SAUDI SUNNI IMPERIALISM
Yemen: the seven-year war with no peace 

in sight



Issued on: 12/09/2021 -

The war in Yemen between Iran-aligned Huthi rebels and the Saudi-backed 

government has plunged the country into the world's worst humanitarian crisis - AFP

Dubai (AFP)

Seven years have passed since Huthi rebels seized the Yemeni capital Sanaa in September 2014, sparking a war that has plunged the already impoverished country into the world's worst humanitarian crisis.

Despite diplomatic efforts to stop the fighting between the Iran-allied rebels and Saudi-backed government, there is no end in sight to a conflict that has put millions on the brink of famine.

Here are some of the key questions and answers about the war in Yemen.


- Who has the upper hand? -

Analysts say the balance has tilted in favour of the Huthi rebels against the Saudi-led military coalition.

Riyadh has been leading the coalition on behalf of the Yemeni government since March 2015, and its air strikes had allowed loyalists to reclaim southern territories from the rebels, who control much of the north and large swathes of the west.

But the Huthis now appear stronger than ever, inflicting painful strikes on government forces as well as on targets in Saudi Arabia with a never-ending supply of ballistic missiles and drones.

"After seven years, we are witnessing a great shift in the balance of power, with the (anti-Huthi) camp fragmented due to the state's political leadership," Maged al-Madhaji of the Sanaa Center think-tank told AFP.

The rebels rule areas under their control with an iron fist, while disputes remain rife among members of the anti-Huthi camp, which includes the government -- unable to provide basic public services -- and the southern separatists demanding a greater political role.

- Where is the biggest battle? -

Despite heavy losses in recent months, the Huthis are again renewing their attempt to seize the city of Marib, the government's last northern stronghold.

The rebels first stepped up their campaign for Marib in February, leaving hundreds dead on both sides. Taking over the city in the oil-rich province would strengthen their bargaining position in UN peace talks.

According to Peter Salisbury, an analyst at the International Crisis Group, a lot has changed in the past seven years.

"The Huthis have gone from being a relatively contained rebel movement to de facto authorities who (control) the capital and territory where more than 20 million people live," he said.

The Huthis are battle-hardened after fighting six wars against Yemen's then-government between 2004 and 2010 and cross-border clashes with Saudi Arabia in 2009 and 2010.

"As long as there is an ongoing battle for Marib, fighting in most of the country will continue, along with increased tension and deterioration of the situation," said Madhaji.

- What is the UN doing? -

Swedish diplomat Hans Grundberg, the UN's new envoy for Yemen, assumed his duties this week after his predecessor, Martin Griffiths, admitted his efforts over three years in the post had been "in vain".

Elisabeth Kendall, researcher at the University of Oxford's Pembroke College, said Grundberg's "main challenge will be finding a formula for a ceasefire that the Huthis can accept so that a peace process can begin".

While the United Nations and the US are pushing to end the grinding conflict, the rebels have demanded the reopening of Sanaa airport before any ceasefire agreement.

The last talks took place in Sweden in 2018, when the opposing sides agreed to a mass prisoner swap and to spare the city of Hodeida, where the port serves as the country's lifeline.

But despite agreeing to a ceasefire in Hodeida, violent clashes have since broken out between the rebels and pro-government troops around the strategic city.

- Is there hope for peace? -

Peace in Yemen remains depressingly elusive.

Both the UN's Griffiths and Tim Lenderking, the US special envoy for Yemen, have toured the region to push peace efforts, without managing to find a resolution.

"Without considerable effort at a local level, no internationally brokered peace agreement will stick," said Kendall.

According to Madhaji, there are no positive indications in the near future.

"The situation will deteriorate further this year and the next if either party feels it is stronger than the other," he said.

"And the stronger party is usually not one to lean towards peace."

The foreign legion of YouTubers defending China

While researchers have said China uses fake accounts and "bots" to manipulate online traffic, AFP did not find proof that the YouTubers were part of this effort.

SOMEBODY HAS TOO;

THERE ARE NO MAOISTS 

LEFT IN THE WEST

Issued on: 12/09/2021 - 

Vlogger Jason Lightfoot regularly posts about Western 'lies' against China Jade GAO AFP


Beijing (AFP)

With YouTube videos "debunking" allegations of human rights abuses and diatribes on Western "conspiracies" against China, an unlikely set of foreigners are loudly defending Beijing from its international critics.

They are teachers and business owners from Britain, Colombia and Singapore, a collage of YouTubers garnering fame for their video takedowns of what they say are unfair accusations against Beijing.

Videos alternate between praise of China's rapid development and rebuttals of negative foreign reports about the country.

Experts say they are being deployed as a weapon in the information war against China's critics, with hundreds of videos reaching millions of viewers.

"I am trying to reach the people that have been brainwashed," Fernando Munoz Bernal, a Colombian English teacher in southern China's Dongguan and the owner of the "FerMuBe" channel, told AFP.

Bernal, who came to China in 2000 and has nearly 30,000 YouTube followers and 18,000 subscribers on the Chinese platform Bilibili, was among the vloggers who rebutted allegations of human rights abuses in Xinjiang this year.

In an April video, he accused foreign media of distorted reporting on Xinjiang and defended local businesses' reluctance to speak to correspondents against "whatever lies and rumours journalists concoct".

Western media seek to deflect from problems in their parts of the world by "creating enemies out of thin air" in China, he told AFP.

He is not alone.

"Does this look like oppression? Take a look at this buffet!" says Brit Jason Lightfoot, with 173,000 subscribers, in another video of the same genre as he visits a restaurant in Guizhou province.

The United States and other governments allege genocide is taking place in Xinjiang while rights groups say Chinese authorities have imposed mass detention and forced labour in the region.

Beijing denies the allegations and has gone on the offensive against governments, individuals, media groups as well as companies that have promised probes into their Xinjiang supply chains.

- Paid stooges? Not us -

The vloggers deny being paid mouthpieces for the Chinese government, instead claiming to be on self-appointed missions to clear up misconceptions about a country they love.

Their backgrounds are often in fields unrelated to current affairs or politics, while their videos blend footage of everyday life with passionate commentaries defending China.

Pro-China vloggers have defended Beijing against international criticism over the treatment of minorities in Xinjiang 

GREG BAKER AFP/File

Bernal, who speaks some Chinese, said he was motivated by fear of a conflict between China and the West sparked by what he calls a "disinformation campaign" against Beijing.

"If there is a war, it's my life at risk," he told AFP.

YouTube is inaccessible inside China without special VPN software.

Yet like the other YouTubers, Bernal's subtitled videos get a warm reception on Chinese social media platforms including Bilibili, while state media frequently republishes their content and features the vloggers online.

The same media often rips into unfavourable reporting by accredited foreign journalists.

"Where possible, the propaganda system is bound to integrate them into their own propaganda efforts," Florian Schneider, politics researcher and director of the Leiden Asia Centre, told AFP.

Bernal said he and other YouTubers shared "opportunities to collaborate with state media" but insisted he was not a propagandist for China's Communist Party.

His videos have featured tours sponsored by the government-run China Radio International, where he interviews other YouTubers about criticisms of China and explores rural development projects.

In one video, he slams the 2019 pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong as "terrorism" and suggests the United States was attempting to provoke a war with China by supporting the movement, while referencing 9/11 conspiracy theories.

- Preaching to the converted -

Lee Barrett of the "Barrett" channel, which has over 300,000 YouTube subscribers, recently addressed the question of state media repurposing his content for PR.

"If you're making some content that the government likes, or whatever, what's the problem with them reposting it?" he said in a video.

YouTuber Lee Barrett's channel has more than 300,000 subscribers Jade GAO AFP

Barret declined to be interviewed by AFP after initially agreeing to speak.

Many of the vloggers started their channels with apolitical lifestyle videos, but their content has in recent months dovetailed with official narratives.

Lightfoot's early videos were focused on his travels around Asia as he sampled street food and sang at karaoke lounges.

But last year, he began posting frequently on Western "lies" about China, while making spoof videos of an exaggerated, fictional "BSB news" network modelled after the BBC.

Beijing routinely condemns BBC reporting for alleged bias, accusing it of fabricating human rights abuses.

Lightfoot did not respond to AFP's request for an interview.

It is difficult to quantify the influence of the YouTubers outside China, with many of their commenters claiming to be grateful Chinese.

That raises a question about their target audience, says analyst Schneider, as the videos are "hardly going to convince anyone who is not already a believer".

While researchers have said China uses fake accounts and "bots" to manipulate online traffic, AFP did not find proof that the YouTubers were part of this effort.

© 2021 AFP

UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO
New groundbreaking technique reveals new details on the long-theorized fifth force of nature

It also uncovered new information about an important subatomic particle.
By Amit Malewar
- September 10, 2021

Image: Pixabay

The Standard Model is currently the widely accepted theory of how particles and forces interact at the smallest scales. It describes three fundamental forces in nature: electromagnetic, strong, and weak nuclear force.

But it’s an incomplete explanation of how nature works. Also, other theories suggest the possible presence of a fifth force.

Using a newly developed groundbreaking technique called neutron pendell¨osung interferometry, scientists revealed previously unknown properties of technologically crucial silicon crystals. The method also revealed essential information about a crucial subatomic particle and a long-theorized fifth force of nature.

Scientists mainly focused on subatomic particles called neutrons at silicon crystals. They then monitored the outcome with intense sensitivity.

They obtained three significant results:

The first measurement of a critical neutron property in 20 years using a unique method.

The highest-precision measurements of the effects of heat-related vibrations in a silicon crystal.

Limits on the strength of a possible fifth force beyond standard physics theories.

The research was an international collaboration conducted at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Dmitry Pushin, a member of the University of Waterloo’s Institute for Quantum Computing, said, “This was a multi-year experiment, and we had great results that are technically exciting and opens the door to future technologies.”

The two simple clues that tell us when the Universe began

Astronomers estimate that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old – but how can we tell how long ago the Big Bang happened?


By Prof Jon Butterworth

Published: 07th September, 2021 

We deduce the age of the Universe from observations we make now, coupled with an assumption that the fundamental physical laws of today also operated in the past.

This is pretty much the way historians work out human history – make observations of things like buildings, artefacts or written records, and make deductions based on an understanding human behaviour. Cosmologists have a bit of an advantage because particles, stars and galaxies are more predictable than people.

There are two or three key observations that determine the age of the Universe.

The first is that the galaxies we observe around us are all receding. This means the Universe is expanding. So in the past it was smaller. If the rate of expansion were constant, that would immediately give us a point in time when it was zero size, which we could label the beginning: the Big Bang.

It is a bit more complicated than that – for example, the rate of expansion actually seems to be increasing. Still, the expansion tells us the Universe hasn’t been here, looking just the same, forever. It is dynamic.

A second important piece of the puzzle is called the cosmic microwave background. This is background noise (actually photons – electromagnetic radiation) left over from the Big Bang.

When all of matter was crammed into a tiny space, the energy density would have been very high. This means atoms would not hold together, as the electrons would keep getting knocked away by energetic photons. However, as the Universe expanded and cooled, the energy of the photons decreased.

At some point it became too low to stop electrically-neutral atoms forming. Since that happened (about 380,000 years after the Big Bang), the photons have hung around getting lower and lower in energy. They are still there, at a temperature 2.7°C above absolute zero, and we have measured them very precisely.

Not only are they further evidence for the Big Bang, but because we know very well how electrons and photons behave, studying the spectrum and distribution of the cosmic microwave background constrains the age of the Universe very tightly.

Finally, knowing that there was a Big Bang, we can look how long it must have taken to make various objects in the Universe. Light elements (hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium) would be made as a result of the Big Bang itself, but heavier elements require nuclear reactors – that is, stars.

These take time to form, as matter comes together under gravity, and time to burn, explode and distribute carbon, silicon, iron and the rest around the Universe to make new stars, planets, and of course physicists.


Some of the objects we see around us are very old – not least because they are so far away that the light we see them by was emitted billions of years ago. All of this says the Universe is definitely very old, and gives estimates consistent with the more precise values deduced from the cosmic microwave background.

It’s still not fully understood how placebos work – but an alternative theory of consciousness could hold some clues

Placebos also affect activity in higher brain regions like the prefrontal cortex, 

amygdala, and striatum. Shutterstock

September 8, 2021 

If you’ve had both of your COVID vaccinations, you may have suffered some side-effects – perhaps headaches, fatigue, fever or a sore arm. These effects are mainly caused by your immune system’s reaction to the vaccine. But most scientists agree that there is another cause: the human mind.

The ability of the mind to generate the symptoms of illness is known as the “nocebo” effect. The nocebo effect is the unpopular twin brother of the placebo effect. Whereas the placebo effect alleviates pain and the symptoms of illness, the nocebo effect does the opposite: it generates pain and symptoms.

A 2018 study found that almost half of participants in placebo trials experience side-effects, even though they are taking inert substances. There was a similar finding in the first major trial of the Pfizer COVID vaccine in 2020. In the placebo group – who were not given the vaccine – between a quarter and a third of people reported fatigue, a similar number reported headaches, and around 10% reported muscle pain.

Indeed, Martin Michaelis and Mark Wass, bioscientists at the University of Kent, recently suggested that “for some vaccinated people the knowledge that they have been vaccinated may be sufficient to drive side-effects”.

Get your news from people who know what they’re talking about.Sign up for newsletter
Your brain on placebos

Unlike its unpopular brother, the placebo effect is so well known that it needs little introduction. But in many ways, the placebo effect has become so familiar that it’s easy to forget how strange it really is. It’s bizarre that pain relief and healing can take place without actual treatment. And that powerful positive physiological effects can occur without any real physiological intervention.

Research has shown that a vast array of different conditions benefit from placebos. This includes acne, Crohn’s disease, epilepsy, ulcers, multiple sclerosis, rheumatism, Parkinsons’s disease and colitis. A recent study also found that placebos had a highly significant effect on erectile dysfunction.

How placebos work is still not quite understood. Shutterstock

Comparisons of placebos to antidepressants suggest that the placebo effect can play an important role in the treatment of depression. A 2008 study found no significant difference between leading antidepressants and placebos. In a 2018 study, antidepressants fared slightly better, but their effect was still only found to be “mostly modest” compared with placebos.

All of this isn’t simply a matter of suggestion or delusion: real and measurable physiological changes occur. Studies have found that, when taken as painkillers, placebos decrease neurological activity related to pain and make use of many of the same neurotransmitters and neural pathways as opioids. Similarly, researchers have found that, when taken by people with Parkinson’s disease, placebos can stimulate the release of dopamine, which reduces the symptoms of the condition.
Mind control and consciousness

Researchers looking into placebos have found that some factors, such as expectancy of treatment, different personality types and the patient-physician relationship, can have some bearing on the effects.

We also know that placebos can activate reward pathways in the brain – and increase levels of opioid and dopamine activity. That said, the underlying causes of the placebo effect are still mysterious.

Perhaps though, nocebo and placebo effects only seem mysterious because we are looking at them from the wrong perspective. And by this, I mean maybe if we consider an alternative view of consciousness, the placebo and nocebo effect could begin to make more sense.

The brain and the mind

In modern western culture, the mind is usually seen as a byproduct of the brain – a kind of shadow cast by neurological processes. Mental phenomena such as thoughts, memories and feelings are thought to be produced by brain activity.

If we have psychological problems, they are thought to be due to neurological imbalances that can be corrected by medication. But if this assumption is correct, how is it possible for mental processes to influence the body as well as the brain in such a powerful way?

Indeed, the difficulties of explaining consciousness purely in terms of brain processes have grown so acute that some philosophers and scientists have adopted an alternative view: that consciousness is not a direct product of the brain, but a fundamental universal quality – like mass or gravity.

This is something I look at in my recent book, Spiritual Science and it’s a view that has been adopted by some contemporary philosophers – including David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel. Chalmers suggests that consciousness “does not seem to be derivable from physical laws” and believes it could be “considered a fundamental feature, irreducible to anything more basic.” Nagel also suggests that the “mind is not just an afterthought or an accident or add on, but a basic aspect of nature.”

Other scientists and philosophers - such as Christof Koch and Phillip Goff - have adopted similar theories, which suggest that the mind or consciousness is a basic quality of material particles.

These approaches are not yet widely accepted, and would need to gather more evidence to support them. And there are some difficult issues that need to be addressed: for example, if consciousness is a fundamental quality, how does it end up in individual conscious beings such as ourselves? Or, if consciousness exists in particles of matter, how does the consciousness of those particles combine to produce larger conscious entities such as human beings?

More mainstream scientists still hope that a neurological explanation of consciousness will be found, that will help to throw some light on “rogue” phenomena like the nocebo and placebo effects. But taking the philosophical idea of consciousness as fundamental might suggest that the mind is in some way more powerful than the brain and the body, and so could influence the latter in a profound way – and it might help explain one day why placebo pills can bring about real physiological and neurological changes in many people.

Author

Steve Taylor
Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Leeds Beckett University




Leeds Beckett University provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

Physicists Have A Kickstarter To Test Whether We Are Living In A Simulation

By James Felton

10 SEP 2021, 12:24

If we were in a hyper-realistic simulation, à la The Matrix, would it be possible to find out? A team of physicists believes so, and they are trying to fund their experiment with a Kickstarter campaign to find out. Whether it's possible even test this, how, and what are the consequences of finding out are all big questions waiting to be explored.

Simulation Theory, in its most basic form, goes like this: if humans (or another species, for cuteness feel free to imagine it's puppies) continues to advance for hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years, it's a pretty safe bet that we will have a lot of computational power at our finger/paw tips. If we were to expand out into the galaxy (or even further) we may harness the power of stars, or possibly even black holes.

With all this energy and computational power, it's likely that at some point our descendants will be curious enough to run "ancestor simulations", using just a tiny fraction of the computing power available to us. 

ANCESTOR SIMULATIONS

Ancestor simulations, as put forward by Swedish philosopher and Oxford University Professor Nick Bostrom in his 2003 paper "Are you living in a computer simulation?", is the idea that future generations might have the computing power to run simulations on our forebears, and imbue these simulations with a sort of artificial consciousness. If this has already happened, this would mean the vast majority of people are simulations by the advanced descendants of the original humankind, and if that's the case, it's more rational to assume you are one of the simulations rather than one of the original biological humans. 

In his paper, Bostrom proposes three possible scenarios:

1) The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a stage where they are able to run these simulations is very close to zero.

I.e. it's likely we'll get wiped out before we reach a point where we are able to perform such tests.

2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor simulations is very close to zero.

In other words, our species has changed so much by that point that we are no longer interested in running simulations, and no curious individuals have access to the power to create them, or else running these simulations is banned.

3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

If the other two are false, then we are left with option number three: our species develops the required technology and starts creating an incomprehensible number of ancestor simulations (over time). This would mean that the vast majority of "people" with experience of living on Earth are... inside a simulation, they just don't know it. 

So far, so philosophical, but can we test it? Well, if you make a few assumptions about the limits of potential simulations, then it might just be possible.

TESTING SIMULATION THEORY

In 2017, a group of physicists proposed a few methods of finding out in their paper "On Testing the Simulation Theory" with varying degrees of complexity. Their idea rests on the assumption that the simulation would have limited resources, and so isn't simulating everything in the universe all at the same time. As such, the simulation would act much like a computer game, only rendering the parts of the simulation that are being observed by a "player" at the time. Sort of like how in the background of Super Mario, the designers chose not to simulate the entire observable universe off-screen, to save on computer power (a wise move).

The key to finding out whether we are in a simulated universe or a real one is to find out when information becomes available to us, the observers.

"To save itself computing work, the system only calculates reality when information becomes available for observation by a player, and to avoid detection by players it maintains a consistent world, but occasionally, conflicts that are unresolvable lead to VR indicators and discontinuities (such as the wave/particle duality)," the authors wrote in the paper. 

Should it only be at the time of observation by an observer (and not apparatus), the team suggests this would be evidence that it is only being "rendered" at the point of observation, meaning that we are living in a simulation.

Testing this, the team says in the paper, isn't as complicated as it sounds. Though, obviously, it's still very complicated and involves the double-slit experiment. It all revolves around forcing "the VR rendering engine to create discontinuities in its rendering or produce a measurable signature event within our reality that indicates that our reality must be simulated."

In the double-slit experiment, single photons are fired at a double-slit cut into a screen. If you do this and look at the buildup of impacts on the screen, you will see a pattern emerge, as shown below. This pattern is what you'd expect if the photons were acting as waves.

A wave pattern building up. Gif credit: Thierry Dugnolle via Wikimedia Commons (CC0 1.0)

So far, so simple. Now, if you detect which slit the photons are going through (imagine a beep every time a photon goes through the top slit, if it pleases you) the pattern that we get is two lines, as if the photons were behaving as particles (see below video). 

Turn off the detector, and we're back to seeing the interference pattern (the waves seen above). Having or not having access to the "which way" data (essentially knowing which slit the photon went through) determines whether the photon acts as a particle or a wave. Photons can behave as either particles or waves, but cannot be observed as both at the same time.

If your brain hurts, imagine how quantum physicists feel every moment of their waking lives. But, for the authors of the 2017 study it could give us an opportunity to find out if we're real, which would be nice to know, even if it isn't going to imbue you with the power of Neo from The Matrix.

"The following experiments are designed based on the hypothesis that the availability of which-way data to an observer is the key element that determines the pattern found on the result screen: the simulated content (the virtual reality) is computed and available to be rendered to an experimenter only at the moment that information becomes available for observation by an experimenter and not at the moment of detection by an apparatus," the authors wrote. 

By using a series of abstractions, they propose that it might be possible to find (should we live in a simulation) that the information is only given to us at the point of observation. To do this, they try to create versions of the double-slit experiment that would create a paradox.

“Two strategies can be followed to test the simulation theory," they explain. "1: Test the moment of rendering. 2: Exploit conflicting requirement of logical consistency preservation and detection avoidance to force the VR rendering engine to create discontinuities in its rendering or produce a measurable signature event within our reality that indicates that our reality must be simulated."

In one of the simplest of their proposed experiments, the which-way data and screen data are collected on two separate USB drives, and not seen by an experimenter. Keep doing this, and you have a lot of flash drives that contain which-way data, and screen data. You then destroy the which-way data USBs based on a coin flip (heads you survive, tails you die — like Anton Chigurh from No Country For Old Men, but in a lab coat).

"Destruction must be such that the data is not recoverable and no trace of the data is left on the computer that held and transferred the data. For n even, one can replace the coin-flipping randomization by that of randomly selecting a subset composed of half of the pairs of USB flash drives containing which-way data for destruction (with uniform probability over such subsets)," they say in the paper.

"The test is successful if the USB flash drives storing impact patterns show an interference pattern only when the corresponding which-way data USB flash drive has been destroyed."

I.e. if you open up the screen data and see wave patterns when the corresponding which-way USB stick has been destroyed, that would mean that the simulation had rendered reality at the point of observation (you opening the file) and not when observed by the detector.

HOW YOU CAN HELP TEST IF THE SYSTEM EXISTS

Of course, the simulation could be clever enough that it knows of intent and will find tricksier ways of concealing this from you, so should this not work, the team propose a series of ever more complex ways that you could test the system (if it exists). They even started a Kickstarter in order to fund the tests, which has raised over $236,590 so far.

Of course, if we find out that we're not living in a simulation that has implications too. Going back to Bostrom's proposal, it would mean that we are looking at option 1 or 2: we either don't make it as a species, or become something virtually unimaginable. Both of which might be preferable to finding out that we are in a simulation. If that happened it could ruin whatever "they" were testing by running the simulation in the first place. They might simply turn us off.

TO A NEW WORLD OF GODS AND MONSTERS
Artificial cells created that imitate basic functions of living cells
By David Szondy
September 09, 2021

Researchers have created artificial cells that can ingest, process, and expel material
NYU


It may sound like the start of a Frankenstein story, but scientists from New York University (NYU) and the University of Chicago have developed artificial cells made of non-biological matter that mimic the basic functions of living ones.

There was a time when cells were regarded as microscopic blobs of living jelly about as simple as you could get. Today, science has revealed that each cell is a mind-bogglingly complex organic chemical laboratory running on algorithms encoded on strands of DNA.


Recreating something resembling even the simplest of cells in a lab is still very much a pipe dream, but scientists have been trying for decades to mimic the most basic cellular functions because of the large number of potential applications.

The most fundamental function of biological cells is to gather energy in the form of molecules like glucose from the environment around it and use that energy to pump molecules like amino acids in and out of themselves in order to maintain themselves, grow, and reproduce.

In the new study, researchers sought to mimic the active transport function without trying to reproduce the complex mechanisms that cells use. Living cells have intricate membranes, with protein channels and pumping mechanisms powered by mitochondria and Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) that allow cells to pump selected molecules in and out across the membrane, even when it means working against osmotic pressures due to differences in ion concentrations.

That's a bit too ambitious, so the team opted for creating bubbles the size of a red blood cell out of polymers and piercing them to let particles pass through, mimicking a cell's protein channel. Instead of mitochondria, the cell mimic had a tiny bit of light-activated catalyst inside the channel. Shining light on the catalyst starts a chemical reaction that acts like a pump to pull material through the channel, while switching off the light traps the material inside and reverses the reaction, expelling the material on demand.

The research was published in Nature, and the video below shows the cell mimic in action.

Put it more simply, this mechanism lets the cell mimic ingest, store, process, and expel matter like a living cell.

According to the team, the cell mimic, which can be manufactured in large quantities, can potentially be used to purify water by ingesting microscopic pollutants and bacteria like E. coli. In addition, it may be possible to load the cells with drugs and then release them on command.

The next step will be to mimic other functions and find ways for the cell mimics to communicate with one another.

MALAYSIA 

Deforestation is the problem, not zoos, says animal rights activist

Samuel Chua

 -

September 12, 2021 

Zoos are essential for research, education and conservation, say veterinarians and animal experts, and should not be closed down.

PETALING JAYA: A zoo functions as a place for conservation and research purposes, and should not be phased out, says Malaysian Animal Association president Arie Dwi Andika.

Zoos are important for researchers to learn about various wildlife, he said, and it would not be sensible for them to catch these animals in jungles just to complete their research.

Arie’s comments comes in response to a call by the Consumers Association of Penang (CAP) for the government to reconsider the concept of zoos. CAP said zoos cost too much to maintain and contribute to animal cruelty.

However, Arie said that the focus should be on stopping deforestation in the country as more animals are put at risk of extinction.

He said zoos remained relevant as they help to support breeding and rescue programmes for endangered species and enable sharing of expertise between officials of zoos and local parks.

“Also, if these animals were to be placed back into the jungles, there would still be maintenance costs to pay. There would still be a need to hire park rangers and bear the cost of rescuing and protecting these animals in the event they are at risk of being poached.

“I don’t think it is a waste of money to invest in zoos at all, especially in terms of education for children. In fact, the government should pump in more capital to zoos to ensure that there is proper administration, facilities and care for the welfare of these animals as many are already at risk of being endangered,” he said.

Veterinarian Dr Reza Singam, who worked at Zoo Negara in the early 2000s, said the days where people would go out and hunt animals in the wild were long gone.

“If zoos are still doing that, then they should definitely be shut down. However, these animals have been bred in captivity and it would not be suitable for them to be released into the wild.

“For example, if you release a tiger bred in captivity into the jungle, it would not know how to hunt in the wild and would definitely try to head back to its enclosure,” he told FMT.

Reza added that these days, animals bred in captivity also had a longer lifespan compared with those living in the wild.

“Polar bears living in a tropical country like Singapore have lived well beyond their natural lifespan in the wild. It’s a testament to the fact that zoo workers take good care of their animals,” he said.

Reza added that zoos play an important role in education, helping children to learn more about different animals around the world.

“How will you educate your kids on animals? Are you going to take them to the jungles and track these animals down? If zoos are closed, a child is going to grow up into adulthood not being able to see what a live elephant looks like.

“The internet is not the same as there is nothing like a zoo experience for a child,” he said.

However, Reza said that feeding, providing water, and sheltering these animals were not good enough as they need proper husbandry and diet enrichment, adding that the government should strive to follow international zoo keeping standards for the animals.

He said zoos should be headed by those with a passion for animals or who have a background in zoology-related fields.

“People such as veterinarians, zookeepers, and curators on the ground are trying their best to provide the best care for these animals. However, there are people at the top who are not qualified in managing the zoos, and this affects the welfare of the animals,” he said.

“I know there are many qualified Malaysians out there who want to work in zoos but it puts them off because the management is impeding their growth. Thus, a more supportive environment must be given to employees at zoos, especially experts, in order for them to properly care for these animals in the best possible manner,” he said.

The lazy-worker test 

has arrived

Rick Newman

·Senior Columnist

YAHOO FINANCE

Tue, September 7, 2021,

If you believe Republican governors, some 11 million jobless Americans will now be racing to fill the many job openings businesses say they can’t fill. That’s on top of 3.5 million idle workers who were supposed to start clamoring for jobs during the last couple of months.

Nearly 15 million Americans have now lost federal jobless benefits that Congress initially established in the CARES Act of 2020. Several follow-on coronavirus relief bills extended those benefits, including the American Relief Plan, which Congress passed this past March. Most of those benefits expired on Sept. 6, including an extra $300 per week in traditional jobless aid and other amounts for gig workers and others who don’t have a regular employer. The Sept. 6 expiration affects 11.3 million Americans, according to Oxford Economics.

Republican governors in 25 states ended those federal benefits early during the summer, claiming they were hurting businesses by paying people more to stay home than to work. That took roughly two months’ of federal benefits away from another 3.5 million Americans or so.

The math suggests the disincentive to work could be legitimate. The average state unemployment payout is about $400 per week, or $1,700 per month. Add another $1,200 in monthly federal aid, and the two combined might equal nearly $3,000 in monthly income. That’s equivalent to roughly $19 per hour (for a 40-hour-per-week job). So somebody who could only find work paying less than that might be better off taking the benefits instead.

That simple accounting leaves out many other factors, however, such as the fact that all jobless aid ends and most workers will need a job eventually. Many potential workers still worry about getting COVID-19 on the job. Some working parents still have their hands full with kids doing remote or hybrid schooling. Some older workers have retired early instead of hassling with the workplace in the time of COVID.

Several studies found that only a fraction of unemployed workers—probably no more than 15%—would rather accept benefits than work for a living. In July, Yahoo Finance interviewed a variety of workers in Republican states who lost federal aid early, and found a much more common problem was that people couldn’t find work in their field that paid enough to cover their bills. Some could have taken lower-paying, lesser-skilled jobs in other fields, but they viewed that as a career setback that might keep them from getting ahead indefinitely. 

Lazy-worker theory

Employment trends in the GOP states that cut off benefits now show that the lazy-worker theory is mostly misguided. There’s been no notable boost in hiring or employment in those states, compared with states that continued the benefits. The early cutoff may even have hurt those states a little, because they gave up federal money that boosted incomes and would have cost them nothing.

Congress has made no move to extend jobless benefits again. The Biden administration hasn’t asked for an extension, and polls show Americans generally think it’s time for supplemental jobless benefits to end. That removes one variable from a puzzling labor market in which joblessness remains high even though employers struggle to fill existing openings.

Muhlenberg, PA - August 26: A help wanted sign that reads "Now Hiring!" in the window of the PetSmart location along 5th Street Highway in Muhlenberg Twp. Thursday morning August 26, 2021. (Photo by Ben Hasty/MediaNews Group/Reading Eagle via Getty Images)

The latest data shows a record-high 10 million jobs available in the US economy. Half of small businesses say they have jobs they can’t fill, the largest portion on record. Yet 8.4 million Americans are out of work and millions more qualified for federal jobless aid because they lost gig work or income in ways that don’t officially count as “unemployed” in the fairly narrow way the Labor Dept. defines it.

Shouldn’t all those unemployed people be filling all those open jobs? It might seem like it, except there are many mismatches in the labor market. The open jobs aren’t always where the job seekers are. The open jobs require qualifications the unemployed don’t have. Some posted jobs are probably employers fishing for overqualified workers they can get for cheap. Some employers simply can't or won't raise pay: While some big companies say they’re boosting wages, other data shows no notable jump in pay for workers both staying in their current jobs and moving to new ones.

Job-market trends for the next few months will begin to clarify whether federal jobless aid was too generous or should have ended sooner. If hiring jumps and employers finally fill some of those 10 million open jobs, that will be good news, but it may lead to tighter benefits the next time around. It seems more likely we’ll continue to have a stutter-step recovery with big job gains in some months, and disappointment in others. If lazy workers are a problem, they're probably not the biggest one.

1. The Right To Be Lazy

   www.slp.org/pdf/others/lazy_pl.pdf · PDF file

   The Right To Be Lazy BEING A REPUDIATION OF THE “RIGHT TO WORK” OF 1848 By Paul Lafargue Translated and adapted from the French by Dr. Harriet Lothrop. Published by …

'9/11 didn’t end on 9/11': attorney says his clients are still dying 20 years later

Alexis Christoforous
·Anchor
Sat, September 11, 2021

Michael Barasch’s law firm is just two blocks away from where the North Tower of the World Trade Center once stood. After the terrorist attacks on 9/11, he and his business partner decided to keep their practice in the same office in the financial district. Barasch says it’s a decision that he and his colleagues have paid a price for.

“In the last 15 years, my secretary Lyanna had died at age 47 of breast cancer. My paralegal Dennis, also at 47, died of kidney cancer. I'm a prostate cancer survivor. My other secretary Barbara has lymphoma. Two other people in my office have skin cancer. These are all considered related to the toxic dust,” he says.

The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has linked 68 cancers to the World Trade Center toxins; airborne particles that came from the 400 million tons of debris that spread for miles after the Twin Towers collapsed.

Just days after 9/11, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assured the people of New York that the air around Ground Zero was safe to breathe. It turns out, it wasn’t.

“What did we do wrong?” asks Barasch. “All we did wrong was listen to the EPA. The fact is, they wanted to reopen Wall Street, and they did… We wanted to help the economy and get it going again, but we're paying a price.”

The Department of Justice reports that 4,500 people have died because of 9/11-related illnesses. That's more than the 2,977 people who were killed in the attacks.

NEW YORK, NY - DECEMBER 10: New York firefighters keep a close eye out for human remains as construction crews dig through the rubble of the World Trade Center at Ground Zero three months after the terrorist attack, December 10, 2001 in New York City. (Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

Barasch represents 8,000 first responders and more than 15,000 others who have died or suffer from 9/11-related cancers and other health issues.

“Not a day goes by without one of my clients dying,” says Barasch. “9/11 didn’t end on 9/11.”

People afflicted with a 9/11-related disease are entitled to free lifetime medical care and other benefits from the federal Victim Compensation Fund. In 2019, Congress extended the fund through 2090, but Barasch says just a fraction of the people who are eligible actually take advantage of the fund and access what they are owed.

“The really heartbreaking thing is we fought so hard to get these bills permanently extended and fully funded, yet so many non-responders, the guys here in Wall Street, the guys at Goldman Sachs (GS), the American Stock Exchange, the New York Mercantile Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange, they don't know they are eligible,” he says. “Only 8% of the non-responders have enrolled in the health program, while over 80% of the firefighters and cops ever responded.”

In 2020, the fund was amended to include eligible COVID-related deaths.

“If they had COVID and they had an underlying respiratory condition or cancer related to 9/11 that compromised their immune system, then the Victim Compensation Fund will view that as a 9/11-related death,” Barasch explains.

So far this year, more than 100 of his clients from the 9/11 community have died from COVID.

“They're giving significant compensation,” says Barasch. “Two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the death, another $250,000 for an underlying cancer, and then if you were under 65, they'll give you lost income up till the age of 65. So this could really mean financial security for a family.”

Alexis Christoforous is an anchor at Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Twitter @AlexisTVNews.