity typically translates to a higher standard of living. Productivity growth has accounted for 80% of Australia’s income growth over the past three decades.

    Productivity can be thought of as individual, organisational or national.

    Your individual productivity is how efficiently you manage your time and resources to complete tasks. How many emails can you respond to in an hour? How many products can you check for defects in a day?

    Organisational productivity is how well an organisation achieves its goals. For example, in a research organisation, how many top-quality research papers are produced?

    National productivity is the economic efficiency of a nation, often measured as gross domestic product per hour worked. It is effectively an aggregate of the other forms. But it’s notoriously difficult to track how changes in individual or organisational productivity translate into national GDP per hour worked.

    AI and individual productivity

    The nascent research examining the relationship between AI and individual productivity shows mixed results.

    A 2025 real-world study of AI and productivity involved 776 experienced product professionals at US multinational company Procter & Gamble. The study showed that individuals randomly assigned to use AI performed as well as a team of two without. A similar study in 2023 with 750 consultants from Boston Consulting Group found tasks were 18% faster with generative AI.

    A 2023 paper reported on an early generative AI system in a Fortune 500 software company used by 5,200 customer support agents. The system showed a 14% increase in the number of issues resolved per hour. For less experienced agents, productivity increased by 35%.

    But AI doesn’t always increase individual productivity.

    A survey of 2,500 professionals found generative AI actually increased workload for 77% of workers. Some 47% said they didn’t know how to unlock productivity benefits. The study points to barriers such as the need to verify and/or correct AI outputs, the need for AI upskilling, and unreasonable expectations about what AI can do.

    A recent CSIRO study examined the daily use of Microsoft 365 Copilot by 300 employees of a government organisation. While the majority self-reported productivity benefits, a sizeable minority (30%) did not. Even those workers who reported productivity improvements expected greater productivity benefits than were delivered.

    AI and organisational productivity

    It’s difficult, if not impossible, to attribute changes in an organisation’s productivity to the introduction of AI. Businesses are sensitive to many social and organisational factors, any one of which could be the reason for a change in productivity.

    Nevertheless, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has estimated the productivity benefits of traditional AI – that is, machine learning applied for an industry-specific task – to be zero to 11% at the organisational level.

    A 2024 summary paper cites independent studies showing increases in organisational productivity from AI in Germany, Italy and Taiwan.

    In contrast, a 2022 analysis of 300,000 US firms didn’t find a significant correlation between AI adoption and productivity, but did for other technologies such as robotics and cloud computing. Likely explanations are that AI hasn’t yet had an effect on many firms, or simply that it’s too hard to disentangle the impact of AI given it’s never applied in isolation.

    AI productivity increases can also sometimes be masked by additional human labour needed to train or operate AI systems. Take Amazon’s Just Walk Out technology for shops.

    Publicly launched in 2018, it was intended to reduce labour as customer purchases would be fully automated. But it reportedly relied on hiring around 1,000 workers in India for quality control. Amazon has labelled these reports “erroneous”.

    More generally, think about the unknown number (but likely millions) of people paid to label data for AI models.

    AI and national productivity

    The picture at a national level is even murkier.

    Clearly, AI hasn’t yet impacted national productivity. It can be argued that technology developments take time to affect national productivity, as companies need to figure out how to use the technology and put the necessary infrastructure and skills in place.

    However, this is not guaranteed. For example, while there is consensus that the internet led to productivity improvements, the effects of mobile phones and social media are more contested, and their impacts are more apparent in some industries (such as entertainment) than others.

    Productivity isn’t just doing things faster

    The common narrative around AI and productivity is that AI automates mundane tasks, making us faster at doing things and giving us more time for creative pursuits. This, however, is a naive view of how work happens.

    Just because you can deal with your inbox more quickly doesn’t mean you’ll spend your afternoon on the beach. The more emails you fire off, the more you’ll receive back, and the never-ending cycle continues.

    Faster isn’t always better. Sometimes, we need to slow down to be more productive. That’s when great ideas happen.

    Imagine a world in which AI isn’t simply about speeding up tasks but proactively slows us down, to give us space to be more innovative, and more productive. That’s the real untapped opportunity with AI.

    Jon Whittle works at CSIRO which receives R&D funding from a wide range of government and industry clients.

    – ref. Does AI actually boost productivity? The evidence is murky – https://theconversation.com/does-ai-actually-boost-productivity-the-evidence-is-murky-260690

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Why Texas Hill Country, where a devastating flood killed more than 120 people, is one of the deadliest places in the US for flash flooding

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

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

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

    In the early hours of July 4, 2025, a flash flood swept through an area of Hill Country dotted with summer camps and small towns about 70 miles northwest of San Antonio. More than 120 people died in the flooding. The majority of them were in Kerr County, including more than two dozen girls and counselors at one summer camp, Camp Mystic. Dozens of people were still unaccounted for a week later.

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

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

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

    What makes Hill Country so prone to flooding?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Why does the region get such strong downpours?

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

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

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

    A tour of the Guadalupe River and its flood risk.

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

    What can be done to improve flash flood safety?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    – ref. Why Texas Hill Country, where a devastating flood killed more than 120 people, is one of the deadliest places in the US for flash flooding – https://theconversation.com/why-texas-hill-country-where-a-devastating-flood-killed-more-than-120-people-is-one-of-the-deadliest-places-in-the-us-for-flash-flooding-260555

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Will my private health insurance cover my surgery? What if my claim is rejected?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yuting Zhang, Professor of Health Economics, The University of Melbourne

    shurkin_son/Shutterstock

    The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has fined Bupa A$35 million for unlawfully rejecting thousands of health insurance claims over more than five years.

    Between May 2018 and August 2023 Bupa incorrectly rejected claims from patients who had multiple medical procedures, with at least one of those procedures covered under their health insurance policy.

    Instead of paying the portion of the treatment that was covered, Bupa’s automated systems wrongly rejected the entire claim.

    Bupa admitted these errors were due to system problems and poor staff guidance, and has started to recompensate members.

    So you may be worried whether your private health insurance will cover you for the procedures you need.

    Here’s what you need to know about the different types of hospital cover. And if your claim is rejected, what to do next.

    From basic to gold

    As of March 2025, 45.3% of Australians have private health insurance for hospital cover. There are four tiers: basic, bronze, silver and gold.

    Each tier has a minimum set of “clinical categories”. These are groups of hospital treatments that must be covered.

    For example, basic hospital cover only has three mandatory inclusions: rehabilitation, hospital psychiatric services and palliative care. But this is “restricted” cover, meaning patients will often still have to pay substantial out-of-pocket costs for these services.

    Basic cover is entry-level cover, mainly for people who want to avoid the Lifetime Health Cover loading and the Medicare Levy Surcharge. These are both ways of encouraging people to take up private health insurance while young and keeping it, especially people on higher incomes.

    At the other end of the scale is gold cover, which includes unrestricted cover for all defined clinical categories, including pregnancy and birth.

    You can generally change your level of cover at any time. When you upgrade to include new services or increase benefits for existing services, you will need to serve new waiting periods for those new or increased benefits.

    A common waiting period is 12 months for pre-existing conditions (any ailment, illness or condition that you had signs or symptoms of during the six months before upgrading, even if undiagnosed), and for pregnancy and birth-related services. But there is generally only a two-month waiting period for psychiatric care, rehabilitation or palliative care, even if it’s for a pre-existing condition.

    It’s a good idea to review your policy every two years because your health needs and financial circumstances can change.

    How much do companies pay out?

    The proportion of premiums that are paid out to cover medical claims is known as the “average payout ratio”. And this has been about 84–86% over most of the past 20 years.

    This does not mean your health insurer will pay out 84–86% of your individual claim. This national average accounts for the percentage of all premiums in any one year, across all insurers, that’s paid out in claims.

    The payout ratios vary by insurer and are slightly higher for not-for-profit health insurers than for-profit insurers.

    That’s because for-profit health insurers have pressure to deliver profits to shareholders and have incentives to minimise payouts and control costs.

    If not properly managed, these incentives may result in higher out-of-pocket expenses and denied claims.

    Why has my claim been rejected?

    Common reasons for claims to be rejected include:

    • the policy excluded or restricted the clinical category

    • the waiting period was not served

    • incorrect information (for example, a doctor billed an incorrect item number)

    • what’s known as “mixed coverage” (as in the Bupa scandal), where not everything in a claim is covered, but the entire claim is declined.

    What if I think there’s an error?

    If your health insurance company refuses your claim, you can request a detailed explanation in writing.

    If you believe your claim has been incorrectly denied, you can make a formal complaint directly with the insurer. For this you need to check your policy documents, and gather supporting evidence. This may include detailed invoices, medical reports, referral letters and correct item numbers.

    If you are not satisfied with the outcome of the health fund’s internal review, or the fund doesn’t respond with the specific time-frame (for instance, 30–45 days), you can escalate your complaint.

    You can get in touch with the Commonwealth Ombudsman (phone: 1300 362 072). This provides a free, independent complaint handling service for a range of consumer issues, including health insurance.

    Bupa customers concerned about a “mixed coverage” claim can contact the company directly.

    What can governments do?

    The Bupa scandal, along with ongoing concerns about transparency and rising out-of-pocket costs, highlights the need for policy reforms to better protect consumers.

    The government should require health insurers and health-care providers to give clear estimates of all potential out-of-pocket costs for a procedure before it happens. This would avoid unexpected bills and help consumers make informed decisions about their health care.

    The government could also let the ACCC or the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority conduct regular, independent audits of insurers’ claims systems and practices.

    Yuting Zhang has received funding from the Australian Research Council (future fellowship project ID FT200100630), Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the Victorian Department of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council and Eastern Melbourne Primary Health Network. In the past, Professor Zhang has received funding from several US institutes including the US National Institutes of Health, Commonwealth fund, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. She has not received funding from for-profit industry including the private health insurance industry.

    – ref. Will my private health insurance cover my surgery? What if my claim is rejected? – https://theconversation.com/will-my-private-health-insurance-cover-my-surgery-what-if-my-claim-is-rejected-260702

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: NZ’s new AI strategy is long on ‘economic opportunity’ but short on managing ethical and social risk

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Lensen, Senior Lecturer in Artificial Intelligence, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    Getty Images

    The government’s newly unveiled National AI Strategy is all about what its title says: “Investing with Confidence”. It tells businesses that Aotearoa New Zealand is open for AI use, and that our “light touch” approach won’t get in their way.

    The question now is whether the claims made for AI by Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology Shane Reti – that it will help boost productivity and enable the economy to grow by billions of dollars – can be justified.

    Generative AI – the kind powering ChatGPT, CoPilot and Google’s video generator Veo 3 – is certainly earning money. In its latest funding round in April, OpenAI was valued at US$300 billion.

    Nvidia, which makes the hardware that powers AI technology, just became the first publicly traded company to surpass a $4 trillion market valuation. It’d be great if New Zealand could get a slice of that pie.

    New Zealand doesn’t have the capacity to build new generative AI systems, however. That takes tens of thousands of NVIDIA’s chips, costing many millions of dollars that only big tech companies or large nation states can afford.

    What New Zealand can do is build new systems and services around these models, either by fine-tuning them, or using them as part of a bigger software system or service.

    The government isn’t offering any new money to help companies do this. Its AI strategy is about reducing barriers, providing regulatory guidance, building capacity and ensuring adaption happens responsibly.

    But there aren’t many barriers to begin with. The regulatory guidance contained in the strategy essentially says “we won’t regulate”. Existing laws are said to be “technology-neutral” and therefore sufficient.

    As for building capacity, the country’s tertiary sector is more under-funded than ever, with universities cutting courses and staff. Humanities research into AI ethics is also ineligible for government funding as it doesn’t contribute to economic growth.

    A relaxed regulatory regime

    The issue of responsible adoption is perhaps of most concern. The 42-page “Responsible AI Guidance for Businesses” document, released alongside the strategy, contains useful material on issues such as detecting bias, measuring model accuracy, and human oversight. But it is just that – guidance – and entirely voluntary.

    This puts New Zealand among the most relaxed nations when it comes to AI regulation, along with Japan and Singapore. At the other end is the European Union, which enacted its comprehensive AI Act in 2024, and has stood fast against lobbying to delay legislative rollout.

    The relaxed approach is interesting in light of New Zealand being ranked third-to-last out of 47 countries in a recent survey of trust in AI. In another survey from last year, 66% of New Zealanders reported being nervous about the impacts of AI.

    Some of the nervousness can be explained by AI being a new technology with well documented examples of inappropriate use, intentional or not. Deepfakes as a form of cyber bulling have become a major concern. Even the ACT Party, not generally in favour of more regulation, wants to criminalise the creation and sharing of non-consensual, sexually explicit deepfakes.

    Generative image, video and music creation is reducing the demand for creative workers – even though it is their very work that was used to train the AI models.

    But there are other, more subtle issues, too. AI systems learn from data. If that data is biased, then those systems will learn to be biased, too.

    New Zealanders are right to be anxious about the prospect of private sector companies denying them jobs, entry to supermarkets or a bank loan because of something in their pasts. Because modern deep learning models are so complex and impenetrable, it can be impossible to determine how an AI system made a decision.

    And what of the potential for AI to be used online to mislead voters and discredit the democratic process, as the New York Times has reported may have occurred already in at least 50 cases?

    Managing risk the European way

    The strategy is essentially silent on all of these issues. It also doesn’t mention Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi. Even Google’s AI summary tells me this is the nation’s founding document, laying the groundwork for Māori and the Crown to coexist.

    AI, like any data-driven system, has the potential to disproportionately disadvantage Māori if it involves systems from overseas designed (and trained) for other populations.

    Allowing these systems to be imported and deployed in Aotearoa New Zealand in sensitive applications – healthcare or justice, for example – without any regulation or oversight risks worsening inequalities even further.

    What’s the alternative? The EU offers some useful answers. It has taken the approach of categorising AI uses based on risk:

    • “Unacceptable risk” – the likes of social scoring (where individuals’ daily activities are monitored and scored for their societal benefit) and AI hacking – is outright banned.

    • High-risk systems, such as uses for employment or transportation infrastructure, require strict obligations, including risk assessments and human oversight.

    • Limited and minimal risk applications – the biggest category by far – imposes very little red tape on companies.

    This feels like a mature approach New Zealand might emulate. It wouldn’t stymie productivity much – unless companies were doing something risky. In which case, the 66% of New Zealanders who are nervous about AI might well agree it’s worth slowing down and getting it right.

    Andrew Lensen receives government funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment through contestable academic research funds. He is the co-director of LensenMcGavin AI, a consultancy specialising in the responsible uptake of AI in Aotearoa.

    – ref. NZ’s new AI strategy is long on ‘economic opportunity’ but short on managing ethical and social risk – https://theconversation.com/nzs-new-ai-strategy-is-long-on-economic-opportunity-but-short-on-managing-ethical-and-social-risk-260798

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –