NewzIntel.com

Category: Features

  • MIL-Evening Report: What’s the difference between barista milk and regular milk? It’s what gets added to it

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Chua, Senior Research Projects Officer, Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland

    I love coffee/Shutterstock

    If you start reading the labels of the various milks at the supermarket, you’ll quickly find different fat levels, added nutrients like calcium, lactose-free options, milk from goats or sheep, and ones made from plants.

    Both at the supermarket and at your local café you’ve probably also seen cartons labelled “barista milk”. These can be dairy or plant milks marketed for making specialist coffee drinks such as flat whites, lattes and others.

    But what exactly makes a product a barista milk, and how does it differ from regular milk?

    What is ‘milk’, anyway?

    “Milk” is a regulated term. Food Standards Australia New Zealand sets requirements on fat and protein contents for dairy milk, and it has to come from “milking animals”. These standards also state what can be added or modified; only plant sterols (a supplement to reduce blood cholesterol) are allowed.

    Despite the name, plant-based milks aren’t bound by a specific “milk” standard. Instead, they fall under broader beverage regulations, which is why you’ll see a wide variety of ingredients, protein levels, sugars and fats from one brand to the next.

    Because of this regulation, manufacturers are careful to make it absolutely clear what is in the carton or bottle so there’s no confusion between cow’s milk and soy milk, for example.

    What is barista milk, then?

    Barista milks, whether dairy or plant-based, are specifically formulated to foam more reliably, with a finer texture and longer-lasting bubbles.

    For cow’s milk, this almost always means higher protein content: about 4–5% in barista milk compared to the 3.3–3.5% in regular milk. You’ll often see “milk solids” listed in the ingredients; this is another name for dried skim milk, added to boost the protein content.

    Plant-based barista milks (such as soy, oat or almond) will vary a lot more, depending on the manufacturer and the plant base.

    The most common additives in plant-based barista milks are:

    • vegetable oils for creaminess and thickness
    • gums (such as gellan or locust bean gum) to increase thickness
    • maltodextrin (a processed starch), also for thickness, and
    • emulsifiers such as lecithin – to help stop the fats and water from splitting apart.
    The foam in frothed milk happens through a complex interaction of ingredients and temperature.
    Dmytro Vietrov/Shutterstock

    The science of a good foam

    Foam is essentially gas bubbles suspended in a liquid. Its stability depends on a complex interaction of proteins, fats, sugars and other components, as well as the temperature at which the milk was foamed.

    In cow’s milk, proteins such as casein and whey form ball-like structures that easily rearrange to stabilise foam. These proteins help the milk fat and water stay held together, which is why dairy-based barista milks foam easily and the foam lasts longer.

    Fat plays a more complex role depending on temperature – there’s a sweet spot for a good foam.

    In cold cow’s milk, the fats are semi-solid and will make the foam collapse by breaking the bubble walls. But when heated above 40°C, these fats melt, spread better throughout the milk and easily interact with proteins to help form and stabilise the bubbles.

    However, overheating the milk (above 70°C) cooks and breaks the whey protein balls, making it harder to create foam.

    How barista plant milks work

    Plants make vastly different proteins compared to cows. However, the physical shape of proteins found in soy and oat milks is also ball-like, making them good for foaming just like cow’s milk.

    That’s generally why you see soy and oat milks used in cafes. Barista versions of plant milks often have added vegetable oils to help mimic the fat–protein interaction in dairy. It’s what makes the milk foam stable and the liquid feel creamy.

    Some – but not all – barista plant milks will also have thickeners because they help the foam last longer.

    Compared to soy and oat, almond milk is naturally low in protein. So almond barista milks will almost always contain gums, starches and emulsifiers along with added vegetable oil.

    Many plant milks also contain added sugars for flavour, since they lack the natural lactose found in dairy.

    Is barista milk worth it?

    Many plant-based milk formulations, especially barista ones, contain added gums, manufactured starches and emulsifiers. This qualifies them as “ultra-processed foods”, according to the United Nations’ classification system.

    While the plant-based milk might not be inherently overly harmful, this classification invites reflection on how far these products have moved from their original, natural source.

    On the environmental side, plant-based milks typically have a lower impact than cow’s milk. They use less land and water and produce fewer greenhouse gases.

    Barista milks usually cost significantly more than their regular counterpart. This premium reflects the added ingredients and research and development cost of optimising foaming and drinking characteristics.

    For cafés, the cost is often justified because barista milks produce a more predictable and consistent end product, leading to better customer satisfaction.

    For home use, it depends on your own level of foaming skill and how much you value a perfect flat white every time.

    David Chua’s work is partly supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Mater Research Foundation, and the Heart Foundation. He is employed by Inala Primary Care (a not-for-profit general practice clinic) and Metro South Health, where his role is supported by a Metro South Health Researcher Support Grant. His PhD (2010–2014) received partial funding from Dairy Australia Limited, though he currently has no industry affiliations. In 2009, he was awarded the Royal National Agricultural and Industrial Association of Queensland undergraduate student prize.

    Lauren Ball receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Queensland Health, Heart Foundation and Mater Misericordia. She is a Director of Dietitians Australia, a Director of the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network, a Director of Food Standards Australia and New Zealand and an Associate Member of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.

    – ref. What’s the difference between barista milk and regular milk? It’s what gets added to it – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-barista-milk-and-regular-milk-its-what-gets-added-to-it-258583

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Seabed mining is becoming an environmental flashpoint – NZ will have to pick a side soon

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Myra Williamson, Senior Lecturer in Law, Auckland University of Technology

    Getty Images

    Seabed mining could become one of the defining environmental battles of 2025. Around the world, governments are weighing up whether to allow mining of the ocean floor for metal ores and minerals. New Zealand is among them.

    The stakes are high. Deep-sea mining is highly controversial, with evidence showing mining activity can cause lasting damage to fragile marine ecosystems. One area off the east coast of the United States, mined as an experiment 50 years ago, still bears scars and shows little sign of recovery.

    With the world facing competing pressures – climate action and conservation versus demand for resources – New Zealand must now decide whether to fast-track mining, regulate it tightly, or pause it entirely.

    Who controls international seabed mining?

    A major flashpoint is governance in international waters. Under international law, seabed mining beyond national jurisdiction is managed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA), created by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

    But the US has never ratified UNCLOS. In April this year, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to bypass the ISA and allow companies to begin mining in international waters.

    The ISA has pushed back, warning unilateral action breaches international law. However, the declaration from the recently concluded UN Ocean Conference in France does not urge countries to adopt a precautionary approach, nor does it ban deep seabed mining.

    The declaration does “reiterate the need to increase scientific knowledge on deep sea ecosystems” and recognises the role of the ISA in setting “robust rules, regulations and procedures for exploitation of resources” in international waters.

    So, while the international community supports multilateralism and international law, deep-sea mining in the near future remains a real possibility.

    Fast-track approvals

    In the Pacific, some countries have already made up their minds about which way they will go. Nauru recently updated its agreement with Canadian-based The Metals Company to begin mining in the nearby Clarion Clipperton Zone. The deal favours the US’s go-it-alone approach over the ISA model.

    By contrast, in 2022, New Zealand’s Labour government backed the ISA’s moratorium and committed to a holistic ocean management strategy. Whether that position still holds is unclear, given the current government’s policies.

    The list of applications under the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 – described by Regional Development Minister Shane Jones as “arguably the most permissive regime” in Australasia – includes two controversial seabed mining proposals in Bream Bay and off the Taranaki coast:

    • Trans-Tasman Resources’ proposal to extract up to 50 million tonnes of Taranaki seabed material annually to recover heavy mineral sands that contain iron ore as well as rare metal elements titanium and vanadium.

    • McCallum Brothers Ltd’s Bream Bay proposal to dredge up to 150,000 cubic metres of sand yearly for three years, and up to 250,000 cubic metres after that.

    Legal landscape changing

    Māori and environmental groups have opposed the fast-track policy, and the Treaty of Waitangi has so far been a powerful safeguard in seabed mining cases.

    Provisions referencing Treaty principles appear in key laws, including the Crown Minerals Act and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act.

    In 2021, the Supreme Court cited these obligations when it rejected a 2016 marine discharge application by Trans-Tasman Resources to mine the seabed in the Taranaki Bight. The court ruled Treaty clauses must be interpreted in a “broad and generous” way, recognising tikanga Māori and customary marine rights.

    But that legal landscape could soon change. The Regulatory Standards Bill, now before parliament, would give priority to property rights over environmental or Indigenous protections in the formulation of new laws and regulations.

    The bill also allows for the review of existing legislation. In theory, if the Regulatory Standards Bill becomes law, it could result in the removal of Treaty principles clauses from legislation.

    This in turn could deny courts the tools they’ve previously used to uphold environmental and Treaty-based protections to block seabed mining applications. That would make it easier to approve fast-tracked projects such as the Bream Bay and Taranaki projects.

    Setting a precedent

    Meanwhile, Hawai’i has gone in a different direction. In 2024, the US state passed a law banning seabed mining in state waters – joining California (2022), Washington (2021) and Oregon (1991).

    Under the Hawai’i Seabed Mining Prevention Act, mining is banned except in rare cases such as beach restoration. The law cites the public’s right to a clean and healthy environment.

    As global conflict brews over seabed governance, New Zealand’s eventual position could set a precedent.

    Choosing to prohibit seabed mining in New Zealand waters, as Hawai’i has done, would send a strong message that environmental stewardship and Indigenous rights matter more than short-term resource extraction interests.

    If New Zealand does decide to go ahead with seabed mining, however, it could trigger a cascade of mining efforts across New Zealand and the Pacific. A crucial decision is fast approaching.

    Myra Williamson 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. Seabed mining is becoming an environmental flashpoint – NZ will have to pick a side soon – https://theconversation.com/seabed-mining-is-becoming-an-environmental-flashpoint-nz-will-have-to-pick-a-side-soon-258908

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘No kings!’: like the LA protesters, the early Romans hated kings, too

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Edwell, Associate Professor in Ancient History, Macquarie University

    Protesters across the United States have brandished placards declaring “no kings!” in recent days, keen to send a message one-man rule is not acceptable.

    The defeat of the forces of King George III in the United States’ revolutionary war of 1775–83 saw the end of royal rule in the US. Touting itself as the world’s leading democracy, kings have not been welcome in America for 250 years. But for many, Donald Trump is increasingly behaving as one and now is the time to stop him.

    Having studied ancient Roman politics for years, America’s rejection of kingship reminds me vividly of the strong aversion to it in the Roman republic.

    Early Romans too, sought a society with “no kings!” – up until, that is, the period following the assassination of Julius Caesar, when everything changed.

    The seven kings of Rome

    Seven kings ruled Rome, one after the other, after the city was founded in 753 BCE. The first was Romulus who, according to some legends, gave the city its name.

    When the last of the kings of Rome was driven from the city in 509 BCE, his key opponent, Lucius Junius Brutus, vowed:

    I will pursue Lucius Tarquinius Superbus and his wicked wife and all his children, with sword, with fire, with whatever violence I may; and I will suffer neither him nor anyone else to be king in Rome!

    Tarquinius Superbus (meaning “the proud”) had ruled Rome for 25 years. He began his reign by executing uncooperative Senators.

    When Tarquinius’ son raped a noblewoman named Lucretia, the Roman population rebelled against the king’s long-running tyranny. The hubris of the king and his family was finally too much. They were driven from Rome and never allowed to return.

    A new system of government was ushered in: the republic.

    The rise of the Roman republic

    In the new system, power was shared among elected officials – including two consuls, who were elected annually.

    The consuls were the most powerful officials in the republic and were given power to wage war.

    The Senate, which represented the wealthiest sections of society (initially the patrician class), held power in some key areas, including foreign policy.

    Less affluent citizens elected tribunes of the plebs who had various powers, including the right to veto laws.

    In the republican system, the term king (rex in Latin) quickly became anathema.

    “No kings” would effectively remain the watchword through the Roman republic’s entire history. “Rex” was a word the Romans hated. It was short-hand for “tyranny”.

    The rise and fall of Julius Caesar

    Over time, powerful figures emerged who threatened the republic’s tight power-sharing rules.

    Figures such as the general Pompey (106–48 BCE) broke all the rules and behaved in suspiciously kingly ways. With military success and vast wealth, he was a populist who broke the mould. Pompey even staged a three-day military parade, known as a triumph, to coincide with his birthday in 61 BCE.

    But the ultimate populist was Julius Caesar.

    Born to a noble family claiming lineage from the goddess Venus, Caesar became fabulously wealthy.

    He also scored major military victories, including subduing the Gauls (across modern France and Belgium) from 58–50 BCE.

    In the 40s BCE, Caesar began taking offices over extended time frames – much longer periods than the rules technically allowed.

    Early in 44 BCE he gave himself the formal title “dictator for life” (Dictator Perpetuo), having been appointed dictator two years earlier. The dictatorship was only meant to be held in times of emergency for a period of six months.

    When Caesar was preparing a war against Parthia (in modern day Iran), some tried to hail him as king.

    Soon after, an angry group of 23 senators stabbed him to death in a vain attempt to save the republic. They were led by Marcus Junius Brutus, a descendant of the Brutus who killed the last Roman king, Tarquinius Superbus.

    The Roman republic was beyond saving despite Caesar’s death.
    duncan1890/Getty Images

    However, the Roman republic was beyond saving despite Caesar’s death. His great nephew Octavian eventually emerged as leader and became known as Augustus (27 BCE – 14 CE). With Augustus, an age of emperors was born.

    Emperors were kings in all but name. The strong aversion to kingship in Rome ensured their complete avoidance of the term rex.

    ‘No kings!’

    American protesters waving placards shouting “no kings!” are expressing clear concerns that their beloved democracy is under threat.

    Donald Trump has already declared eight national emergencies and issued 161 executive orders in his second term.

    When asked if he needs to uphold the Constitution, Trump declares “I don’t know.” He has joked about running for a third term as president, in breach of the longstanding limit of two terms.

    Like Caesar, is Donald Trump becoming a king in all but name? Is he setting a precedent for his successors to behave increasingly like emperors?

    The American aversion to “king” likely ensures the term will never return. But when protesters and others shout “no kings!”, they know the very meaning of the term “president” is changing before their eyes.

    Peter Edwell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. ‘No kings!’: like the LA protesters, the early Romans hated kings, too – https://theconversation.com/no-kings-like-the-la-protesters-the-early-romans-hated-kings-too-259011

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Small businesses are an innovation powerhouse. For many, it’s still too hard to raise the funds they need

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Colette Southam, Associate Professor of Finance, Bond University

    The federal government wants to boost Australia’s productivity levels – as a matter of national priority. It’s impossible to have that conversation without also talking about innovation.

    We can be proud of (and perhaps a little surprised by) some of the Australian innovations that have changed the world – such as the refrigerator, the electric drill, and more recently, the CPAP machine and the technology underpinning Google Maps.

    Australia is continuing to drive advancements in machine learning, cybersecurity and green technologies. Innovation isn’t confined to the headquarters of big tech companies and university laboratories.

    Small and medium enterprises – those with fewer than 200 employees – are a powerhouse of economic growth in Australia. Collectively, they contribute 56% of Australia’s gross domestic product (GDP) and employ 67% of the workforce.

    Our own Reserve Bank has recognised they also have a huge role to play in driving innovation. However, they still face many barriers to accessing funding and investment, which can hamper their ability to do so.

    Finding the funds to grow

    We all know the saying “it takes money to make money”. Those starting or scaling a business have to invest in the present to generate cash in the future. This could involve buying equipment, renting space, or even investing in needed skills and knowledge.

    A small, brand new startup might initially rely on debt (such as personal loans or credit cards) and investments from family and friends (sometimes called “love money”).

    Having exhausted these sources, it may still need more funds to grow. Bank loans for businesses are common, quick and easy. But these require regular interest payments, which could slow growth.

    Selling stakes

    Alternatively, a business may want to look for investors to take out ownership stakes.

    This investment can take the form of “private equity”, where ownership stakes are sold through private arrangement to investors. These can range from individual “angel investors” through to huge venture capital and private equity firms managing billions in investments.

    It can also take the form of “public equity”, where shares are offered and are then able to be bought and sold by anyone on a public stock exchange such as the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX).

    Unfortunately, small and medium-sized companies face hurdles to accessing both kinds.

    Companies need access to finance to turn ideas into reality.
    Kvalifik/Unsplash

    Private investors’ high bar to clear

    Research examining the gap in small-scale private equity has found 46% of small and medium-sized firms in Australia would welcome an equity investment – despite saying they were able to acquire debt elsewhere.

    They preferred private equity because they also wanted to learn from experienced investors who could help them grow their companies. However, very few small and medium-sized enterprises were able to meet private equity’s investment criteria.

    When interviewed, many chief executives and chairs of small private equity firms said their lack of interest in small and medium-sized enterprises came down to cost and difficulty of verifying information about the health and prospects of a business.

    To make it easier for investors to compare investments, all public companies are required to disclose their financial information using International Financial Reporting Standards.

    In contrast, small private companies can use a simplified set of rules and do not have to share their statements of profit and loss with the general public.

    Share markets are costly and complex

    Is it possible to list on a stock exchange instead? An initial public offering (IPO) would enable the company to raise funds by selling shares to the public.

    Unfortunately, the process of issuing shares on a stock exchange is time-consuming and costly. It requires a team of advisors (accountants, lawyers, and bankers) and filing fees are high.

    There are also ongoing costs and obligations associated with being a publicly traded company, including detailed financial reporting.

    Last week, the regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), announced new measures to encourage more listings by streamlining the IPO process.

    Despite this, many small companies do not meet the listing requirements for the ASX.

    These include meeting a profits and assets test and having at least 300 investors (not including family) each with A$2,000.

    There is one less well-known alternative – the smaller National Stock Exchange of Australia (NSX), which focuses on early-stage companies. Ideally, this should have been a great alternative for small companies, but it has had limited success. The NSX is now set to be acquired by a Canadian market operator.

    Making companies more attractive

    Our previous research has highlighted that small and medium-sized businesses should try to make themselves more attractive to private equity companies. This could include improving their financial reporting and using a reputable major auditor.

    At their end, private equity companies should cast a wider net and invest a little more time in screening and selecting high-quality smaller companies. That could pay off – if it means they avoid missing out on “the next Google Maps”.

    What we now know as Google Maps began as an Australian startup.
    Susan Quin & The Bigger Picture, CC BY

    What about the $4 trillion of superannuation?

    There are other opportunities we could explore. Australia’s pool of superannuation funds, for example, have begun growing so large they are running out of places to invest.

    That’s led to some radical proposals. Ben Thompson, chief executive of Employment Hero, last year proposed big superannuation funds be forced to invest 1% of their cash into start-ups.

    Less extreme, regulators could reassess disclosure guidelines for financial providers which may lead funds to prefer more established investments with proven track records.

    There is an ongoing debate about whether the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), which regulates banks and superannuation, is too cautious. Some believe APRA’s focus on risk management hurts innovation and may result in super funds avoiding startups (which generally have a higher likelihood of failure).

    In response, APRA has pointed out the global financial crisis reminded us to be cautious, to ensure financial stability and protect consumers.

    This article is part of The Conversation’s series, The Productivity Puzzle.

    The author would like to acknowledge her former doctoral student, the late Dr Bruce Dwyer, who made significant contributions to research discussed in this article. Bruce passed away in a tragic accident earlier this year.

    Colette Southam 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. Small businesses are an innovation powerhouse. For many, it’s still too hard to raise the funds they need – https://theconversation.com/small-businesses-are-an-innovation-powerhouse-for-many-its-still-too-hard-to-raise-the-funds-they-need-256333

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Small businesses are an innovation powerhouse. For many, it’s still too hard to raise the funds they need

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Colette Southam, Associate Professor of Finance, Bond University

    The federal government wants to boost Australia’s productivity levels – as a matter of national priority. It’s impossible to have that conversation without also talking about innovation.

    We can be proud of (and perhaps a little surprised by) some of the Australian innovations that have changed the world – such as the refrigerator, the electric drill, and more recently, the CPAP machine and the technology underpinning Google Maps.

    Australia is continuing to drive advancements in machine learning, cybersecurity and green technologies. Innovation isn’t confined to the headquarters of big tech companies and university laboratories.

    Small and medium enterprises – those with fewer than 200 employees – are a powerhouse of economic growth in Australia. Collectively, they contribute 56% of Australia’s gross domestic product (GDP) and employ 67% of the workforce.

    Our own Reserve Bank has recognised they also have a huge role to play in driving innovation. However, they still face many barriers to accessing funding and investment, which can hamper their ability to do so.

    Finding the funds to grow

    We all know the saying “it takes money to make money”. Those starting or scaling a business have to invest in the present to generate cash in the future. This could involve buying equipment, renting space, or even investing in needed skills and knowledge.

    A small, brand new startup might initially rely on debt (such as personal loans or credit cards) and investments from family and friends (sometimes called “love money”).

    Having exhausted these sources, it may still need more funds to grow. Bank loans for businesses are common, quick and easy. But these require regular interest payments, which could slow growth.

    Selling stakes

    Alternatively, a business may want to look for investors to take out ownership stakes.

    This investment can take the form of “private equity”, where ownership stakes are sold through private arrangement to investors. These can range from individual “angel investors” through to huge venture capital and private equity firms managing billions in investments.

    It can also take the form of “public equity”, where shares are offered and are then able to be bought and sold by anyone on a public stock exchange such as the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX).

    Unfortunately, small and medium-sized companies face hurdles to accessing both kinds.

    Companies need access to finance to turn ideas into reality.
    Kvalifik/Unsplash

    Private investors’ high bar to clear

    Research examining the gap in small-scale private equity has found 46% of small and medium-sized firms in Australia would welcome an equity investment – despite saying they were able to acquire debt elsewhere.

    They preferred private equity because they also wanted to learn from experienced investors who could help them grow their companies. However, very few small and medium-sized enterprises were able to meet private equity’s investment criteria.

    When interviewed, many chief executives and chairs of small private equity firms said their lack of interest in small and medium-sized enterprises came down to cost and difficulty of verifying information about the health and prospects of a business.

    To make it easier for investors to compare investments, all public companies are required to disclose their financial information using International Financial Reporting Standards.

    In contrast, small private companies can use a simplified set of rules and do not have to share their statements of profit and loss with the general public.

    Share markets are costly and complex

    Is it possible to list on a stock exchange instead? An initial public offering (IPO) would enable the company to raise funds by selling shares to the public.

    Unfortunately, the process of issuing shares on a stock exchange is time-consuming and costly. It requires a team of advisors (accountants, lawyers, and bankers) and filing fees are high.

    There are also ongoing costs and obligations associated with being a publicly traded company, including detailed financial reporting.

    Last week, the regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), announced new measures to encourage more listings by streamlining the IPO process.

    Despite this, many small companies do not meet the listing requirements for the ASX.

    These include meeting a profits and assets test and having at least 300 investors (not including family) each with A$2,000.

    There is one less well-known alternative – the smaller National Stock Exchange of Australia (NSX), which focuses on early-stage companies. Ideally, this should have been a great alternative for small companies, but it has had limited success. The NSX is now set to be acquired by a Canadian market operator.

    Making companies more attractive

    Our previous research has highlighted that small and medium-sized businesses should try to make themselves more attractive to private equity companies. This could include improving their financial reporting and using a reputable major auditor.

    At their end, private equity companies should cast a wider net and invest a little more time in screening and selecting high-quality smaller companies. That could pay off – if it means they avoid missing out on “the next Google Maps”.

    What we now know as Google Maps began as an Australian startup.
    Susan Quin & The Bigger Picture, CC BY

    What about the $4 trillion of superannuation?

    There are other opportunities we could explore. Australia’s pool of superannuation funds, for example, have begun growing so large they are running out of places to invest.

    That’s led to some radical proposals. Ben Thompson, chief executive of Employment Hero, last year proposed big superannuation funds be forced to invest 1% of their cash into start-ups.

    Less extreme, regulators could reassess disclosure guidelines for financial providers which may lead funds to prefer more established investments with proven track records.

    There is an ongoing debate about whether the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), which regulates banks and superannuation, is too cautious. Some believe APRA’s focus on risk management hurts innovation and may result in super funds avoiding startups (which generally have a higher likelihood of failure).

    In response, APRA has pointed out the global financial crisis reminded us to be cautious, to ensure financial stability and protect consumers.

    This article is part of The Conversation’s series, The Productivity Puzzle.

    The author would like to acknowledge her former doctoral student, the late Dr Bruce Dwyer, who made significant contributions to research discussed in this article. Bruce passed away in a tragic accident earlier this year.

    Colette Southam 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. Small businesses are an innovation powerhouse. For many, it’s still too hard to raise the funds they need – https://theconversation.com/small-businesses-are-an-innovation-powerhouse-for-many-its-still-too-hard-to-raise-the-funds-they-need-256333

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Need to see a specialist? You might have to choose between high costs and a long wait. Here’s what needs to change

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Breadon, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, Grattan Institute

    If you have cancer, a disease such as diabetes or dementia, or need to manage other complex health conditions, you often need expert care from a specialist doctor.

    But as our new Grattan Institute report shows, too many people are forced to choose between long waits in the public system or high costs if they go private.

    Governments need to provide more training for specialist doctors in short supply, make smart investments in public clinics, and regulate the extremely high fees a small number of private specialists charge.

    High fees, long waits, missed care

    Fees for private specialist appointments are high and rising.

    On average, patients’ bills for specialist appointments add up to A$300 a year. This excludes people who were bulk billed for every appointment, but that’s relatively rare: patients pay out-of-pocket costs for two-thirds of appointments with a specialist doctor.

    Increasing GP costs make national headlines, but specialist fees have risen even more – they’ve grown by 73% since 2010.

    Out-of-pocket costs for specialist care have increased faster than for other Medicare services.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    People who can’t afford to pay with money often pay with time – and sometimes with their health, as their condition deteriorates.

    Wait times for a free appointment at a public clinic can be months or even years. In Victoria and Queensland, people with an urgent referral – who should be seen within 30 days – are waiting many months to see some specialists.

    High fees and long waits add up to missed care. Every year, 1.9 million Australians delay or skip needed specialist care – about half of them because of cost.

    Distance is another barrier. People in regional and remote areas receive far fewer specialist services per person than city dwellers (even counting services delivered virtually). Half of remote communities receive less than one specialist appointment, per person, per year. There are no city communities where that’s the case.

    People in regional and remote areas receive fewer specialist services.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    Train the specialists we’ll need in the future

    Specialist training takes at least 12 years, so planning ahead is crucial. Governments can’t conjure more cardiologists overnight, or have a paediatrician treat elderly people.

    But at the moment there are no regular projections of the specialists we’ll need in the future, nor planning to make sure we get them. Government-funded training places are determined by the priorities of specialist colleges, which approve training places, and the immediate needs of public hospitals.

    As a result, we’ve got a lot of some types of specialist and a shortage of others. We’ve trained many emergency medicine specialists because public hospitals rely on trainees to staff emergency departments 24/7. But we have too few dermatologists and ophthalmologists – and numbers of those specialists are growing slower than average.

    The numbers of some types of specialists are growing faster than others.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    The lack of planning extends to where specialist training takes place. Doctors tend to put down roots and stay where they train. A shortage of rural training places leads to a shortage of rural specialists.

    To fix these problems, governments need to plan and pay for training places that match Australia’s future health needs. Governments should forecast the need for particular specialties in particular areas. Then training funding should be tied to delivering the necessary specialist training places.

    To fill gaps in the meantime, the federal government should streamline applications for overseas specialists to move here. It should also recognise qualifications from more similar countries.

    More public clinics where they’re needed most

    Public clinics don’t charge fees and are crucial in ensuring all Australians can get specialist care. But governments should be more strategic in where and how they invest.

    There are big differences in specialist access across the country. After adjusting for differences in age, sex, health and wealth, people living in the worst-served areas receive about one-third fewer services than people in the best-served communities.

    Governments should fund more public services in areas that need it most. They should set a five-year target to lift access for the quarter of communities receiving the least care in each specialty.

    More services are needed to help the least-served communities catch up.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    We estimate 81 communities need additional investment in at least one specialty – about a million extra appointments in total. Some communities receive less care across the board and need investment in many specialties.

    With long waiting times and unmet need, governments should also make sure they’re getting the most out of their investment in public clinics.

    Different clinics are run in very different ways. Some have taken up virtual care with a vengeance, others barely at all. One clinic might stick to traditional staffing models, while the clinic down the road might have moved towards “top of scope” models where nurses and allied health workers do more.

    Not all specialists offer virtual appointments.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    Governments should lay out an agenda to modernise clinics, encouraging them to adopt best practices. And they should introduce systems that allow GPs to get quick written advice from specialists to reduce unnecessary referrals and ensure services can focus on patients who really need their care.

    Curb extreme fees

    Even with more public services, and more specialists, excessive fees will still be a problem.

    A small fraction – less than 4% – of specialists charge triple the Medicare schedule fee, or more, on average. These can only be described as extreme fees.

    In 2023, an initial consultation with an endocrinologist or cardiologist who met this “extreme fee” definition cost an average of $350. For a psychiatrist, it was $670.

    One psychiatrist charged $670, but they weren’t the only specialist charging ‘extreme fees’.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    There is no valid justification for these outlier fees. They’re beyond the level needed to fairly reward doctors’ skill and experience, they aren’t linked to better quality and they don’t cross-subsidise care for poorer patients. Incomes for average specialists – who charge much less – are already among the highest in the country. Nine of the top ten highest-earning occupations are medical specialties.

    The federal government has committed to publishing fee information, which is a positive step. But in some areas, it can be hard to find a better option, and patients may be hesitant to shop around.

    The federal government should directly tackle extreme fees. It should require specialists who charge extreme fees to repay the value of the Medicare rebates received for their services that year.

    Specialist care has been neglected long enough. The federal and state governments need to act now.

    Grattan Institute has been supported in its work by government, corporates, and philanthropic gifts. A full list of supporting organisations is published at www.grattan.edu.au.

    – ref. Need to see a specialist? You might have to choose between high costs and a long wait. Here’s what needs to change – https://theconversation.com/need-to-see-a-specialist-you-might-have-to-choose-between-high-costs-and-a-long-wait-heres-what-needs-to-change-258194

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Need to see a specialist? You might have to choose between high costs and a long wait. Here’s what needs to change

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Breadon, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, Grattan Institute

    If you have cancer, a disease such as diabetes or dementia, or need to manage other complex health conditions, you often need expert care from a specialist doctor.

    But as our new Grattan Institute report shows, too many people are forced to choose between long waits in the public system or high costs if they go private.

    Governments need to provide more training for specialist doctors in short supply, make smart investments in public clinics, and regulate the extremely high fees a small number of private specialists charge.

    High fees, long waits, missed care

    Fees for private specialist appointments are high and rising.

    On average, patients’ bills for specialist appointments add up to A$300 a year. This excludes people who were bulk billed for every appointment, but that’s relatively rare: patients pay out-of-pocket costs for two-thirds of appointments with a specialist doctor.

    Increasing GP costs make national headlines, but specialist fees have risen even more – they’ve grown by 73% since 2010.

    Out-of-pocket costs for specialist care have increased faster than for other Medicare services.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    People who can’t afford to pay with money often pay with time – and sometimes with their health, as their condition deteriorates.

    Wait times for a free appointment at a public clinic can be months or even years. In Victoria and Queensland, people with an urgent referral – who should be seen within 30 days – are waiting many months to see some specialists.

    High fees and long waits add up to missed care. Every year, 1.9 million Australians delay or skip needed specialist care – about half of them because of cost.

    Distance is another barrier. People in regional and remote areas receive far fewer specialist services per person than city dwellers (even counting services delivered virtually). Half of remote communities receive less than one specialist appointment, per person, per year. There are no city communities where that’s the case.

    People in regional and remote areas receive fewer specialist services.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    Train the specialists we’ll need in the future

    Specialist training takes at least 12 years, so planning ahead is crucial. Governments can’t conjure more cardiologists overnight, or have a paediatrician treat elderly people.

    But at the moment there are no regular projections of the specialists we’ll need in the future, nor planning to make sure we get them. Government-funded training places are determined by the priorities of specialist colleges, which approve training places, and the immediate needs of public hospitals.

    As a result, we’ve got a lot of some types of specialist and a shortage of others. We’ve trained many emergency medicine specialists because public hospitals rely on trainees to staff emergency departments 24/7. But we have too few dermatologists and ophthalmologists – and numbers of those specialists are growing slower than average.

    The numbers of some types of specialists are growing faster than others.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    The lack of planning extends to where specialist training takes place. Doctors tend to put down roots and stay where they train. A shortage of rural training places leads to a shortage of rural specialists.

    To fix these problems, governments need to plan and pay for training places that match Australia’s future health needs. Governments should forecast the need for particular specialties in particular areas. Then training funding should be tied to delivering the necessary specialist training places.

    To fill gaps in the meantime, the federal government should streamline applications for overseas specialists to move here. It should also recognise qualifications from more similar countries.

    More public clinics where they’re needed most

    Public clinics don’t charge fees and are crucial in ensuring all Australians can get specialist care. But governments should be more strategic in where and how they invest.

    There are big differences in specialist access across the country. After adjusting for differences in age, sex, health and wealth, people living in the worst-served areas receive about one-third fewer services than people in the best-served communities.

    Governments should fund more public services in areas that need it most. They should set a five-year target to lift access for the quarter of communities receiving the least care in each specialty.

    More services are needed to help the least-served communities catch up.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    We estimate 81 communities need additional investment in at least one specialty – about a million extra appointments in total. Some communities receive less care across the board and need investment in many specialties.

    With long waiting times and unmet need, governments should also make sure they’re getting the most out of their investment in public clinics.

    Different clinics are run in very different ways. Some have taken up virtual care with a vengeance, others barely at all. One clinic might stick to traditional staffing models, while the clinic down the road might have moved towards “top of scope” models where nurses and allied health workers do more.

    Not all specialists offer virtual appointments.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    Governments should lay out an agenda to modernise clinics, encouraging them to adopt best practices. And they should introduce systems that allow GPs to get quick written advice from specialists to reduce unnecessary referrals and ensure services can focus on patients who really need their care.

    Curb extreme fees

    Even with more public services, and more specialists, excessive fees will still be a problem.

    A small fraction – less than 4% – of specialists charge triple the Medicare schedule fee, or more, on average. These can only be described as extreme fees.

    In 2023, an initial consultation with an endocrinologist or cardiologist who met this “extreme fee” definition cost an average of $350. For a psychiatrist, it was $670.

    One psychiatrist charged $670, but they weren’t the only specialist charging ‘extreme fees’.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    There is no valid justification for these outlier fees. They’re beyond the level needed to fairly reward doctors’ skill and experience, they aren’t linked to better quality and they don’t cross-subsidise care for poorer patients. Incomes for average specialists – who charge much less – are already among the highest in the country. Nine of the top ten highest-earning occupations are medical specialties.

    The federal government has committed to publishing fee information, which is a positive step. But in some areas, it can be hard to find a better option, and patients may be hesitant to shop around.

    The federal government should directly tackle extreme fees. It should require specialists who charge extreme fees to repay the value of the Medicare rebates received for their services that year.

    Specialist care has been neglected long enough. The federal and state governments need to act now.

    Grattan Institute has been supported in its work by government, corporates, and philanthropic gifts. A full list of supporting organisations is published at www.grattan.edu.au.

    – ref. Need to see a specialist? You might have to choose between high costs and a long wait. Here’s what needs to change – https://theconversation.com/need-to-see-a-specialist-you-might-have-to-choose-between-high-costs-and-a-long-wait-heres-what-needs-to-change-258194

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Decades on from the Royal Commission, why are Indigenous people still dying in custody?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thalia Anthony, Professor of Law, University of Technology Sydney

    Rose Marinelli/Shutterstock

    Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised that this article contains the name of an Indigenous person who has died.

    The recent deaths in custody of two Indigenous men in the Northern Territory have provoked a deeply confronting question – will it ever end?

    About 597 First Nations people have died in custody sine the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.

    This year alone, 12 Indigenous people have died – 31% of total custodial deaths.

    The raw numbers are a tragic indictment of government failure to implement in full the Commission’s 339 recommendations.

    We are potentially further away from resolving this crisis than we were 34 years ago.

    Recent deaths

    Kumanjayi White was a vulnerable young Warlpiri man with a disability under a guardianship order. He stopped breathing while being restrained by police in an Alice Springs supermarket on May 27. His family is calling for all CCTV and body camera footage to be released.

    Days later a 68-year-old Aboriginal Elder from Wadeye was taken to the Palmerston Watchhouse after being detained for apparent intoxication at Darwin airport. He was later transferred to a hospital where he died.

    Alice Springs protest over the death of Kumanjayi White.

    Both were under the care and protection of the state when they died. The royal commission revealed “so many” deaths had occurred in similar circumstances and urged change. It found there was:

    little appreciation of, and less dedication to, the duty of care owed by custodial authorities and their officers to persons in care.

    Seemingly, care and protection were the last things Kumanjayi White and the Wadeye Elder were afforded by NT police.

    Preventable deaths

    The royal commission investigated 99 Aboriginal deaths in custody between 1980 and 1989. If all of its recommendations had been fully implemented, lives may have been saved.

    For instance, recommendation 127 called for “protocols for the care and management” of Aboriginal people in custody, especially those suffering from physical or mental illness. This may have informed a more appropriate and therapeutic response to White and prevented his death.

    Recommendation 80 provided for “non-custodial facilities for the care and treatment of intoxicated persons”. Such facilities may have staved off the trauma the Elder faced when he was detained, and the adverse impact it had on his health.

    More broadly, a lack of independent oversight has compromised accountability. Recommendations 29-31 would have given the coroner, and an assisting lawyer, “the power to direct police” in their investigations:

    It must never again be the case that a death in custody, of Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal persons, will not lead to rigorous and accountable investigations.

    Yet, the Northern Territory police has rejected pleas by White’s family for an independent investigation.

    Another audit?

    Northern Territory Labor MP Marion Scrymgour is calling on the Albanese government to order a full audit of the royal commission recommendations.

    She says Indigenous people are being completely ostracised and victimised:

    People are dying. The federal government, I think, needs to show leadership.

    It is unlikely another audit will cure the failures by the government to act on the recommendations.

    Instead, a new standing body should be established to ensure they are all fully implemented. It should be led by First Nations people and involve families whose loved ones have died in custody in recognition of their lived expertise.

    In 2023, independent Senator Lidia Thorpe moved a motion for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice commissioner to assume responsibility for the implementation of the recommendations. While the government expressed support for this motion, there has been no progress.

    Another mechanism for change would be for governments to report back on recommendations made by coroners in relation to deaths in custody. Almost 600 inquests have issued a large repository of recommendations, many of which have been shelved.

    Leadership lacking?

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese recently conceded no government has “done well enough” to reduce Aboriginal deaths in custody. But he has rejected calls for an intervention in the Northern Territory justice system:

    I need to be convinced that people in Canberra know better than people in the Northern Territory about how to deal with these issues.

    Albanese is ignoring the essence of what is driving deaths in custody.

    Reflecting on the 25-year anniversary of the royal commission in 2016, criminology professor Chris Cunneen wrote that Australia had become much less compassionate and more ready to blame individuals for their alleged failings:

    Nowhere is this more clear than in our desire for punishment. A harsh criminal justice system – in particular, more prisons and people behind bars – has apparently become a hallmark of good government.

    There are too many First Nations deaths in custody because there are too many First Nations people in custody in the first place.

    At the time of the royal commission, 14% of the prison population was First Nations. Today, it’s 36%, even though Indigenous people make up just 3.8% of Australia’s overall population.

    Governments across the country have expanded law and order practices, police forces and prisons in the name of community safety.

    This includes a recent $1.5 billion public order plan to expand policing in the Northern Territory. Such agendas impose a distinct lack of safety on First Nations people, who bear the brunt of such policies. It also instils a message that social issues can only be addressed by punitive and coercive responses.

    The royal commission showed us there is another way: self-determination and stamping out opportunities for racist and violent policing. First Nations families have campaigned for these issues for decades.

    How many more Indigenous deaths in custody does there have to be before we listen?

    Thalia Anthony receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    Eddie is an Independent Representative on the Justice Policy Partnership under the Closing the Gap Agreement.

    – ref. Decades on from the Royal Commission, why are Indigenous people still dying in custody? – https://theconversation.com/decades-on-from-the-royal-commission-why-are-indigenous-people-still-dying-in-custody-258568

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: A 3-tonne, $1.5 billion satellite to watch Earth’s every move is set to launch this week

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steve Petrie, Earth Observation Researcher, Swinburne University of Technology

    Artist’s concept of the NISAR satellite in orbit over Earth. NASA/JPL-Caltech

    In a few days, a new satellite that can detect changes on Earth’s surface down to the centimetre, in almost real time and no matter the time of day or weather conditions, is set to launch from India’s Satish Dhawan Space Centre near Chennai.

    Weighing almost 3 tonnes and boasting a 12-metre radar antenna, the US$1.5 billion NISAR satellite will track the ground under our feet and the water that flows over and through it in unprecedented detail, providing valuable information for farmers, climate scientists and natural disaster response teams.

    Only when the conditions are right

    Satellites that image the Earth have been an invaluable scientific tool for decades. They have provided crucial data across many applications, such as weather forecasting and emergency response planning. They have also helped scientists track long-term changes in Earth’s ecosystems and climate.

    Many of these Earth observation satellites require reflected sunlight to capture images of Earth’s surface. This means they can only capture images during daytime and when there is no cloud cover.

    As a result, these satellites face challenges wherever cloud cover is very common, such as in tropical regions, or when nighttime imagery is required.

    The NISAR satellite – a collaboration between the national space agencies of the United States (NASA) and India (ISRO) – overcomes these challenges by using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) technology to take images of the Earth. This technology also gives the satellite its name. NISAR stands for NASA-ISRO SAR.

    So what is SAR technology?

    SAR technology was invented in 1951 for military use. Rather than using reflected sunlight to passively image the Earth’s surface, SAR satellites work by actively beaming a radar signal toward the surface and detecting the reflected signal. Think of this as like using a flash to take a photo in a dark room.

    This means SAR satellites can take images of the Earth’s surface both during the day and night.

    Since radar signals pass through most cloud and smoke unhindered, SAR satellites can also image the Earth’s surface even when it is covered by clouds, smoke or ash. This is especially valuable during natural disasters such as floods, bushfires or volcanic eruptions.

    Radar signals can also penetrate through certain structures such as thick vegetation. They are useful for detecting the presence of water due to the way that water affects reflected radar signals.

    The European Space Agency used the vegetation-penetrating properties of SAR signals in its recent Biomass mission. This can image the 3D structure of forests. It can also produce highly accurate measurements of the amount of biomass and carbon stored in Earth’s forests.

    Sang-Ho Yun, Director of the Earth Observatory of Singapore’s Remote Sensing Lab, is a key proponent of using SAR for disaster management. Yun has previously used SAR data to map disaster-affected areas across hundreds of natural disasters over the last 15 years, including earthquakes, floods and typhoons.

    NISAR, which is due to launch on June 18, will significantly build on this earlier work.

    NISAR data will be used to create images similar to this 2013 image of a flood-prone area of the Amazonian jungle in Peru that’s based on data from NASA’s UAVSAR satellite.
    NASA/JPL-Caltech

    Monitoring Earth’s many ecosystems

    The NISAR satellite has been in development for over a decade and is one of the most expensive Earth-imaging satellites ever built.

    Data from the satellite will be supplied freely and openly worldwide. It will provide high-resolution images of almost all land and ice surfaces around the globe twice every 12 days.

    This is similar in scope to the European Space Agency’s Sentinel-1 SAR satellites. However, NISAR will be the first SAR satellite to use two complementary radar frequencies rather than one, and will be capable of producing higher resolution imagery compared with the Sentinel-1 satellites. It will also have greater coverage of Antarctica than Sentinel-1 and will use radar frequencies that penetrate further into vegetation.

    The NISAR satellite will be used to monitor forest biomass. Its ability to simultaneously penetrate vegetation and detect water will also allow it to accurately map flooded vegetation.

    This is important for gaining a deeper understanding of Earth’s wetlands, which are important ecosystems with high levels of biodiversity and massive carbon storage capacity.

    The satellite will also be able to detect changes in the height of Earth’s surface of a few centimetres or even millimetres, because changes in height create tiny shifts in the reflected radar signal.

    The NISAR satellite will use this technique to track subsidence of dams and map groundwater levels (since subsurface water affects the height of the Earth’s surface). It will also use the same technique to map land movement and damage from earthquakes, landslides and volcanic activity.

    Such maps can help disaster response teams to better understand the damage that has occurred in disaster areas and to plan their response.

    Improving agriculture

    The NISAR satellite will also be useful for agricultural applications, with a unique capability to estimate moisture levels in soil with high resolution in all weather conditions.

    This is valuable for agricultural applications because such data can be used to determine when to irrigate to ensure healthy vegetation, and to potentially improve water use efficiency and crop yields.

    Further key applications of the NISAR mission will include tracking the flow of Earth’s ice sheets and glaciers, monitoring coastal erosion and tracking oil spills.

    We can expect to see many benefits for science and society to come from this highly ambitious satellite mission.

    Steve Petrie has previously received funding for satellite data analysis projects from XPrize Foundation, from Ernst & Young, and from the Cooperative Research Centre for Smart Satellite Technologies and Analytics (SmartSat CRC, which is funded by the Australian Government).

    – ref. A 3-tonne, $1.5 billion satellite to watch Earth’s every move is set to launch this week – https://theconversation.com/a-3-tonne-1-5-billion-satellite-to-watch-earths-every-move-is-set-to-launch-this-week-258283

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Millions rally against authoritarianism, while the White House portrays protests as threats – a political scientist explains

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeremy Pressman, Professor of Political Science, University of Connecticut

    Protesters parade through the Marigny neighborhood of New Orleans as part of the nationwide No Kings protest against President Donald Trump, on June 14, 2025. Patt Little/Anadolu via Getty Images

    At the end of a week when President Donald Trump sent Marines and the California National Guard to Los Angeles to quell protests, Americans across the country turned out in huge numbers to protest Trump’s attempts to expand his power. In rallies on June 14, 2025, organized under the banner “No Kings,” millions of protesters decried Trump’s immigration roundups, cuts to government programs and what many described as his growing authoritarianism.

    The protests were largely peaceful, with relatively few incidents of violence.

    Protests and the interactions between protesters and government authorities have a long history in the United States. From the Boston Tea Party to the Civil Rights movement, LBGTQ Stonewall uprising, the Tea Party movement and Black Lives Matter, public protest has been a crucial aspect of efforts to advance or protect the rights of citizens.

    But protests can also have other effects.

    In the last few months, large numbers of anti-Trump protesters have come out in the streets across the U.S., on occasions like the April 5 Hands Off protests against safety net budget cuts and government downsizing. Many of those protesters assert they are protecting American democracy.

    The Trump administration has decried these protesters and the concept of protest more generally, with the president recently calling protesters “troublemakers, agitators, insurrectionists.” A few days before the June 14 military parade in Washington, President Donald Trump said of potential protesters: “this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.”

    Trump’s current reaction is reminiscent of his harsh condemnation of the Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020. In 2022, former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said that Trump had asked about shooting protesters participating in demonstrations after the 2020 shooting of George Floyd.

    As co-director of the Crowd Counting Consortium, which compiles information on each day’s protests in the U.S., I understand that protests sometimes can advance the goals of the protest movement. They also can shape the goals and behavior of federal or state governments and their leaders.

    Opportunity for expressing or suppressing democracy

    Protests are an expression of democracy, bolstered by the right to free speech and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    At the same time, clamping down on protests is one way to rebut challenges to government policies and power.

    For a president intent on the further centralization of executive power, or even establishing a dictatorship, protest suppression provides multiple opportunities and pitfalls.

    Widespread, well-attended demonstrations can represent a mass movement in favor of democracy or other issues as well as serve as an opportunity to expand participation even further. Large events often lead to significant press coverage and plenty of social media posting. The protests may heighten protesters’ emotional connection to the movement and increase fundraising and membership numbers of sponsoring organizations.

    Though it is not an ironclad law, research shows that when at least 3.5% of the total population is involved in a demonstration, protesters usually prevail over their governments. That included the Chilean movement in the 1980s that toppled longtime dictator Augusto Pinochet. Chileans used not only massive demonstrations but also a wide array of creative tactics like a coordinated slowdown of driving and walking, neighbors banging pots outside homes simultaneously, and singing together.

    Protests are rarely only about protesting. Organizers usually seek to involve participants in many other activities, whether that is contacting their elected officials, writing letters to the editor, registering to vote or running a food drive to help vulnerable populations.

    In this way of thinking, participation in a major street protest like No Kings is a gateway into deeper activism.

    Risks and opportunities

    Of course, protest leaders cannot control everyone in or adjacent to the movement.

    Other protesters with a different agenda, or agitators of any sort, can insert themselves into a movement and use confrontational tactics like violence against property or law enforcement.

    In one prominent example from Los Angeles, someone set several self-driving cars on fire. Other Los Angeles examples included some protesters’ throwing things like water bottles at officers or engaging in vandalism. Police officers also use coercive measures such as firing chemical irritants and pepper balls at protesters.

    When leaders want to concentrate executive power and establish an autocracy, where they rule with absolute power, protests against those moves could lead to a mass rejection of the leader’s plans. That is what national protest groups like 50501 and Indivisible are hoping for and why they aimed to turn out millions of people at the No Kings protests on June 14.

    But while the Trump administration faces risks from protests, it also may see opportunities.

    Misrepresenting and quashing dissent

    Protests can serve as a justification for a nascent autocrat to further undermine democratic practices and institutions.

    Take the recent demonstrations in Los Angeles protesting the Trump administration’s immigration raids conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

    Autocrats seek to politicize independent institutions like the armed forces. The Los Angeles protests offered the opportunity for that. Trump sent troops from the California National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles to contain the protests. That domestic deployment of the military is rare but not unheard of in U.S. history.

    And the deployment was ordered against the backdrop of the president’s partisan June 10 speech at a U.S. military base in North Carolina. The military personnel in attendance cheered and applauded many of Trump’s political statements. Both the speech and audience reactions to it appeared to violate the U.S. military norm of nonpartisanship.

    This deployment of military personnel in a U.S. city also dovetails with the expansion of executive power characteristic of autocratic leaders. It is rare that presidents call up the National Guard; the Guard is traditionally under the control of the state governor.

    Yet the White House disregarded that Los Angeles’ mayor and California’s governor both objected to the deployment.

    The state sued the Trump administration over the deployment. The initial court decision sided with California officials, declaring the federal government action “illegal.” The Trump administration has appealed.

    Autocrats seek to spread disinformation. In the case of the Los Angeles protests, the Trump administration’s narrative depicted a chaotic, gang-infested city with violence everywhere. Reports on the ground refuted those characterizations. The protests, mostly peaceful, were confined to a small part of the city, about a 10-block area.

    More generally, a strong executive leader and their supporters often want to quash dissent. In the Los Angeles example, doing that has ranged from the military deployment itself to targeting journalists covering the story to arresting and charging prominent opponents like SEIU President David Huerta or shoving and handcuffing U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat.

    The contrast on June 14 was striking. In Washington, D.C., Trump reviewed a parade of troops, tanks and planes, leaning into a display of American military power.

    At the same time, from rainy Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, to sweltering Yuma, Arizona, millions of protesters embraced their First Amendment rights to oppose the president. It perfectly illustrated the dynamic driving deep political division today: the executive concentrating power while a sizable segment of the people resist.

    Jeremy Pressman 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. Millions rally against authoritarianism, while the White House portrays protests as threats – a political scientist explains – https://theconversation.com/millions-rally-against-authoritarianism-while-the-white-house-portrays-protests-as-threats-a-political-scientist-explains-258963

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: A solar panel recycling scheme would help reduce waste, but please repair and reuse first

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deepika Mathur, Senior Research Fellow, Northern Institute, Charles Darwin University

    tolobalaguer.com, Shutterstock

    Australia’s rooftop solar industry has renewed calls for a mandatory recycling scheme to deal with the growing problem of solar panel waste. Only about 10% of panels are currently recycled. The rest are stockpiled, sent overseas or dumped in landfill.

    One in three Australian homes now have rooftop solar panels, and new systems are being installed at the rate of 300,000 a year. Meanwhile, older systems are being scrapped – often well before the end of their useful life.

    This has made solar panels Australia’s fastest-growing electronic waste stream. Yet federal government plans for a national scheme to manage this waste appear to have stalled.

    Clearly, solar panel waste is a major problem for Australia. Recycling is one part of the solution. But Australia also needs new rules so solar panels can be repaired and reused.

    Millions of solar panels dumped as upgrades surge (ABC News, June 12, 2025)

    What are product stewardship schemes?

    The Smart Energy Council, which represents the solar industry, is calling for a national product stewardship scheme.

    Product stewardship schemes share responsibility for reducing waste at the end of a product’s useful life. They can involve people all along the supply chain, from manufacturers to importers to retailers.

    Such schemes may be voluntary, and industry-led, or mandatory and legislated. Alternatively, they can be shared – approved by government but run by an organisation on behalf of industry.

    Existing schemes manage waste such as oil, tyres, paper and packaging, mobile phones, televisions and computers.

    Depending on the product, a levy is paid by the manufacturer, product importer, network service provider (in case of mobile muster), retailer or consumer – or a combination of these. The money raised is then invested in recycling, research or raising awareness and administering the scheme.

    Establishing a solar panel product stewardship scheme

    Solar panel systems were added to a national priority list for a product stewardship scheme in 2017.

    In December 2020, the federal government called for partners to help develop the scheme, but later stated that no partnership would be struck.

    The government released a discussion paper for comment in 2023. The scheme has not yet been established.

    This is particularly problematic given Australia’s commitment to renewable energy, which will entail a rapid expansion of solar technology.

    Recycling should be the last resort

    Product stewardship schemes assume recycling is the main solution to the waste problem.

    Australia’s National Waste Policy also focuses on on recycling, rather than reuse or repair. This is despite recycling being the last resort on the “waste hierarchy”, just slightly above disposal.

    Solar photovoltaic panels are built to last 30 years or more, and are “not made to be unmade”. They are not easy to dismantle for recycling because they are built to withstand harsh conditions.

    It’s difficult for Australia to influence the design of solar panels, given 99% are imported. Just one manufacturer, Tindo Solar in Adelaide, assembles solar panels on Australian soil, using imported silicon cells.

    Many solar panels are being removed well before their end of life, generating waste ahead of time. This is rarely because they have stopped producing power.

    In our previous research, we found many reasons why people chose to take solar panels down. Consumers are often advised to replace the whole system when just a few panels are faulty. Or they may simply be upgrading to a larger, more efficient system. Sometimes it’s because they want to access a new renewable energy subsidy.

    Renewable subsidies and other solar panel policies should be redesigned to keep panels on roofs for longer.

    Functioning solar panels removed before the end of their life should be reused. This would require new regulations including quality-control measures certifying second-hand solar panels, and second-hand markets. This is a much neglected field of research and development.

    What else should such a scheme include?

    Others have discussed what a solar panel product stewardship scheme could include and the possible regulatory environment.

    We think the scheme should also involve collecting and transporting panels around Australia, including remote areas.

    Unfortunately, existing product stewardship schemes do not differentiate between urban, regional and remote areas. The same is likely to be the case for a solar panel collection and recycling scheme.

    This leaves regional and remote areas with fewer recycling facilities and collection points. With a growing number of large solar projects in Northern Australia, reducing waste is imperative.

    Remote island communities in the Northern Territory bundle up their recyclables and ship it to Darwin. Removed solar panels are then transported to urban Victoria, New South Wales or South Australia for processing. Who should bear the cost of transporting this waste? Consumers, remote regional councils with small ratepayer bases, or manufacturers and retailers?

    A well-designed scheme would help recover valuable resources across Australia for reuse in new products.

    However, large volumes of solar panels would be required for recycling schemes to become commercially viable. That’s why the solar recycling industry is concerned about exporters and scrap dealers collecting panels rather then certified solar panel recyclers.

    Even if the technology for recycling solar panels is nascent in Australia, it’s worth stockpiling panels in Australia for later.

    Considering these issues in the design of a product stewardship scheme would help ensure we can maximise the benefits of renewable energy, while minimising waste.

    Deepika Mathur has received research funding from the Northern Territory and federal governments.

    Robin Gregory is affiliated with Regional Development Australia Northern Territory

    – ref. A solar panel recycling scheme would help reduce waste, but please repair and reuse first – https://theconversation.com/a-solar-panel-recycling-scheme-would-help-reduce-waste-but-please-repair-and-reuse-first-258806

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Netanyahu has two war aims: destroying Iran’s nuclear program and regime change. Are either achievable?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Parmeter, Research Scholar, Middle East Studies, Australian National University

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could last for at least two weeks.

    His timing seems precise for a reason. The Israel Defence Forces and the country’s intelligence agencies have clearly devised a methodical, step-by-step campaign.

    Israeli forces initially focused on decapitating the Iranian military and scientific leadership and, just as importantly, destroying virtually all of Iran’s air defences.

    Israeli aircraft can not only operate freely over Iranian air space now, they can refuel and deposit more special forces at key sites to enable precision bombing of targets and attacks on hidden or well-protected nuclear facilities.

    In public statements since the start of the campaign, Netanyahu has highlighted two key aims: to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, and to encourage the Iranian people to overthrow the clerical regime.

    With those two objectives in mind, how might the conflict end? Several broad scenarios are possible.

    A return to negotiations

    US President Donald Trump’s special envoy for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, was to have attended a sixth round of talks with his Iranian counterparts on Sunday aimed at a deal to replace the Iran nuclear agreement negotiated under the Obama administration in 2015. Trump withdrew from that agreement during his first term in 2018, despite Iran’s apparent compliance to that point.

    Netanyahu was opposed to the 2015 agreement and has indicated he does not believe Iran is serious about a replacement.

    So, accepting negotiations as an outcome of the Israeli bombing campaign would be a massive climbdown by Netanyahu. He wants to use the defanging of Iran to reestablish his security credentials after the Hamas attacks of October 2023.

    Even though Trump continues to press Iran to accept a deal, negotiations are off the table for now. Trump won’t be able to persuade Netanyahu to stop the bombing campaign to restart negotiations.

    Complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear program

    Destruction of Iran’s nuclear program would involve destroying all known sites, including the Fordow uranium enrichment facility, about 100 kilometres south of Tehran.

    According to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi, the facility is located about half a mile underground, beneath a mountain. It is probably beyond the reach of even the US’ 2,000-pound deep penetration bombs.

    The entrances and ventilation shafts of the facility could be closed by causing landslides. But that would be a temporary solution.

    Taking out Fordow entirely would require an Israeli special forces attack. This is certainly possible, given Israel’s success in getting operatives into Iran to date. But questions would remain about how extensively the facility could be damaged and then how quickly it could be rebuilt.

    And destruction of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges – used to enrich uranium to create a bomb – would be only one step in dismantling its program.

    Israel would also have to secure or eliminate Iran’s stock of uranium already enriched to 60% purity. This is sufficient for up to ten nuclear bombs if enriched to the weapons-grade 90% purity.

    But does Israeli intelligence know where that stock is?

    Collapse of the Iranian regime

    Collapse of the Iranian regime is certainly possible, particularly given Israel’s removal of Iran’s most senior military leaders since its attacks began on Friday, including the heads of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Iranian armed forces.

    And anti-regime demonstrations over the years, most recently the “Women, Life, Freedom” protests after the death in police custody of a young Iranian woman, Mahsa Amini, in 2022, have shown how unpopular the regime is.

    That said, the regime has survived many challenges since coming to power in 1979, including war with Iraq in the 1980s and massive sanctions. It has developed remarkably efficient security systems that have enabled it to remain in place.

    Another uncertainty at this stage is whether Israeli attacks on civilian targets might engender a “rally round the flag” movement among Iranians.

    Netanyahu said in recent days that Israel had indications the remaining senior regime figures were packing their bags in preparation for fleeing the country. But he gave no evidence.

    A major party joins the fight

    Could the US become involved in the fighting?

    This can’t be ruled out. Iran’s UN ambassador directly accused the US of assisting Israel with its strikes.

    That is almost certainly true, given the close intelligence sharing between the US and Israel. Moreover, senior Republicans, such as Senator Lindsey Graham, have called on Trump to order US forces to help Israel “finish the job”.

    Trump would probably be loath to do this, particularly given his criticism of the “forever wars” of previous US administrations. But if Iran or pro-Iranian forces were to strike a US base or military asset in the region, pressure would mount on Trump to retaliate.

    Another factor is that Trump probably wants the war to end as quickly as possible. His administration will be aware the longer a conflict drags on, the more likely unforeseen factors will arise.

    Could Russia become involved on Iran’s side? At this stage that’s probably unlikely. Russia did not intervene in Syria late last year to try to protect the collapsing Assad regime. And Russia has plenty on its plate with the war in Ukraine.

    Russia criticised the Israeli attack when it started, but appears not to have taken any action to help Iran defend itself.

    And could regional powers such as Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates become involved?

    Though they have a substantial arsenal of US military equipment, the two countries have no interest in becoming caught up in the conflict. The Gulf Arab monarchies have engaged in a rapprochement with Iran in recent years after decades of outright hostility. Nobody would want to put this at risk.

    Uncertainties predominate

    We don’t know the extent of Iran’s arsenal of missiles and rockets. In its initial retaliation to Israel’s strikes, Iran has been able to partially overwhelm Israel’s Iron Dome air defence system, causing civilian casualties.

    If it can continue to do this, causing more civilian casualties, Israelis already unhappy with Netanyahu over the Gaza war might start to question his wisdom in starting another conflict.

    But we are nowhere near that point. Though it’s too early for reliable opinion polling, most Israelis almost certainly applaud Netanyahu’s action so far to cripple Iran’s nuclear program. In addition, Netanyahu has threatened to make Tehran “burn” if Iran deliberately targets Israeli civilians.

    We can be confident that Iran does not have any surprises in store. Israel has severely weakened its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. They are clearly in no position to assist Iran through diversionary attacks.

    The big question will be what comes after the war. Iran will almost certainly withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and forbid more inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    Israel will probably be able to destroy Iran’s existing nuclear facilities, but it’s only a question of when – not if – Iran will reconstitute them.

    This means the likelihood of Iran trying to secure a nuclear bomb in order to deter future Israeli attacks will be much higher. And the region will remain in a precarious place.

    Ian Parmeter 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. Netanyahu has two war aims: destroying Iran’s nuclear program and regime change. Are either achievable? – https://theconversation.com/netanyahu-has-two-war-aims-destroying-irans-nuclear-program-and-regime-change-are-either-achievable-259014

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Israel’s attacks on Iran are already hurting global oil prices, and the impact is set to worsen

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joaquin Vespignani, Associate Professor of Economics and Finance, University of Tasmania

    The weekend attacks on Iran’s oil facilities – widely seen as part of escalating hostilities between Israel and Iran – represent a dangerous moment for global energy security.

    While the physical damage to Iran’s production facilities is still being assessed, the broader strategic implications are already rippling through global oil markets. There is widespread concern about supply security and the inflationary consequences for both advanced and emerging economies.

    The global impact

    Iran, which holds about 9% of the world’s proven oil reserves, currently exports between 1.5 and 2 million barrels per day, primarily to China, despite long-standing United States sanctions.

    While its oil output is not as globally integrated as that of Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates, any disruption to Iranian production or export routes – especially the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil supply flows – poses a systemic risk.

    Markets have already reacted. Brent crude prices rose more than US 6%, while West Texas Intermediate price increased by over US 5% immediately after the attacks.

    These price movements reflect not only short-term supply concerns but also the addition of a geopolitical risk premium due to fears of broader regional conflict.

    International oil prices may increase further as the conflict continues. Analysts expect that Australian petrol prices will increase in the next few weeks, as domestic fuel costs respond to international benchmarks with a lag.

    Escalation and strategic intentions

    There is growing concern this conflict could escalate further. In particular, Israel may intensify its targeting of Iranian oil facilities, as part of a broader strategy to weaken Iran’s economic capacity and deter further proxy activities.

    Should this occur, it would put even more upward pressure on global oil prices. Unlike isolated sabotage events, a sustained campaign against Iranian energy infrastructure would likely lead to tighter global supply conditions. This would be a near certainty if Iranian retaliatory actions disrupt shipping routes or neighbouring producers.

    Countries most affected

    Countries reliant on oil imports – especially in Asia – are the most exposed to such shocks in the short term.

    India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Bangladesh rely heavily on Middle Eastern oil and are particularly vulnerable to both supply interruptions and price increases. These economies typically have limited strategic petroleum reserves and face external balance pressures when oil prices rise.

    China, despite being Iran’s largest oil customer, has greater insulation due to its diversified suppliers and substantial reserves.

    However, sustained instability in the Persian Gulf would raise freight and insurance costs even for Chinese refiners, especially if the Strait of Hormuz becomes a contested zone. The strait, between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, provides the only sea access from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean.

    Australia’s exposure

    Australia does not import oil directly from Iran. Most of its crude and refined products are sourced from countries including South Korea, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates and Singapore.

    However, because Australian fuel prices are pegged to international benchmarks such as Brent and Singapore Mogas, domestic prices will rise in response to the global increase in oil prices, regardless of whether Australian refineries process Iranian oil.

    These price increases will have flow-on effects, raising transport and freight costs across the economy. Industries such as agriculture, logistics, aviation and construction will feel the pinch, and higher operating costs are likely to be passed on to consumers.

    Broader economic impacts

    The conflict could also disrupt global shipping routes, particularly if Iran retaliates through its proxies by targeting vessels in the Red Sea, Arabian Sea, or Hormuz Strait.

    Any such disruption could drive up shipping insurance, delay delivery times, and compound existing global supply chain vulnerabilities. More broadly, this supply shock could rekindle inflationary pressures in many countries.

    For Australia, it could delay monetary easing by the Reserve Bank of Australia and reduce consumer confidence if household fuel costs rise significantly. Globally, central banks may adopt a more cautious approach to rate cuts if oil-driven inflation proves persistent.

    The attacks on Iran’s oil fields, and the likelihood of further escalation, present a renewed threat to global energy stability. Even though Australia does not import Iranian oil, it remains exposed through price transmission, supply chain effects and inflationary pressures.

    A sustained campaign targeting Iran’s energy infrastructure by Israel could amplify these risks, leading to a broader energy shock that would affect oil-importing economies worldwide.

    Strategic reserve management and diplomatic engagement will be essential to contain the fallout.

    Joaquin Vespignani is affiliated with the Centre for Australian Macroeconomic Analysis, Australian National University.

    – ref. Israel’s attacks on Iran are already hurting global oil prices, and the impact is set to worsen – https://theconversation.com/israels-attacks-on-iran-are-already-hurting-global-oil-prices-and-the-impact-is-set-to-worsen-259013

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: As war breaks out with Israel, Iran has run out of good options

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

    The scale of Israel’s strikes on multiple, sensitive Iranian military and nuclear sites on Friday was unprecedented. It was the biggest attack on Iran since the Iran–Iraq War in the 1980s.

    As expected, Iran responded swiftly, even as Israeli attacks on its territory continued. The unfolding conflict is reshaping regional dynamics, and Iran now finds itself with no easy path forward.

    Strikes come at a delicate time

    The timing of the Israeli strikes was highly significant. They came at a critical point in the high-stakes negotiations between Iran and the United States over Tehran’s nuclear program that began earlier this year.

    Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report accusing Tehran of stockpiling highly enriched uranium at levels dangerously close to weaponisation.

    According to the report, Iran has accumulated around 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity. If this uranium is further enriched to 90% purity, it would be enough to build nine to ten bombs.

    The day before Israel’s attack, the IAEA board of governors also declared Iran to be in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in two decades.

    The nuclear talks recently hit a stumbling block over a major issue – the US refusal to allow Iran to enrich any uranium at all for a civilian nuclear program.

    Iran has previously agreed to cap its enrichment at 3.67% under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a nuclear deal between Iran, the US and other global powers agreed to in 2015 (and abandoned by the first Trump administration in 2018). But it has refused to relinquish its right to enrichment altogether.

    US President Donald Trump reportedly urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to attack Iran last week, believing he was close to a deal.

    But after the attack, Trump ramped up his threats on Iran again, urging it to agree to a deal “before there is nothing left”. He called the Israeli strikes “excellent” and suggested there was “more to come”.

    Given this context, it is understandable why Iran does not view the US as an impartial mediator. In response, Iran suspended its negotiations with the US, announcing it would skip the sixth round of talks scheduled for Sunday.

    Rather than compelling Iran to agree to a deal, the excessive pressure could risk pushing Iran towards a more extreme stance instead.

    While Iranian officials have denied any intention to develop a military nuclear program, they have warned that continued Israeli attacks and US pressure might force Tehran to reconsider as a deterrence mechanism.



    Read more:
    As its conflict with Israel escalates, could Iran now acquire a nuclear bomb?

    Why surrender could spell the regime’s end

    On several occasions, Trump has insisted he is not seeking “regime change” in Iran. He has repeatedly claimed he wants to see Iran be “successful” – the only requirement is for it to accept a US deal.

    However, in Iran’s view, the US proposal is not viewed as a peace offer, but as a blueprint for surrender. And the fear is this would ultimately pave the way for regime change under the guise of diplomacy.

    Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei responded to the latest US proposal by insisting that uranium enrichment remains a “red line” for Iran. Abandoning this right from the Iranian perspective would only embolden its adversaries to escalate their pressure on the regime and make further demands – such as dismantling Iran’s missile program.

    The fear in Tehran is this could push the country into a defenceless state without a way to deter future Israeli strikes.

    Furthermore, capitulating to the US terms could ignite domestic backlash on two fronts: from an already growing opposition movement, and from the regime’s base of loyal supporters, who would see any retreat as a betrayal.

    In this context, many in Iran’s leadership believe that giving in to Trump’s terms would not avert regime change – it would hasten it.

    What options remain for Iran now?

    Caught between escalating pressure and existential threats, Iran finds itself with few viable options other than to project strength. It has already begun to pursue this strategy by launching retaliatory missile strikes at Israeli cities.

    This response has been much stronger than the relatively contained tit-for-tat strikes Israel and Iran engaged in last year. Iran’s strikes have caused considerable damage to government and residential areas in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

    Iran sees no alternative but to push forward, having already been drawn into open confrontation. Any sign of weakness would severely undermine the regime’s legitimacy at home and embolden its adversaries abroad.

    Moreover, Tehran is betting on Trump’s aversion to foreign wars. Iranian leaders believe the US is neither prepared nor willing to enter another costly conflict in the region – one that could disrupt global trade and jeopardise Trump’s recent economic partnerships with Persian Gulf states.

    Therefore, Iran’s leadership likely believes that by standing firm now, the conflict will be limited, so long as the US stays on the sidelines. And then, Iran’s leaders would try to return to the negotiating table, in their view, from a position of strength.

    Ali Mamouri 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. As war breaks out with Israel, Iran has run out of good options – https://theconversation.com/as-war-breaks-out-with-israel-iran-has-run-out-of-good-options-258916

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: News of the Air India plane crash is traumatic. Here’s how to make sense of the risk

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University

    simonkr/Getty Images

    On Thursday afternoon local time, an Air India passenger plane bound for London crashed shortly after takeoff from the northwestern Indian city of Ahmedabad. There were reportedly 242 people onboard, including two pilots and ten cabin crew.

    The most up-to-date reports indicate the death toll has surpassed 260, including people on the ground.

    Miraculously, one passenger – British national Vishwashkumar Ramesh – survived the crash.

    Thankfully, catastrophic plane crashes such as this are very rare. But seeing news of such a horrific event is traumatic, particularly for people who may have a fear of flying or are due to travel on a plane soon.

    If you’re feeling anxious following this distressing news, it’s understandable. But here are some things worth considering when you’re thinking about the risk of plane travel.

    Just how dangerous is flying?

    One of the ways to make sense of risks, especially really small ones, is to put them into context.

    Although there are various ways to do this, we can first look to figures that tell us the risk of dying in a plane crash per passenger who boards a plane. Arnold Barnett, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, calculated that in 2018–22, this figure was one in 13.7 million. By any reckoning, this is an incredibly small risk.

    And there’s a clear trend of air travel getting safer every decade. Barnett’s calculations suggest that between 2007 and 2017, the risk was one per 7.9 million.

    We can also compare the risks of dying in a plane crash with those of dying in a car accident. Although estimates of motor vehicle fatalities vary depending on how you do the calculations and where you are in the world, flying has been estimated to be more than 100 times safer than driving.

    Evolution has skewed our perception of risks

    The risk of being involved in a plane crash is extremely small. But for a variety of reasons, we often perceive it to be greater than it is.

    First, there are well-known limitations in how we intuitively estimate risk. Our responses to risk (and many other things) are often shaped far more by emotion and instinct than by logic.

    As psychologist Daniel Kahneman explains in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, much of our thinking about risk is driven by intuitive, automatic processes rather than careful reasoning.

    Notably, our brains evolved to pay attention to threats that are striking or memorable. The risks we faced in primitive times were large, immediate and tangible threats to life. Conversely, the risks we face in the modern world are generally much smaller, less obvious, and play out over the longer term.

    The brain that served us well in prehistoric times has essentially remained the same, but the world has completely changed. Therefore, our brains are susceptible to errors in thinking and mental shortcuts called cognitive biases that skew our perception of modern risks.

    This can lead us to overestimate very small risks, such as plane crashes, while underestimating far more probable dangers, such as chronic diseases.

    Why we overestimate the risks of flying

    There are several drivers of our misperception of risks when it comes to flying specifically.

    The fact events such as the Air India plane crash are so rare makes them all the more psychologically powerful when they do occur. And in today’s digital media landscape, the proliferation of dramatic footage of the crash itself, along with images of the aftermath, amplifies its emotional and visual impact.

    The effect these vivid images have on our thinking around the risks of flying is called the availability heuristic. The more unusual and dramatic an event is, the more it stands out in our minds, and the more it skews our perception of its likelihood.

    It’s natural to perceive the risk of flying as being greater than it truly is.
    OlegRi/Shutterstock

    Another influence on the way we perceive risks relevant to flying is called dread risk, which is a psychological response we have to certain types of threats. We fear certain risks that feel more catastrophic or unfamiliar. It’s the same reason we may disproportionately fear terrorist attacks, when in reality they’re very uncommon.

    Plane crashes usually involve a large number of deaths that occur at one time. And the thought of going down in a plane may feel more frightening than dying in other ways. All this taps into the emotions of fear, vulnerability and helplessness, and leads to an overweighting of the risks.

    Another factor that contributes to our overestimation of flying risks is our lack of control when flying. When we’re passengers on a plane, we are in many ways completely dependent on others. Even though we know pilots are highly trained and commercial aviation is very safe, the lack of control we have as passengers triggers a deep sense of vulnerability.

    This absence of control makes the situation feel riskier than it actually is, and often riskier than activities where the threat is far greater but there is an (often false) sense of control, such as driving a car.

    In a nutshell

    We have an evolutionary bias toward reacting more strongly to particular threats, especially when these events are dramatic, evoke dread and when we feel an absence of control.

    Although events such as Air India crash affect us deeply, air travel is still arguably the safest method of transport. Understandably, this can get lost in the emotional aftermath of tragic plane crashes.

    Hassan Vally 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. News of the Air India plane crash is traumatic. Here’s how to make sense of the risk – https://theconversation.com/news-of-the-air-india-plane-crash-is-traumatic-heres-how-to-make-sense-of-the-risk-258907

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Just one man survived the Air India crash. What’s it like to survive a mass disaster?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Smith, Associate Professor and Discipline Lead (Paramedicine), La Trobe University

    Vishwashkumar Ramesh, a British citizen returning from a trip to India, has been confirmed as the only survivor of Thursday’s deadly Air India crash.

    “I don’t know how I am alive,” Ramesh told family, according to his brother Nayan, in a video call moments after emerging from the wreckage. Another brother Ajay, seated elswhere on the plane, was killed.

    The Boeing 787-7 Dreamliner crashed into a medical college less than a minute after taking off in the city of Ahmedabad, killing the other 229 passengers and 12 crew. At least five people were killed on the ground.

    Surviving a mass disaster of this kind may be hailed as a kind of “miracle”. But what is it like to survive – especially as the only one?

    Surviving a disaster

    Past research has shown disaster survivors may experience an intense range of emotions, from grief and anxiety to feelings of loss and uncertainty.

    These are common reactions to an extraordinary situation.

    Some people may develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and have difficulty adjusting to a new reality after bearing witness to immense loss. They may also be dealing with physical recovery from injuries sustained in the disaster.

    Most people recover after disasters by drawing on their own strengths and the support of others. Recovery rates are high: generally less than one in ten of those affected by disasters develop chronic, long-term problems.

    However, being a sole survivor of a mass casualty may have its own complex psychological challenges.

    Survivor’s guilt

    Survivors can experience guilt they lived when others died.

    My friend, Gill Hicks, spoke to me for this article about the ongoing guilt she still feels, years after surviving the 2005 bombings of the London underground.

    Lying trapped in a smoke-filled train carriage, she was the last living person to be rescued after the attack. Gill lost both her legs.

    Yet she still wonders, “Why me? Why did I get to go home, when so many others didn’t?”

    In the case of a sole survivor, this guilt may be particularly acute. However, research addressing the impact of sole survivorship is limited. Most research that looks at the psychological impact of disaster focuses on the impact of disasters more broadly.

    Those interviewed for a 2013 documentary about surviving large plane crashes, Sole Survivor, express complex feelings – wanting to share their stories, but fearing being judged by others.

    Being the lone survivor can be a heavy burden.

    “I didn’t think I was worthy of the gift of being alive,” George Lamson Jr. told the documentary, after surviving a 1985 plane crash in Nevada that killed all others on board.

    Looking for meaning

    People who survive a disaster may also be under pressure to explain what happened and relive the trauma for the benefit of others.

    Vishwashkumar Ramesh was filmed and interviewed by media in the minutes and hours following the Air India crash. But as he told his brother: “I have no idea how I exited the plane”.

    It can be common for survivors themselves to be plagued by unanswerable questions. Did they live for a reason? Why did they live, when so many others died?

    These kinds of unaswerable questions reflect our natural inclination to look for meaning in experiences, and to have our life stories make sense.

    For some people, sharing a traumatic experience with others who’ve been through it or something similar can be a beneficial part of the recovery process, helping to process emotions and regain some agency and control.

    However, this may not always be possible for sole survivors, potentially compounding feelings of guilt and isolation.

    Coping with survivor guilt

    Survivor guilt can be an expression of grief and loss.

    Studies indicate guilt is notably widespread among individuals who have experienced traumatic events, and it is associated with heightened psychopathological symptoms (such as severe anxiety, insomnia or flashbacks) and thoughts of suicide.

    Taking time to process the traumatic event can help survivors cope, and seeking support from friends, family and community or faith leaders can help an individual work through difficult feelings.

    My friend Gill says the anxiety rises as the anniversary of the disaster approaches each year. Trauma reminders such as anniversaries are different to unexpected trauma triggers, but can still cause distress.

    Media attention around collectively experienced dates can also amplify trauma-related distress, contributing to a cycle of media consumption and increased worry about future events.

    On the 7th of July each year, Gill holds a private remembrance ritual. This allows her to express her grief and sense of loss, and to honour those who did not survive. These types of rituals can be a valuable tool in processing feelings of grief and guilt, offering a sense of control and meaning and facilitating the expression and acceptance of loss.

    But lingering guilt and anxiety – especially when it interferes with day-to-day life – should not be ignored. Ongoing survivor guilt is associated with significantly higher levels of post-traumatic symptoms.

    Survivors may need support from psychologists or mental health professionals in the short and long term.

    Erin Smith 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. Just one man survived the Air India crash. What’s it like to survive a mass disaster? – https://theconversation.com/just-one-man-survived-the-air-india-crash-whats-it-like-to-survive-a-mass-disaster-258905

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Why did Israel defy Trump – and risk a major war – by striking Iran now? And what happens next?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University

    Alarmed by an intelligence assessment that Iran will be able to produce nuclear weapons within months if not weeks, Israel has launched a massive air campaign aiming to destroy the country’s nuclear program.

    Israel’s air strikes hit Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz, as well as its air defences and long-range missile facilities.

    Among the dead are Hossein Salami, the chief of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guards Corps; Mohammad Bagheri, the commander-in-chief of the military; and two prominent nuclear scientists.

    Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has promised “severe punishment” in response. Iran could potentially target Israel’s own nuclear sites and US bases across the Persian Gulf. Israel claimed Iran launched 100 drones towards it just hours after the attack.

    The Middle East is yet again on the precipice of a potentially devastating war with serious regional and global implications.

    Stalled nuclear talks

    The Israeli operations come against the backdrop of a series of inconclusive nuclear talks between the United States and Iran. These negotiations began in mid-April at President Donald Trump’s request and aimed to reach a deal within months.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposed the talks, pressing for military action instead as the best option to halt Iran’s nuclear program.

    The diplomatic efforts had stalled in recent weeks over Trump’s demand that Iran agree to a zero-uranium enrichment posture and destroy its stockpile of some 400 kilograms of enriched uranium at a 60% purity level. This could be rapidly enriched further to weapons-grade level.

    Tehran refused to oblige, calling it a “non-negotiable”.

    Netanyahu has long pledged to eliminate what he has called the Iranian “octopus” – the regime’s vast network of regional affiliates, including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the regime of former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, and the Houthi militants in Yemen.

    Following Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7 2023, Israel’s military has considerably degraded these Iranian affiliates, one by one. Now, Netanyahu has now gone for beheading the octopus.

    Trump keeping his distance

    Netanyahu has in the past urged Washington to join him in a military operation against Iran. However, successive US leaders have not found it desirable to ignite or be involved in another Middle East war, especially after the debacle in Iraq and its failed Afghanistan intervention.

    Despite his strong commitment to Israel’s security and regional supremacy, Trump has been keen to follow this US posture, for two important reasons.

    He has not forgotten Netanyahu’s warm congratulations to Joe Biden when he defeated Trump in the 2020 US presidential election.

    Nor has Trump been keen to be too closely aligned with Netanyahu at the expense of his lucrative relations with oil-rich Arab states. He recently visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates on a trip to the Middle East, while bypassing Israel.

    Indeed, this week, Trump had warned Netanyahu not to do anything that could undermine the US nuclear talks with Iran. He has been keen to secure a deal to boost his self-declared reputation as a peace broker, despite not having done very well so far on this front.

    But as the nuclear talks seemed to be reaching a dead end, Netanyahu decided now was the moment to act.

    The Trump administration has distanced itself from the attack, saying it had no involvement. It remains to be seen whether the US will now get involved to defend Israel if and when Iran retaliates.

    What a wider war could mean

    Israel has shown it has the capacity to unleash overwhelming firepower, causing serious damage to Iran’s nuclear and military facilities and infrastructure. But the Iranian Islamic regime also has the capability to retaliate, with all the means at its disposal.

    Despite the fact the Iranian leadership faces serious domestic issues on political, social and economic fronts, it still has the ability to target Israeli and US assets in the region with advanced missiles and drones.

    It also has the capability to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20–25% of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments flow. Importantly, Iran has strategic partnerships with both Russia and China, as well.

    Depending on the nature and scope of the Iranian response, the current conflict could easily develop into an uncontrollable regional war, with none of the parties emerging as victor. A major conflict could not only further destabilise what is already a volatile Middle East, but also upend the fragile global geopolitical and economic landscape.

    The Middle East cannot afford another war. Trump had good reasons to restrain Netanyahu’s government while the nuclear negotiations were taking place to see if he could hammer out a deal.

    Whether this deal can be salvaged amid the chaos is unclear. The next round of negotiations was due to be held on Sunday in Oman, but Iran said it would not attend and all talks were off until further notice.

    Iran and the US, under Barack Obama, had agreed a nuclear deal before – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Although Netanyahu branded it “the worst deal of the century”, it appeared to be holding until Trump, urged by Netanyahu, unilaterally withdrew from it in 2018.

    Now, Netanyahu has taken the military approach to thwart Iran’s nuclear program. And the region – and rest of the world – will have to wait and see if another war can be averted before it’s too late.

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

    – ref. Why did Israel defy Trump – and risk a major war – by striking Iran now? And what happens next? – https://theconversation.com/why-did-israel-defy-trump-and-risk-a-major-war-by-striking-iran-now-and-what-happens-next-258917

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What do we know about the Air India crash? How did one man survive? What now? An aviation safety expert explains

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

    The back of Air India flight 171 after it crashed into a residential building in Ahmedabad. Sam Panthaky / AFP via Getty Images

    An Air India flight crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad in northwest India on Thursday afternoon local time, killing more than 260 people.

    The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, Flight AI171, was carrying 242 people bound for London. Only one passenger, a British man, survived.

    The plane crashed less than a minute after takeoff, coming down on top of a college hostel around 1.5 kilometres from the runway. Little is known so far about the cause of the incident.

    As an aviation safety expert, it is hard to avoid a sense of disbelief that an event such as this – involving one of the most advanced passenger jets in the world, built on the lessons of many earlier accidents – could happen in the 21st century.

    Trouble after takeoff

    Air crashes such as this one, in which a plane experiences trouble immediately after takeoff, are now extremely rare. They were more common in the past.

    In one infamous 1999 incident, 32 people died when LAPA Flight 3142 crashed during takeoff from Buenos Aires. During the accident investigation, it emerged that the Boeing 737’s wing flaps had not been in the right position for takeoff and the crew had ignored alarms from the plane’s internal warning system.

    The 2009 emergency landing of US Airways Flight 1549 on New York’s Hudson River also occurred shortly after takeoff. In that case, the problem was quite different: a collision with a flock of Canada geese shut down both engines, leading to a powerless aircraft.

    However, the aviation industry puts a lot of resources into learning from accidents so they don’t happen again. LAPA Flight 3142 led to recommended improvements in pilot training and flight procedures. The rules for engine design were changed after the “miracle on the Hudson”.

    So whatever caused the Air India crash, it may not be something we have seen before.

    How did one passenger survive?

    One passenger survived the crash. We don’t know exactly how.

    He was sitting in seat 11A, next to an emergency exit. Reports say the plane “broke in half”, and the passenger found himself in the front half while the rear caught fire. He then walked from the wreckage and was found by rescuers.

    Why did he survive when everybody else died? Research suggests that, in general, the seats at the back of the plane are the safest place to be in a crash – but this man was quite close to the front.

    Based on what we know so far, my expert opinion is that we have no better explanation than to call it luck or a miracle.

    Where to from here?

    We won’t have a clear idea of what happened until a full investigation has been carried out. Air crash investigations follow a protocol laid out by an International Civil Aviation Organization document called Annex 14.

    India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau will lead this investigation, putting together a team that will be assisted by representatives from the US National Transport Safety Bureau and the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch, representing the countries of the plane’s manufacturer and passengers aboard.

    Rescuers sift through the wreckage of Flight AI171 in Ahmedabad.
    Sam Panthaky / AFP via Getty Images

    The team will conduct a forensic investigation of the crash site to make sense of what happened. Alongside material evidence found at the site, they will look at the data stored in the plane’s “black box”, which includes data from the flight recorder and cockpit voice recorder, to learn about what happened in the leadup to the crash.

    A slow, steady process

    Air crash investigations can take a long time. Typically a preliminary report will be published 3 to 6 months after the crash, followed by a final report a year or two later.

    The report will provide factual information on the cause of the accident and make recommendations. Depending on the cause, these might be changes to maintenance procedures, pilot and crew procedures, or even the design of parts of the aircraft.

    Indian authorities will then disseminate these recommendations to whoever needs them around the world. The process is slow, but it moves in the direction of safer air travel. Everyone will be waiting to find out and learn.

    In the meantime, it’s best to remember that we still don’t know what happened or why. Everyone wants answers, but speculation can do more harm than good.

    Guido Carim Junior 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 do we know about the Air India crash? How did one man survive? What now? An aviation safety expert explains – https://theconversation.com/what-do-we-know-about-the-air-india-crash-how-did-one-man-survive-what-now-an-aviation-safety-expert-explains-258910

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Speculation about the cause of Air India crash is rife. An aviation expert explains why it’s a problem

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natasha Heap, Program Director for the Bachelor of Aviation, University of Southern Queensland

    It has only been a few hours since Air India flight AI171 crashed in Ahmedabad, killing more than 260 people, yet public speculation about the causes of the disaster is already rife.

    Parts of the media seem to be encouraging this. For example, earlier today I was contacted by an international news organisation for an interview about the tragedy. While I agreed, I cautioned that I could only say “it is too early to speculate”. They decided not to proceed with the interview. No reason was given, but perhaps it was my aversion to speculation.

    Of course, I want to know as much as anyone else what caused this disaster. But publicly speculating at such an early stage, when there is so little evidence available, is more than unhelpful. It is also harmful, as many examples throughout history have shown.

    Like an archaeological excavation

    Aviation accident investigations start as soon as first responders have extinguished the fires and completed the search for survivors – the first and foremost driver when responding to such a disaster – and have declared the site safe. The identification of the victims will then commence, completed by a different agency, parallel to the accident investigation.

    State authorities aren’t the only people involved. The aircraft manufacturer (in this case Boeing) will usually send representatives to assist the investigation, as can the home countries of victims. Investigators in the country where the accident occurred may also request assistance from countries with more experience in aviation accident investigation.

    An early step for investigators is finding the black boxes (flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorder) among the debris. These contain data about the flight itself, what the aircraft was doing, and what the pilots were saying.

    But a plane crash investigation involves much more than just finding the black box.

    An aviation accident investigation is akin to an archaeological excavation – methodical and painstaking. If the evidence is not collected and preserved for later analysis at the time, it will be irrevocably lost.

    In the case of Air India Flight 171 the scene is further complicated by the crash location – a building. It will take time for the aeroplane wreckage, victims and personal belongings to be sorted from the building debris. This must occur before the search for answers can commence.

    Investigators will also gather witness statements and any video of the event. Their analysis will be further informed by company documentation, training, and regulatory compliance information.

    Around 80% of aviation accidents are due to “human factors”.

    According to the International Civil Aviation Organisation human factors are:

    what we know about human beings including their abilities, characteristics, and limitations, the design of procedures and equipment people use, and the environment in which they function and the tasks they perform.

    It could take several years for the full forensic investigation into this disaster to run its full course. For example, the final report into the Sea World helicopter crash in Queensland, Australia, back in 2023, which claimed the lives of four people and injured nine others, was only released in April this year.

    A history of speculation – and vilification

    There is a long history of undue and harmful public speculation about the possible causes of a plane crash.

    For example, since the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 on March 8, 2014, speculation has swirled about whether chief pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah was responsible for the disaster and the deaths of the other 238 people on board. This has deeply upset his sister, Sakinab Shah. In 2016, she told CNN she feels her brother is a “scapegoat” she must defend.

    Similarly, the pilots of the British Midlands accident near Kegworth in 1989, in which 47 people died, were also publicly vilified.

    The pilots, who survived the crash, were experienced but misidentified which engine had failed, and shut down the wrong one. They were widely criticised in the press for the error, tarnishing their reputations, losing their jobs, and no doubt causing more stress to their families. The investigation later revealed the pilots themselves had not received any simulator training as they transitioned to a newer variant of the aircraft they were flying.

    This shows how undue public speculation about an airline disaster can add to the distress of victims and their families.

    Respect the process

    No doubt pilots and aviation experts are speculating in private right now about the causes of this particular disaster. Cafes, pubs and crew rooms will be rife with discussions and opinions. It is human nature to want to know what happened.

    But to speculate in public won’t assist the investigative process. Nor will it help the families of the victims, or the first responders and investigators themselves, get through this horrible time.

    Investigators need to work without external pressures to ensure accurate findings. Respecting this process maintains integrity and supports the many people who are currently experiencing unimaginable grief.

    Natasha Heap 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. Speculation about the cause of Air India crash is rife. An aviation expert explains why it’s a problem – https://theconversation.com/speculation-about-the-cause-of-air-india-crash-is-rife-an-aviation-expert-explains-why-its-a-problem-258911

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How long is a vagina? And how do I know if mine is ‘short’?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Keersten Fitzgerald, Lecturer in General Practice, University of Sydney

    Jarrod Simpson/Getty

    We often use the word vagina to describe everything “down there”, but that’s not actually anatomically correct.

    The vagina is the stretchy, muscular tube that connects the external genitalia, or vulva, to the cervix, which is the entrance to the uterus (womb).

    Because it’s barely visible from the outside, many vagina owners wonder how long theirs is, or should be.

    Worried teenagers going through puberty regularly asked “Dolly Doctor” – the medical advice column Melissa wrote for over 20 years in Dolly magazine – whether their vaginas were too small or short.

    Often they were asking because inserting a tampon was difficult or painful.

    The vagina is an incredibly adaptable part of the body and its length can change – across your lifetime, within the month, and with hormonal changes and sexual arousal.

    Length at different life stages

    Before puberty, the vagina usually measures between 5.5 and 8cm in length.

    During puberty (usually between 8–13 years old), not only does the length of the vagina increase, but hormones also change the vaginal lining.

    In the time of life between puberty and menopause, oestrogen levels rise and cause the lining of the vagina to thicken and soften. This is what makes the vagina moist and responsive to stimuli, such as when aroused.

    By adulthood, the vagina is typically between 6.5cm and 12.5cm. This varies greatly from person to person and continues to change at different times during our lives.

    What else can change the vagina’s length?

    When someone has their period, generally the cervix sits in a lower position, meaning the vaginal canal is shorter. Then, after menstruation, the cervix lifts upwards again and reaches its highest point during ovulation.

    The length of the vagina also changes during different reproductive stages. For example, in pregnancy the cervix sits higher up, meaning the vagina is longer.

    On the other hand, menopause, along with many other impacts such as vaginal dryness, can shorten the vaginal canal.

    A pelvic organ prolapse can also make the vagina shorter. This is when the pelvic floor becomes weakened and organs such as the womb or bladder bulge into the vagina.



    Read more:
    What is pelvic organ prolapse and how is it treated?

    There are also some very rare conditions that can affect the development of the vagina before birth, such as vaginal atresia, which can cause the vagina to not fully form.

    What about sex?

    Sex also has a large impact on vaginal length.

    When someone with a vagina becomes aroused the vagina gets longer and moves the cervix further from the vaginal opening, which allows for sexual penetration.

    Despite this lengthening of the vagina, contact with the cervix can still occur during sex, for example with a sex toy, finger or penis. Some people will find cervical stimulation painful or sensitive, while for others it may be pleasurable.

    How sex feels can also change depending on your menstrual cycle.

    Remember, when you have your period, the cervix is likely to be sitting lower, so this can increase the chance of contact with the cervix during sex, especially during certain sexual positions.

    Touching the cervix during sex is very unlikely to cause any damage, although sometimes with vigorous sexual intercourse it can cause bruising. This is not usually dangerous and heals on its own.

    Ongoing communication with your partner is crucial to check in and see what feels good for both of you.

    So, how long is my vagina?

    It can be useful to feel the length of your vagina and the position of your cervix.

    For example, if you want to use a menstrual cup during your period, some brands will have different sizes. If you have a shorter vaginal canal, then a shorter or smaller cup may achieve a better fit.

    However, other factors – such as your age and how heavy your periods are – can also impact what size is right for you.

    To feel the position of your cervix, first wash your hands with soap and water. This is best done around the time of your period, when the vaginal canal will be shorter.

    Find a comfortable position, such as sitting, squatting or having one leg bent up on a chair. Then insert your finger into the vagina aiming up and back.

    The vagina feels soft and squishy, whereas the cervix is smooth and firm, with a tiny divot in the centre – imagine a mini doughnut.

    If you have to really stretch to feel the cervix, you may opt for a longer cup, whereas if you don’t need to insert your whole finger, it is probably sitting a bit lower and you may be more comfortable with a smaller size.

    Keep in mind, this will just give you a rough idea of your vagina’s length and where your cervix is sitting (although it may change tomorrow).



    Read more:
    Menstrual cups are safe and sustainable – but they can be tricky for first-time users, our new study shows

    Does the length of your vagina matter?

    All of our bodies are unique and there is a wide range of “normal”. Generally, having a “short” or “long” vagina doesn’t make any real difference.

    For example, a 2009 study of women over the age of 40 found vaginal length doesn’t affect sexual activity or function.

    The vagina is extremely elastic and can stretch and mould to accommodate a variety of needs, before returning back to its baseline.

    There are some symptoms that would be worth discussing with your GP though, such as pain during sex, difficulty inserting tampons or menstrual cups, or if you are concerned about a prolapse.

    Melissa Kang is affiliated in a volunteer capacity with the Australian Association for Adolescent Health and the International Association for Adolescent Health. She was the medical writer for the Dolly Doctor column in Dolly magazine between 1993 and 2016.

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

    – ref. How long is a vagina? And how do I know if mine is ‘short’? – https://theconversation.com/how-long-is-a-vagina-and-how-do-i-know-if-mine-is-short-256206

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump may push Albanese on defence spending, but Australia has leverage it can use, too

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Corben, Research Fellow, Foreign Policy and Defence, University of Sydney

    Ahead of a prospective meeting between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and US President Donald Trump at the G7 Summit Canada, two key developments have bumped defence issues to the top of the alliance agenda.

    First, in a meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles late last month, US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth urged Australia to boost defence spending to 3.5% of gross domestic product (GDP).

    This elicited a stern response from Albanese that “Australia should decide what we spend on Australia’s defence.”

    Then, this week, news emerged the Pentagon is conducting a review of the AUKUS deal to ensure it aligns with Trump’s “America First” agenda.

    Speculation is rife as to the reasons for the review. Some contend it’s a classic Trump “shakedown” to force Australia to pay more for its submarines, while others say it’s a normal move for any new US administration.



    Read more:
    Trump may try to strike a deal with AUKUS review, but here’s why he won’t sink it

    The reality is somewhere in between. Trump may well see an opportunity to “own” the AUKUS deal negotiated by his predecessor, Joe Biden, by seeking to extract a “better deal” from Australia.

    But while support for AUKUS across the US system is strong, the review also reflects long-standing and bipartisan concerns in the US over the deal. These include, among other things, Australia’s functional and fiscal capacity to take charge of its own nuclear-powered submarines once they are built.

    So, why have these issues come up now, just before Albanese’s first face-to-face meeting with Trump?

    To understand this, it’s important to place both issues in a wider context. We need to consider the Trump administration’s overall approach to alliances, as well as whether Australia’s defence budget matches our strategy.

    Trump, alliances and burden-sharing

    Senior Pentagon figures noted months ago that defence spending was their “main concern” with Australia in an otherwise “excellent” relationship.

    But such concerns are not exclusive to Australia. Rather, they speak to Trump’s broader approach to alliances worldwide – he wants US allies in Europe and Asia to share more of the burden, as well.

    Trump’s team sees defence spending (calculated as a percentage of GDP) as a basic indicator of an ally’s seriousness about both their own national defence and collective security with Washington.

    As Hegseth noted in testimony before Congress this week, “we can’t want [our allies’] security more than they do.”

    Initially, the Trump administration’s burden-sharing grievances with NATO received the most attention. The government demanded European allies boost spending to 5% of GDP in the interests of what prominent MAGA figures have called “burden-owning”.

    Several analysts interpreted these demands as indicative of what will be asked of Asian partners, including Australia.

    In reality, what Washington wants from European and Indo-Pacific allies differs in small but important ways.

    In Europe, the Trump administration wants allies to assume near-total responsibility for their own defence to enable the US to focus on bigger strategic priorities. These include border security at home and, importantly, Chinese military power in the Indo-Pacific.

    By contrast, Trump’s early moves on defence policy in Asia have emphasised a degree of cooperation and mutual benefit.

    The administration has explicitly linked its burden-sharing demands with a willingness to work with its allies – Japan, South Korea, Australia and others – in pursuit of a strategy of collective defence to deter Chinese aggression.

    This reflects a long-standing recognition in Washington that America needs its allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific perhaps more than anywhere else in the world. The reason: to support US forces across the vast Pacific and Indian oceans and to counter China’s growing ability to disrupt US military operations across the region.

    In other words, the US must balance its demands of Indo-Pacific allies with the knowledge that it also needs their help to succeed in Asia.

    This means the Albanese government can and should engage the Trump administration with confidence on defence matters – including AUKUS.

    It has a lot to offer America, not just a lot to lose.

    Australian defence spending

    But a discussion over Australia’s defence spending is not simply a matter of alliance management. It also speaks to the genuine challenges Australia faces in matching its strategy with its resources.

    Albanese is right to say Australia will set its own defence policy based on its needs rather than an arbitrary percentage of GDP determined by Washington.

    But it’s also true Australia’s defence budget must match the aspirations and requirements set out in its 2024 National Defence Strategy. This is necessary for our defence posture to be credible.

    This document paints a sobering picture of the increasingly fraught strategic environment Australia finds itself in. And it outlines an ambitious capability development agenda to allow Australia to do its part to maintain the balance of power in the region, alongside the United States and other partners.

    But there is growing concern in the Australian policy community that our defence budget is insufficient to meet these goals.

    For instance, one of the lead authors of Australia’s 2023 Defence Strategic Review, Sir Angus Houston, mused last year that in order for AUKUS submarines to be a “net addition” to the nation’s military capability, Australia would need to increase its defence spending to more than 3% of GDP through the 2030s.

    Otherwise, he warned, AUKUS would “cannibalise” investments in Australia’s surface fleet, long-range strike capabilities, air and missile defence, and other capabilities.

    There’s evidence the Australian government understands this, too. Marles and the minister for defence industry, Pat Conroy, have both said the government is willing to “have a conversation” about increasing spending, if required to meet Australia’s strategic needs.

    This is all to say that an additional push from Trump on defence spending and burden-sharing – however unpleasantly delivered – would not be out of the ordinary. And it may, in fact, be beneficial for Australia’s own deliberations on its defence spending needs.

    Thomas Corben receives funding from the Australian Department of Defence.

    – ref. Trump may push Albanese on defence spending, but Australia has leverage it can use, too – https://theconversation.com/trump-may-push-albanese-on-defence-spending-but-australia-has-leverage-it-can-use-too-258811

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: As Antarctic sea ice shrinks, iconic emperor penguins are in more peril than we thought

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dana M Bergstrom, Honorary Senior Fellow in Ecology, University of Wollongong

    When winter comes to Antarctica, seals and Adélie penguins leave the freezing shores and head for the edge of the forming sea ice. But emperor penguins stay put.

    The existence of emperor penguins seems all but impossible. Their lives revolve around seasons, timing and access to “fast ice” – sea ice connected to the Antarctic coast. Here, the sea ice persists long enough into summer for the penguins to rear their chicks successfully.

    But climate change is upending the penguins’ carefully tuned biological cycles. The crucial sea ice they depend on is melting too early, plunging the chicks from some colonies into the sea before they are fully fledged.

    In the latest bad news for these penguins, research by the British Antarctic Survey examined satellite images from 2009 to 2024 to assess fast-ice conditions at 16 emperor penguin colonies south of South America. They noted an average 22% fall in numbers across these colonies. That translates to a decrease of 1.6% every year.

    This rate of loss is staggering. As the paper’s lead author Peter Fretwell told the ABC, the rate is about 50% worse than even the most pessimistic estimates.

    Emperor penguin colonies can number in the tens of thousands. But these numbers obscure an alarming trend.
    Robert Harding Video/Shutterstock

    Breeding while it’s freezing

    Just like polar bears in the Arctic, emperor penguins are the iconic species threatened by climate change in Antarctica.

    Emperor penguins are a highly successful species. They’re the tallest and heaviest penguin alive today. They evolved about one million years ago, and are highly adapted to life in one of Earth’s harshest environments. As of 2009, the emperor penguin population was estimated at just shy of 600,000 birds.

    Unfortunately, they are now in real trouble, because their breeding habitat appears to be reducing.

    At the beginning of every Antarctic winter, the surface of the ocean begins to freeze and sea ice forms. Over March and April, emperor penguins aggregate into raucous breeding colonies along the coast of the ice continent. They need about nine months to care for their chicks, until the young penguins can go to sea and look after themselves.

    The males frequently huddle to keep each other warm and their eggs safe. Meanwhile, the females spend months at sea catching krill, squid and fish, returning in July/August to feed their hungry chicks. When summer finally comes in December, the chicks start to shed their down and grow a dense, waterproof plumage – like a feathery armour against the intensely cold seas off the icy continent.

    Breeding locations are a kind of “Goldilocks” zone. When choosing a home, the penguins have to find a place that is safe but not too far from the fast ice edge where they go to start hunting.

    The greater the distance they have to travel, the longer it takes to return to their offspring, and the chicks may miss out on meals. But if a colony is too close to the edge of the fast ice, the risk increases that the ice breaks up before the chicks are ready to go to sea. Although fast ice can cover vast areas of the ocean surface, its edge is exposed to the swell of the Southern Ocean.

    In recent years, the fast ice in different parts of Antarctica has been breaking up early, before the chicks have moulted into their adult plumage. Without waterproof plumage, chicks perish because the cold water kills quickly. As this happens more often, the size of a colony shrinks.

    How bad is it?

    We don’t yet know if this rate of loss is happening right across Antarctica. The study only covers a the part of the continent that includes the Antarctic Peninsula and the Weddell Sea.

    What we do know is that Antarctica and its unique biodiversity are not immune to the consequences of still-rising global greenhouse gas emissions.

    In 2021, emperor penguins were listed as endangered by the United States, because the risk of extinction by century’s end had increased. Australia has not yet listed the emperor penguin as a threatened species.

    The new research suggests the future of these iconic birds is not looking good. Until the world gets serious about cutting greenhouse gas emissions, sea ice will retreat – and more chicks will fall into the icy water before they are ready to launch.

    Seabird ecologist Dr Barbara Wienecke contributed to this article.

    Dana M Bergstrom is affiliated with the Pure Antarctic Foundation, a group of scientists and artists interested in communicating science and knowledge to the broader community.

    – ref. As Antarctic sea ice shrinks, iconic emperor penguins are in more peril than we thought – https://theconversation.com/as-antarctic-sea-ice-shrinks-iconic-emperor-penguins-are-in-more-peril-than-we-thought-258807

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: NZ has a vast sea territory but lags behind other nations in protecting the ocean

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Conrad Pilditch, Professor of Marine Sciences, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

    Getty Images

    For the past fortnight, the city of Nice in France has been the global epicentre of ocean science and politics.

    Last week’s One Ocean Science Congress ended with a unanimous call for action to turn around the degradation of the ocean. And this week, the United Nation’s Ocean Conference agenda focused on better protection of marine biodiversity, sustainable fisheries and emissions cuts.

    The message is clear. With only five years to the UN’s 2030 target for its sustainable development goal – to conserve the oceans, seas and marine resources – and the Global Biodiversity Framework requirement to protect 30% of the ocean, we need to make significant progress.

    We all attended last week’s meeting, together with more than 2,000 marine scientists from 120 countries. Here, we reflect on New Zealand’s role and obligations to contribute to these global goals.

    Legal imperatives

    Globally, the ocean is warming and acidifying at accelerating rates. New Zealand’s waters are not immune to this, with more marine heatwaves which further stress our threatened marine biodiversity.

    We depend directly on these ocean ecosystems to provide the air we breathe, moderate the impacts of climate change and feed millions of people.

    New Zealand has significant influence on ocean policy – from Antarctica to the sub-tropical Pacific, and within its sea territory, which is 15 times the size of its landmass and spans 30 degrees of latitude.

    The government is required by law to take action to secure a healthy ocean.

    A recent advisory opinion from the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea unanimously found that states, including New Zealand, have obligations under international law to reduce the impacts of climate change on marine areas, to apply an ecosystem approach to marine law and policy, reduce pollution and support the restoration of the ocean.

    New Zealand courts have recognised the need to take a precautionary and ecosystem-based approach to marine management, based on science, tikanga and mātauranga Māori. These legal cases are part of a global upswell of strategic environmental and climate litigation.

    If New Zealand does not comply with these marine legal obligations, it may well find itself before the courts, incurring significant legal and reputational costs.

    New Zealand committed to protecting at least 30% of the world’s coastal and marine areas by the end of this decade.
    Getty Images

    International agreements

    In 2022, New Zealand was one of 196 countries that committed to protecting at least 30% of the world’s coastal and marine areas by 2030 under the Global Biodiversity Framework. New Zealand was an enthusiastic supporter, but only 0.4% of its marine territory is fully protected in no-take marine reserves.

    Former prime minister Helen Clark has criticised the current government for lagging behind on marine protection, especially in failing to ban bottom trawling.

    At this week’s UN ocean summit, a further 18 countries have ratified an agreement known as the High Seas Treaty, bringing the total to 50, still short of the 60 nations needed for it to enter into force.

    New Zealand signed this treaty just before the last general election, but is yet to ratify it. Foreign Minister Winston Peters represented New Zealand at the UN ocean conference, but focused mainly on issues in the Pacific.

    Meanwhile, the government announced sweeping changes to the national direction on environmental policy, including reworking the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement to better enable the use and development of the coastal environment for “priority activities” such as aquaculture, resource extraction, infrastructure and energy.

    Oceanic environmental change is real and accelerating

    Some countries showed that effective leadership can help navigate to a safe future for the oceans. For example, China’s commitment to clean energy has seen carbon dioxide emissions begin to fall for the first time despite higher power consumption.

    At the UN ocean summit, French Polynesia’s president announced his administration would establish one of the world’s largest networks of marine protected areas.

    The cost of inaction far outweighs the economics of the status quo. Ongoing ocean warming is already affecting weather patterns, with more extreme storms.

    It is possible for marine ecosystems to recover quite rapidly if they are protected, at least temporarily. Yet this year, New Zealand’s government found itself in hot water (once again) with both conservationists and Māori for its management of fisheries.

    We argue New Zealand has an opportunity and responsibility to demonstrate it can shift the downward spiral of oceanic degradation.

    The overwhelming message at the half-way point of the UN Ocean Decade is that for marine science to transform the state of our oceans it needs to include Indigenous peoples who have routinely been sidelined from ocean policy discussions despite their longstanding rights and relationships with the ocean.

    New Zealand already has a foundation of transdisciplinary and Indigenous ocean research to develop ocean policies that are fit for local purposes and to answer global calls to action. We have a unique window of opportunity to lead the changes needed.

    Conrad Pilditch currently receives funding from the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment.

    Elizabeth Macpherson receives funding from Te Apārangi The Royal Society.

    Karin Bryan receives funding from the Marsden Fund, the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment, the George Mason Centre for the Natural Environment and Waikato Regional Council.

    Simon Francis Thrush receives funding from ERC, Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and the Auckland Foundation

    Joanne Ellis, Karen Fisher, and Rachael Mortiaux 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. NZ has a vast sea territory but lags behind other nations in protecting the ocean – https://theconversation.com/nz-has-a-vast-sea-territory-but-lags-behind-other-nations-in-protecting-the-ocean-258470

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: US Army’s image of power and flag-waving rings false to Gen Z weary of gun violence − and long-term recruitment numbers show it

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacob Ware, Adjunct Professor of Domestic Terrorism, Georgetown University

    A recruit participates in the Army’s future soldier prep course at Fort Jackson in Columbia, S.C., on Sept. 25, 2024. AP Photo/Chris Carlson

    The U.S. Army will celebrate its 250th birthday on Saturday, June 14, 2025, with a parade in Washington, D.C., in which about 6,600 soldiers and heavy pieces of military equipment will roll through the streets. The parade aims to display the Army’s history and power.

    “It’s going to be incredible,” President Donald Trump recently said. Trump’s 79th birthday also occurs on June 14.

    Despite the festivities, however, the parade will occur amid bleak times for the U.S. military, as it experiences a multiyear decline in recruitment numbers. In the face of a pandemic and a strong civilian job market, the Army, Air Force and Navy all missed their recruitment goals in 2022 and 2023. In 2022, the Army missed its quota by 25%.

    In 2024, the U.S. military met its recruitment target, which supports the argument that the bump is not due to Trump, as recruitment levels began to rise again before his reelection. But in some cases, the U.S. military has met its recruitment goals by lowering target numbers.

    And as a scholar of terrorism and targeted violence, I believe a close reading of available data on military recruitment suggests U.S. gun violence may be largely to blame for the lack of interest in joining the military.

    Gun violence data

    Regardless of one’s personal politics, the data on U.S. gun violence makes for painful reading.

    Almost 47,000 Americans died from gun-related injuries in 2023. In 2022, there were 51 school shootings in which students were injured or killed by guns. And gun injuries are the leading cause of death for Americans between ages 1 and 19.

    Data about the perceptions of gun violence is equally staggering, especially among American youth between ages 14 and 30.

    Four out of five American youth believe gun violence to be a problem, and 25% have endured real active-shooter lockdowns, according to data compiled by Everytown for Gun Safety, where I serve as a survivor fellow, the Southern Poverty Law Center and American University’s Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab.

    Moreover, these perceptions have considerable impacts on youth mental health and their sense of safety. Studies have linked concern over school shootings among adolescents with higher rates of anxiety and trauma-related disorders.

    As Arne Duncan, who served as President Barack Obama’s secretary of education during the Sandy Hook tragedy, said in 2023: “Unfortunately, what’s now binding young people across the country together is not joy of music, or sports, or whatever, it’s really the shared pain of gun violence – and it cuts through race and class and geography and economics.”

    National security threat

    In the past couple of years, polls taken of Generation Z youth, born between 1997 and 2012, suggest mental health and mass shootings are among the most important political issues motivating this band of voters.

    Gun violence, in other words, is a national security emergency, undermining the U.S. government’s ability to protect its citizens in their schools, places of worship and communities.

    As former Marine Gen. John Allen wrote in 2019: “Americans today are more likely to experience gun violence at home than they might in many of the places to which I deployed in the name of defending our nation.”

    U.S. Army National Guard members stand outside the Army National Guard office during training on April 21, 2022, in Washington.
    AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, File

    Rewriting American culture

    Accordingly, gun violence has undercut American patriotism, corroding the U.S. government’s soft power within its own borders. Generation Z, termed by some as the “lockdown generation,” is often derided as less patriotic than its predecessors.

    Surprising Gen Z Research.

    Also, the belief in American exceptionalism is dropping among millennials, born between 1981 and 1996. That perception is combined with less confidence in U.S. global engagement and the efficacy of military solutions.

    American culture has long inspired military service, with recruits seduced by action movies and promises of heroic returns to the U.S. But American culture today is being rewired into one of suffering, pain and victimhood.

    A fear of violence

    Gun violence destroys youth tolerance for the violence that defines a career in the U.S. military.

    Internal U.S. military surveys of young Americans show that “the top three reasons young people cite for rejecting military enlistment are the same across all the services: fear of death, worries about post-traumatic stress disorder and leaving friends and family — in that order.”

    Generations already suffering a shattered sense of safety and place do not see the military as a viable option.

    The explanations the U.S. Defense Department gives for dismal recruitment levels focus on the younger generation’s supposed lack of backbone or hatred of America.

    D’elbrah Assamoi, from Cote d’Ivoire, signs her U.S. certificate of citizenship after a military training ceremony at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, in San Antonio, Texas, in April 2023.
    Vanessa R. Adame/U.S. Air Force via AP

    Republicans, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, have blamed alleged “wokeness” for low recruitment levels.

    And the Trump administration’s statements about improving recruitment numbers over the past several months overlook both a late Biden-era surge after a pandemic slump as well as the reality that numbers remain depressed due to military services repeatedly lowering their recruitment goals.

    Very rarely are introspective questions publicly debated today about the objective attractiveness of military service or the appetite for violence among young people. The problem, I believe, is not that young people are insufficiently patriotic – it’s that they have already been fighting a war, daily, for their entire lives.

    In reversing the slide in recruitment, then, the military could improve its sensitivity to these important concerns.

    Highlighting the range of careers within the services that do not involve front-line combat and physical danger could encourage more reluctant would-be recruits to volunteer.

    Mental health support also could be made an essential element of military training and lifestyle − not a resource only for those bearing the hidden side-effects of life in the ranks. Encouraging those suffering from treatable mental health issues to seek meaning in service could also boost recruitment numbers.

    Jacob Ware is a gun violence survivor and serves as a Survivor Fellow at Everytown for Gun Safety.

    – ref. US Army’s image of power and flag-waving rings false to Gen Z weary of gun violence − and long-term recruitment numbers show it – https://theconversation.com/us-armys-image-of-power-and-flag-waving-rings-false-to-gen-z-weary-of-gun-violence-and-long-term-recruitment-numbers-show-it-257090

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Workers need better tools and tech to boost productivity. Why aren’t companies stepping up to invest?

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

    As Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers turn their attention to improving productivity growth across the economy, it will be interesting to see what the business community brings to a planned summit in August.

    Labour productivity (output per hour worked) has barely grown this decade.

    Much of the focus in the current debate has been on the role of workers (labour) and industrial relations. Less discussed has been low business investment (capital).

    Labour will be more productive if each worker can use more capital: machinery, equipment and technology. Over the medium term, providing workers with more capital – “capital deepening”, in the jargon – tends to be the main contributor to labour productivity growth.

    But business investment as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) is currently at its lowest level since the mid-1990s.

    Investment is low in both the mining and non-mining sectors. In the latest national accounts report for the March quarter, business investment in machinery and equipment fell 1.7%.

    The average worker now uses less capital equipment – machines and computers – than a decade ago. Investment just hasn’t kept pace with growth in employment.



    Read more:
    ‘Hard to measure and difficult to shift’: the government’s big productivity challenge

    Why is investment so weak?

    One possible reason was put forward by then Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe in 2023. He suggested that, during the COVID pandemic, firms concentrated on surviving. Seeking out more efficient ways to produce was a lower priority. But post-pandemic, firms seem to have been slow to pivot back to an efficiency focus.

    Another reason may be that, until recently, wage growth has been slower than the growth in prices of goods and services produced. This may have reduced the incentives for firms to invest in the equipment needed to boost labour productivity.

    A key driver of investment is profitability. Firms are more likely to fund investment from retained earnings than by borrowing or raising capital. But the share of corporate profits in the economy has been quite high in recent years. So this does not explain low investment.

    The ‘animal spirits’ are lacking

    Business confidence – what economist John Maynard Keynes famously called “animal spirits” – is another important driver.

    Share prices, both in Australia and the rest of the world, have grown strongly in recent years. The S&P/ASX 200 index of Australian share prices is close to its all-time high. This would suggest financial markets are very optimistic about the prospects of Australian companies.

    Direct surveys of Australian businesses from National Australia Bank suggest conditions (the current situation) and confidence (about the future) are around their long-term average level. So this also does not explain the low investment.

    One contributor to low investment may be that firms are applying inappropriately high “hurdle rates”. These refer to the minimum return firms expect from an investment before they will undertake it.

    Hurdle rates tend to be “sticky” over time, meaning they do not move much. Many companies still apply hurdle rates of over 12%. These were appropriate back when interest rates and inflation were much higher, but seem too high now as borrowing costs have fallen with interest rate cuts.

    The Productivity Commission has suggested one contributor to low investment could be a higher risk premium. Since the global financial crisis in 2007-08, companies and investors may have become more cautious about taking on risk.

    Another factor could be growing market power of Australian companies that dominate a sector, making them complacent rather than striving to improve their performance.

    The high degree of uncertainty

    The Reserve Bank recently compiled two measures of uncertainty. One is derived from stock markets. The other is based on the number of news articles about policy uncertainty.

    Both show the current environment is as uncertain now as it was during the early stages of the global financial crisis in 2007–08 and the COVID pandemic.

    Investment in machineray and equipment went backwards in the March quarter.
    Parilov/Shutterstock

    A common response to uncertainty is to defer decisions on both investment and hiring new workers until the outlook is clearer. A study by the Reserve Bank found that greater uncertainty did indeed reduce investment. But the size of the impact was – you guessed it – uncertain.

    What can be done?

    Business lobbies often attribute low rates of investment (and anything else they think people may not like) to “excessively high” corporate tax rates. But at 30% for large companies and 25% for small, the company tax rate is low by historical standards.

    Some multinational firms may be deterred from entering the Australian market as our company tax rate is above that in some other jurisdictions. It is hard to tell how important this effect is. Company tax is only one of many factors that affect the comparative risk and return of Australia as an investment destination.

    The Productivity Commission is investigating whether the corporate taxation system could be made more efficient rather than just lowering rates.

    In the meantime, however, firms may be encouraged to invest more by a more stable domestic economic outlook. Inflation is back within the central bank’s 2-3% target range. Employment is around an all-time high proportion of the working age population. The election has removed some political uncertainty with a government holding a clear majority.

    Businesses should stop whingeing and start providing workers with the tools they need to become more productive.

    This article is part of The Conversation’s series, The Productivity Puzzle. Read the previous article here.

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

    – ref. Workers need better tools and tech to boost productivity. Why aren’t companies stepping up to invest? – https://theconversation.com/workers-need-better-tools-and-tech-to-boost-productivity-why-arent-companies-stepping-up-to-invest-257806

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: With Trump undoing years of progress, can the US salvage its Pacific Islands strategy?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alan Tidwell, Director, Center for Australian, New Zealand and Pacific Studies, Georgetown University

    Donald Trump signs a proclamation expanding fishing rights in the Pacific Islands, April 17. Getty Images

    Since 2018, the United States has worked, albeit often haltingly, to regain its footing with Pacific Island countries. It’s done this largely by reflecting a sentiment familiar in Pacific capitals: the region is not a geopolitical backwater, but a crucial strategic zone in the 21st century.

    Spurred by China’s strategic expansion – security deals, port access, political influence – the first Trump presidency and then the Biden administration renewed the US focus on the Pacific.

    Washington was also prodded by regional allies, including New Zealand. In 2018, Foreign Minister Winston Peters said: “We unashamedly ask for the United States to engage more and we think it is in your vital interests to do so. And time is of the essence.”

    Building on the tentative steps of its predecessor, the Biden administration acted. It opened new embassies, invited Pacific leaders to the White House, unveiled a dedicated strategy for the Pacific Islands, and committed to recognising the Cook Islands and Niue.

    It also negotiated more funding for the Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and Palau. Along with the 2022 Pacific Islands Summit, it all signalled Washington’s desire to be a better partner.

    Crucially, the Biden administration recognised climate change and the economy, not great-power rivalry, as the region’s defining security concerns. Now, much of that progress is being eroded.

    The second Trump administration has gutted key international development agencies, with the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation shuttered.

    More than mere symbols, these agencies were tools of statecraft, facilitating Washington’s capacity to compete with China’s “no questions asked” development model. Their removal leaves a vacuum, which Beijing will happily fill.

    China pressing the advantage

    Other signs of retreat are equally troubling. Congressional funding for the South Pacific Tuna Treaty – which pays for access for US fishing fleets and is the primary multiparty agreement the US has with the Pacific Islands – was tripled by Biden, but remains incomplete.

    Trump recently signed an executive order opening the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument, a 1,282,534 square kilometre protected marine zone, to commercial fishing. This might be welcomed by the US tuna fleet, but it raises questions about Washington’s commitment to the tuna treaty.

    Hoped-for expansion of US consular access, especially vital for Pacific Islanders who must travel long distances for basic services such as visa applications, is in limbo. The US embassy in Vanuatu, damaged by the earthquake in 2024, remains closed, leaving diplomats to work out of their hotel rooms.

    China, by contrast, has not slowed down. Its security pact with Solomon Islands, its police training efforts in Samoa and Kiribati, and its growing intelligence presence across the region show a clear pattern of assertiveness.

    Beijing has proven adept at offering timely, visible assistance. Its diplomats show up. Its companies build. Its promises, however opaque, are matched with resources.

    The result has not necessarily meant Pacific nations have “chosen” China. Rather, most revert to the longstanding posture of “friend to all, enemy to none”.

    In a region where non-alignment is both a survival strategy and a principle of sovereignty, the perception of US unreliability makes China’s attentions all the more welcome, or at least tolerable.

    Not a binary contest

    The US now appears to be abandoning efforts to break this cycle, and the Trump administration risks a genuine strategic error rather than a mere diplomatic misstep.

    More than distant dots on a map, the Pacific Islands control vast stretches of ocean, including key shipping lanes and undersea cables. Their diplomatic weight matters in the United Nations.

    And the region matters to Taiwan, which is recognised by 12 countries globally, three of which are in the Pacific.

    Some argue the US should press Pacific nations to “choose” between Washington and Beijing. But that approach is shortsighted and counterproductive.

    Most have no interest in being drawn into a binary contest. They seek concrete benefits – resilience funding, fair trade, visa access – not ideological alignment. Framing relationships as zero-sum contests misunderstands the region’s diplomatic logic.

    Listening to Pacific leaders

    To revive the relationship, the US will need to show up, follow through and demonstrate its partnership offers more than rhetoric.

    This would involve restoring some elements of foreign assistance, fully funding the South Pacific Tuna Treaty obligations, opening and staffing embassies, and supporting Pacific regional organisations such as the Pacific Islands Forum with meaningful recognition and resources.

    But the US review of Pacific foreign assistance (a small portion of US development aid formerly administered by USAID) has been delayed once again, and likely won’t emerge until mid-July.

    More importantly, the US will have to listen to Pacific leaders, who have articulated their priorities clearly. They do not want to be sites of contest; they want to be agents of their own futures.

    In short, the US will have to treat the Pacific Islands as sovereign equals.
    When Trump returned to the White House, he found a workable policy architecture for the Pacific. Its core elements could still be rescued.

    But continued neglect, mixed signals and cost-cutting risk hastening the outcome China seeks – a region that finds Washington unreliable. Winston Peters, now foreign minister in a new government, might want to update his 2018 call for US engagement in the Pacific – with the emphasis on reliability.

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

    – ref. With Trump undoing years of progress, can the US salvage its Pacific Islands strategy? – https://theconversation.com/with-trump-undoing-years-of-progress-can-the-us-salvage-its-pacific-islands-strategy-258679

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: It took more than a century, but women are taking charge of Australia’s economy – here’s why it matters

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Duygu Yengin, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Adelaide

    For the first time in its 124-year history, Treasury will be led by a woman.

    Jenny Wilkinson’s appointment is historic in its own right. Even more remarkable is the fact she joins Michele Bullock at the Reserve Bank and Danielle Wood at the Productivity Commission.

    Australia’s three most powerful economic institutions are now led by women economists. In economics, this is not normal. But it certainly does matter.

    Stubbornly male

    Imagine if only 17% of economics professors were men. It would feel unusual; people would ask why the field was so heavily skewed. But the reality is the opposite: 83% of economics professors in Australia are male.

    And yet, this imbalance is almost invisible. Women make up just about one-third of secondary pupils studying economics and 40% of students enrolled in economics courses at university.

    In the private sector, women economists are roughly one in three.

    So while the appointments of Wilkinson, Bullock and Wood feels groundbreaking, the profession as a whole remains stubbornly male. Still, the leadership story is worth celebrating. When young women see leaders who look like them, they’re more likely to imagine themselves in those roles too.

    As women increasingly take the helm, the old stereotype of a suit-clad man with a briefcase gives way to a broader, more inclusive image of what an economist can be.

    The public service is leading the charge. As of 2023, women held 53% of senior executive service positions in the Australian Public Service, up from 46% in 2019.

    Merit and diversity

    Thankfully, unlike other parts of the world, we live in a country where these appointments haven’t triggered claims of so-called “diversity hires”. To be clear: these female pioneers weren’t appointed because they are women.

    Each has decades of experience, technical firepower, and deep policy credentials. Wilkinson has led the Department of Finance and the Parliamentary Budget Office. Bullock has held almost every senior role at the Reserve Bank. Wood has shaped public debates on intergenerational equity and tax reform with clarity and rigour.

    The idea that diversity is somehow in tension with merit is a false binary. Diverse groups make better decisions and are more creative, especially in high-stakes settings.

    Decades of economics and business research has shown that incorporating diverse perspectives into decision-making only strengthens the outcomes. Decisions made and executed by diverse teams delivered 60% better results than those by non-diverse teams.

    Merit isn’t just what’s on paper, it’s shaped by how we judge it.

    When men and women perform equally well, success is more often credited to skill for men and to luck for women. Swap a male name for a female one on a CV, teaching evaluation or reference letter, and perceptions of competence, leadership and hireability start to shift.

    These unconscious biases don’t just affect who gets ahead; they shape how we define merit in the first place.

    Will it make a difference?

    Economics often prides itself on being objective and neutral. While the economic models may be technically gender-blind, the questions we ask and investigate rarely are.

    This is where gender diversity matters – not just in who holds the top jobs, but in what gets researched and how decisions are made. There’s growing evidence male and female economists don’t just ask different questions, they also approach problems differently.

    One study found female central bankers tend to act with greater independence and deliver lower inflation. A United States study and another in Europe showed striking gender differences in how economists think about a range of areas, including labour markets, taxation, health and the environment, and more broadly on public spending – everything from welfare to the military.

    Having more diverse perspectives doesn’t dilute economics – it deepens it. It makes the discipline more responsive to the diversity of the real-world challenges it’s meant to address.

    Economic policies impact the whole society. So does the composition of economists.

    So, what’s next?

    Of course, three women in top economic roles won’t create miracles overnight – they all operate within existing systems and structures.

    So, what can we expect from Wilkinson’s leadership? Her time at the Department of Finance suggests a steady, pragmatic hand: consultative, strategic and deeply experienced.

    Wilkinson brings bipartisan credibility, a sharp grasp of fiscal discipline, and the capacity to act decisively in a crisis, as we saw during COVID. She won’t remake Treasury overnight, but she’s well placed to lead it with rigour, integrity and a long-term view.

    This moment matters for women in economics. It shows change is possible in the profession, and it could mark the start of economic policy that truly reflects the diversity of the people it serves.

    Duygu Yengin is affiliated with the University of Adelaide, Women in Economics Network, and the Economic Society of Australia.

    – ref. It took more than a century, but women are taking charge of Australia’s economy – here’s why it matters – https://theconversation.com/it-took-more-than-a-century-but-women-are-taking-charge-of-australias-economy-heres-why-it-matters-258680

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Sunday Too Far Away at 50: how a story about Aussie shearers launched a local film industry

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Walsh, Associate Professor, Screen and Media, Flinders University

    Released 50 years ago, Sunday Too Far Away deals episodically with a group of shearers led by Foley (Jack Thompson), and the events leading up to the national shearers’ strike of 1956.

    The shearers are a ragtag group held together by rum, unionism and competitiveness – as Foley must deal with the camp cook from hell, as well as a threat to his “gun” status.

    As we celebrate the anniversary, it is hard to overstate its importance for the Australian film industry and for its producer, the South Australian Film Corporation (SAFC).

    The beginnings of a funding body

    After the Liberal and Country League had held control over the state government for 32 years under a “Playmander”, named for premier Thomas Playford, the Labor party, lead by Don Dunstan, was elected in 1970 on a progressive platform.

    As part of Dunstan’s project of moving the state’s economy away from its Playford-era reliance on manufacturing to more knowledge-based service industries, the SAFC was founded in 1972.

    Central to Dunstan’s plan was the imperative that the SAFC should produce feature films – despite an initial consultant’s report that advised against this.

    Dunstan’s plan was visionary, making South Australia the first state government to directly produce features. But it was also flawed.

    The Dunstan government authorised the SAFC to borrow A$400,000 (approximately $5 million in 2025 money) for the production of up to five features per year, with the remainder of the budgets coming from Commonwealth funds and private investors.

    Don Dunstan, then premier of South Australia, around 1972 when the South Australian Film Corporation was established.
    State Library of South Australia B 64310/106

    The plan was that the SAFC’s productions would be self-supporting within five years, with the initial pump-priming loans repaid.

    By 1973 a slate of features was in the works, though none would reach production.

    One of these was Gallipoli, to be made in conjunction with Melbourne-based Crawford Productions, with screenwriter John Dingwell attached.

    The film was shelved, but Dingwell maintained his relationship with Matt Carroll, the SAFC’s head of feature production. They developed a script titled Shearers, based on anecdotes from one of Dingwell’s relatives.

    Sunday Too Far Away (as the film was retitled) was budgeted at $231,000, with the Commonwealth Government’s Australian Film Development Corporation, established in 1970 to invest in local films, providing half this figure.

    An ‘emotional experience’

    Gil Brealey, the SAFC’s first CEO, was desperate to get a feature started and was prepared to find the whole of the budget if necessary. (The SAFC would put up an additional $14,000 in budget overruns caused by wet weather in the semi-arid locations around Port Augusta and Quorn.)

    It was a remarkable demonstration of maximum involvement by a government body intent on intervening dramatically to generate a production industry in a state that would otherwise lose out to the larger states on the eastern seaboard.

    At the recent 50th anniversary screening hosted by the SAFC, producer Matt Carroll referred to the film shoot as “an extraordinary emotional experience” for all involved, stressing the strong camaraderie among the actors, which mirrored that of the shearers in the film.

    It is useful to compare Sunday to 1971’s Wake in Fright.

    Both centre on rural male mateship, but while Wake in Fright is revolted by it, Sunday strives for an elegiac celebration that might have drawn from Henry Lawson, of union-based mateship as the only defence again the harshness of life.

    Fraught politics

    Brealey and the SAFC were functioning under enormous political pressure for this film to be not only a critical, but also a popular success.

    From the outset, the SAFC had been identified with Dunstan, and it was under almost daily attack in Parliament, led by Liberal frontbencher Stan Evans.

    Quoted in the Adelaide Advertiser in May 1975, Evans denounced the SAFC “for actively producing and manufacturing films when its role under the Act precluded it from this field”.

    He was joined in these attacks by elements of the local press, as well as a handful of filmmakers who felt slighted by talent imported by Brealey.

    The board was forced to issue a statement, complaining of

    a very small vocal minority who, apparently, find the success of the corporation personally offensive and make every effort to ‘knock’ its work.

    The acceptance of the film into the Directors’ Fortnight at Cannes, the first Australian film bestowed the honour, was a godsend. It went on to win eight of the 12 awards on offer at the Australian Film Institute Awards.

    Brealey wryly told me that “we had this appalling reputation in Adelaide and everyone else thought we were marvellous”.

    The film renaissance

    In order to shore up its local standing, the SAFC ran a film day at the Adelaide Festival Centre, culminating in a “world premiere” of Sunday attended by Gough Whitlam.

    The next day, the SAFC released the film itself in Adelaide, hiring the Warner cinema where it ran for 26 weeks under an arrangement that gave the producer the entire gross, less the exhibitor’s expenses.

    Brealey was extremely suspicious of Australian distributors. Roadshow distributed the film throughout the rest of Australia. By October, they were reporting box office grosses of over $182,000 – though the SAFC had only received $11,000 in returns.

    The bitter lesson was that SAFC had clearly been founded on overly optimistic expectations of returns to producers. Feature production in Australia would need on-going government support.

    The success of Sunday Too Far Away, followed closely by Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) and Storm Boy (1976) succeeded in establishing the SAFC as a prime mover in Australian film.

    Locally, it won bipartisan local support for the SAFC and nationally it established a model for emulation by other states.

    It demonstrated that Australian films could combine local and international appeal, and that government agencies had a vital role at the heart of the film renaissance.

    Michael Walsh is a consultant for the SAFC on its digitisation project. He has previously written a commissioned history for the organisation.

    – ref. Sunday Too Far Away at 50: how a story about Aussie shearers launched a local film industry – https://theconversation.com/sunday-too-far-away-at-50-how-a-story-about-aussie-shearers-launched-a-local-film-industry-258576

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘Like an underwater bushfire’: SA’s marine algal bloom is still killing almost everything in its path

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Barrera, PhD Candidate, School of Public Health, University of Adelaide

    Paul Macdonald of Edithburgh Diving

    South Australian beaches have been awash with foamy, discoloured water and dead marine life for months. The problem hasn’t gone away; it has spread.

    Devastating scenes of death and destruction mobilised locals along the Fleurieu Peninsula, Yorke Peninsula and Kangaroo Island. The state government has hosted emergency meetings, most recently with marine and environment experts from around Australia, and issued weekly updates.

    Unfortunately, there are few ways to stop the bloom. Scientists had hoped strong westerly winds would break it up and push it out to sea. But so far, the wild weather has just pushed it through the Murray Mouth into the Coorong. And even if the bloom is washed away this winter, it could return in spring.

    This bloom represents a stark warning to coastal communities, as well as tourism, seafood and aquaculture industries. It’s a sign of what’s to come, in Australia and around the world, as the oceans warm.

    South Australia’s marine emblem, the leafy sea dragon, washed up on Stokes Bay in Kangaroo Island during the harmful algal bloom.
    RAD KI

    An unprecedented algal bloom

    The first sign of trouble came in March this year, when dozens of surfers and beachgoers fell ill. Many reported sore eyes, coughing or trouble breathing.

    Water testing soon revealed the cause: a harmful algal bloom of Karenia mikimotoi.

    Most people felt better within hours or days of leaving the beach. But marine life of all kinds was washing up dead or dying.

    Fish habitat charity OzFish set up a new citizen science project to capture the data, using iNaturalist.

    OzFish SA project manager Brad Martin told a public forum the bloom was like an “underwater bushfire”, adding:

    It’s suffocating fish, it’s taking the oxygen out of the water and it’s producing toxins.

    Photos of dead fish, seahorses, octopuses and rays were already circulating on social media. So OzFish encouraged people to start using iNaturalist, to identify the species and capture the data.

    The data shows more than 200 species of marine creatures died, including 100 types of fish and sharks. This includes popular recreational fishing species such as flathead, squid, crabs and rock lobsters.

    Almost half the deaths were ray-finned fish species. A quarter were sharks and ray species. Then came soft-bodied “cephalopods” such as cuttlefish and octopus, and crustaceans such as crabs, lobsters and prawns.

    Most of these species live on or near the sea floor with small home ranges. As in a bushfire, they have little chance of escape. Other fish that live in the open ocean, such as whiting, snapper and tuna, can swim away.

    Ray-finned fish, sharks and rays dominate the death toll from the marine algal bloom, as recorded on iNaturalist.
    Brad Martin, OzFish

    The culprit

    K. mikimotoi is a type of microalgae. It uses sunlight and carbon dioxide to grow and divide, releasing oxygen.

    In calm conditions, with plenty of light and warmth, the algal cells divide rapidly. Ideal conditions for algal growth are becoming more common as the climate changes and seas warm.

    Algal toxins are known to cause illness and sometimes death in humans, pets and livestock.

    K. mikimotoi is lethal to marine life, not humans. But the toxic effects in marine life are complicated and poorly understood.

    The algae irritates fish gills, causing cell death and bleeding. It also causes hypoxia, or lack of oxygen in the blood. And when the algae die off, decomposition consumes huge amounts of oxygen – leaving marine life to suffocate.

    Scientists now suspect other Karenia species may be involved too, due to the detection of brevetoxins in shellfish. This is the first detection of brevetoxins in Australia.

    Grim scenes greeted divers in murky water at Edithburgh on the Yorke Peninsula. (Paul Macdonald of Edithburgh Diving)

    What can be done?

    A marine heatwave is largely to blame. Sea surface temperatures have been 2.5°C warmer than usual since September. Relatively calm conditions, with little wind and small swells, also enabled the bloom to grow. Now it’s a matter of waiting for strong westerly winds to blow it all away.

    The latest update shows sea surface temperatures have stabilised. But deeper gulf and shelf waters remain 1–2°C above average for this time of the year.

    Climate change is making future blooms more likely. So tackling climate change is one way to help.

    Another is minimising the runoff of nutrients into waterways. Microalgae can be found anywhere with enough water, light and nutrients. So reducing pollution can help reduce the risk of algal blooms.

    This includes better management of fertiliser on farms and in home gardens. Lower levels of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous will reduce the risk of future blooms in marine and inland waterways.

    When it comes to blue-green algae, flushing with freshwater and stirring it up can disperse the colonies and prevent a bloom.

    Monitoring is also important. OzFish encourages South Australians to continue providing photo reports via iNaturalist. Any new fish kills should also be reported to the state government.

    The harmful algal bloom has transformed the reef at Edithburgh Jetty on the Yorke Peninsula. (Great Southern Reef)

    Microalgae are not all bad

    It’s worth remembering life on Earth wouldn’t exist without microalgae. These tiny organisms produced 60% of the oxygen in the atmosphere today, and play an important role in balanced ecosystems.

    The algae spirulina is a common dietary supplement. Microalgae are also potentially useful for water recycling, as a renewable biofuel and for capturing and storing greenhouse gases.

    Heeding the lessons

    Once a harmful algal bloom begins, it will persist for as long as conditions remain suitable.

    This bloom already has lasted three months, and there’s no guarantee the end is near.

    Recovery will be slow, as shown in the historical record and other parts of the world. And the risk of a repeat event is high.

    Further research is needed to keep these ancient organisms in check.

    With thanks to OzFish SA project manager Brad Martin, who contributed to this article.

    Erin Barrera receives funding from The Hospital Research Foundation, through SA Health.

    – ref. ‘Like an underwater bushfire’: SA’s marine algal bloom is still killing almost everything in its path – https://theconversation.com/like-an-underwater-bushfire-sas-marine-algal-bloom-is-still-killing-almost-everything-in-its-path-257885

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: AI overviews have transformed Google search. Here’s how they work – and how to opt out

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

    cosma/Shutterstock

    People turn to the internet to run billions of search queries each year. These range from keeping tabs on world events and celebrities to learning new words and getting DIY help.

    One of the most popular questions Australians recently asked was: “How to inspect a used car?”.

    If you asked Google this at the beginning of 2024, you would have been served a list of individual search results and the order would have depended on several factors. If you asked the same question at the end of the year, the experience would be completely different.

    That’s because Google, which controls about 94% of the Australian search engine market, introduced “AI Overviews” to Australia in October 2024. These AI-generated search result summaries have revolutionised how people search for and find information. They also have significant impacts on the quality of the results.

    How do these AI search summaries work, though? Are they reliable? And is there a way to opt out?

    Synthesising the internet

    Legacy search engines work by evaluating dozens of different criteria and trying to show you the results that they think best match your search terms.

    They take into account the content itself, including how unique, current and comprehensive it is, as well as how it’s structured and organised.

    They also consider relationships between the content and other parts of the web. If trusted sources link to content, that can positively affect its placement in search results.

    They try to infer the searcher’s intent – whether they’re trying to buy something, learn something new, or solve a practical problem. They also consider technical aspects such as how fast the content loads and whether the page is secure.

    All of this adds up to an invisible score each webpage gets that affects its visibility in search results. But AI is changing all this.

    Google is the only search engine that prominently displays AI summaries on its main results page. Bing and DuckDuckGo still use traditional search result layouts, offering AI summaries only through companion apps such as Copilot and Duck.ai.

    Instead of directing users to one specific webpage, generative AI-powered search looks across webpages and sources to try to synthesise what they say. It then tries to summarise the results in a short, conversational and easy-to-understand way.

    In theory, this can result in richer, more comprehensive, and potentially more unique answers. But AI doesn’t always get it right.

    Google is the only search engine that prominently displays AI summaries on its main results page.
    DIA TV/Shutterstock

    How reliable are AI searches?

    Early examples of Google’s AI-powered search from 2024 suggested users eat “at least one small rock per day” – and that they could use non-toxic glue to help cheese stick to pizza.

    One issue is that machines are poorly equipped to detect satire or parody and can use these materials to respond in place of fact-based evidence.

    Research suggests the rate of so-called “hallucinations” – instances of machines making up answers – is getting worse even as the models driving them are getting more sophisticated.

    Machines can’t actually determine what’s true and false. They cannot grasp the nuances of idioms and colloquial language and can only make predictions based on fancy maths. But these predictions don’t always end up being correct, which is an issue – especially for sensitive medical or health questions or when seeking financial advice.

    Rather than just present a summary, Google’s more recent AI overviews have also started including links to sources for key aspects of the answer. This can help users gauge the quality of the overall answer and see where AI might be getting its information from. But evidence suggests sometimes AI search engines cite sources that don’t include the information they claim they do.

    What are the other impacts of AI search?

    AI search summaries are transforming the way information is produced and discovered, reshaping the search engine ecosystem we’ve grown accustomed to over two decades.

    They are changing how information-seekers formulate search queries – moving from keywords or phrases to simple questions, such as those we use in everyday conversation.

    For content providers, AI summaries introduce significant shifts – undermining traditional search engine optimisation techniques, reducing direct traffic to websites, and impacting brand visibility.

    Notably, 43% of AI Overviews link back to Google itself. This reinforces Google’s dominance as a search engine and as a website.

    The forthcoming integration of ads into AI summaries raises concerns about the trustworthiness and independence of the information presented.

    Some internet users are switching search engines entirely and turning to providers that don’t provide AI summaries, such as Bing and DuckDuckGo.
    Casimiro PT/Shutterstock

    Where to from here?

    People should always be mindful of the key limitations of AI summaries.

    Asking for simple facts such as, “What is the height of Uluru?” may yield accurate answers.

    But posing more complex or divisive questions, such as, “Will the 2032 Olympics bankrupt Queensland?”, may require users to open links and delve deeper for a more comprehensive understanding.

    Google doesn’t offer a clear option to turn this feature off entirely. Perhaps the simplest way is to click on the “Web” tab under the search bar on the search results, or to add “-ai” to the search query. But this can get repetitive.

    Some more technical solutions are manually creating a site search filter through Chrome settings. But these require an active act by the user.

    As a result, some developers are offering browser extensions that claim to remove this aspect. Other users are switching search engines entirely and turning to providers that don’t provide AI summaries, such as Bing and DuckDuckGo.

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

    Ashwin Nagappa receives funding fromthe Australian Research Council. He is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the QUT node of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society.

    Shir Weinbrand receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a PhD candidate in the QUT node of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society.

    – ref. AI overviews have transformed Google search. Here’s how they work – and how to opt out – https://theconversation.com/ai-overviews-have-transformed-google-search-heres-how-they-work-and-how-to-opt-out-258282

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –