NewzIntel.com

Category: Science

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Africa – Joint Statement of Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE) and Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM) ahead of the AU – EU Foreign Ministers’ Meeting on 21 May 2025

    SOURCE: Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM)

    Africa needs a transformation rooted in the Gospel values of care for creation, solidarity with the poor, and the pursuit of peace

    ACCRA, Ghana, May 21, 2025 – As shepherds of the Catholic Church in Africa and in Europe, we, the bishops of the Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM) (www.SECAM.org) and of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE), speak today with a voice formed by the lived realities of our people – farmers, fisherfolk, pastoralists, women and youth – whose lives are shaped by the land, and whose hope depends on justice, peace, and dignity. We welcome the convening of the joint African Union–European Union Foreign Ministers’ Meeting as an opportunity to examine not only shared ambitions but the very nature of our partnership. 
    As SECAM and COMECE have already stated five years ago, “we are firmly convinced that Africa and Europe could become the engines for a reinvigoration of multilateral cooperation by reinforcing their longstanding ties marked by our common roots and geographical proximity […] towards an equitable and responsible partnership that puts the people at its centre”.

    We are, however, deeply concerned about certain developments in this partnership over recent years. We have witnessed a profound shift in European priorities – away from solidarity with the most fragile regions and communities, and from development cooperation aimed at eradicating poverty and hunger, towards a more narrowly defined set of geopolitical and economic interests. Notwithstanding the commendable intention behind some projects promoting human development at the grassroots, certain initiatives supported under the EU’s Global Gateway – while presented as mutually beneficial – too often seem to replicate extractive patterns of the past: privileging European corporate and strategic aims over the real needs and aspirations of African people.

    Land, water, seeds, and minerals – the very foundations of life – seem to be once again treated as commodities for foreign profit rather than as common goods to be stewarded with care. Africa is being asked to sacrifice its ecosystems and communities to help Europe meet its decarbonisation goals – whether through massive land deals for so-called “green” energy projects, the expansion of carbon offset plantations, or the outsourcing of industrial agriculture’s toxic inputs and waste. This is not partnership. This is not justice.

    “The earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor” (Laudato Si’, §2)

    The Catholic Church, inspired by late Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si’, shares the understanding that we must hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor. These cries are loud and clear across Africa. Climate change is wreaking havoc on those who depend on the land, even as our continent has contributed least to the crisis. Soil degradation, poisoned water, and the loss of biodiversity are destroying the foundation of rural life. Hunger in Africa is growing, not because we lack food, but because we have allowed systems to dominate that put profit above people and that treat agriculture as an industrial process, not a way of life.

    We urge the ministers gathered in Brussels to place the dignity of African peoples at the heart of the AU-EU partnership. This means supporting a transformation of agriculture that breaks free from dependency on imported fertilisers, chemical inputs, and genetically modified seeds. It means protecting and promoting farmer-managed seed systems, which are the repositories of Africa’s agricultural biodiversity and the key to food sovereignty. These systems are not backward or inefficient – they are resilient, rooted in tradition, and adapted to local ecologies. Criminalising farmers for saving seeds or imposing rigid intellectual property regimes aligned with UPOV or corporate agendas violates both their rights and the planet’s needs.

    We call for an immediate ban on the export and use of Highly Hazardous Pesticides in Africa. It is a grave injustice that chemicals banned in Europe for their risks to health and ecosystems are still manufactured there and marketed to African farmers. This double standard must end. Instead, we must invest in agroecology – a science, a practice, and a social movement that nourishes the land, respects cultural traditions, and empowers women and youth. Agroecology offers a truly African path to climate adaptation and rural regeneration. It is rooted in the wisdom of our communities and validated by science. It is our future.

    Moreover, we remind our political leaders that land is sacred. For most Africans, land is not merely a factor of production or a tradable asset. It is a gift from God, entrusted to us by our ancestors and held in common for future generations. Large-scale land acquisitions by foreign investors or development finance institutions, carried out without free, prior, and informed consent, are an affront to this sacred trust. They displace communities, erode customary rights, and contribute to conflict and forced migration. Ministers must act decisively to end land grabbing and ensure legal protection for communal and customary tenure systems.

    We are particularly disturbed by growing use of African territory as a site for Europe’s resource needs and climate ambitions. Decarbonisation must not come at the cost of African ecosystems or the rights of African communities. It is ethically untenable to demand that Africa become the dumping ground for Europe’s “green transition” – whether through extractive mining for critical minerals or vast land projects that reduce our continent to a carbon sink.

    Let us be clear: Africa does not need charity, nor does it need to be a battleground for external interests. What it needs is justice. What it needs is a partnership grounded in mutual respect, environmental stewardship, and the centrality of human dignity. We believe such a partnership is possible – but only if the structures and priorities of AU-EU cooperation are fundamentally reoriented towards these objectives.

    We therefore urge ministers to listen more closely to African civil society, Indigenous peoples, and faith communities – not as token participants, but as equal co-creators of policy. Real dialogue means making space for the voices of those who live on and with the land.

    We conclude by echoing the spirit of Laudato Si’, which calls for an “integral ecology” – one that recognises the profound interconnection between people, planet, and purpose.

    We pray that this meeting may mark a turning point – not only in diplomatic relations but in the moral and spiritual compass guiding our shared future.

    Africa needs a transformation rooted in the Gospel values of care for creation, solidarity with the poor, and the pursuit of peace. As Laudato Si’ teaches us, “everything is interconnected” (§117) – and so our response must be holistic and courageous.

    We invite the AU and EU Foreign Ministers to rise to this moment. Let this be the partnership that listens to the cries of the earth and the cries of the poor. Let this be the moment when Africa’s future is shaped not by external interests, but by the aspirations of its people – especially those who till the land, feed the nation, and protect the environment.

    MIL OSI – Submitted News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: FDA limits access to COVID-19 vaccine to older adults and other high-risk groups – a public health expert explains the new rules

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Libby Richards, Professor of Nursing, Purdue University

    Older adults will continue to receive yearly COVID-19 shots, but lower-risk groups will not, says the FDA. dusanpetkovic via iStock / Getty Images Plus

    On May 20, 2025, the Food and Drug Administration announced a new stance on who should receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

    The agency said it would approve new versions of the vaccine only for adults 65 years of age and older as well as for people with one or more risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes. These risk factors include medical conditions such as asthma, cancer, chronic kidney disease, heart disease and diabetes.

    However, healthy younger adults and children who fall outside of these groups may not be eligible to receive the COVID-19 shot this fall. Vaccine manufacturers will have to conduct clinical trials to demonstrate that the vaccine benefits low-risk groups.

    FDA Commissioner Martin Makary and the agency’s head of vaccines, Vinay Prasad, described the new framework in an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine and in a public webcast.

    The Conversation U.S. asked Libby Richards, a nursing professor involved in public health promotion, to explain why the changes were made and what they mean for the general public.

    Why did the FDA diverge from past practice?

    Until the May 20 announcement, getting a yearly COVID-19 vaccine was recommended for everyone ages 6 months and older, regardless of their health risk.

    According to Makary and Prasad, the Food and Drug Administration is moving away from these universal recommendations and instead taking a risk-based approach based on its interpretation of public health trends – specifically, the declining COVID-19 booster uptake, a lack of strong evidence that repeated boosters improve health outcomes for healthy people and the fact that natural immunity from past COVID-19 infections is widespread.

    The FDA states it wants to ensure the vaccine is backed by solid clinical trial data, especially for low-risk groups.

    Was this a controversial decision or a clear consensus?

    The FDA’s decision to adopt a risk-based framework for the COVID-19 vaccine aligns with the expected recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, an advisory group of vaccine experts offering expert guidance to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccine policy, which is scheduled to meet in June 2025. But while this advisory committee was also expected to recommend allowing low-risk people to get annual COVID-19 vaccines if they want to, the FDA’s policy will likely make that difficult.

    Although the FDA states that its new policy aims to promote greater transparency and evidenced-based decision-making, the change is controversial – in part because it circumvents the usual process for evaluating vaccine recommendations. The FDA is enacting this policy change by limiting its approval of the vaccine to high-risk groups, and it is doing so without any new data supporting its decision. Usually, however, the FDA broadly approves a vaccine based on whether it is safe and effective, and decisions on who should be eligible to receive it are left to the CDC, which receives research-based guidance from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

    Change is coming to COVID-19 vaccine policy.
    Rock Obst, CC BY-SA

    Additionally, FDA officials point to Canada, Australia and some European countries that limit vaccine recommendations to older adults and other high-risk people as a model for its revised framework. But vaccine strategies vary widely, and this more conservative approach has not necessarily proven superior. Also, those countries have universal health care systems and have a track record of more equitable access to COVID-19 care and better COVID-19 outcomes.

    Another question is how health officials’ positions on COVID-19 vaccines affect public perception. Makary and Prasad noted that COVID-19 vaccination campaigns may have actually eroded public trust in vaccination. But some vaccine experts have expressed concerns that limiting COVID-19 vaccine access might further fuel vaccine hesitancy because any barrier to vaccine access can reduce uptake and hinder efforts to achieve widespread immunity.

    What conditions count as risk factors?

    The New England Journal of Medicine article includes a lengthy list of conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 and notes that about 100 million to 200 million people will fall into this category and will thus be eligible to get the vaccine.

    Pregnancy is included. Some items on the list, however, are unclear. For example, the list includes asthma, but the data that asthma is a risk factor for severe COVID-19 is scant.

    Also on the list is physical inactivity, which likely applies to a vast swath of Americans and is difficult to define. Studies have found links between regular physical activity and reduced risk of severe COVID-19 infection, but it’s unclear how health care providers will define and measure physical inactivity when assessing a patient’s eligibility for COVID-19 vaccines.

    Most importantly, the list leaves out an important group – caregivers and household members of people at high risk of severe illness from COVID-19 infection. This omission leaves high-risk people more vulnerable to exposure to COVID-19 from healthy people they regularly interact with. Multiple countries the new framework refers to do include this group.

    Why is the FDA requiring new clinical trials?

    According to the FDA, the benefits of multiple doses of COVID-19 vaccines for healthy adults are currently unproven. It’s true that studies beyond the fourth vaccine dose are scarce. However, multiple studies have demonstrated that the vaccine is effective at preventing the risk of severe COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and death in low-risk adults and children. Receiving multiple doses of COVID-19 vaccines has also been shown to reduce the risk of long COVID.

    The FDA is moving to risk-based access for COVID-19 vaccines.

    The FDA is requiring vaccine manufactures to conduct additional large randomized clinical trials to further evaluate the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 boosters for healthy adults and children. These trials will primarily test whether the vaccines prevent symptomatic infections, and secondarily whether they prevent hospitalization and death. Such trials are more complex, costly and time-consuming than the more common approach of testing for immunological response.

    This requirement will likely delay both the timeliness and the availability of COVID-19 vaccine boosters and slow public health decision-making.

    Will low-risk people be able to get a COVID-19 shot?

    Not automatically. Under the new FDA framework, healthy adults who wish to receive the fall COVID-19 vaccine will face obstacles. Health care providers can administer vaccines “off-label”, but insurance coverage is widely based on FDA recommendations. The new, narrower FDA approval will likely reduce both access to COVID-19 vaccines for the general public and insurance coverage for COVID-19 vaccines.

    The FDA’s focus on individual risks and benefits may overlook broader public health benefits. Communities with higher vaccination rates have fewer opportunities to spread the virus.

    What about vaccines for children?

    High-risk children age 6 months and older who have conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 are still eligible for the vaccine under the new framework. As of now, healthy children age 6 months and older without underlying medical conditions will not have routine access to COVID-19 vaccines until further clinical trial data is available.

    Existing vaccines already on the market will remain available, but it is unclear how long they will stay authorized and how the change will affect childhood vaccination overall.

    Libby Richards has received funding from the National Institutes of Health, the American Nurses Foundation, and the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute

    – ref. FDA limits access to COVID-19 vaccine to older adults and other high-risk groups – a public health expert explains the new rules – https://theconversation.com/fda-limits-access-to-covid-19-vaccine-to-older-adults-and-other-high-risk-groups-a-public-health-expert-explains-the-new-rules-257226

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Welch and Baldwin Conclude Two-Day Forum on Harm Caused by Trump and Musk’s HHS Cuts Wednesday’s forum featured former agency officials from NIH, CDC, SAMHSA, AHRQ, and ACL 

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
    WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) today concluded their two-day spotlight forum, entitled  “Trump’s Destruction of HHS: Mass Firings, Reorganization, and the Human Harm Caused.”  The forum examined the human harm caused by the Trump Administration’s sweeping reorganization and mass terminations at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  
    Senators Welch and Baldwin were joined by Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.). 
    “The Trump Administration’s dismantling of critical programs and agencies at HHS is hurting Americans of every age—in every zip code. From Meals on Wheels, to mental and physical care, to lifesaving research, President Trump and Secretary Kennedy are destroying the systems that deliver quality health, wellbeing and prevention to millions of patients,” said Senator Welch. “I am so thankful for the opportunity to hear directly from America’s leading health experts, who gave detailed—and frankly disheartening—accounts of what’s at risk and what’s already been lost. Senator Baldwin and I are committed to standing up for our health workers and standing against this administration’s reckless attacks on health care.” 
    “President Trump and RFK, Jr.’s reckless cuts are putting cures for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s that plague our families further out of reach. Their reckless cuts are putting mental health support further out of reach. Their reckless cuts are putting affordable caregiving further out of reach. This list goes on and on, and the impacts on the health and well-being of our constituents only get worse. I was proud to team up with Senator Welch to shine a light on this administration’s work to put Wisconsin families in harm’s way and make health care more expensive,” said Senator Baldwin. 
    Wednesday’s forum featured Dr. Anne Schuchat, the former Principal Deputy Director, Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Ms. Trina Dutta, the former Chief of Staff, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA); Dr. Sean Bruna, the former Senior Advisor, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); Professor Alison Barkoff, the former Administrator for Administration for Community Living (ACL); and Dr. Jeremy Berg – former Director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at NIH.  
    The former heads of HHS agencies shared about how layoffs and forced retirements are threatening evidence-based care and care outcomes, medical research, mental health research for Americans of all age, support for seniors, nutrition assistance through Meals on Wheels, and more. 
    Watch the livestream here:   
    Tuesday’s forum featured testimony from Dr. Robert Califf, the former Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Dr. Meg Sullivan, the former Acting Secretary for Administration for Children and Families (ACF); Ms. Chiquita Brooks La-Sure, the former Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS); and Ms. Carole Johnson, the former Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).  

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Welch and Britt’s Bill to Boost Flood Resiliency and Hydrology Research Advances Bill would make permanent the hydrology research center at UVM  

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Katie Britt (R-Ala.) today celebrated the advancement of the bipartisan Water Research Optimization Act of 2025, legislation to streamline hydrological forecast modeling within the National Weather Service. The Senators’ legislation advanced out of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation this morning.
    “Investing in hydrology modeling and prediction is crucial to boosting flood resilience across the country, from Vermont to Alabama. That includes supporting important hydrology research and programs at the University of Vermont that improve hydrologic forecasting, such as the Cooperative Institute for Research to Operations in Hydrology,” said Senator Welch. “Our bipartisan bill will strengthen and align current hydrology research at the National Weather Service with vital research at UVM to foster flood resilience and help communities rebuild better after natural disasters. I am thankful for the support of the Commerce Committee and urge my colleagues to support the bill as it comes to the Senate floor.”  
    “I continue to be grateful to Commerce Committee Chair Cruz for his work to advance critical legislation out of committee. I’m also thankful for Senator Welch’s partnership on this important bipartisan bill. The National Water Center has been instrumental to NOAA’s efforts to strengthen America’s water forecasting capabilities, improve weather-preparedness, and modernize water research technologies. The Center’s world-class capabilities truly benefit communities across our entire nation. I’m proud to champion this effort to further enhance this renowned research and applied science, and I’m committed to getting this signed into law,” said Senator Britt. 
    CIROH has evolved into a revolutionary, collaborative hub between the public and private sector for research and development. The Water Research Optimization Act of 2025 would make CIROH’s research center at the University of Vermont (UVM) permanent and align UVM’s hydrology work with the National Weather Service to boost flood resiliency research. 
    “We are grateful to Senators Welch and Britt for their leadership in introducing pivotal legislation to support CIROH. Funding for these efforts allows the University of Vermont to continue vital research on water that impacts the quality of life of Vermonters and communities across the country. We are proud to be able to contribute to this work,” said Kirk Dombrowski, Vice President for Research and Economic Development, University of Vermont. 
    CIROH’s national coalition of academic, industry, and non-profit partners includes the University of Vermont, which functions closely alongside the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Water Center to support stakeholders with hydrological data and important weather-related forecasts and warnings. This legislation would place CIROH Centers under the supervision and oversight of the National Weather Service’s Office of Water Protection and codify the National Water Center’s authority to lead the transition of water resources research.  
    Read and download the full text of the bill. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Ricketts Discusses Biofuels and Year-Round Nationwide E15 with Secretary Zeldin

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Pete Ricketts (Nebraska)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, during an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing with Administrator of the EPA Lee Zeldin, U.S. Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE) discussed the importance of biofuels to Nebraskan farmers and reaffirmed the use of sound science and risk-based analysis in regulatory action. Ricketts underscored the value nationwide, year-round E15 offers for consumers, farmers, and the environment.

    “I know that everybody here knows that I love this committee because we get to talk about biofuels, so that’s what we’re going to do for a little bit here,” said Ricketts. “Supporting biofuels is consistent with President Trump’s mandate to unleash American energy. Year-round, nationwide E15 sales are a no-brainer in my humble opinion. It’s affordable, drives farm profits, and lessens energy reliance on adversaries.”

    Watch the hearing HERE.

    Ricketts’ comments were made in a hearing of the Committee on Environment and Public Works entitled: “The U.S. Environmental protection Agency’s Proposed Fiscal Year 2026 Budget.” The witness was Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin.

    BACKGROUND:

    Ricketts is co-leading bipartisan Congressional Review Act legislation to block the Biden EV mandate. He recently introduced the bipartisan Renewable Fuels for Ocean-Going Vessels Act to expand the use of biofuels on ships and has led bipartisan resolutions designating May as Renewable Fuels Montheach of the last two years. Senator Ricketts is also supporting Senator Deb Fischer’s bill to make the year-round sale of E15 permanent across the country. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: PSI Chairman Johnson Releases Report; Will Hold Hearing on Federal Health Agencies’ Failure to Warn About the Risk of Myocarditis Following COVID-19 Vaccination

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Wisconsin Ron Johnson
    WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (“PSI” or “Subcommittee”), will hold a hearing entitled, “The Corruption of Science and Federal Health Agencies: How Health Officials Downplayed and Hid Myocarditis and Other Adverse Events Associated with the COVID-19 Vaccines.” In conjunction with the hearing, the chairman released an interim Majority Staff Report, along with more than 2,400 pages of records, detailing the failure of federal health agencies to properly warn the public of the risks of myocarditis and related heart inflammation conditions following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. The report, which follows Chairman Johnson’s Jan. 28, 2025 subpoena to the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), reveals how federal health officials who were aware of reports of heart inflammation conditions associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines delayed notifying the public while downplaying the risks.
    Records produced pursuant to the subpoena reveal the following: in the first half of 2021, federal health officials had ample evidence of myocarditis and related heart inflammation conditions occurring in young adults who received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Although a number of these records were previously made available to the public through the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), the Biden administration’s heavy redactions prevented a full understanding of what federal health officials knew and what actions they took.
    As detailed in the report and records Chairman Johnson released, beginning in February 2021, federal health officials were put on notice by counterparts in Israel of individuals experiencing myocarditis and related heart inflammation conditions after receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Over the next three months, federal health officials continued to receive information on cases of heart inflammation following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. By mid-May 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) officials were drafting a formal notification for health care providers and other officials.
    Records indicate that while health officials were drafting the notification, a key vaccine safety monitoring system, VAERS, began showing a safety signal for a heart inflammation condition in young adults who had received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Within days of the safety signal, the top ranking official at the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), then-Acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock, pushed back on the CDC’s plan to formally notify healthcare providers, ultimately resulting in the formal notification being rejected in favor of a posting on CDC’s website.
    The report builds on the work of many individuals who fought tirelessly to obtain records through the FOIA process under the Biden administration. The chairman credits Brenda Baletti, Ed Berkovich, Brian Hooker, Amy Kelly, Zachary Stieber, Naomi Wolf, and many others who worked persistently to expose the truth about the association of myocarditis with the COVID-19 vaccines.
    With the release of the interim report and the corresponding subpoenaed documents produced by the Trump administration, the public will be able to access a more complete record of the Biden administration’s failure to warn the public about the health risks of COVID-19 vaccines without heavy FOIA redactions. 
    Key findings from the report include:
    Despite their awareness of the risks, U.S. health officials downplayed the risks of myocarditis and associated heart inflammation conditions after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
    U.S. health officials delayed for months alerting the public, and ultimately rejected a formal notification to health care providers about the risks to young people of myocarditis and associated heart inflammation conditions following receipt of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
    U.S. health officials were made aware by at least early 2021 that some of their vaccine safety monitoring systems may not have been capturing all cases of myocarditis and associated heart inflammation following receipt of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
    The hearing will be live streamed beginning at 2:00pm EST here.
    The interim PSI Majority Staff report can be found here.
    The records, which at the request of HHS contain minimal redactions for Personally Identifiable Information, are linked below: 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: At a seminar on Eurasian relations, Chinese and German experts called for cooperation

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    BEIJING, May 21 (Xinhua) — Experts from China and Germany called for cooperation to overcome global challenges in an unstable world at a seminar on China-Russia-Europe relations held in Beijing on Tuesday.

    The current seminar, organized by the Institute of Russian, East European and Central Asian Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (IRESCA AASS), took place in the year of the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the European Union.

    In his opening remarks, Sun Zhuangzhi, Director of the IRECA AONK, noted that in the context of profound global changes unseen for a century, humanity once again found itself at a historical crossroads. Against this background, he stressed, academic discussions on relations between China, Russia and Europe have important practical significance.

    Noting that China and Europe have many common interests, Sun said it is crucial to find the “biggest common denominator” for cooperation between the two sides, which is of particular significance both for maintaining security and stability on the Eurasian continent and for promoting prosperity and development worldwide.

    Nadine Godehardt, Senior Research Fellow at the Asia Department of the Brussels branch of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, noted that the world is experiencing new profound changes, and the geopolitical landscape in the Eurasian region is becoming increasingly complex.

    As a result, N. Godehard continued, the European Union and the European integration process are creating a new momentum for reform, initiating a whole series of policy adjustments. She added that discussions between Chinese and European think tanks on the relations between China, Russia and Europe and on the situation in the Eurasian region are timely and important.

    The seminar participants agreed that in the context of an unstable international situation, countries of the world should adhere to the principles of mutual success and common progress, work together to solve key global and regional problems, and jointly write a new chapter in international governance and multilateral cooperation.

    The seminar was attended by experts and scholars from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, the Bertelsmann Foundation, the Ruhr University Bochum, the AONK and the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Padilla, Schiff Condemn Trump Administration’s Student Visa Revocations

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)
    WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Alex Padilla, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.) blasted the Trump Administration’s recent harmful revocations of international student visas, including on ideological grounds, underscoring the lack of due process regarding these revocations and the chilling effect of these actions in suppressing freedom of thought and expression. In their letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, the Senators condemn the revocation of hundreds of California student visas and Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) termination of several hundred California students’ Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) records.
    The Senators called on the State Department to immediately stop their “Catch and Revoke” AI-powered initiative, an effort to monitor millions of social media accounts of student visa holders and green card holders to gather evidence of alleged terrorist sympathies. The technology is reportedly being used to monitor international students’ speech through SEVIS and other publicly available resources, leading to the revocation of student visas or green cards for students exercising peaceful expression, without due process. This step to surveil international students’ activity is an unprecedented leap toward stifling students’ First Amendment rights and their freedom of speech. The Senators pushed for restoring revoked visas and full transparency.
    While the Department of Justice has reversed the termination of students’ SEVIS records, the student visa revocations under Catch and Revoke remain ongoing and are instilling fear and uncertainty among international students at colleges and universities in California and across the country.
    “These visa revocations and record terminations constitute unprecedented and unconstitutional attacks on freedom of thought and expression that impact international and U.S. citizen students alike at our nation’s colleges and universities,” wrote the Senators. “While we welcome the news that the Administration has taken steps to rectify the SEVIS record terminations, these actions taken all together still call into question our nation’s bedrock commitment to freedom of expression. We urge the State Department and DHS to suspend the ‘Catch and Revoke’ initiative, which continues to cause uncertainty, erode due process, and chill free speech and expression among students.”
    “The actions taken as part of the ‘Catch and Revoke’ initiative suggest a troubling pattern of misusing immigration enforcement to suppress dissent, intimidate politically active students, and chill Constitutionally protected expression,” continued the Senators. “Without transparency or independent oversight, the risk of abuse continues to grow. In fact, USCIS is now openly targeting speech by noncitizens with other immigration statuses, not just students.”
    The Senators detailed a series of other alarming incidents targeting international students, as ICE has detained students on university campuses, at ports of entry, and in their own homes, often without notice or time to contact an attorney. Many of these cruel arrests were based on limited information within these students’ visa applications and violate the right to due process.
    “Reports indicate that ICE has arrested students based on vague or previously disclosed information in their visa applications — such as social media posts, protest participation, or lawful political associations — as justification for their detention,” added the Senators. “If true, these practices represent not just an overreach of immigration authority but a violation of students’ First Amendment rights. These processes do not appear to be conducted with consideration for students’ due process and require immediate remediation.”
    Padilla and Schiff highlighted the immense contributions international students make to colleges and universities in California and nationwide. California’s more than 140,000 international students contribute roughly $6.4 billion to the U.S. economy and support about 55,114 jobs. These students also strengthen and help the United States secure its global leadership in science, technology, and research; protect U.S. national security interests; and promote innovation.
    The Senators emphasized the critical role California’s higher education system plays in powering the U.S. economy and warned that the attacks on the state’s international students jeopardize the country’s economic future.
    “California’s higher education system is the largest in the nation and considered one of the best in the world, driving global economic mobility—and fueling California’s growth into the fourth largest economy in the world,” wrote the Senators. “These institutions serve as beacons of opportunity and economic potential that transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of students in providing a better life for themselves, their families, and future generations. However, this Administration’s attacks on institutions of higher education and international students, who add immense value to our universities, puts our nation’s economic future at risk.”
    Last month, Senators Padilla and Schiff joined 34 Democrats in pressing the Trump Administration to reconsider recent decisions to revoke student visas. In 2021, Padilla led a group of 23 Senators in calling on the State Department to address the backlog of visas for international students. Padilla also chaired a hearing entitled “Strengthening our Workforce and Economy through Higher Education and Immigration” in 2022, highlighting the challenges undocumented students and international students face in seeking higher education and obtaining jobs in the United States.
    Full text of the letter is available here and below:
    Dear Secretary Rubio and Secretary Noem:
    We write to express our increasing concern about actions targeting international students by the State Department and by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Starting earlier this year, the State Department began revoking hundreds of student visas including on apparent ideological grounds, revoking roughly a hundred visas in California alone. These revocations have been conducted by the State Department through its AI-enabled “Catch and Revoke” initiative, instructing affected students to leave the country voluntarily or risk facing deportation proceedings. At the same time, ICE began terminating Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) records for thousands of students—leaving them uncertain about their ability to continue their studies. This includes at least two hundred students in California.
    These visa revocations and record terminations constitute unprecedented and unconstitutional attacks on freedom of thought and expression that impact international and U.S. citizen students alike at our nation’s colleges and universities. While we welcome the news that the Administration has taken steps to rectify the SEVIS record terminations, these actions taken all together still call into question our nation’s bedrock commitment to freedom of expression. We urge the State Department and DHS to suspend the “Catch and Revoke” initiative, which continues to cause uncertainty, erode due process, and chill free speech and expression among students.
    Colleges and universities across the U.S. have long benefitted from the enrollment and participation of international students, who contribute immensely to academic, scientific, and cultural life at schools all around the country. This should not be a partisan issue—there are over 1.1 million international students all over the country, across many states, and the District of Columbia. California enrolls more than 140,850 international students who contribute approximately $6.4 billion to our economy, supporting around 55,114 jobs. Nationally, over 1.12 million international students contribute roughly $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy and support over 370,000 jobs. They also strengthen our national security by fostering global partnerships, cross-cultural understanding, and long-term diplomatic ties with future world leaders educated in the U.S. By attracting top talent from around the globe, we bolster our workforce, drive innovation, and better position ourselves to maintain our competitive edge in science, technology, and research.
    In addition to the State Department visa revocations, multiple alarming incidents have surfaced in recent months involving international students detained by immigration enforcement at university campuses, ports of entry, and even in their homes. In a significant departure from normal practice, these students were, in many cases, not provided prior notice and given no time to contact an attorney, leaving many with few options to defend their nonimmigrant status and their ability to continue studying in the United States. Reports indicate that ICE has arrested students based on vague or previously disclosed information in their visa applications—such as social media posts, protest participation, or lawful political associations—as justification for their detention. If true, these practices represent not just an overreach of immigration authority but a violation of students’ First Amendment rights. These processes do not appear to be conducted with consideration for students’ due process and require immediate remediation.
    The actions taken as part of the “Catch and Revoke” initiative suggest a troubling pattern of misusing immigration enforcement to suppress dissent, intimidate politically active students, and chill Constitutionally protected expression. Without transparency or independent oversight, the risk of abuse continues to grow. In fact, USCIS is now openly targeting speech by noncitizens with other immigration statuses, not just students.
    California’s higher education system is the largest in the nation and considered one of the best in the world, driving global economic mobility—and fueling California’s growth into the fourth largest economy in the world. These institutions serve as beacons of opportunity and economic potential that transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of students in providing a better life for themselves, their families, and future generations. However, this Administration’s attacks on institutions of higher education and international students, who add immense value to our universities, puts our nation’s economic future at risk.
    We urge your agencies to take immediate corrective action by suspending the Catch and Revoke initiative, restoring revoked visas, and providing full transparency to ensure that our immigration system is not misused to police speech at our colleges and universities and maintain beneficial international exchange at universities. We look forward to your prompt response.
    Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Drivers of SUVs and pick-ups should pay more to be on our roads. Here’s how to make the system fairer

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor & Principal Fellow in Urban Risk & Resilience, The University of Melbourne

    In the year 2000, almost 70% of all new cars sold in Australia were small passenger vehicles – mainly sedans and hatchbacks. But over 25 years, their share has dropped dramatically to just 17%, as a car “size race” took hold.

    Now, SUVs and light commercial vehicles comprise almost 80% of the market. Four in five new vehicles sold in Australia today are an SUV, ute, van or light truck.

    As larger vehicles become the new norm, they bring more road wear, urban congestion and demands on infrastructure such as parking.

    It’s time to ask: should drivers of larger vehicles pay for the damage and disruption they cause, through higher registration charges? Generally, yes. Bigger cars mean bigger costs for everyone else. It’s only fair those costs are reflected in how we price their use of public roads.

    Reasons for going big

    There are several reasons for the shift to larger passenger vehicles in Australia. They include perceptions that bigger cars are safer and more prestigious, as well as lifestyle preferences.

    A loophole in the luxury car tax also encourages car buyers to go big. The tax was introduced on imports in 2000 and this financial year applies to vehicles worth more than A$80,576.

    Many utes and SUVs are exempt because they’re classified as light commercial vehicles. The exemption applies regardless of whether the car is used privately or for business.

    Counting the costs on our roads

    Larger vehicles – no matter how they are powered – generally impose bigger costs on society than smaller cars.

    Large SUVs and utes (if powered by fossil fuels) have a far greater climate impact. On average, a small car emits 2,040 kilograms less carbon dioxide (CO₂) a year than a pickup truck.

    But even big electric vehicles can cause climate harm. The substantial resources required to manufacture a large EV creates emissions, which may undermine the climate benefits electrification promises.

    Large passenger vehicles also create health system costs. In road crashes, for example, they may better protect their occupants, but pose greater risks to others – especially pedestrians and those in smaller vehicles.

    Research suggests for each fatal crash that occupants of large vehicles avoid, at least 4.3 fatal crashes involving others occur.

    Bigger vehicles also need more space. Standards Australia has proposed making car-parking spaces larger to accommodate the trend to larger cars. Cities such as Paris have introduced higher parking fees for SUVs on these grounds.

    Larger vehicles also slow overall traffic flow. For example, they have longer braking distances and other motorists tend to drive further behind them than smaller cars.

    And at signalised intersections, a large SUV’s impact on traffic flows is equal to 1.41 passenger cars.

    In real-world terms, these differences add up. In the United States in 2011, the annual cost of light-duty trucks on congestion and lost productivity was estimated at more than US$2 billion.

    Then there’s the cost of road wear. You might think heavier vehicles just wear roads a bit faster than smaller ones. But in reality, the relationship is far more dramatic.

    Let’s compare a vehicle with an axle weight of 500 kg and a vehicle with an axle weight of 1,000 kg. The second vehicle doesn’t produce double the road damage – it produces 16 times the damage. This phenomenon is known as the “fourth power rule”.

    It means heavier vehicles cost far more in road maintenance. Curious to test it? The Road Damage Calculator lets you compare the relative impact of vehicles of different weights.

    What does car rego pay for?

    Vehicle registration offers a way to recoup the societal costs caused by large vehicles.

    Part of car registration fees go toward administration, but they also help governments pay for the broader cost of vehicles on public infrastructure and shared spaces.

    In Australia, car registration systems vary widely between states. Not all reflect the impact of the vehicles on the road.

    In Victoria, fees are based mostly on location – whether the car is registered in a metropolitan, outer-metro or rural area. In the Australian Capital Territory, fees are calculated on a vehicle’s emissions.

    Queensland and Tasmania use the number of engine cylinders to set fees – a rough proxy for vehicle size, but not a precise one.

    In New South Wales and Western Australia, heavier vehicles pay more.

    South Australia and the Northern Territory apply different models again, using a combination of settings not directly based on weight.

    A fairer system

    Larger vehicles take up more road space, contribute more to congestion, and cause exponentially more damage to road surfaces. These are exactly the kinds of impacts a vehicle registration system should help account for.

    So, what would a truly equitable registration fee model look like? Based on the evidence, it would not only account for vehicle size and weight, but also how often the vehicle is driven. After all, a heavy car parked in a garage all year causes less impact than one on the road every day.

    Several countries, including New Zealand, have adopted distance-based or road-use charging schemes for certain types of vehicles, which uses a combination of vehicle weight and distance travelled.

    As our vehicle fleet continues to evolve, Australia should follow suit, with a smarter and more equitable registration fee system.

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

    – ref. Drivers of SUVs and pick-ups should pay more to be on our roads. Here’s how to make the system fairer – https://theconversation.com/drivers-of-suvs-and-pick-ups-should-pay-more-to-be-on-our-roads-heres-how-to-make-the-system-fairer-252381

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: E-bikes for everyone: 3 NZ trials show people will make the switch – with the right support

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caroline Shaw, Associate Professor in Public Health, University of Otago

    Getty Images

    Anyone who uses city roads will know e-bikes have become increasingly popular in Aotearoa New Zealand. But we also know rising e-bike sales have been predominantly driven by financially well-off households.

    The question now is, can e-biking be accepted and embraced by people and communities where it is currently not happening? Three pilot programmes from around the country have now given us cause for optimism.

    Understanding more about the barriers to e-bike access – especially in communities with low cycling levels or where income levels mean bikes are prohibitively expensive – has been one of the main gaps in our knowledge.

    But over the past few years, we have been involved in projects designed to examine how e-bikes might work in such places. The three pilots were based in Mangere (South Auckland), Wainuiomata (Lower Hutt) and Sydenham (Christchurch).

    These are all areas or communities with lower relative incomes and lower levels of cycling. The majority of individuals involved did not routinely cycle, and some hadn’t been on a bike for decades.

    In all three pilots, the results were positive. In some cases, participants reported long-term, life-changing benefits.

    What the pilot schemes showed

    Each pilot was different. The Mangere programme loaned e-bikes to people for two to three months between 2022 and 2023 through a community bikehub. The Wainuiomata programme involved a longer loan period of one year over 2023, and was run through a health provider at a local marae.

    The Christchurch programme, which ran between 2021 and 2024, was a free e-bike share scheme for tenants in a specific social housing complex, organised through a partnership with a shared e-bike provider.

    Where needed, participants in all pilots were supported as they gained riding confidence and knowledge of safe cycling routes.

    Participants in all the pilot programmes found e-biking acceptable, and they used and enjoyed the bikes. While these pilots were not set up to measure distance travelled, we know from other research that participants in e-bike access schemes ride on average 5km per day, half of which replaces car trips.

    Individuals reported practical benefits such as being able to travel to their jobs, mental and physical health improvements, and not having to pay for petrol each week.

    In the Wainuiomata pilot there were wider ripple effects, with participants reporting whānau members also started cycling as a result of the loan scheme. In one case, ten members of the wider whānau got involved.

    Good cycling infrastructure will encourage e-bike uptake.
    Getty Images

    3 policy actions needed now

    These results mirror what we know already about how e-bikes can improve physical and mental health, reduce transport greenhouse gas emissions, and make cities nicer places by reducing car use.

    Compared to conventional bikes, e-bikes also allow people to bike further and in hillier places. They are also great for groups with traditionally lower levels of cycling, such as people with health conditions, disabilities, older people and women.

    It also seems concerns about increased rates of injury may be less significant than initially thought. Overall, the broad benefits of e-bikes have seen hundreds of access schemes developed globally, including many in New Zealand.

    Combining international evidence and experience with the information from the three local pilot programmes, we see three main policy areas that will increase e-bike uptake and use in New Zealand.

    1. Physical infrastructure: this is needed to support cycling in all our cities and larger towns, and would involve a combination of cycle lanes and low-traffic neighbourhoods, alongside expanded bike parking and storage.

    The Climate Change Commission has recommended these networks be constructed, and experience from Wellington shows rapid construction is possible.

    2. Targeted access schemes: these help people who can’t afford e-bikes. Without targeting, such schemes tend to be mainly used by the well-off. It’s likely we will need a range of options, such as short-term and long-term low-cost (or free) loans, rent-to-buy schemes or subsidies.

    People should be able to access these schemes through a variety of organisations so as to target different motivations: saving money, improving health, commuting for work, ferrying children, environmental concern.

    3. Local organisation networks: these support individuals and communities to access bikes, maintain them, provide rider training, run bike libraries, route finding and community events to support and encourage people to ride.

    This wider support was a key factor to the success of the all pilots. Local organisations, champions and leaders are essential to help overcome some of the practical and cultural barriers that exist because we have such low levels of cycling.

    Change is achievable

    What we have outlined constitutes a different way of doing business for the transport sector. But there are already organisations doing a lot of this work, including bike hubs and cycling community organisations.

    Others have infrastructure in place that could expand to encompass e-bike programmes, such as marae and community health centres. What is needed is a commitment to support these activities as part of core transport business policy.

    We don’t need to wait for more research. The three things required – building infrastructure, increasing access and providing support programmes – are all understood and achievable.

    E-bikes can and should play an important role in expanding New Zealand’s transport options and improving the wellbeing of its people.

    Caroline Shaw receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand, University of Otago and Waka Kotahi/New Zealand Transport Agency.

    Karen Witten receives funding from the Health Research Council of NZ, Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment,
    Waka Kotahi/NZTA and Auckland Council.

    Simon Kingham receives funding from Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment.

    – ref. E-bikes for everyone: 3 NZ trials show people will make the switch – with the right support – https://theconversation.com/e-bikes-for-everyone-3-nz-trials-show-people-will-make-the-switch-with-the-right-support-255956

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Please don’t tape your mouth at night, whatever TikTok says. A new study shows why this viral trend can be risky

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Moira Junge, Adjunct Clincal Associate Professor (Psychologist), Monash University

    K.IvanS/Shutterstock

    You might have heard of people using tape to literally keep their mouths shut while they sleep. Mouth taping has become a popular trend on social media, with many fans claiming it helps improve sleep and overall health.

    The purported benefits of mouth taping during sleep are largely anecdotal, and include claims of better airflow, less snoring, improved asthma symptoms, less of a dry mouth, being less likely to have bad breath, and better sleep quality.

    As the trend has gained momentum in recent years the claims have also come to include improved skin, mood and digestion – and even a sharper jawline.

    The rationale for mouth taping during sleep is to encourage breathing through the nose rather than through the mouth. When a person’s nasal passages are blocked, breathing switches from the nose to the mouth. Mouth breathing has been linked to conditions such as obstructive sleep apnoea.

    But is mouth taping an effective way to address these issues, and is it safe? A new review suggests taping your mouth shut while you sleep offers limited benefits – and could pose risks.

    What did the review find?

    In a new paper, Canadian researchers reviewed the scientific literature on mouth taping, searching for studies that mentioned terms such as “mouth breathing”, “mouth taping” and “sleep”.

    They searched specifically for studies looking at people with known mouth breathing and breathing-related sleeping problems such as obstructive sleep apnoea to understand the potential benefits and harms of mouth taping for this group.

    Obstructive sleep apnoea is a condition where your airway is partly or completely blocked at times while you’re asleep. This can cause you to stop breathing for short periods, called “apnoeas”. Apnoeas can happen many times a night, resulting in lowered oxygen levels in the blood as well as sleep disruption.

    The researchers found ten eligible studies published between 1999 and 2024, with a total of 213 participants. Eight studies looked at mouth taping, and two studies involved using a chin strap to keep the mouth shut.

    Only two studies identified any benefits of mouth taping for mild obstructive sleep apnoea. The observed improvements – to measures such as oxygen levels in the blood and number of apnoeas per hour – were modest.

    And although they were statistically significant, they were probably not clinically significant. This means these changes likely wouldn’t make much difference to symptoms or treatment decisions.

    The remainder of studies found no evidence mouth taping helps to treat mouth breathing or related conditions.

    Mouth taping has become a popular social media trend.
    K.IvanS/Shutterstock

    What’s more, four studies warned about potential serious harms. In particular, covering the mouth could pose a risk of asphyxiation (lack of oxygen that can lead to unconsciousness or death) for people whose mouth breathing is caused by significant blockage of the nasal airways. This kind of nasal obstruction could be a result of conditions such as hay fever, deviated septum, or enlarged tonsils.

    In other words, mouth taping is definitely not a good idea if you have a blocked nose, as it’s unsafe to have both the nose and the mouth obstructed at the same time during sleep.

    What’s the take-home message?

    The authors concluded there are very few benefits and some potential serious risks associated with mouth taping in people who are mouth breathers or have obstructive sleep apnoea.

    They did however note we need further high-quality evidence to better understand if mouth taping is safe and works.

    This review didn’t focus on any research relating to mouth taping for proposed improvements to mood, skin, digestion, sharper jaw lines and other things, so the researchers could not draw conclusions about the efficacy and safety of mouth taping for those purposes.

    Snoring is one of the problems mouth taping has been suggested to help with.
    Kleber Cordeiro/Shutterstock

    Internationally, qualified sleep health professionals do not recommend mouth taping.

    If you have concerns about your sleep, the best thing to do is to consult trusted scientific sources or a health-care professional who will be able to guide you to address the underlying causes of your sleep challenges.

    Trying social media trends such as mouth taping before you seek expert advice could lead to delays in diagnosing serious conditions for which there are evidence-based treatments available.

    Mouth taping should definitely not be attempted in children.

    It’s possible that in some healthy adults, without respiratory conditions, without significant sleep disorders, and who don’t have tape allergies, that mouth taping could pose little harm and produce some modest benefits. But we don’t have enough evidence yet to know one way or the other.

    Moira Junge is CEO of The Sleep Health Foundation. She is also affiliated with the Healthylife Health Advisory Board and is a psychologist and clinic director at Yarraville Health Group.

    – ref. Please don’t tape your mouth at night, whatever TikTok says. A new study shows why this viral trend can be risky – https://theconversation.com/please-dont-tape-your-mouth-at-night-whatever-tiktok-says-a-new-study-shows-why-this-viral-trend-can-be-risky-256901

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Evidence shows AI systems are already too much like humans. Will that be a problem?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sandra Peter, Director of Sydney Executive Plus, University of Sydney

    Studiostoks / Shutterstock

    What if we could design a machine that could read your emotions and intentions, write thoughtful, empathetic, perfectly timed responses — and seemingly know exactly what you need to hear? A machine so seductive, you wouldn’t even realise it’s artificial. What if we already have?

    In a comprehensive meta-analysis, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, we show that the latest generation of large language model-powered chatbots match and exceed most humans in their ability to communicate. A growing body of research shows these systems now reliably pass the Turing test, fooling humans into thinking they are interacting with another human.

    None of us was expecting the arrival of super communicators. Science fiction taught us that artificial intelligence (AI) would be highly rational and all-knowing, but lack humanity.

    Yet here we are. Recent experiments have shown that models such as GPT-4 outperform humans in writing persuasively and also empathetically. Another study found that large language models (LLMs) excel at assessing nuanced sentiment in human-written messages.

    LLMs are also masters at roleplay, assuming a wide range of personas and mimicking nuanced linguistic character styles. This is amplified by their ability to infer human beliefs and intentions from text. Of course, LLMs do not possess true empathy or social understanding – but they are highly effective mimicking machines.

    We call these systems “anthropomorphic agents”. Traditionally, anthropomorphism refers to ascribing human traits to non-human entities. However, LLMs genuinely display highly human-like qualities, so calls to avoid anthropomorphising LLMs will fall flat.

    This is a landmark moment: when you cannot tell the difference between talking to a human or an AI chatbot online.

    On the internet, nobody knows you’re an AI

    What does this mean? On the one hand, LLMs promise to make complex information more widely accessible via chat interfaces, tailoring messages to individual comprehension levels. This has applications across many domains, such as legal services or public health. In education, the roleplay abilities can be used to create Socratic tutors that ask personalised questions and help students learn.

    At the same time, these systems are seductive. Millions of users already interact with AI companion apps daily. Much has been said about the negative effects of companion apps, but anthropomorphic seduction comes with far wider implications.

    Users are ready to trust AI chatbots so much that they disclose highly personal information. Pair this with the bots’ highly persuasive qualities, and genuine concerns emerge.

    Recent research by AI company Anthropic further shows that its Claude 3 chatbot was at its most persuasive when allowed to fabricate information and engage in deception. Given AI chatbots have no moral inhibitions, they are poised to be much better at deception than humans.

    This opens the door to manipulation at scale, to spread disinformation, or create highly effective sales tactics. What could be more effective than a trusted companion casually recommending a product in conversation? ChatGPT has already begun to provide product recommendations in response to user questions. It’s only a short step to subtly weaving product recommendations into conversations – without you ever asking.

    What can be done?

    It is easy to call for regulation, but harder to work out the details.

    The first step is to raise awareness of these abilities. Regulation should prescribe disclosure – users need to always know that they interact with an AI, like the EU AI Act mandates. But this will not be enough, given the AI systems’ seductive qualities.

    The second step must be to better understand anthropomorphic qualities. So far, LLM tests measure “intelligence” and knowledge recall, but none so far measures the degree of “human likeness”. With a test like this, AI companies could be required to disclose anthropomorphic abilities with a rating system, and legislators could determine acceptable risk levels for certain contexts and age groups.

    The cautionary tale of social media, which was largely unregulated until much harm had been done, suggests there is some urgency. If governments take a hands-off approach, AI is likely to amplify existing problems with spreading of mis- and disinformation, or the loneliness epidemic. In fact, Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has already signalled that he would like to fill the void of real human contact with “AI friends”.

    Relying on AI companies to refrain from further humanising their systems seems ill-advised. All developments point in the opposite direction. OpenAI is working on making their systems more engaging and personable, with the ability to give your version of ChatGPT a specific “personality”. ChatGPT has generally become more chatty, often asking followup questions to keep the conversation going, and its voice mode adds even more seductive appeal.

    Much good can be done with anthropomorphic agents. Their persuasive abilities can be used for ill causes and for good ones, from fighting conspiracy theories to enticing users into donating and other prosocial behaviours.

    Yet we need a comprehensive agenda across the spectrum of design and development, deployment and use, and policy and regulation of conversational agents. When AI can inherently push our buttons, we shouldn’t let it change our systems.

    Jevin West receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the Knight Foundation, and others. The full list of funders and affiliated organizations can be found here: https://jevinwest.org/cv.html

    Kai Riemer and Sandra Peter 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. Evidence shows AI systems are already too much like humans. Will that be a problem? – https://theconversation.com/evidence-shows-ai-systems-are-already-too-much-like-humans-will-that-be-a-problem-256980

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI: F&M Bank Promotes Eric D. Faust to Executive Vice President

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    ARCHBOLD, Ohio, May 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — F&M Bank (“F&M”), an Archbold, Ohio-based bank owned by Farmers & Merchants Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: FMAO), is proud to announce the promotion of Eric D. Faust to Executive Vice President. Faust has served as the bank’s Chief Risk Officer since 2022, where he has led significant advancements in enterprise risk and regulatory compliance.

    In his role, Mr. Faust has successfully built F&M’s comprehensive risk and compliance team, integrated regulatory compliance more deeply into strategic decision-making, and enhanced the bank’s oversight structures. His efforts have helped ensure F&M continues to meet evolving regulatory expectations while maintaining a strong foundation for safe and sound growth.

    Prior to joining F&M, Mr. Faust served as First Vice President and Director of Risk Management at Northstar Financial Group in Wyoming, Michigan. He also held the position of Examination Manager for the State of Michigan’s Department of Insurance and Financial Services. He holds an MBA from Davenport University and a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from Central Michigan University.

    “Eric’s promotion to Executive Vice President is a testament to his leadership and deep understanding of risk and compliance in today’s banking environment,” said Lars Eller, President and CEO of F&M. “He has played a vital role in strengthening our risk culture and ensuring we remain responsive and resilient in a highly regulated landscape.”

    Mr. Faust resides in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and will continue to lead F&M’s risk and compliance efforts in his expanded role.

    About F&M Bank:
    F&M Bank is a local independent community bank that has been serving its communities since 1897. F&M Bank provides commercial banking, retail banking and other financial services. Our locations are in Butler, Champaign, Fulton, Defiance, Hancock, Henry, Lucas, Shelby, Williams, and Wood counties in Ohio. In Northeast Indiana, we have offices located in Adams, Allen, DeKalb, Jay, Steuben and Wells counties. The Michigan footprint includes Oakland County, and we have Loan Production Offices in Troy, Michigan; Muncie, Indiana; and Perrysburg and Bryan, Ohio.

    Safe harbor statement
    Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Statements by F&M, including management’s expectations and comments, may not be based on historical facts and are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Actual results could vary materially depending on risks and uncertainties inherent in general and local banking conditions, competitive factors specific to markets in which F&M and its subsidiaries operate, future interest rate levels, legislative and regulatory decisions, capital market conditions, or the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and its impacts on our credit quality and business operations, as well as its impact on general economic and financial market conditions. F&M assumes no responsibility to update this information. For more details, please refer to F&M’s SEC filing, including its most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. Such filings can be viewed at the SEC’s website, www.sec.gov or through F&M’s website www.fm.bank.

    Company Contact: Investor and Media Contact:
    Lars B. Eller
    President and Chief Executive Officer
    Farmers & Merchants Bancorp, Inc.
    (419) 446-2501
    leller@fm.bank    		 Andrew M. Berger
    Managing Director
    SM Berger & Company, Inc.
    (216) 464-6400
    andrew@smberger.com
       

    A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/492467f9-4e52-45e6-a6fc-3278cf80cea0

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: NASA-French Satellite Spots Large-Scale River Waves for First Time

    Source: NASA

    In a first, researchers from NASA and Virginia Tech used satellite data to measure the height and speed of potentially hazardous flood waves traveling down U.S. rivers. The three waves they tracked were likely caused by extreme rainfall and by a loosened ice jam. While there is currently no database that compiles satellite data on river flood waves, the new study highlights the potential of space-based observations to aid hydrologists and engineers, especially those working in communities along river networks with limited flood control structures such as levees and flood gates.
    Unlike ocean waves, which are ordinarily driven by wind and tides, and roll to shore at a steady clip, river waves (also called flood or flow waves) are temporary surges stretching tens to hundreds of miles. Typically caused by rainfall or seasonal snowmelt, they are essential to shuttling nutrients and organisms down a river. But they can also pose hazards: Extreme river waves triggered by a prolonged downpour or dam break can produce floods.
    “Ocean waves are well known from surfing and sailing, but rivers are the arteries of the planet. We want to understand their dynamics,” said Cedric David, a hydrologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California and a coauthor of a new study published May 14 in Geophysical Research Letters.

    Measuring Speed and Size
    To search for river waves for her doctoral research, lead author Hana Thurman of Virginia Tech turned to a spacecraft launched in 2022. The SWOT (Surface Water and Ocean Topography) satellite is a collaboration between NASA and the French space agency CNES (Centre National d’Études Spatiales). It is surveying the height of nearly all of Earth’s surface waters, both fresh and salty, using its sensitive Ka-band Radar Interferometer (KaRIn). The instrument maps the elevation and width of water bodies by bouncing microwaves off the surface and timing how long the signal takes to return.
    “In addition to monitoring total storage of waters in lakes and rivers, we zoom in on dynamics and impacts of water movement and change,” said Nadya Vinogradova Shiffer, SWOT program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington.
    Thurman knew that SWOT has helped scientists track rising sea levels near the coast, spot tsunami slosh, and map the seafloor, but could she identify river height anomalies in the data indicating a wave on the move?
    She found that the mission had caught three clear examples of river waves, including one that arose abruptly on the Yellowstone River in Montana in April 2023. As the satellite passed overhead, it observed a 9.1-foot-tall (2.8-meter-tall) crest flowing toward the Missouri River in North Dakota. It was divided into a dramatic 6.8-mile-long (11-kilometer-long) peak followed by a more drawn‐out tail. These details are exciting to see from orbit and illustrate the KaRIn instrument’s uniquely high spatial resolution, Thurman said.
    Sleuthing through optical Sentinel-2 imagery of the area, she determined that the wave likely resulted from an ice jam breaking apart upstream and releasing pent-up water.
    The other two river waves that Thurman and the team found were triggered by rainfall runoff. One, spotted by SWOT starting on Jan. 25, 2024, on the Colorado River south of Austin, Texas, was associated with the largest flood of the year on that section of river. Measuring over 30 feet (9 meters) tall and 166 miles (267 kilometers) long, it traveled around 3.5 feet (1.07 meters) per second for over 250 miles (400 kilometers) before discharging into Matagorda Bay.
    The other wave originated on the Ocmulgee River near Macon, Georgia, in March 2024. Measuring over 20 feet (6 meters) tall and extending more than 100 miles (165 kilometers), it traveled about a foot (0.33 meters) per second for more than 124 miles (200 kilometers).
    “We’re learning more about the shape and speed of flow waves, and how they change along long stretches of river,” Thurman said. “That could help us answer questions like, how fast could a flood get here and is infrastructure at risk?”
    Complementary Observations
    Engineers and water managers measuring river waves have long relied on stream gauges, which record water height and estimate discharge at fixed points along a river. In the United States, stream gauge networks are maintained by agencies including the U.S. Geological Survey. They are sparser in other parts of the world.
    “Satellite data is complementary because it can help fill in the gaps,” said study supervisor George Allen, a hydrologist and remote sensing expert at Virginia Tech.
    If stream gauges are like toll booths clocking cars as they pass, SWOT is like a traffic helicopter taking snapshots of the highway.
    The wave speeds that SWOT helped determine were similar to those calculated using gauge data alone, Allen said, showing how the satellite could help monitor waves in river basins without gauges. Knowing where and why river waves develop can help scientists tracking changing flood patterns around the world.
    Orbiting Earth multiple times each day, SWOT is expected to observe some 55% of large-scale floods at some stage in their life cycle. “If we see something in the data, we can say something,” David said of SWOT’s potential to flag dangerous floods in the making. “For a long time, we’ve stood on the banks of our rivers, but we’ve never seen them like we are now.”
    More About SWOT
    The SWOT satellite was jointly developed by NASA and CNES, with contributions from the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and the UK Space Agency. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, managed for the agency by Caltech in Pasadena, California, leads the U.S. component of the project. For the flight system payload, NASA provided the Ka-band radar interferometer (KaRIn) instrument, a GPS science receiver, a laser retroreflector, a two-beam microwave radiometer, and NASA instrument operations. The Doppler Orbitography and Radioposition Integrated by Satellite system, the dual frequency Poseidon altimeter (developed by Thales Alenia Space), the KaRIn radio-frequency subsystem (together with Thales Alenia Space and with support from the UK Space Agency), the satellite platform, and ground operations were provided by CNES. The KaRIn high-power transmitter assembly was provided by CSA.
    News Media Contacts
    Jane J. Lee / Andrew WangJet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.818-354-0307 / 626-379-6874Written by Sally Younger2025-074

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: How Big is Space? We Asked a NASA Expert: Episode: 61

    Source: NASA

    [embedded content]

    How big is space?
    Space is really big. Thinking about our solar system, let’s imagine you could get in a car and drive to Pluto at highway speeds. It would take you about 6,000 years to get there.
    When we start to think about other stars outside of our solar system, we need to think about
    another unit of distance. This is why astronomers use the unit light-years.
    Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. One light year is about 6 trillion miles. The closest star to our Sun is about four light years away.
    Our own Milky Way galaxy is about 100,000 light-years across.
    We know from deep field images of the universe that there are hundreds of billions, perhaps a trillion other galaxies.
    Using some of the deepest images yet from the James Webb Space Telescope, we’ve been able to see galaxies that emitted their light about 13 and a half billion years ago.
    Now, here’s a really important thing. Because the universe is expanding, those most distant galaxies are actually much further away than 13 and a half billion light years.
    I’m glossing over some math here, but we can estimate that the observable universe is about 92 billion light-years across. But we’re pretty sure that the universe is even bigger than what we can see.
    And here’s where things get really weird, we don’t actually know if the universe is finite or infinite.
    As much as we’ve learned about the universe, science has no reliable estimate of the actual size of the entire universe.
    [END VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]
    Full Episode List
    Full YouTube Playlist

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Devil’s in Details in Selfie Taken by NASA’s Mars Perseverance Rover

    Source: NASA

    The rover took the image — its fifth since landing in February 2021 — between stops investigating the Martian surface.
    A Martian dust devil photobombed NASA’s Perseverance Mars rover as it took a selfie on May 10 to mark its 1,500th sol (Martian day) exploring the Red Planet. At the time, the six-wheeled rover was parked in an area nicknamed “Witch Hazel Hill,” an area on Jezero Crater’s rim that the rover has been exploring over the past five months.
    “The rover self-portrait at the Witch Hazel Hill area gives us a great view of the terrain and the rover hardware,” said Justin Maki, Perseverance imaging lead at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California, which manages the mission. “The well-illuminated scene and relatively clear atmosphere allowed us to capture a dust devil located 3 miles to the north in Neretva Vallis.”
    The selfie also gives the engineering teams a chance to view and assess the state of the rover, its instruments, and the overall dust accumulation as Perseverance reached the 1,500-sol milestone. (A day on Mars is 24.6 hours, so 1,500 sols equals 1,541 Earth days.)

    The bright light illuminating the scene is courtesy of the high angle of the Sun at the time the images composing the selfie were taken, lighting up Perseverance’s deck and casting its shadow below and behind the chassis. Immediately in front of the rover is the “Bell Island” borehole, the latest sampling location in the Witch Hazel Hill area.
    How Perseverance Did It
    This newest selfie, Perseverance’s fifth since the mission began, was stitched together on Earth from a series of 59 images collected by the WATSON (Wide Angle Topographic Sensor for Operations and eNgineering) camera at the end of the robotic arm. It shows the rover’s remote sensing mast looking into the camera. To generate the version of the selfie with the mast looking at the borehole, WATSON took three additional images, concentrating on the reoriented mast.

    “To get that selfie look, each WATSON image has to have its own unique field of view,” said Megan Wu, a Perseverance imaging scientist from Malin Space Science Systems in San Diego. “That means we had to make 62 precision movements of the robotic arm. The whole process takes about an hour, but it’s worth it. Having the dust devil in the background makes it a classic. This is a great shot.”

    The dust covering the rover is visual evidence of the rover’s journey on Mars: By the time the image was captured, Perseverance had abraded and analyzed a total of 37 rocks and boulders with its science instruments, collected 26 rock cores (25 sealed and 1 left unsealed), and traveled more than 22 miles (36 kilometers).
    “After 1,500 sols, we may be a bit dusty, but our beauty is more than skin deep,” said Art Thompson, Perseverance project manager at JPL. “Our multi-mission radioisotope thermoelectric generator is giving us all the power we need. All our systems and subsystems are in the green and clicking along, and our amazing instruments continue to provide data that will feed scientific discoveries for years to come.”
    The rover is currently exploring along the western rim of Jezero Crater, at a location the science team calls “Krokodillen.”
    News Media Contacts
    DC AgleJet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.818-393-9011agle@jpl.nasa.gov
    Karen Fox / Molly WasserNASA Headquarters, Washington202-358-1600karen.c.fox@nasa.gov / molly.l.wasser@nasa.gov  
    2025-073      

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Discovery Alert: A Possible Perpendicular Planet

    Source: NASA

    A newly discovered planetary system, informally known as 2M1510, is among the strangest ever found. An apparent planet traces out an orbit that carries it far over the poles of two brown dwarfs. This pair of mysterious objects – too massive to be planets, not massive enough to be stars – also orbit each other. Yet a third brown dwarf orbits the other two at an extreme distance.

    In a typical arrangement, as in our solar system, families of planets orbit their parent stars in more-or-less a flat plane – the orbital plane – that matches the star’s equator. The rotation of the star, too, aligns with this plane. Everyone is “coplanar:” flat, placid, stately.
    Not so for possible planet 2M1510 b (considered a “candidate planet” pending further measurements). If confirmed, the planet would be in a “polar orbit” around the two central brown dwarfs – in other words, its orbital plane would be perpendicular to the plane in which the two brown dwarfs orbit each other. Take two flat disks, merge them together at an angle in the shape of an X, and you have the essence of this orbital configuration.
    “Circumbinary” planets, those orbiting two stars at once, are rare enough. A circumbinary orbiting at a 90-degree tilt was, until now, unheard of. But new measurements of this system, using the ESO (European Southern Observatory) Very Large Telescope in Chile, appear to reveal what scientists previously only imagined. 

    The method by which the study’s science team teased out the planet’s vertiginous existence is itself a bit of a wild ride. The candidate planet cannot be detected the way most exoplanets – planets around other stars – are found today: the “transit” method, a kind of mini-eclipse, a tiny dip in starlight when the planet crosses the face of its star.
    Instead they used the next most prolific method, “radial velocity” measurements. Orbiting planets cause their stars to rock back and forth ever so slightly, as the planets’ gravity pulls the stars one way and another; that pull causes subtle, but measurable, shifts in the star’s light spectrum. Add one more twist to the detection in this case: the push-me-pull-you effect of the planet on the two brown dwarfs’ orbit around each other. The path of the brown dwarf pair’s 21-day mutual orbit is being subtly altered in a way that can only be explained, the study’s authors conclude, by a polar-orbiting planet.

    Only 16 circumbinary planets – out of more than 5,800 confirmed exoplanets – have been found by scientists so far, most by the transit method. Twelve of those were found using NASA’s now-retired Kepler Space Telescope, the mission that takes the prize for the most transit detections (nearly 2,800). Scientists have observed a small number of debris disks and “protoplanetary” disks in polar orbits, and suspected that polar-orbiting planets might be out there as well. They seem at last to have turned one up.

    An international science team led by Thomas A. Baycroft, a Ph.D. student in astronomy and astrophysics at the University of Birmingham, U.K., published a paper describing their discovery in the journal “Science Advances” in April 2025. The planet was entered into NASA’s Exoplanet Archive on May 1, 2025. The system’s full name is 2MASS J15104786-281874 (2M1510 for short).

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: LiveRamp Announces Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2025 Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Q4 Revenue up 10% year-over-year

    FY25 Operating Cash Flow increases 46% year-over-year

    FY25 Share Repurchases totaled $101 million

    SAN FRANCISCO, May 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — LiveRamp® (NYSE: RAMP), a leading data collaboration platform, today announced its financial results for the quarter and fiscal year ended March 31, 2025.

    Q4 Financial Highlights1

    • Total revenue was $189 million, up 10%.
    • Subscription revenue was $145 million, up 9%.
    • Marketplace & Other revenue was $44 million, up 14%.
    • GAAP gross profit was $131 million, up 5%. GAAP gross margin of 69% compressed by 3 percentage points. Non-GAAP gross profit was $136 million, up 5%. Non-GAAP gross margin of 72% compressed by 3 percentage points.
    • GAAP operating loss was $12 million compared to $14 million. GAAP operating margin of negative 6% expanded by 2 percentage points. Non-GAAP operating income was $23 million compared to $16 million. Non-GAAP operating margin of 12% expanded by 3 percentage points.
    • GAAP diluted loss per share was $0.10 and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share was $0.30.
    • Net cash provided by operating activities was $63 million compared to $28 million.
    • Share repurchases in the fourth quarter totaled approximately 950 thousand shares for $25 million.

    Fiscal Year Financial Highlights1

    • Total revenue was $746 million, up 13%.
    • Subscription revenue was $569 million, up 11%, and represented 76% of total revenue.
    • Marketplace & Other revenue was $177 million, up 21%.
    • GAAP gross profit was $530 million, up 10%, and GAAP gross margin of 71% compressed by 2 percentage points. Non-GAAP gross profit was $550 million, up 12%, and non-GAAP gross margin of 74% compressed by 1 percentage point.
    • GAAP operating income was $5 million compared to $11 million. GAAP operating margin of 1% compressed by 1 percentage point. Non-GAAP operating income was $136 million compared to $105 million. Non-GAAP operating margin of 18% expanded by 2 percentage points.
    • GAAP diluted loss per share was $0.01, and non-GAAP diluted EPS was $1.70.
    • Net cash provided by operating activities was $154 million compared to $106 million.
    • Share repurchases in fiscal 2025 totaled approximately 3.8 million shares for $101 million. As of March 31, 2025, there was $256 million in remaining capacity under the share repurchase authorization that expires on December 31, 2026.

    A reconciliation between GAAP and non-GAAP results is provided in the schedules to this press release.

    Commenting on the results, CEO Scott Howe said: “We had a strong finish to fiscal 2025, with fourth quarter revenue and operating income exceeding our expectations, revenue growing at a double-digit rate and operating cash flow reaching a record high. As we enter fiscal 2026, more so than ever, we are focused on controlling what we can control: Making our platform faster and easier to use; rolling out new functionality, such as our new Cross Media Intelligence measurement solution; helping customers optimize ad spend by harnessing the power of our Data Collaboration Network; and, finally, prudently managing our own costs and growth investments. The near-term macro environment may be uncertain, but we remain confident that in the long-run we can drive sustained growth and shareholder value creation.”

    GAAP and Non-GAAP Results
    The following table summarizes the Company’s financial results for the fiscal 2025 fourth quarter and full year ended March 31, 2025 ($ in millions, except per share amounts):

           
      GAAP   Non-GAAP
      Q4 FY25 FY25   Q4 FY25 FY25
    Subscription revenue $145 $569   — —
    YoY change 9% 11%   — —
    Marketplace & Other revenue $44 $177   — —
    YoY change 14% 21%   — —
    Total revenue $189 $746   — —
    YoY change 10% 13%   — —
               
    Gross profit $131 $530   $136 $550
    % Gross margin 69% 71%   72% 74%
    YoY change (3 pts) (2 pts)   (3 pts) (1 pt)
               
    Operating income (loss) ($12) $5   $23 $136
    % Operating margin (6%) 1%   12% 18%
    YoY change 2 pts (1 pt)   3 pts 2 pts
               
    Net earnings (loss) ($6) ($1)   $20 $115
    Diluted earnings (loss) per share ($0.10) ($0.01)   $0.30 $1.70
               
    Shares to calculate diluted EPS 66.0 66.1   67.5 67.5
    YoY change (1%) (3%)   (1%) (1%)
               
    Net operating cash flow $63 $154   — —
    Free cash flow — —   $62 $153
               
    Totals may not sum due to rounding.
     
     

    A detailed discussion of our non-GAAP financial measures and a reconciliation between GAAP and non-GAAP results is provided in the schedules attached to this press release.

    Additional Business Highlights & Metrics

    • On February 25 we hosted an investor day presentation in San Francisco. The video replay, slide presentation and transcript are available on our investor relations website. Additionally, please see our investor day recap that highlights 10 interesting slides from the presentation, available here.
    • On February 25-27 we hosted our annual customer and partner conference, RampUp, in San Francisco, bringing together more than 2,500 leaders at the intersection of marketing, technology and data science. The event featured product demonstrations and 40+ panels and presentations featuring 110 leaders from some of the largest brands in the world, including Disney, Home Depot, P&G and Uber – to name a few. Video replays of these sessions are available here and an event recap for investors is available here.
    • On February 25 we announced Cross-Media Intelligence, a new capability that enables marketers to better measure and optimize campaigns anywhere their customers are. LiveRamp’s Cross-Media Intelligence is a premier solution for next-generation cross-media measurement, unifying insights across partners and datasets, and delivering actionable, repeatable insights with unmatched speed and precision. With Cross-Media Intelligence, marketers for the first time can access unified, deduplicated reporting across screens and platforms (additional information).
    • On April 22 Google announced that it will no longer roll out a new standalone prompt for consumers to opt-in to third-party cookie tracking on Chrome. LiveRamp’s mission remains the same: Enable best-in-class addressable reach and connectivity across every consumer experience by continuing to develop the largest and most useful data collaboration network. We will use cookies to extend reach on Chrome, while continuing to invest and expand our authenticated ecosystem across cookieless browsers (Safari, Firefox, and Edge), direct publisher integrations, CTV, mobile/gaming, and new AI integrations. Please see our blog post for additional information.
    • On March 6 we announced a workforce restructuring involving approximately 5% of our full-time employees. The restructuring is part of a broader strategic reprioritization to build a stronger, more profitable company by tightening our focus and simplifying and driving efficiency into our business processes. In the fourth quarter we incurred $7.2 million of restructuring and related charges primarily related to employee severance and benefits.
    • LiveRamp ended the year with 128 customers whose annualized subscription revenue exceeds $1 million, compared to 115 in the prior year.
    • LiveRamp ended the year with 840 direct subscription customers, compared to 900 in the prior year.
    • Fourth quarter subscription net retention was 104% and platform net retention was 106%.
    • Fourth quarter annualized recurring revenue (ARR), which is the last month of the quarter fixed subscription revenue annualized, was $504 million, up 8% compared to the prior year period.
    • Current remaining performance obligations (CRPO), which is contracted and committed revenue expected to be recognized over the next 12 months, was $471 million, up 14% compared to the prior year period.

    Financial Outlook

    LiveRamp’s non-GAAP operating income guidance excludes the impact of non-cash stock compensation, purchased intangible asset amortization, and restructuring and related charges.

    For the first quarter of fiscal 2026, LiveRamp expects to report:

    • Revenue of $191 million, an increase of 9%
    • GAAP operating loss of $33 million
    • Non-GAAP operating income of $6 million

    For fiscal 2026, LiveRamp expects to report:

    • Revenue of between $787 million and $817 million, an increase of between 6% and 10%
    • GAAP operating loss of between $178 million and $182 million
    • Non-GAAP operating income of between $85 million and $89 million

    Conference Call

    LiveRamp will hold a conference call today at 1:30 p.m. PT (4:30 p.m. ET) to further discuss this information. Interested parties are invited to listen to a webcast of the conference, which can be accessed on LiveRamp’s investor site. A slide presentation will be referenced during the call and is available here.

    About LiveRamp

    LiveRamp is a leading data collaboration technology company, empowering marketers and media owners to deliver and measure marketing performance everywhere it matters. LiveRamp’s data collaboration network seamlessly unites data across advertisers, platforms, publishers, data providers, and commerce media networks—unlocking deep insights, delivering transformational consumer experiences, and driving measurable growth.

    Built on a foundation of strict neutrality, interoperability, and global scale, LiveRamp enables organizations to maximize the value of their data while accelerating innovation. Trusted by many of the world’s leading brands, retailers, financial services providers, and healthcare innovators, LiveRamp is helping shape the future of responsible data collaboration in an AI-driven, outcomes-focused world where advertisers reach intended audiences and consumers receive more relevant advertising messages.

    LiveRamp is headquartered in San Francisco, California, with offices worldwide. Learn more at LiveRamp.com.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended (the “PSLRA”). Forward-looking statements are often identified by words or phrases such as “anticipate,” “estimate,” “plan,” “expect,” “believe,” “intend,” “foresee,” or the negative of these terms or other similar variations thereof, but the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. These statements, which are not statements of historical fact, include, but are not limited to, the Company’s guidance regarding revenue, GAAP operating loss and Non-GAAP operating income for the first quarter and full year of fiscal 2026 and other similar estimates, assumptions, forecasts, projections and expectations regarding market position, product development, growth opportunities, economic conditions and other future events and trends.

    These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to a number of factors and uncertainties that could cause the Company’s actual results and experiences to differ materially from the anticipated results and expectations expressed in the forward-looking statements.

    Among the factors that may cause actual results and expectations to differ from anticipated results and expectations expressed in forward-looking statements are economic uncertainties that could impact us or our suppliers, customers and partners, including, geo-political circumstances, including risk related to tariffs and other trade restrictions, the possibility of a recession, general inflationary pressure and high interest rates; the ability and willingness of our customers to renew their agreements with us upon their expiration; our ability to add new customers and upsell within our subscription business; our reliance upon partners, including data suppliers, who may withdraw or withhold data from us; increased competition and rapidly changing technology that could impact our products and services; the risk that we fail to realize the potential benefits of or have difficulty integrating acquired businesses; and our inability to attract, motivate and retain talent. Additional risks include maintaining our culture and our ability to innovate and evolve while operating in a hybrid work environment, with some employees working remotely at least some of the time within a rapidly changing industry, while also avoiding disruption from reductions in our current workforce as well as disruptions resulting from acquisition, divestiture and other activities affecting our workforce. Our global workforce strategy could possibly encounter difficulty and not be as beneficial as planned. Our international operations are also subject to risks, including the performance of third parties as well as impacts from war and civil unrest, that may harm the Company’s business. The risk of a significant breach of the confidentiality of the information or the security of our or our customers’, suppliers’, or other partners’ data and/or computer systems, or the risk that our current insurance coverage may not be adequate for such a breach, that an insurer might deny coverage for a claim or that such insurance will continue to be available to us on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, could be detrimental to our business, reputation and results of operations. Other business risks include unfavorable publicity and negative public perception about our industry; interruptions or delays in service from data center or cloud hosting vendors we rely upon; and our dependence on the continued availability of third-party data hosting and transmission services. Our clients’ ability to use data on our platform could be restricted if the industry’s use of third-party cookies and tracking technology declines due to technology platform changes, regulation or increased user controls. Continued changes in the judicial, legislative, regulatory, accounting, cultural and consumer environments affecting our business, including but not limited to litigation, investigations, legislation, regulations and customs at the state, federal and international levels relating to information collection and use represents a risk, as well as changes in tax laws and regulations that are applied to our customers which could cause enterprise software budget tightening. In addition, third parties may claim that we are infringing their intellectual property or may infringe our intellectual property which could result in competitive injury and / or the incurrence of significant costs and draining of our resources.

    For a discussion of these and other risks and uncertainties that could affect LiveRamp’s business, reputation, results of operation, financial condition and stock price, please refer to LiveRamp’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, including in the “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” sections of LiveRamp’s most recently filed Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and subsequent filings.

    The financial information set forth in this press release reflects estimates based on information available at this time.

    LiveRamp assumes no obligation and does not currently intend to update these forward-looking statements.

    To automatically receive LiveRamp financial news by email, please visit www.LiveRamp.com and subscribe to email alerts.

    For more information, contact:

    LiveRamp Investor Relations
    Investor.Relations@LiveRamp.com

    LiveRamp® and RampID™ and all other LiveRamp marks contained herein are trademarks or service marks of LiveRamp, Inc. All other marks are the property of their respective owners.

    ________________________
    1 Unless otherwise indicated, all comparisons are to the prior year period.

                 
    LIVERAMP HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
    (Unaudited)
    (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
                 
      For the three months ended March 31,
              $ %
      2025     2024     Variance Variance
                 
    Revenues 188,724     171,852     16,872   9.8 %
    Cost of revenue 57,929     47,722     10,207   21.4 %
    Gross profit 130,795     124,130     6,665   5.4 %
    % Gross margin 69.3 %   72.2 %      
                 
    Operating expenses            
    Research and development 45,926     45,161     765   1.7 %
    Sales and marketing 56,961     60,476     (3,515 ) (5.8 )%
    General and administrative 32,175     30,252     1,923   6.4 %
    Gains, losses and other items, net 7,241     2,516     4,725   187.8 %
    Total operating expenses 142,303     138,405     3,898   2.8 %
                 
    Loss from operations (11,508 )   (14,275 )   2,767   19.4 %
    % Margin (6.1 )%   (8.3 )%      
                 
    Total other income, net 4,762     5,070     (308 ) (6.1 )%
    Loss from continuing operations before income taxes (6,746 )   (9,205 )   2,459   26.7 %
    Income tax benefit (479 )   (3,027 )   2,548   84.2 %
    Net earnings from continuing operations (6,267 )   (6,178 )   (89 ) (1.4 )%
                 
    Earnings from discontinued operations, net of tax –     805     (805 ) (100.0 )%
                 
    Net loss (6,267 )   (5,373 )   (894 ) (16.6 )%
                 
    Basic loss per share:            
    Continuing operations (0.10 )   (0.09 )   (0.00 ) (2.0 )%
    Discontinued operations 0.00     0.01     (0.01 ) (100.0 )%
    Basic loss per share (0.10 )   (0.08 )   (0.01 ) (17.3 )%
                 
    Diluted loss per share:            
    Continuing operations (0.10 )   (0.09 )   (0.00 ) (2.0 )%
    Discontinued operations 0.00     0.01     (0.01 ) (100.0 )%
    Diluted loss per share (0.10 )   (0.08 )   (0.01 ) (17.3 )%
                 
    Basic weighted average shares 65,957     66,323        
    Diluted weighted average shares 65,957     66,323        
                 
    Some totals may not sum due to rounding.            
                 
    LIVERAMP HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
    (Unaudited)
    (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
                 
      For the twelve months ended March 31,
              $ %
      2025     2024     Variance Variance
                 
    Revenues 745,580     659,661     85,919   13.0 %
    Cost of revenue 215,910     179,489     36,421   20.3 %
    Gross profit 529,670     480,172     49,498   10.3 %
    % Gross margin 71.0 %   72.8 %      
                 
    Operating expenses            
    Research and development 176,668     151,201     25,467   16.8 %
    Sales and marketing 213,106     195,693     17,413   8.9 %
    General and administrative 126,499     110,166     16,333   14.8 %
    Gains, losses and other items, net 7,993     11,708     (3,715 ) (31.7 )%
    Total operating expenses 524,266     468,768     55,498   11.8 %
                 
    Income from operations 5,404     11,404     (6,000 ) (52.6 )%
    % Margin 0.7 %   1.7 %      
                 
    Total other income, net 17,436     22,957     (5,521 ) (24.0 )%
    Income from continuing operations before income taxes 22,840     34,361     (11,521 ) (33.5 )%
    Income tax expense 25,342     24,270     1,072   4.4 %
    Net earnings (loss) from continuing operations (2,502 )   10,091     (12,593 ) (124.8 )%
                 
    Earnings from discontinued operations, net of tax 1,688     1,790     (102 ) (5.7 )%
                 
    Net earnings (loss) (814 )   11,881     (12,695 ) (106.9 )%
                 
    Basic earnings (loss) per share:            
    Continuing operations (0.04 )   0.15     (0.19 ) (124.8 )%
    Discontinued operations 0.03     0.03     (0.00 ) (5.5 )%
    Basic earnings (loss) per share (0.01 )   0.18     (0.19 ) (106.9 )%
                 
    Diluted earnings (loss) per share:            
    Continuing operations (0.04 )   0.15     (0.19 ) (125.5 )%
    Discontinued operations 0.03     0.03     (0.00 ) (3.1 )%
    Diluted earnings (loss) per share (0.01 )   0.17     (0.19 ) (107.0 )%
                 
    Basic weighted average shares 66,126     66,266        
    Diluted weighted average shares 66,126     67,918        
                 
    Some totals may not sum due to rounding.            
                 
    LIVERAMP HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    RECONCILIATION OF GAAP TO NON-GAAP EPS (1)
    (Unaudited)
    (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
                   
      For the three months
    ended March 31,    		   For the twelve months
    ended March 31,
      2025     2024     2025     2024
                   
    Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes (6,746 )   (9,205 )   22,840     34,361
    Income tax expense (benefit) (479 )   (3,027 )   25,342     24,270
    Net earnings from continuing operations (6,267 )   (6,178 )   (2,502 )   10,091
    Earnings from discontinued operations, net of tax –     805     1,688     1,790
    Net earnings (loss) (6,267 )   (5,373 )   (814 )   11,881
                   
    Basic earnings (loss) per share (0.10 )   (0.08 )   (0.01 )   0.18
    Diluted earnings (loss) per share (0.10 )   (0.08 )   (0.01 )   0.17
                   
    Excluded items:              
    Purchased intangible asset amortization (cost of revenue) 3,135     3,097     14,415     8,785
    Non-cash stock compensation (cost of revenue and operating expenses) 24,166     24,780     107,979     71,304
    Restructuring and merger charges (gains, losses, and other) 7,241     2,516     7,993     11,708
    Transformation costs (general and administrative) —     —     —     1,875
    Total excluded items from continuing operations 34,542     30,393     130,387     93,672
                   
    Income from continuing operations before income taxes and excluding items 27,796     21,188     153,227     128,033
    Income tax expense (2) 7,759     3,947     38,296     29,882
    Non-GAAP net earnings (loss) from continuing operations 20,037     17,241     114,931     98,151
                   
    Non-GAAP earnings per share from continuing operations              
    Basic 0.30     0.26     1.74     1.48
    Diluted 0.30     0.25     1.70     1.45
                   
    Basic weighted average shares 65,957     66,323     66,126     66,266
    Diluted weighted average shares 67,479     68,471     67,499     67,918
                   
    (1) This presentation includes non-GAAP measures. Our non-GAAP measures are not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for comparable GAAP measures, and should be read only in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP. For a detailed explanation of the adjustments made to comparable GAAP measures, the reasons why management uses these measures and the material limitations on the usefulness of these measures, please see Appendix A.
                   
    (2) Non-GAAP income taxes were calculated by applying the estimated annual effective tax rate to year-to-date pretax income or loss and adjusting for discrete tax items in the period. The differences between our GAAP and non-GAAP effective tax rates were primarily due to the net tax effects of the excluded items, coupled with the valuation allowance and smaller pre-tax income for GAAP purposes.
                   
    LIVERAMP HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    RECONCILIATION OF GAAP TO NON-GAAP INCOME FROM OPERATIONS (1)
    (Unaudited)
    (Dollars in thousands)
                   
      For the three months
    ended March 31,    		   For the twelve months
    ended March 31,
      2025     2024     2025     2024  
                   
    Income (loss) from operations (11,508 )   (14,275 )   5,404     11,404  
    Operating income (loss) margin (6.1 )%   (8.3 )%   0.7 %   1.7 %
                   
    Excluded items:              
    Purchased intangible asset amortization (cost of revenue) 3,135     3,097     14,415     8,785  
    Non-cash stock compensation (cost of revenue and operating expenses) 24,166     24,780     107,979     71,304  
    Restructuring and merger charges (gains, losses, and other) 7,241     2,516     7,993     11,708  
    Transformation costs (general and administrative) –     –     –     1,875  
    Total excluded items 34,542     30,393     130,387     93,672  
                   
    Income from operations before excluded items 23,034     16,118     135,791     105,076  
    Non-GAAP operating income margin 12.2 %   9.4 %   18.2 %   15.9 %
                   
    (1) This presentation includes non-GAAP measures. Our non-GAAP measures are not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for comparable GAAP measures, and should be read only in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP. For a detailed explanation of the adjustments made to comparable GAAP measures, the reasons why management uses these measures and the material limitations on the usefulness of these measures, please see Appendix A.
                   
    LIVERAMP HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    RECONCILIATION OF ADJUSTED EBITDA (1)
    (Unaudited)
    (Dollars in thousands)
                   
      For the three months
    ended March 31,    		   For the twelve months
    ended March 31,
      2024     2023     2024     2023  
                   
    Net earnings (loss) from continuing operations (6,267 )   (6,178 )   (2,502 )   10,091  
    Income tax expense (benefit) (479 )   (3,027 )   25,342     24,270  
    Total other expense, net (4,762 )   (5,070 )   (17,436 )   (22,957 )
                   
    Income (loss) from operations (11,508 )   (14,275 )   5,404     11,404  
    Depreciation and amortization 3,803     3,823     17,207     11,508  
                   
    EBITDA (7,705 )   (10,452 )   22,611     22,912  
                   
    Other adjustments:              
    Non-cash stock compensation (cost of revenue and operating expenses) 24,166     24,780     107,979     71,304  
    Restructuring and merger charges (gains, losses, and other) 7,241     2,516     7,993     11,708  
    Transformation costs (general and administrative) –     –     –     1,875  
                   
    Other adjustments 31,407     27,296     115,972     84,887  
                   
    Adjusted EBITDA 23,702     16,844     138,583     107,799  
                   
    (1) This presentation includes non-GAAP measures. Our non-GAAP measures are not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for comparable GAAP measures, and should be read only in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP. For a detailed explanation of the adjustments made to comparable GAAP measures, the reasons why management uses these measures, the usefulness of these measures and the material limitations on the usefulness of these measures, please see Appendix A.
                   
    LIVERAMP HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
    (Dollars in thousands)
                 
      March 31   March 31   $ %
      2025     2024     Variance Variance
    Assets            
    Current assets:            
    Cash and cash equivalents 413,331     336,867     76,464   22.7 %
    Restricted cash 595     2,604     (2,009 ) (77.2 )%
    Short-term investments 7,500     32,045     (24,545 ) (76.6 )%
    Trade accounts receivable, net 186,169     190,313     (4,144 ) (2.2 )%
    Refundable income taxes, net 9,708     8,521     1,187   13.9 %
    Other current assets 38,886     31,682     7,204   22.7 %
    Total current assets 656,189     602,032     54,157   9.0 %
                 
    Property and equipment 23,813     25,394     (1,581 ) (6.2 )%
    Less – accumulated depreciation and amortization 17,629     17,213     416   2.4 %
    Property and equipment, net 6,184     8,181     (1,997 ) (24.4 )%
                 
    Intangible assets, net 20,167     34,583     (14,416 ) (41.7 )%
    Goodwill 501,756     501,756     –   – %
    Deferred commissions, net 44,452     48,143     (3,691 ) (7.7 )%
    Other assets, net 30,623     36,748     (6,125 ) (16.7 )%
      1,259,371     1,231,443     27,928   2.3 %
                 
    Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity            
    Current liabilities:            
    Trade accounts payable 112,271     81,202     31,069   38.3 %
    Accrued payroll and related expenses 50,776     61,575     (10,799 ) (17.5 )%
    Other accrued expenses 38,586     42,857     (4,271 ) (10.0 )%
    Deferred revenue 45,885     30,942     14,943   48.3 %
    Total current liabilities 247,518     216,576     30,942   14.3 %
                 
    Other liabilities 62,994     65,732     (2,738 ) (4.2 )%
                 
    Stockholders’ equity:            
    Preferred stock –     –     –   n/a
    Common stock 15,918     15,594     324   2.1 %
    Additional paid-in capital 2,045,316     1,933,776     111,540   5.8 %
    Retained earnings 1,313,358     1,314,172     (814 ) (0.1 )%
    Accumulated other comprehensive income 4,295     3,964     331   8.4 %
    Treasury stock, at cost (2,430,028 )   (2,318,371 )   (111,657 ) 4.8 %
    Total stockholders’ equity 948,859     949,135     (276 ) (0.0 )%
      1,259,371     1,231,443     27,928   2.3 %
                 
           
    LIVERAMP HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
    (Unaudited)
    (Dollars in thousands)
      For the three months
    ended March 31,
      2025     2024  
    Cash flows from operating activities:      
    Net loss (6,267 )   (5,373 )
    Earnings from discontinued operations, net of tax —     (805 )
    Non-cash operating activities:      
    Depreciation and amortization 3,803     3,823  
    Loss on disposal or impairment of assets 44     6  
    Lease-related impairment and restructuring charges (28 )   (546 )
    Gain on sale of strategic investments (515 )   —  
    Loss on marketable equity securities 206     —  
    Provision for doubtful accounts (453 )   1,947  
    Deferred income taxes (496 )   (498 )
    Non-cash stock compensation expense 24,166     24,780  
    Changes in operating assets and liabilities:      
    Accounts receivable, net 25,187     8,700  
    Deferred commissions 46     (3,971 )
    Other assets 4,703     8,514  
    Accounts payable and other liabilities 11,738     (246 )
    Income taxes (523 )   (7,285 )
    Deferred revenue 969     (1,403 )
    Net cash provided by operating activities 62,580     27,643  
    Cash flows from investing activities:      
    Capital expenditures (293 )   (1,791 )
    Cash paid in acquisitions, net of cash received —     (170,281 )
    Purchases of investments —     (24,509 )
    Proceeds from sales of investments —     25,000  
    Proceeds from sale of strategic investment 763     —  
    Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities 470     (171,581 )
    Cash flows from financing activities:      
    Proceeds related to the issuance of common stock under stock and employee benefit plans 202     1  
    Shares repurchased for tax withholdings upon vesting of stock-based awards (1,026 )   (719 )
    Acquisition of treasury stock (25,447 )   (15,177 )
    Net cash used in financing activities (26,271 )   (15,895 )
    Net cash provided by (used in) continuing operations 36,779     (159,833 )
    Cash flows from discontinued operations:      
    From operating activities (798 )   805  
    Net cash provided by (used in) discontinued operations (798 )   805  
    Net cash provided by (used in) continuing and discontinued operations 35,981     (159,028 )
    Effect of exchange rate changes on cash 580     (447 )
           
    Net change in cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash 36,561     (159,475 )
    Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at beginning of period 377,365     498,946  
    Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at end of period 413,926     339,471  
           
    Supplemental cash flow information:      
    Cash paid for income taxes, net from continuing operations 558     4,905  
    Cash received for income taxes, net from discontinued operations —     (1,258 )
    Cash paid for operating lease liabilities 2,426     2,594  
           
           
    Operating lease assets obtained in exchange for operating lease liabilities —     148  
    Operating lease assets, and related lease liabilities, relinquished in lease terminations (40 )   —  
    Purchases of property, plant and equipment remaining unpaid at period end 20     104  
    Marketable equity securities obtained in disposition of strategic investment 652     —  
    Excise tax payable on net stock repurchases 64     —  
           
           
    LIVERAMP HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
    (Unaudited)
    (Dollars in thousands)
      For the twelve months
    ended March 31,
      2025     2024  
    Cash flows from operating activities:      
    Net earnings (loss) (814 )   11,881  
    Earnings from discontinued operations, net of tax (1,688 )   (1,790 )
    Non-cash operating activities:      
    Depreciation and amortization 17,207     11,508  
    Loss on disposal or impairment of assets 85     1,219  
    Lease-related impairment and restructuring charges 14     1,769  
    Gain on sale of strategic investments (515 )   —  
    Loss on marketable equity securities 206     —  
    Provision for doubtful accounts 695     2,254  
    Impairment of goodwill —     2,875  
    Deferred income taxes (447 )   (458 )
    Non-cash stock compensation expense 107,979     71,304  
    Changes in operating assets and liabilities:      
    Accounts receivable, net 3,547     (32,336 )
    Deferred commissions 3,691     (11,113 )
    Other assets 2,105     9,426  
    Accounts payable and other liabilities 3,573     8,508  
    Income taxes 3,430     22,275  
    Deferred revenue 14,897     8,334  
    Net cash provided by operating activities 153,965     105,656  
    Cash flows from investing activities:      
    Capital expenditures (1,042 )   (4,255 )
    Cash paid in acquisitions, net of cash received (1,951 )   (170,281 )
    Purchases of investments (1,967 )   (48,894 )
    Proceeds from sales of investments 26,989     50,750  
    Proceeds from sale of strategic investment 763     —  
    Purchases of strategic investments (1,400 )   (1,000 )
    Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities 21,392     (173,680 )
    Cash flows from financing activities:      
    Proceeds related to the issuance of common stock under stock and employee benefit plans 8,833     7,222  
    Shares repurchased for tax withholdings upon vesting of stock-based awards (10,331 )   (5,835 )
    Acquisition of treasury stock (101,198 )   (60,502 )
    Net cash used in financing activities (102,696 )   (59,115 )
    Net cash provided by (used in) continuing operations 72,661     (127,139 )
    Cash flows from discontinued operations:      
    From operating activities 1,688     1,790  
    Net cash provided by discontinued operations 1,688     1,790  
    Net cash provided by (used in) continuing and discontinued operations 74,349     (125,349 )
    Effect of exchange rate changes on cash 106     372  
           
    Net change in cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash 74,455     (124,977 )
    Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at beginning of period 339,471     464,448  
    Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at end of period 413,926     339,471  
           
    Supplemental cash flow information:      
    Cash paid for income taxes, net from continuing operations 22,548     2,465  
    Cash received for income taxes, net from discontinued operations (2,486 )   (2,765 )
    Cash received for tenant improvement allowances (2,628 )   —  
    Cash paid for operating lease liabilities 9,798     10,293  
           
           
    Operating lease assets obtained in exchange for operating lease liabilities 2,327     11,825  
    Operating lease assets, and related lease liabilities, relinquished in lease terminations (595 )   (4,486 )
    Purchases of property, plant and equipment remaining unpaid at period end 20     104  
    Marketable equity securities obtained in disposition of strategic investment 652     —  
    Excise tax payable on net stock repurchases 128     —  
           
    LIVERAMP HOLDINGS, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES
    CALCULATION OF FREE CASH FLOW (1)
    (Unaudited)
    (Dollars in thousands)
                           
      6/30/2023 9/30/2023 12/31/2023 3/31/2024 FY2024   6/30/2024 9/30/2024 12/31/2024 3/31/2025 FY2025
                           
    Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities $ 25,693   $ 35,764   $ 16,556   $ 27,643   $ 105,656     $ (9,328 ) $ 55,596   $ 45,117   $ 62,580   $ 153,965  
                           
    Less:                      
    Capital expenditures   (53 )   (200 )   (2,211 )   (1,791 )   (4,255 )     (226 )   (241 )   (282 )   (293 )   (1,042 )
                           
    Free Cash Flow $ 25,640   $ 35,564   $ 14,345   $ 25,852   $ 101,401     $ (9,554 ) $ 55,355   $ 44,835   $ 62,287   $ 152,923  
                           
                           
    (1) This presentation includes non-GAAP measures. Our non-GAAP measures are not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for comparable GAAP measures, and should be read only in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP. For a detailed explanation of the adjustments made to comparable GAAP measures, the reasons why management uses these measures and the material limitations on the usefulness of these measures, please see Appendix A.
     
    LIVERAMP HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
    (Unaudited)
    (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
                              Yr-to-Yr
      FY2024   FY2025   FY2025 to FY2024
      6/30/2023 9/30/2023 12/31/2023 3/31/2024 FY2024   6/30/2024 9/30/2024 12/31/2024 3/31/2025 FY2025   % $
                                 
    Revenues   154,069     159,871     173,869     171,852     659,661       175,961     185,483     195,412     188,724     745,580     13.0 % 85,919  
    Cost of revenue   45,621     41,212     44,934     47,722     179,489       51,749     51,234     54,998     57,929     215,910     20.3 % 36,421  
    Gross profit   108,448     118,659     128,935     124,130     480,172       124,212     134,249     140,414     130,795     529,670     10.3 % 49,498  
    % Gross margin   70.4 %   74.2 %   74.2 %   72.2 %   72.8 %     70.6 %   72.4 %   71.9 %   69.3 %   71.0 %      
                                 
    Operating expenses                            
    Research and development   34,519     33,733     37,788     45,161     151,201       44,118     43,889     42,735     45,926     176,668     16.8 % 25,467  
    Sales and marketing   44,879     44,135     46,203     60,476     195,693       54,175     51,107     50,863     56,961     213,106     8.9 % 17,413  
    General and administrative   26,664     26,009     27,241     30,252     110,166       30,961     31,369     31,994     32,175     126,499     14.8 % 16,333  
    Gains, losses and other items, net   116     6,574     2,502     2,516     11,708       206     397     149     7,241     7,993     (31.7 )% (3,715 )
    Total operating expenses   106,178     110,451     113,734     138,405     468,768       129,460     126,762     125,741     142,303     524,266     11.8 % 55,498  
                                 
    Income (loss) from operations   2,270     8,208     15,201     (14,275 )   11,404       (5,248 )   7,487     14,673     (11,508 )   5,404     (52.6 )% (6,000 )
    % Margin   5.0 %   24.3 %   40.2 %   (31.6 )%   1.7 %     (3.0 )%   4.0 %   7.5 %   (6.1 )%   0.7 %      
                                 
    Total other income, net   4,849     6,431     6,607     5,070     22,957       4,444     4,197     4,033     4,762     17,436     (24.0 )% (5,521 )
                                 
    Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes   7,119     14,639     21,808     (9,205 )   34,361       (804 )   11,684     18,706     (6,746 )   22,840     (33.5 )% (11,521 )
    Income tax expense (benefit)   8,705     10,163     8,429     (3,027 )   24,270       6,685     9,952     9,184     (479 )   25,342     4.4 % 1,072  
    Net earnings (loss) from continuing operations   (1,586 )   4,476     13,379     (6,178 )   10,091       (7,489 )   1,732     9,522     (6,267 )   (2,502 )   (124.8 )% (12,593 )
                                 
    Earnings from discontinued operations, net of tax   –     387     598     805     1,790       –     –     1,688     –     1,688     (5.7 )% (102 )
                                 
    Net earnings (loss) $ (1,586 ) $ 4,863   $ 13,977   $ (5,373 ) $ 11,881     $ (7,489 ) $ 1,732   $ 11,210   $ (6,267 ) $ (814 )   (106.9 )% (12,695 )
                                 
    Basic earnings (loss) per share:                            
    Continuing Operations   (0.02 )   0.07     0.20     (0.09 )   0.15       (0.11 )   0.03     0.15     (0.10 )   (0.04 )   (124.8 )% (0.19 )
    Discontinued Operations   0.00     0.01     0.01     0.01     0.03       0.00     0.00     0.03     0.00     0.03     (5.5 )% (0.00 )
    Basic earnings (loss) per share   (0.02 )   0.07     0.21     (0.08 )   0.18       (0.11 )   0.03     0.17     (0.10 )   (0.01 )   (106.9 )% (0.19 )
                                 
    Diluted earnings (loss) per share:                            
    Continuing Operations   (0.02 )   0.07     0.20     (0.09 )   0.15       (0.11 )   0.03     0.14     (0.10 )   (0.04 )   (125.5 )% (0.19 )
    Discontinued Operations   0.00     0.01     0.01     0.01     0.03       0.00     0.00     0.03     0.00     0.03     (3.1 )% (0.00 )
    Diluted earnings (loss) per share   (0.02 )   0.07     0.21     (0.08 )   0.17       (0.11 )   0.03     0.17     (0.10 )   (0.01 )   (107.0 )% (0.19 )
                                 
                                 
    Basic weighted average shares   66,497     66,284     65,961     66,323     66,266       66,621     66,294     65,631     65,957     66,126        
    Diluted weighted average shares   66,497     67,868     67,943     66,323     67,918       66,621     67,309     66,743     65,957     66,126        
                                 
    Some earnings (loss) per share amounts may not add due to rounding.         
                                 
    LIVERAMP HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    RECONCILIATION OF GAAP TO NON-GAAP EXPENSES (1)
    (Unaudited)
    (Dollars in thousands)
      FY2024   FY2025
      6/30/2023 9/30/2023 12/31/2023 3/31/2024 FY2024   6/30/2024 9/30/2024 12/31/2024 3/31/2025 FY2025
    Expenses:                      
    Cost of revenue 45,621   41,212   44,934   47,722   179,489     51,749   51,234   54,998   57,929   215,910  
    Research and development 34,519   33,733   37,788   45,161   151,201     44,118   43,889   42,735   45,926   176,668  
    Sales and marketing 44,879   44,135   46,203   60,476   195,693     54,175   51,107   50,863   56,961   213,106  
    General and administrative 26,664   26,009   27,241   30,252   110,166     30,961   31,369   31,994   32,175   126,499  
    Gains, losses and other items, net 116   6,574   2,502   2,516   11,708     206   397   149   7,241   7,993  
                           
    Gross profit, continuing operations: 108,448   118,659   128,935   124,130   480,172     124,212   134,249   140,414   130,795   529,670  
    % Gross margin 70.4 % 74.2 % 74.2 % 72.2 % 72.8 %   70.6 % 72.4 % 71.9 % 69.3 % 71.0 %
                           
    Excluded items:                      
    Purchased intangible asset amortization (cost of revenue) 3,290   1,217   1,181   3,097   8,785     3,846   3,748   3,686   3,135   14,415  
    Non-cash stock compensation (cost of revenue) 629   629   817   1,478   3,553     1,596   1,499   1,455   1,615   6,165  
    Non-cash stock compensation (research and development) 5,077   5,293   6,960   9,859   27,189     10,205   10,920   10,085   10,494   41,704  
    Non-cash stock compensation (sales and marketing) 3,736   4,786   4,089   6,337   18,948     7,093   7,383   7,278   5,716   27,470  
    Non-cash stock compensation (general and administrative) 3,850   5,027   5,631   7,106   21,614     9,091   9,266   7,942   6,341   32,640  
    Restructuring charges (gains, losses, and other) 116   6,574   2,502   2,516   11,708     206   397   149   7,241   7,993  
    Transformation costs (general and administrative) 1,875   —   —   —   1,875     —     —   —   —  
    Total excluded items 18,573   23,526   21,180   30,393   93,672     32,037   33,213   30,595   34,542   130,387  
                           
    Expenses, excluding items:                      
    Cost of revenue 41,702   39,366   42,936   43,147   167,151     46,307   45,987   49,857   53,179   195,330  
    Research and development 29,442   28,440   30,828   35,302   124,012     33,913   32,969   32,650   35,432   134,964  
    Sales and marketing 41,143   39,349   42,114   54,139   176,745     47,082   43,724   43,585   51,245   185,636  
    General and administrative 20,939   20,982   21,610   23,146   86,677     21,870   22,103   24,052   25,834   93,859  
                           
    Gross profit, excluding items: 112,367   120,505   130,933   128,705   492,510     129,654   139,496   145,555   135,545   550,250  
    % Gross margin 72.9 % 75.4 % 75.3 % 74.9 % 74.7 %   73.7 % 75.2 % 74.5 % 71.8 % 73.8 %
                           
    (1) This presentation includes non-GAAP measures. Our non-GAAP measures are not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for comparable GAAP measures, and should be read only in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP. For a detailed explanation of the adjustments made to comparable GAAP measures, the reasons why management uses these measures, the usefulness of these measures and the material limitations on the usefulness of these measures, please see Appendix A.
     
    LIVERAMP HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    RECONCILIATION OF GAAP TO NON-GAAP EPS (1)
    (Unaudited)
    (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
      FY2024   FY2025
      6/30/2023 9/30/2023 12/31/2023 3/31/2024 FY2024   6/30/2024 9/30/2024 12/31/2024 3/31/2025 FY2025
                           
    Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes 7,119   14,639 21,808 (9,205 ) 34,361   (804 ) 11,684 18,706 (6,746 ) 22,840  
    Income tax expense (benefit) 8,705   10,163 8,429 (3,027 ) 24,270   6,685   9,952 9,184 (479 ) 25,342  
    Net earnings (loss) from continuing operations (1,586 ) 4,476 13,379 (6,178 ) 10,091   (7,489 ) 1,732 9,522 (6,267 ) (2,502 )
                           
    Earnings from discontinued operations, net of tax –   387 598 805   1,790   –   – 1,688 –   1,688  
                           
    Net earnings (loss) (1,586 ) 4,863 13,977 (5,373 ) 11,881   (7,489 ) 1,732 11,210 (6,267 ) (814 )
                           
    Earnings (loss) per share:                      
    Basic (0.02 ) 0.07 0.21 (0.08 ) 0.18   (0.11 ) 0.03 0.17 (0.10 ) (0.01 )
    Diluted (0.02 ) 0.07 0.21 (0.08 ) 0.17   (0.11 ) 0.03 0.17 (0.10 ) (0.01 )
                           
    Excluded items:                      
    Purchased intangible asset amortization (cost of revenue) 3,290   1,217 1,181 3,097   8,785   3,846   3,748 3,686 3,135   14,415  
    Non-cash stock compensation (cost of revenue and operating expenses) 13,292   15,735 17,497 24,780   71,304   27,985   29,068 26,760 24,166   107,979  
    Restructuring and merger charges (gains, losses, and other) 116   6,574 2,502 2,516   11,708   206   397 149 7,241   7,993  
    Transformation costs (general and administrative) 1,875   – – –   1,875   –   – – –   –  
    Total excluded items from continuing operations 18,573   23,526 21,180 30,393   93,672   32,037   33,213 30,595 34,542   130,387  
                           
    Income from continuing operations before income taxes and excluding items 25,692   38,165 42,988 21,188   128,033   31,233   44,897 49,301 27,796   153,227  
    Income tax expense (2) 6,167   9,036 10,732 3,947   29,882   7,371   10,745 12,421 7,759   38,296  
    Non-GAAP net earnings from continuing operations 19,525   29,129 32,256 17,241   98,151   23,862   34,152 36,880 20,037   114,931  
                           
    Non-GAAP earnings per share from continuing operations                      
    Basic 0.29   0.44 0.49 0.26   1.48   0.36   0.52 0.56 0.30   1.74  
    Diluted 0.29   0.43 0.47 0.25   1.45   0.35   0.51 0.55 0.30   1.70  
                           
    Basic weighted average shares 66,497   66,284 65,961 66,323   66,266   66,621   66,294 65,631 65,957   66,126  
    Diluted weighted average shares 67,388   67,868 67,943 68,471   67,918   68,463   67,309 66,743 67,479   67,499  
                           
    Some totals may not add due to rounding           
                           
    (1) This presentation includes non-GAAP measures. Our non-GAAP measures are not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for comparable GAAP measures, and should be read only in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP. For a detailed explanation of the adjustments made to comparable GAAP measures, the reasons why management uses these measures and the material limitations on the usefulness of these measures, please see Appendix A.
     
    LIVERAMP HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    RECONCILIATION OF GAAP TO NON-GAAP OPERATING INCOME GUIDANCE (1)
    (Unaudited)
    (Dollars in thousands)
      For the   For the
      quarter ending   year ending
      June 30,
    2025    		   March 31,
    2026
               
          Low   High
               
    GAAP income from operations $ 6,000   $ 85,000   $ 89,000
               
    Excluded items:          
    Purchased intangible asset amortization   3,000     11,000     11,000
    Non-cash stock compensation   24,000     82,000     82,000
    Total excluded items   27,000     93,000     93,000
               
    Non-GAAP income from operations $ 33,000   $ 178,000   $ 182,000
               
               
    (1) This presentation includes non-GAAP measures. Our non-GAAP measures are not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for comparable GAAP measures, and should be read only in conjunction with our condensed consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP. For a detailed explanation of the adjustments made to comparable GAAP measures, the reasons why management uses these measures, the usefulness of these measures and the material limitations on the usefulness of these measures, please see Appendix A.
               
    APPENDIX A
    LIVERAMP HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    Q4 FISCAL 2025 FINANCIAL RESULTS
    EXPLANATION OF NON-GAAP MEASURES AND OTHER KEY METRICS
     
    To supplement our financial results, we use non-GAAP measures which exclude certain acquisition related expenses, non-cash stock compensation and restructuring charges. We believe these measures are helpful in understanding our past performance and our future results. Our non-GAAP financial measures and schedules are not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for comparable GAAP measures and should be read only in conjunction with our consolidated GAAP financial statements. Our management regularly uses these non-GAAP financial measures internally to understand, manage and evaluate our business and to make operating decisions. These measures are among the primary factors management uses in planning for and forecasting future periods. Compensation of our executives is also based in part on the performance of our business based on these non-GAAP measures.
     
    Our non-GAAP financial measures, including non-GAAP earnings (loss) per share, non-GAAP income (loss) from operations, non-GAAP operating income (loss) margin, non-GAAP expenses and adjusted EBITDA reflect adjustments based on the following items, as well as the related income tax effects when applicable:
     
    Purchased intangible asset amortization: We incur amortization of purchased intangibles in connection with our acquisitions. Purchased intangibles include (i) developed technology, (ii) customer and publisher relationships, and (iii) trade names. We expect to amortize for accounting purposes the fair value of the purchased intangibles based on the pattern in which the economic benefits of the intangible assets will be consumed as revenue is generated. Although the intangible assets generate revenue for us, we exclude this item because this expense is non-cash in nature and because we believe the non-GAAP financial measures excluding this item provide meaningful supplemental information regarding our operational performance.
     
    Non-cash stock compensation: Non-cash stock compensation consists of charges for employee restricted stock units, performance shares and stock options in accordance with current GAAP related to stock-based compensation including expense associated with stock-based compensation related to unvested options assumed in connection with our acquisitions. As we apply stock-based compensation standards, we believe that it is useful to investors to understand the impact of the application of these standards to our operational performance. Although stock-based compensation expense is calculated in accordance with current GAAP and constitutes an ongoing and recurring expense, such expense is excluded from non-GAAP results because it is not an expense that typically requires or will require cash settlement by us and because such expense is not used by us to assess the core profitability of our business operations.
     
    Restructuring charges: During the past several years, we have initiated certain restructuring activities in order to align our costs in connection with both our operating plans and our business strategies based on then-current economic conditions. As a result, we recognized costs related to termination benefits for employees whose positions were eliminated, lease and other contract termination charges, and asset impairments. These items, as well as third party expenses associated with business acquisitions in the prior years, reported as gains, losses, and other items, net, are excluded from non-GAAP results because such amounts are not used by us to assess the core profitability of our business operations.
     
    Transformation costs: In previous years, we incurred significant expenses to separate the financial statements of our operating segments, with particular focus on segment-level balance sheets, and to evaluate portfolio priorities. Our criteria for excluding transformation expenses from our non-GAAP measures is as follows: 1) projects are discrete in nature; 2) excluded expenses consist only of third-party consulting fees that we would not incur otherwise; and 3) we do not exclude employee related expenses or other costs associated with the ongoing operations of our business. We substantially completed those projects during the third quarter of fiscal year 2018. Beginning in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2018, and through most of fiscal 2019, we incurred transaction support expenses and system separation costs related to the Company’s announced evaluation of strategic options for its Marketing Solutions (AMS) business. In the first and second quarters of fiscal 2021 in response to the potential COVID-19 pandemic impact on our business and again during fiscal 2023 in response to macroeconomic conditions, we incurred significant costs associated with the assessment of strategic and operating plans, including our long-term location strategy, and assistance in implementing the restructuring activities as a result of this assessment.  Our criteria for excluding these costs are the same. We believe excluding these items from our non-GAAP financial measures is useful for investors and provides meaningful supplemental information.
     
    Our non-GAAP financial schedules are:
     
    Non-GAAP EPS, Non-GAAP Income from Operations, and Non-GAAP expenses: Our Non-GAAP earnings per share, Non-GAAP income from operations, Non-GAAP operating income margin, and Non-GAAP expenses reflect adjustments as described above, as well as the related tax effects where applicable.
     
    Adjusted EBITDA: Adjusted EBITDA is defined as net income from continuing operations before income taxes, other income and expenses, depreciation and amortization, and including adjustments as described above. We use Adjusted EBITDA to measure our performance from period to period both at the consolidated level as well as within our operating segments and to compare our results to those of our competitors. We believe that the inclusion of Adjusted EBITDA provides useful supplementary information to and facilitates analysis by investors in evaluating the Company’s performance and trends. The presentation of Adjusted EBITDA is not meant to be considered in isolation or as an alternative to net earnings as an indicator of our performance.
     
    Free Cash Flow: To supplement our statement of cash flows, we use a non-GAAP measure of cash flow to analyze cash flows generated from operations. Free cash flow is defined as operating cash flow less capital expenditures. Management believes that this measure of cash flow is meaningful since it represents the amount of money available from continuing operations for the Company’s discretionary spending. The presentation of non-GAAP free cash flow is not meant to be considered in isolation or as an alternative to cash flows from operating activities as a measure of liquidity.
     

    PDF available: http://ml.globenewswire.com/Resource/Download/f10eae40-8315-4829-8708-f54db5dee34b

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Paperclip Adds Renowned CISO and Cybersecurity Expert to Advisory Committee for SAFE® Encryption Technology

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    HACKENSACK, N.J., May 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Heather Lowrie, a highly-experienced CISO, keynote speaker, and cybersecurity advocate, joins Paperclip as an advisor for its SAFE encryption solution. Lowrie will help guide Paperclip SAFE into the international cybersecurity market and bring data-centric security and encryption to the forefront of enterprise security.

    With more than 25 years’ experience across cybersecurity, technology, risk, and resilience, Lowrie has led major digital and security transformations for high-impact public and private sector organizations. She is known for delivering business-aligned security that drives growth, builds trust, and creates societal value—underpinned by deep, hands-on experience in managing major cyber incidents.

    “We’re thrilled to have Heather join us in an advisory capacity and to benefit from her deep expertise as we continue to advance Paperclip SAFE®,” said Chad Walter, CRO at Paperclip. “We’re excited to collaborate on cybersecurity thought leadership, participate in key industry events, and refine our go-to-market strategy to elevate encryption-in-use and the SAFE technology across the data security landscape.”

    Lowrie was recognized by her peers as CISO of the Year at the 2024 SC Awards Europe and is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Information Security. She is an accomplished strategist with extensive experience leading through crises—including major cyber incidents—and driving strategic change across digital transformation, data and AI, cybersecurity, and organizational culture initiatives. 

    Lowrie is also the Co-Founder of Resilionix, a deep-tech startup dedicated to helping organizations build resilience in an increasingly complex and uncertain world.

    “I’m delighted to join Paperclip in an advisory capacity and help bring data-centric security and encryption to the forefront of enterprise security,” Lowrie said. “I look forward to working with the excellent team at Paperclip to advance the adoption of encryption-in-use and to support organizations in building resilience”.

    Lowrie is a graduate of the University of Edinburgh, where she earned a Master of Science by Research in Science, Technology and Innovation Studies with distinction. She also holds a postgraduate diploma in Information Technology, awarded with distinction, from the University of the West of Scotland, alongside other academic qualifications. Lowrie holds numerous cybersecurity certifications from both U.S. and European organizations, including CISSP, CCSP, CISM, CDPSE, CIPP/E, and more. 

    About Paperclip, Inc.

    Paperclip is a proven technology partner that continues to revolutionize data security, content and document management for Fortune 1,000 companies worldwide. Every second of every day, our innovative solutions are securely processing, transcribing, storing, and communicating highly sensitive content across the internet. Maximizing efficiency to save millions annually, while maintaining absolute security and compliance. For more information, visit paperclip.com.

    About SAFE

    Paperclip SAFE builds on the foundation of trust and collaboration that Paperclip has established with its security and content management solutions over three decades. Paperclip SAFE utilizes in-depth knowledge of the database and data pipeline to secure all points within the data lifecycle. Nine of the 10 top life insurance carriers in the U.S. are currently protected by Paperclip SAFE. With Paperclip SAFE, outpace threats with data that is always encrypted and always ahead of evolving risk. For more information, visit paperclip.com/safe.

    MEDIA CONTACT:
    Megan Brandow
    Paperclip, Inc.
    MBrandow@paperclip.com
    585.727.0983

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Worker-led programs are tackling gender-based violence in supply chains, but they’re at risk

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Genevieve LeBaron, Distinguished SFU Professor of Global Supply Chain Governance, Simon Fraser University

    Gender-based violence and harassment is a widespread issue in supply chains. Women workers in garment manufacturing, food production and hospitality are routinely subjected to unwanted touching and sexual advances and inappropriate comments, while promotion and advancement are often conditional on sex. In the most severe cases, this abuse escalates to sexual assault and rape.

    Despite decades of awareness and an International Labour Organization convention passed in 2019 and ratified by 49 countries, research indicates little progress has been made.

    A 2024 report from Statistics Canada, for instance, has found that 47 per cent of women have experienced some form of harassment or sexual assault in the workplace.

    Rates of gender-based violence and harassment are thought to be even higher in some countries and industries. In Bangladesh, a 2018 study found at least 60 per cent of garment workers had experienced it in the previous year. Another found 85 per cent of garment workers in Indonesia were concerned about sexual harassment at work.

    In the face of such a persistent global issue, women working in garment supply chains have pioneered a highly effective solution for tackling gender-based violence and harassment.

    Worker-led binding agreements

    Supported by labour unions and organizations like the Asia Floor Wage Alliance, Worker Rights Consortium and Global Labor justice, women workers have led the development of legally binding agreements with brands and suppliers to eliminate gender-based violence and harassment.

    The latest of these is called the Central Java Agreement for Gender Justice. Signed in July 2024, it covers 6,250 workers producing clothing for brands like Nike and Fanatics, Inc. under licenses with universities affiliated with the Worker Rights Consortium.

    Worker Rights Consortium persuaded Fanatics, which is also licensed to produce apparel bearing the Nike logo, to enter into the agreement in response to complaints of gender-based violence and harassment at two garment factories in central Java, Indonesia, owned by the Korean-based firm Ontide.

    This agreement creates a union-led program to address the problem at two Indonesian factories; if factory management does not comply, it risks losing business with Nike and Fanatics.

    Building on success from India to Indonesia

    The 2024 Central Java Agreement builds on and incorporates key features of previous worker-led agreements to address the issue.

    In particular, it builds on the 2022 Dindigul Agreement to Eliminate Gender-Based Violence and Harassment in India and the 2019 Agreements to Eliminate Gender-Based Violence and Harassment in Lesotho.

    The Dindigul agreement was led by an independent, majority-Dalit trade union run by women. It established a set of legally binding agreements with major garment companies including H&M Group, Gap Inc., PVH and Eastman Exports Global Clothing Ltd.

    The Lesotho agreements involved brands such as Levi Strauss & Co., Nien Hsing Textile Co., unions, women’s rights advocates and labour organizations.

    While each agreement is unique, they all adhere to the principles of worker-driven social responsibility.

    Under this governance model, “worker organizations and unions, suppliers, and brand companies enter into enforceable and legally binding agreements” and “transnational corporations use their leverage and supply chain relationships to effect change amongst supplier worksites.”

    A new model of accountability

    These agreements include worker-led detection and remediation systems to address gender-based violence and harassment. For example, under the Lesotho agreement, workers can access a 24-hour hotline operated by a local women’s organization to lodge complaints or bring them directly to the unions involved in the agreement.

    The Dindigul agreement also provides multiple channels for workers to raise complaints of gender-based violence and harassment, including shop floor monitors selected by the local union (one for every 25 workers). It also offers multiple avenues for raising complaints, including to the union or to sexual harassment committees required under Indian law.

    Under the Central Java Agreement, workers can bring complaints to committees aimed at eliminating the problem, to shop floor monitors or their unions. Not only do each of the agreements permit workers to request independent investigations, they all provide a wide array of remedies in the case of any incidents and violations of freedom of association.

    What sets these agreements apart from most other initiatives to combat gender-based violence and harassment in supply chains is that they actually work. One study of the two-year impact of the Dindigul Agreement by Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute found that 76 per cent of grievances were resolved in two weeks.

    The report said the program “constituted a powerful monitoring mechanism, ensuring effective remediation and deterring violations” of both gender-based violence and harassment and freedom of association — briefly put, the right to voluntarily join or leave groups (like unions), and for those groups to pursue collective action.

    Now, a key question is whether and to what extent these successful programs will continue to thrive and grow under the current “America First” agenda of the U.S. government.

    Progress under threat

    Despite their success, these worker-led initiatives face mounting challenges.

    Labour organizations that support these agreements are under strain, with some potentially at high risk of collapsing. The U.S. Bureau of International Labor Affairs is cutting US$500 million in funding that supports labour enforcement efforts across 40 countries.

    At the same time, company rollbacks of diversity, equity and inclusion programs are constraining, if not eliminating, the political space in which labour groups negotiate such agreements.

    Tariffs and upheaval in global trade — especially efforts to redraw supply chains to evade costly tariffs — gives brands cover to withdraw commitments to worker-led initiatives and change sourcing patterns to circumvent them.

    Within the United States, cuts and funding freezes — including to sexual assault prevention groups — are a worrying sign that support for preventing gender-based violence and harassment and helping its survivors are being undercut and failing.

    If labour stakeholders lose the resources to support such initiatives, the impacts on women and workplaces within supply chains across the world will be devastating. These programs show that when workers lead, real change is possible, but they need continued investment and political support to survive.

    Genevieve LeBaron receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Humanity United Foundation, and Ford Foundation.

    Judy Fudge 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. Worker-led programs are tackling gender-based violence in supply chains, but they’re at risk – https://theconversation.com/worker-led-programs-are-tackling-gender-based-violence-in-supply-chains-but-theyre-at-risk-255756

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The distant dream of owning a home: Canada sees growing inequality in home ownership

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Yushu Zhu, Assistant Professor, Urban Studies and Public Policy, Simon Fraser University

    Home ownership is often seen as a symbol of success and is linked to various life opportunities, like starting a family or growing your wealth. It’s also often seen as the ultimate housing goal, while renting is seen as transitional. Eventually, everyone is expected to climb up the housing ladder from renting to owning.

    Promoting home ownership is therefore at the centre of housing policy in many countries, including Canada. As of 2021, 67 per cent of Canadian households owned their home.

    However, deteriorating affordability in recent years has placed home ownership out of reach for many and called into question the ideal of home ownership.

    In a recent study, colleagues and I examined access to home ownership for different groups using census data from 1986 to 2021 in five metropolitan areas: Montréal, Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver.

    Our findings suggest that, for many, owning a home has become a distant dream.

    Stagnant homeownership growth

    Based on statistical models that accounted for individual and household characteristics, we found that the probability of an average Canadian household owning a home (with or without a mortgage) improved steadily from 1991 to 2011, then dropped in 2016 and 2021, while the likelihood of owning with a mortgage substantially increased. This means growth in home ownership was primarily driven by mortgage debt.

    This trend was happening at the same time as a shift started in the 1990s towards financialization that treated housing more as an investment than a social good.



    Read more:
    Financial firms are driving up rent in Toronto — and targeting the most vulnerable tenants

    The federal government stopped funding social housing programs, commercialized the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and expanded its mortgage securitization programs.

    In other words, mortgage liberation successfully promoted home ownership for some time until 2011.

    All five metropolitan areas saw a decline in the number of renter households until 2011 (2016 for Montréal), when the number began increasing. In addition, outright ownership has become less prevalent over time.

    These findings defy the expected sustained growth of home ownership that commodification and financialization were supposed to bring.

    The percentage of homes owned outright, with a mortgage or being rented in different Canadian cities.
    (Author provided)

    Filtering mechanism and access to credit

    Another tenet of the home ownership narrative is that a free market provides equal opportunities for owning a home through two processes: the filtering process and mortgage liberalization.

    The filtering model suggests that homes built for higher-income families slowly deteriorate and depreciate, and can become affordable for lower-income people. This process, coupled with the increased access to mortgages, is expected to eventually grant home ownership opportunities to all.

    However, this mechanism is less likely to work for home ownership than for rentals. Owner-occupied homes often take a long time, sometimes decades, to depreciate. By the time they become available and affordable, the unit may require major and costly renovations.

    In practice, many owner-occupied units often “filter up” rather than downward, through gentrification or acquisition by financial investors.

    The increased access to mortgages does not benefit everyone either. Many low-income people or those without stable jobs do not qualify for mortgages, and racialized people are more likely to be denied access to credit due to discrimination.

    Growing inequalities

    Substantiating these counter-arguments are growing inter-generational and income inequalities in home ownership. All age cohorts saw improved access to home ownership up until 2021. However, the three age groups under 45 — 15-24, 25-34 and 35-44 — saw steady declines in home ownership rates.

    These were mostly millennials and Gen Zers who face disproportionate affordability pressure compared to older generations.

    Homeowners over 55 are also reckoning with affordability. We found the share of older homeowners holding a mortgage rose between 1986 and 2021 from 24 to 40 per cent for those 55 to 64, and from 10 to 26 per cent for the 65-74 age group.

    In other words, more people are having to rely on larger loans and longer amortization periods to buy and maintain their homes, making it harder to pay back their mortgage before retirement.

    The disparities in home ownership opportunities among different incomes have also increased. While the top 20th percentile income group witnessed increased probability of owning a home between 2011 and 2016, other income groups experienced stagnant or decreased chances.

    Among owner households, Canadians across all incomes saw increased mortgaged ownership from 1996 to 2016. The lowest income group saw the fastest growth in mortgaged home ownership but were still the least likely to own with a mortgage due to low income or discrimination. Rising house prices coupled with loosening mortgage lending regulations may have pushed them into mortgaged ownership.

    Higher social status?

    A final compelling narrative is that home ownership affords better well-being and financial security due to higher perceived social status and a stronger sense of autonomy and stability.

    The financial security associated with home ownership is supported by the idea of “housing asset-based welfare.” This model conceptualizes home ownership as a means for young people to build assets for financial security in times of need and old age.

    However, this approach encourages early-life debt, and may only work if mortgage loans remain affordable until they are paid off. Paradoxically, this asset-building mindset drives speculative investment and house prices, making outright home ownership more difficult and mortgaged ownership less affordable.

    The well-being associated with home ownership is debatable as well. My colleagues and I have shown elsewhere that perceived benefits to a person’s well-being are not intrinsic to home ownership. Rather, they are created and normalized by a system that makes home ownership more secure and appealing than alternatives like renting.

    In reality, the financial security associated with home ownership has been undermined by rising housing costs, especially for low- and moderate-income homeowners with mortgages.

    Mortgaged homeowners with below-median incomes have seen their housing costs increase 25 per cent faster than their income over the study period, compared to five per cent for higher income families at the top 60th percentile.

    Broken promises

    Manual Aalbers, a human geography professor at Belgium’s University of Leuven, has argued that home ownership today has slowly changed “from a policy goal into pure rhetoric … a means to an end. Mortgaged home ownership increasingly is there to keep mortgage and financial markets going.”

    To say the least, the broken promises of home ownership point to the failures of our current housing system that creates a hierarchy of tenures and two tiers of social class — homeowners and renters.

    Policies aimed at creating a fairer housing market are essential. These include improving home ownership affordability by providing more diverse types of housing for ownership and discouraging speculative investment.

    Such policies should also include enhancing housing security and asset-building opportunities for renters, and supporting the role of non-profits and social enterprises in meeting the needs of a broad range of income groups.

    This research project was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada (SSHRC) through its Insight Development Grant and Partnership Grant. The project was part of the Community Housing Canada project, co-funded by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and SSHRC.

    – ref. The distant dream of owning a home: Canada sees growing inequality in home ownership – https://theconversation.com/the-distant-dream-of-owning-a-home-canada-sees-growing-inequality-in-home-ownership-254873

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Video: How Big is Space? We Asked a NASA Expert

    Source: United States of America – Federal Government Departments (video statements)

    How big is space? It’s one of the most mind-bending questions we can ask because the deeper we look, the more the universe keeps going. We’ve measured billions of light-years in every direction and still haven’t reached the edge.

    A NASA scientists explains what we know — and don’t know — about the size of the cosmos.

    Explore more about the universe: https://science.nasa.gov/exoplanets/what-is-the-universe/

    Download this video at: https://images.nasa.gov/details/How%20Big%20is%20Space

    Producers: Scott Bednar, Pedro Cota, Jessie Wilde
    Editor: Daniel Salazar

    Title: Sassy McBrass – Instrumental
    Composer: Per-Anders Nilsson
    Universal Production Music

    Credit: NASA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0bbq-soSfI

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Joint Statement of Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE) and Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM) ahead of the AU – EU Foreign Ministers’ Meeting on 21 May 2025

    Source: Africa Press Organisation – English (2) – Report:

    ACCRA, Ghana, May 21, 2025/APO Group/ —

    As shepherds of the Catholic Church in Africa and in Europe, we, the bishops of the Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM) (www.SECAM.org) and of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE), speak today with a voice formed by the lived realities of our people – farmers, fisherfolk, pastoralists, women and youth – whose lives are shaped by the land, and whose hope depends on justice, peace, and dignity. We welcome the convening of the joint African Union–European Union Foreign Ministers’ Meeting as an opportunity to examine not only shared ambitions but the very nature of our partnership. As SECAM and COMECE have already stated five years ago, “we are firmly convinced that Africa and Europe could become the engines for a reinvigoration of multilateral cooperation by reinforcing their longstanding ties marked by our common roots and geographical proximity […] towards an equitable and responsible partnership that puts the people at its centre”.

    We are, however, deeply concerned about certain developments in this partnership over recent years. We have witnessed a profound shift in European priorities – away from solidarity with the most fragile regions and communities, and from development cooperation aimed at eradicating poverty and hunger, towards a more narrowly defined set of geopolitical and economic interests. Notwithstanding the commendable intention behind some projects promoting human development at the grassroots, certain initiatives supported under the EU’s Global Gateway – while presented as mutually beneficial – too often seem to replicate extractive patterns of the past: privileging European corporate and strategic aims over the real needs and aspirations of African people.

    Land, water, seeds, and minerals – the very foundations of life – seem to be once again treated as commodities for foreign profit rather than as common goods to be stewarded with care. Africa is being asked to sacrifice its ecosystems and communities to help Europe meet its decarbonisation goals – whether through massive land deals for so-called “green” energy projects, the expansion of carbon offset plantations, or the outsourcing of industrial agriculture’s toxic inputs and waste. This is not partnership. This is not justice.

    “The earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor” (Laudato Si’, §2)

    The Catholic Church, inspired by late Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si’, shares the understanding that we must hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor. These cries are loud and clear across Africa. Climate change is wreaking havoc on those who depend on the land, even as our continent has contributed least to the crisis. Soil degradation, poisoned water, and the loss of biodiversity are destroying the foundation of rural life. Hunger in Africa is growing, not because we lack food, but because we have allowed systems to dominate that put profit above people and that treat agriculture as an industrial process, not a way of life.

    We urge the ministers gathered in Brussels to place the dignity of African peoples at the heart of the AU-EU partnership. This means supporting a transformation of agriculture that breaks free from dependency on imported fertilisers, chemical inputs, and genetically modified seeds. It means protecting and promoting farmer-managed seed systems, which are the repositories of Africa’s agricultural biodiversity and the key to food sovereignty. These systems are not backward or inefficient – they are resilient, rooted in tradition, and adapted to local ecologies. Criminalising farmers for saving seeds or imposing rigid intellectual property regimes aligned with UPOV or corporate agendas violates both their rights and the planet’s needs.

    We call for an immediate ban on the export and use of Highly Hazardous Pesticides in Africa. It is a grave injustice that chemicals banned in Europe for their risks to health and ecosystems are still manufactured there and marketed to African farmers. This double standard must end. Instead, we must invest in agroecology – a science, a practice, and a social movement that nourishes the land, respects cultural traditions, and empowers women and youth. Agroecology offers a truly African path to climate adaptation and rural regeneration. It is rooted in the wisdom of our communities and validated by science. It is our future.

    Moreover, we remind our political leaders that land is sacred. For most Africans, land is not merely a factor of production or a tradable asset. It is a gift from God, entrusted to us by our ancestors and held in common for future generations. Large-scale land acquisitions by foreign investors or development finance institutions, carried out without free, prior, and informed consent, are an affront to this sacred trust. They displace communities, erode customary rights, and contribute to conflict and forced migration. Ministers must act decisively to end land grabbing and ensure legal protection for communal and customary tenure systems.

    We are particularly disturbed by growing use of African territory as a site for Europe’s resource needs and climate ambitions. Decarbonisation must not come at the cost of African ecosystems or the rights of African communities. It is ethically untenable to demand that Africa become the dumping ground for Europe’s “green transition” – whether through extractive mining for critical minerals or vast land projects that reduce our continent to a carbon sink.

    Let us be clear: Africa does not need charity, nor does it need to be a battleground for external interests. What it needs is justice. What it needs is a partnership grounded in mutual respect, environmental stewardship, and the centrality of human dignity. We believe such a partnership is possible – but only if the structures and priorities of AU-EU cooperation are fundamentally reoriented towards these objectives.

    We therefore urge ministers to listen more closely to African civil society, Indigenous peoples, and faith communities – not as token participants, but as equal co-creators of policy. Real dialogue means making space for the voices of those who live on and with the land.

    We conclude by echoing the spirit of Laudato Si’, which calls for an “integral ecology” – one that recognises the profound interconnection between people, planet, and purpose.

    We pray that this meeting may mark a turning point – not only in diplomatic relations but in the moral and spiritual compass guiding our shared future.

    Africa needs a transformation rooted in the Gospel values of care for creation, solidarity with the poor, and the pursuit of peace. As Laudato Si’ teaches us, “everything is interconnected” (§117) – and so our response must be holistic and courageous.

    We invite the AU and EU Foreign Ministers to rise to this moment. Let this be the partnership that listens to the cries of the earth and the cries of the poor. Let this be the moment when Africa’s future is shaped not by external interests, but by the aspirations of its people – especially those who till the land, feed the nation, and protect the environment.

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Renowned Chinese Russianist Becomes Honorary Doctor of IKS RAS

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    Moscow, May 21 /Xinhua/ — Leading Chinese researcher of Russia, professor at the University of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Li Yongquan has become an honorary doctor of the Institute of China and Modern Asia of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ICSA RAS). The corresponding sign was presented to him by the director of ICSA RAS Kirill Babaev.

    Director of the Institute of European and Asian Social Development of the Development Research Center of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, Vice Chairman of the China-Russia Friendship Society, Professor Li Yongquan has been researching modern Russia, Chinese-Russian relations, Eurasian integration, development of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization for over 50 years. He is the author of over 200 scientific and journalistic works, and a translator of Russian book publications. He also worked as a journalist in Moscow and led numerous important applied studies at the level of ministries and departments.

    In an interview with Xinhua, Professor Li Yongquan said he was flattered to be awarded the title of Honorary Doctor of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. “The importance of the healthy development of Chinese-Russian relations for the multipolarity of the world, the stability of the Eurasian region and the development of both sides cannot be overestimated. Chinese and Russian scientists should make their contribution to this,” he emphasized.

    Director of the Institute of Crystallographic Analysis of the Russian Academy of Sciences K. Babaev noted the contribution of Professor Li Yongquan to the development of mutual understanding and friendship between Russia and China. “We hope that this event will become an incentive for further expansion of our cooperation in research, exchange of experience and training of new generations of specialists capable of building strong and mutually beneficial relations between Russia and China. We are confident that Professor Li’s contribution and dedication will serve as an inspiration for future joint projects and initiatives that will contribute to the deepening of our strategic partnership,” said K. Babaev. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Clownfish shrink during marine heatwaves – new study

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Theresa Rueger, Senior Lecturer in Tropical Marine Biology, Newcastle University

    Clownfish that shrank during heatwaves were more likely to survive them. Morgan Bennett-Smith

    As the world contemplates dealing with more extreme temperatures, one coral reef fish has found a novel way to beat the heat: shrinking.

    Wanting to know how clownfish cope with changes to their environment, we repeatedly measured 134 wild fish in Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea, during a marine heatwave that started in March 2023 and is part of an ongoing global mass coral bleaching event. Clownfish have unique markings, which make it easy to identify and measure them underwater.

    To our complete surprise, we found that 100 of the fish we measured shrank during our study from February to August 2023. Those that shrank had a better chance of surviving the heatwave.

    The clownfish, Amphiprion percula, lives in small social groups within anemones on coral reefs. As the movie Finding Nemo indicated, clownfish rarely, if ever, leave their host anemone because the anemone offers them protection from predators.

    Sadly, this also means that clownfish cannot move to cooler areas as marine heatwaves become more common on coral reefs due to rising global temperatures. Clownfish need other strategies to survive the heat.

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

    This is the first time that coral reef fish have been shown to shrink in response to heat stress. And by shrink, we don’t mean getting skinnier – we mean getting shorter.

    This is surprising because growth in vertebrates (animals with backbones, like us) is generally considered to be a one-way street. You get larger over time and you might stop growing if stressed or as you reach your maximum length, but it is rare to find vertebrates shrinking, especially over periods as short as a month, and in response to environmental conditions.

    It may also seem counter-intuitive to shrink. After all, smaller individuals are more prone to being eaten and they breed less. Here, however, being smaller increased the chances of survival for clownfish, possibly because smaller fish need less food and are typically more efficient at foraging and using oxygen, which is scarcer in hot water.

    Orange clownfish in a bleached anemone during the 2023 heatwave in Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea.
    Morgan Bennett-Smith

    If you shrink, I shrink

    We found that there is a social component to shrinking and surviving a heatwave.

    A remarkable feature of clownfish social groups is that they maintain strict hierarchies based on size. This means growth – and shrinking – don’t just affect the individual in question, but also risks conflict within the group that could force a fish to be evicted, which usually leads to death. So, shrinking is a risky proposition.

    On each anemone the biggest clownfish is female, the second biggest is male, and together they form a breeding pair. To avoid fights in the pair, males control their growth to keep a fixed size ratio between the two.

    In our study, breeding pairs in which both fish shrank were more likely to survive the heatwave than if only one, or neither, fish shrank.

    We also found that those fish who shrank by a lot could catch up and grow rapidly when conditions improved. That means that it’s not just the shrinking that helps, but being able to shrink and grow flexibly to meet your needs.

    A breeding pair of clownfish. The large female is on the right and the smaller male on the left.
    Theresa Rueger

    While not all fish beat the heat and survived, none of the fish that shrank multiple times in our study died, and even shrinking once increased a clownfish’s survival probability during the heatwave by 78%.

    Our research didn’t investigate how clownfish do this, but studies on other vertebrates might give us clues. Marine iguanas on the Galápagos Islands for example shrink during El Niño years, when water temperatures in the eastern and central tropical Pacific Ocean warm. This reduces the amount of food and prompts the reptiles to shrink by absorbing part of their bones.

    The average size of many marine fish species around the globe is getting smaller according to long-term surveys. This could partly be a result of fishing removing larger fish from populations, as well as the warming climate altering the growth or maximum sizes of fish.

    If our finding of adult fish shrinking in response to environmental stress is more widespread, it could be another reason why fish in the world’s ocean are getting smaller.

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

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

    Theresa Rueger receives funding from The Leverhulme Trust and the Natural Environment Research Council UK.

    Chancey MacDonald receives funding from the Natural Envirnoment Research Council of UKRI.

    Melissa Versteeg receives funding from Murray Foundation UK, the Prins Bernard Cultuurfonds, the International Coral Reef Society and the School of Natural and Environmental Sciences at Newcastle University, UK.

    – ref. Clownfish shrink during marine heatwaves – new study – https://theconversation.com/clownfish-shrink-during-marine-heatwaves-new-study-257036

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Early-Career Spotlight: Michelle Herrera

    Source: US National Renewable Energy Laboratory

    Welcome to the Materials, Chemical, and Computational Science (MCCS) Early-Career Spotlight, a monthly feature showcasing the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL’s) early-career researchers’ interests, motivations, and achievements. This month, we are featuring Michelle Herrera, who has been a project manager at NREL since 2024.

    The Herrera family enjoys April snow showers. Photo from Michelle Herrera

    Born and raised in Houston, Texas, Michelle Herrera has long known what she wanted to do when she grew up.

    “I knew from a very early age that I wanted to work in renewable energy,” said Herrera, a project manager at NREL. “That motivation has driven the choices I have made in life. However, life has a funny way of taking you on its own path.”

    Even when the details were fuzzy, like what her specific role in the industry would be, the destination was clear. Little did she know that her perseverance would one day pay off.

    Eager for Engineering

    Herrera attended Baylor University, where she chose to pursue a degree that she could apply to her dream career.

    “I chose general engineering, which involved electrical and mechanical electives,” Herrera explained. “I thought that I would need both disciplines. I was able to work on an honors thesis researching the use of biogas in a fuel cell.”

    Engineering degree in hand, Herrera turned to the job market.

    “After graduation, I did not land a renewable energy job and ended up working for Sonoco Flexible Packaging as a process engineer,” Herrera shared.

    But she did not let the minor setback shake her resolve.

    “I started in the production laboratory and gained manufacturing experience,” Herrera said. “I knew I didn’t want to spend my entire career in flexible packaging, so I decided to apply to the Colorado School of Mines for a master’s degree.”

    Ready for Research

    Herrera was offered a position at Mines in a master’s program researching the direct reduction of iron—a cleaner alternative in the steel industry and one step closer to her dream career.

    “At the time, I knew nothing about metallurgy or the steel industry but jumped at the opportunity to go to my dream school. My time at Mines was incredible,” Herrera recalled. “I loved to learn and enjoyed researching carbon formation in direct reduced iron. My thesis involved plant trials changing process conditions to alter the carbon in the final material.”

    After obtaining her master’s, Herrera was offered a research engineering position at voestalpine Texas in Corpus Christi, Texas, a plant she worked with during her master’s program.

    “I spent half my time as a research engineer, building plant simulations and partnering with universities,” Herrera said. “The other half was spent as a process engineer, where I was the engineer on duty for the week and on call for plant shutdowns. I led maintenance turnaround projects and conducted investigations for plant trips. I was first introduced to project management during this job.”

    Doing the Dream

    Herrera spent a little over two years at voestalpine before turning to the job market once more.

    “At the time, I still thought I wanted to be a researcher,” Hererra said. “I landed a project engineering position at a green-ammonia startup. I was finally in renewable energy!”

    Working for the startup was an exciting experience for Herrera. The pace of project execution was much faster than her previous manufacturing role, and she obtained her project management professional certification.

    “It was here that I really fell in love with project management,” Herrera shared. “There is so much joy that comes from successfully finishing a build.”

    The startup began facing financial difficulties, so Herrera decided to explore other opportunities.

    Passionate About Projects

    Herrera applied to NREL and landed her current position as a project manager for the MCCS Research Operations Team.

    “My path has allowed me to see different industrial plants, giving me a solid foundation for engineering and problem-solving,” Herrera explained.

    Herrera currently manages equipment installations and modifications for various research groups within the MCCS directorate. The work involves overseeing projects from the initiation stage all the way to execution and handover. She is also part of the MCCS laboratory space management team and helps manage the Institutional General Purpose Equipment program.

    “I am a data-driven individual,” Herrera said, “so ensuring that project documentation is present and organized effectively is what I strive for. My goal is to make the project execution phase easier for all parties by ensuring that expectations are clearly communicated.”

    Herrera is even managing the modification of a muffle furnace for the direct reduction of iron—a topic closely related to her master’s studies. “Understanding the technology and research helps me better visualize the final outcome compared to the other projects I manage,” she said.

    “The people I work with are what excite me about my job,” Herrera said. “The research operations team consists of a great group of individuals who are excited about the work we do at NREL. Additionally, as a project manager, I get to interact with various teams inside and outside the directorate. Every project brings a unique group of people together, keeping things interesting.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: China publishes plan to protect rivers and lakes

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    BEIJING, May 21 (Xinhua) — Chinese authorities have released an action plan to protect and develop beautiful rivers and lakes for the 2025-2027 period, focusing on improving the quality of aquatic ecosystems.

    A document jointly released Wednesday by China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment and other government agencies sets targets to make significant progress in developing beautiful rivers and lakes by 2030 and to generally complete the process by 2035.

    The plan aims to promote targeted, science-based and legal pollution control, coordinate water resources management, aquatic environment and aquatic ecology, and establish an integrated environmental management system in the upper and lower reaches of key river basins to improve the health of river and lake ecosystems.

    The national list of beautiful rivers and lakes to be protected and developed includes 2,573 rivers and water bodies, including main channels of large rivers, important tributaries, key lakes and reservoirs that perform important ecological functions, have sensitive and fragile ecological environments or attract wide public attention.

    The plan contains 19 specific measures aimed at strengthening and deepening the management of the aquatic environment, ensuring basic environmentally safe water use, and comprehensively promoting efforts for protection and development. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How male anatomy became the default in medicine – and why that’s a problem

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michelle Spear, Professor of Anatomy, University of Bristol

    Imagine waking up from surgery to discover that the implants designed to save your life were too large, too rigid, and never meant for someone like you. Imagine arriving at the emergency department with chest pain, only to be sent home because your symptoms don’t match the “classic” heart attack signs taught to doctors.

    Picture taking a routine dose of medication and experiencing severe side-effects, only to learn that the drug was never tested on women during its clinical trials. Or recovering from a fracture, only to find that the rehabilitation plan you’re following doesn’t align with how your bones heal.

    This isn’t the story of a medical mishap. It’s the consequence of centuries of anatomical science using one model for every body: the male.

    From textbooks to medical devices, the female form has often been an afterthought, leading to treatments that don’t fit, symptoms that go unnoticed, and lives put at risk. How did anatomical science come to overlook half the population? And what are the consequences of this oversight today?

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

    To understand how this situation came about, we must go back to the roots of modern anatomy.

    Early anatomical texts, such as those by Andreas Vesalius in the 16th century, were based almost exclusively on male bodies. Female anatomy was included only when it differed in obvious reproductive ways, often cloaked in language that presented the female form as a deviation or inversion of the male norm.

    By the 19th century, with the institutionalisation of medical schools and dissection, anatomical teaching still relied predominantly on male cadavers. This wasn’t simply due to availability. It was also cultural.

    The male body was perceived as universal, rational, and worthy of study, while the female body was seen as variable, emotional, and biologically preoccupied with reproduction. The “ideal body”, in anatomical terms, was male.

    Even when women were studied, it was often through a lens of pathology or deviation: hysteria, wandering wombs, and fragile constitutions – the femme fragile.

    This historical lens cast a long shadow: well into the 20th century, and in many respects still today, anatomical models, surgical techniques, and medical training continue to prioritise the male form.

    When ‘normal’ doesn’t fit

    The implications of this anatomical bias are not just theoretical. They affect everyday clinical practice and outcomes. For example, women experiencing heart attacks often report symptoms like fatigue, nausea, or jaw pain – symptoms not listed in the “typical” presentation historically taught to doctors. As a result, they are more likely to be misdiagnosed or dismissed, leading to higher mortality rates.



    Read more:
    Are heart attack symptoms sexist?

    Orthopaedic implants, such as hip and knee replacements, have also been shown to potentially underperform in women, in part because they were designed around male bone dimensions and joint angles.

    Even crash test dummies – the silent arbiters of car safety design – were based on male physiology until disturbingly recently. When a “female” dummy was finally introduced, it was essentially a scaled-down man, not a biologically accurate model. Women’s bodies are still not standard or required in car safety tests.

    Then there’s the world of pharmaceuticals. Until the early 1990s, women were routinely excluded from clinical trials due to concerns about hormonal fluctuations and potential pregnancy risks. As a result, the dosage, metabolism, and side-effect profiles of countless medications were understood only in male bodies – sometimes with dangerous consequences.

    In 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration halved the recommended dose of the sleep aid zolpidem (Ambien) for women after discovering that they were far more affected by it than men. Something that could have been predicted had women been included in the initial studies.

    Artificial joints underperform in women – because they’re based on male anatomy.
    Sylvie Pabion Martin/Shutterstock.com

    Anatomy and inclusion

    Bones, muscles, blood vessels, fat distribution, and even immune responses vary between sexes. Female skeletons are generally lighter, with different angles in the pelvis and knees. Tendons and ligaments respond differently to stress and hormones, affecting injury risk and recovery.

    Pain perception and response to analgesics differ, too. Not just because of socialisation, but because of real, measurable differences in anatomy and neurobiology.

    Anatomical diagrams in textbooks still depict male figures as standard, with female anatomy relegated to the reproductive chapter.

    Simulation models for surgical training rarely reflect the full range of female body types or internal variation. If the first step of medicine is to know the body, we must ask: whose body are we really teaching?

    Change is coming. More researchers are calling for sex-disaggregated data in studies, and journals increasingly require it

    New generations of anatomists, doctors, and designers are beginning to challenge the one-body-fits-all paradigm. We’re finally starting to build a model of medicine that sees all bodies clearly, from the inside out.

    Michelle Spear 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 male anatomy became the default in medicine – and why that’s a problem – https://theconversation.com/how-male-anatomy-became-the-default-in-medicine-and-why-thats-a-problem-255648

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Universal vaccines could reshape how we fight future outbreaks – but a broad approach is needed

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Antony Black, Lecturer, Life Sciences, University of Westminster

    raker/Shutterstock.com

    Every year, the race begins anew. Scientists scramble to track mutating viruses, pharmaceutical companies reformulate vaccines and public health systems brace for another season of jabs and logistics.

    This relentless cycle is our frontline defence against threats like flu and COVID – but it comes at a steep price. Globally, billions are poured into strain and variant surveillance, vaccine development and distribution, leaving already-stretched health systems — particularly in lower-income countries – struggling to keep pace.

    That’s why scientists have long aimed to develop universal vaccines – ones that protect against all major forms of a virus, including both seasonal and pandemic types. But designing these vaccines has proved to be tricky.

    The difficulty lies in the way viruses mutate. Influenza and SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) change rapidly, allowing them to escape the immune system’s memory responses triggered by past infections or vaccinations. To make a universal vaccine, researchers must identify parts of the virus that stay the same across different strains and variants – known as “conserved regions”.

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

    These conserved regions are harder for the immune system to recognise, so scientists are developing strategies to enhance the body’s response to them. One approach removes the rapidly mutating parts of the virus from the vaccine entirely, helping the immune system focus on the parts that don’t change.

    Another strategy involves “mosaic” vaccines, which combine elements from many virus strains to trigger a broad, protective immune response.

    Several technologies used to deliver these vaccines are at various stages of development. For example, mRNA vaccines use lab-made strands of messenger RNA (a type of genetic material) to instruct cells to produce viral proteins to trigger an immune response.

    Another type relies on “viral vectors” – harmless viruses that deliver genetic material into human cells to stimulate immunity. Both types of vaccines were gamechangers during the COVID pandemic.

    Other technologies include nanoparticles, which use synthetic biological particles to improve delivery and immune response. And “virus-like particles”, which trigger immune responses by imitating the structure of viruses, but don’t contain any genetic material.

    Researchers are also using powerful computational tools to design vaccines that could work across multiple strains.

    These platforms aren’t just being explored for flu and COVID – similar efforts are underway for other fast-evolving viruses, such as HIV.

    Cash injection

    Earlier this month, the US government announced a US$500 million (£377 million) investment to accelerate research into universal vaccines. After years of underfunding, experts say this backing is long overdue – especially following the COVID pandemic, which temporarily shifted focus to emergency vaccine production.

    The rapid development of COVID vaccines showed how targeted funding and global collaboration can lead to scientific breakthroughs. A similar approach could now help bring universal vaccines closer to reality by supporting early research, funding clinical trials and improving manufacturing and distribution systems.

    However, the investment has not been without controversy. Some scientists have raised concerns that the funding may be overly directed toward a narrow set of researchers or outdated methods, rather than being open to the most promising technologies.

    Critics argue that a broad, flexible portfolio of vaccine strategies – rather than a single approach – is the key to success.

    Ultimately, the goal of a universal vaccine is not just scientific. It’s also practical and global: reducing the burden on health systems, lowering costs and transforming how the world responds to future outbreaks.

    Antony Black 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. Universal vaccines could reshape how we fight future outbreaks – but a broad approach is needed – https://theconversation.com/universal-vaccines-could-reshape-how-we-fight-future-outbreaks-but-a-broad-approach-is-needed-256656

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Teachers knew what children needed to recover from the pandemic – but their insights were ignored

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alice Bradbury, Professor of Sociology of Education, UCL

    PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    Five years have passed since schools and nurseries closed in England as a result of COVID-19 lockdowns. This unprecedented disruption to children’s normal routines created considerable concern – both at the time and in the years since.

    But based on our research into the impact of school closures on children, we believe that many of the long-term effects have been misdiagnosed or ignored. Funding has been channelled in the wrong direction, hampering real recovery.

    We researched what was happening in primary schools during the pandemic. We used surveys, interviews and school-based case studies to collect insights from school staff and parents.

    Our survey data and case studies showed that teachers recognised straight away how the pandemic was affecting the children they taught and their families.

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

    Schools knew that not receiving free school meals and being confined to inadequate housing during lockdown would affect children’s health and nutrition. They saw that some children would be exposed to greater risk from being at home, and that they needed to take action. They also recognised that children living in poverty would be affected the most.

    We also conducted two systematic literature reviews which assessed the findings of a large range of scholarly research. In one, we reviewed the evidence for how schools recover from sudden closures due to natural disasters or epidemics. In the other, we assessed studies published towards the end of the pandemic on the harm done to pupils.

    Priorities for recovery

    We wanted to know the key areas to focus on to help children recover from the disruption of lockdown. Our own research in schools arrived at similar answers to the review of research on school closures associated with natural disasters.

    First, it is important to recognise the value of local knowledge. Recovery strategies that are decided without insight into the local context may be poorly designed and unable to address the actual issues facing particular schools.

    Second, schools need to have the freedom to reset the pace at which the curriculum is taught, as both pupils and staff needed time to process what had happened during the pandemic. Rushing to catch up would prove counter-productive. And third, government responses need to make staff and pupil welfare a priority, and help repair wellbeing.

    Our review of the evidence of harm to pupils, published as the pandemic ended, found negative effects on physical health and nutrition, mixed effects on mental health and uncertainty about effects on learning.

    We saw how far the impact of COVID-19 on employment, and the prevalence of household bereavements, varied from place to place. We advised the Department for Education that insights from local communities were needed to help recovery, and that without them, centrally designed schemes might be unsuccessful.

    But instead, the government focused its immediate efforts on a time-limited national tutoring programme, intended to counter “learning loss” – to help pupils recover the knowledge they missed out on learning during school closures and to close the attainment gap.

    But the programme was poorly reviewed. Funding for tutors with no knowledge of the school or its pupils led to disappointing uptake and an early switch to a school-led funding route.

    The government’s appointed “catch-up tsar”, Kevan Collins, resigned early on. He commented that the “support announced by government so far does not come close to meeting the scale of the challenge”. This has proved true.

    Lasting consequences

    Five years on, it is not in the areas of learning loss that the long-term effects are being most felt. Evidence of learning loss is mixed, with exam results showing near recovery to pre-pandemic standards.

    Rather, it is the complex interactions between pupil absence and exclusions, the ongoing impacts on children with special educational needs and disabilities (as the strongest predictor of persistent absence) and the impacts on wellbeing that are most clearly indicative of an ongoing problem.

    Children’s wellbeing should be a key focus of continuing pandemic recovery.
    New Africa/Shutterstock

    A recent report from the charities The Institute For Public Policy Research and The Difference has found that absence and suspensions are two-thirds higher in England than before the pandemic. The findings suggest that this is the “lost learning” we should be concerned about.

    This has been compounded by a cost-of-living crisis that is deepening child poverty.

    Schools need support to help get past the consequences of the pandemic. This means a better funding formula that resources them properly for what they do – including the role they play in addressing child poverty. Teachers’ expertise needs to be recognised, and they need to feel valued.

    What’s more, the social value of primary school matters. It should not be seen only as preparation for an academic secondary school curriculum. Room for play, for physical activity, for arts and self-expression would greatly enrich this phase and set good foundations for the later years.

    While it may be many years until we really understand what the pandemic meant for children, we can at least use what we know now to inform the long process of recovery.

    Alice Bradbury receives funding from the Helen Hamlyn Trust which funds the Helen Hamlyn Centre for Pedagogy at UCL. She has also received research funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and Department of Education/SAGE for the research discussed here. She is a member of the Labour Party and the Universities and College Union.

    Gemma Moss receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council for the research discussed here.

    Sinead Harmey receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council for the research discussed here.

    – ref. Teachers knew what children needed to recover from the pandemic – but their insights were ignored – https://theconversation.com/teachers-knew-what-children-needed-to-recover-from-the-pandemic-but-their-insights-were-ignored-253181

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –