#Principal reduction

[fincrif]

Can You Make Lump Sum Payments to Reduce EMI Burden?

Introduction

A personal loan is a convenient financial tool that provides quick funds without the need for collateral. However, the monthly Equated Monthly Installments (EMIs) can sometimes become a financial burden, especially if you have multiple loans. One effective way to reduce this burden is by making lump sum payments. But is it the right strategy for you? In this article, we will explore how lump sum payments work, their benefits, and whether they are an ideal approach for managing your personal loan repayment.

Understanding Lump Sum Payments

A lump sum payment refers to a large one-time payment made towards the outstanding principal of your personal loan. Unlike regular EMI payments, a lump sum reduces the principal amount, leading to lower interest charges over time.

When you take a personal loan, your EMI consists of two components:

Principal Repayment: The portion of your EMI that reduces the actual borrowed amount.

Interest Payment: The cost of borrowing money, which is charged on the outstanding principal.

Making a lump sum payment directly impacts the principal, thereby reducing the total interest burden and potentially shortening the loan tenure.

How Lump Sum Payments Affect Your Personal Loan

There are two main ways a lump sum payment can affect your personal loan repayment:

1. Reducing Loan Tenure

When you make a lump sum payment, the loan principal decreases, which means you can repay the loan faster.

This leads to fewer EMI payments, allowing you to become debt-free sooner.

2. Lowering EMI Amount

If you prefer to keep the loan tenure unchanged, the lender can adjust the EMI amount instead.

Your monthly repayment burden is reduced, making it easier to manage your finances.

Depending on your financial goals, you can choose either of these options when making a lump sum payment.

Benefits of Making Lump Sum Payments

1. Saves Interest Costs

Since interest is calculated on the outstanding principal, a lump sum payment reduces the loan balance, leading to lower interest payments.

2. Faster Loan Repayment

If you want to close your personal loan early, making a lump sum payment can significantly shorten the repayment period.

3. Improves Credit Score

By reducing your outstanding debt faster, lump sum payments can improve your credit score, making it easier to get future loans at better interest rates.

4. Reduces Financial Stress

Lower EMIs mean you have more disposable income to manage other financial commitments, reducing financial stress.

5. Frees Up Loan Eligibility

If you plan to take another loan in the future, reducing an existing personal loan balance increases your loan eligibility for other financial needs.

Things to Consider Before Making a Lump Sum Payment

While lump sum payments offer several benefits, there are a few factors to consider:

1. Prepayment Charges

Some lenders impose prepayment penalties when borrowers make a lump sum payment. Check with your bank or financial institution for applicable charges before making the payment.

2. Impact on Savings

Ensure that you have enough savings left after making a lump sum payment. Avoid using your entire emergency fund for prepayment, as it might leave you financially vulnerable.

3. Loan Agreement Terms

Some loans have restrictions on minimum prepayment amounts or limit the number of lump sum payments you can make. Always read the terms of your loan agreement.

4. Alternative Investment Opportunities

Instead of prepaying your loan, consider whether investing the same amount elsewhere could yield higher returns. If your personal loan has a low interest rate, investing might be a better option.

5. Future Financial Commitments

Before making a lump sum payment, ensure that you won’t need the funds for immediate expenses like education, medical emergencies, or home repairs.

How to Make a Lump Sum Payment on Your Personal Loan

If you have decided to make a lump sum payment, follow these steps:

Step 1: Contact Your Lender

Check with your lender about their prepayment policies and associated charges.

Step 2: Decide the Payment Amount

Based on your financial situation, determine how much you can afford to pay as a lump sum.

Step 3: Choose Between EMI Reduction or Tenure Reduction

If you prefer lower EMIs, ask your lender to adjust the EMI amount.

If you want to repay faster, opt for a tenure reduction.

Step 4: Make the Payment

Transfer the lump sum amount to your loan account via net banking, cheque, or direct deposit.

Step 5: Get Confirmation

Ensure that the bank provides a confirmation letter reflecting the new EMI or tenure after the lump sum payment.

When Is the Best Time to Make a Lump Sum Payment?

The best time to make a lump sum payment is early in the loan tenure when the interest component is highest. Here’s why:

In the initial years, a large portion of your EMI goes towards interest payments rather than principal.

By making an early lump sum payment, you significantly reduce interest costs and accelerate principal repayment.

Is a Lump Sum Payment the Right Choice for You?

A lump sum payment is beneficial if:

You have surplus funds from a bonus, inheritance, or investment return.

Your personal loan has a high interest rate, making prepayment a cost-saving strategy.

Your lender has low or zero prepayment charges.

You want to reduce your overall debt burden and improve financial security.

However, if making a lump sum payment leaves you with insufficient savings or affects other financial commitments, you might want to reconsider.

Alternative Strategies to Reduce EMI Burden

If a lump sum payment is not feasible, consider these alternative ways to manage your personal loan efficiently:

1. Loan Refinancing

Refinance your loan to get a lower interest rate, reducing your EMI burden.

2. Opt for Loan Restructuring

If you’re struggling with EMIs, discuss restructuring options with your lender to extend the tenure.

3. Increase EMI Payments Gradually

If a lump sum payment is not possible, increasing EMI payments as your income grows can help reduce tenure.

4. Create a Debt Repayment Plan

Budget effectively and allocate extra funds toward loan repayment each month.

Conclusion

Making a lump sum payment is an excellent strategy to reduce your EMI burden, save on interest, and repay your personal loan faster. However, it’s important to evaluate prepayment charges, financial stability, and alternative investment opportunities before proceeding. If done wisely, lump sum payments can significantly improve your financial health and bring you closer to a debt-free life. Always consult with your lender to explore the best repayment options available to you.

[dailyfinancial]

Can You Pay an Additional Amount Over EMI Towards the Principal? Benefits and Insights for Indian Borrowers

“The benefits of depositing extra amounts towards principal on your EMI and learn how to prepay your loan effectively. Get the latest data and expert insights on loan prepayment in India, and take control of your finances today with our comprehensive guide.” Whether it’s a home loan, personal loan, or car loan, the equated monthly instalment (EMI) is a familiar term. But what if you have surplus…

[thef1diary]

Hatred | C. Sainz

Summary: You and Carlos are teammates but cannot stand each other. But things take a turn when a championship is costed and you two finally sort out your differences.

Warnings: 18+, bratty reader, enemies to enemies with benefits, choking, coarse language, hate sex, spanking, unprotected sex, no use of y/n

Word Count: 3k

Pairing: carlos x fem!reader

"Both Ferrari drivers are racing each other, can you believe it" the race commentator stated in disbelief. Your best friend was watching the race, watching you race wheel to wheel with your teammate. At first she wanted you to win, but now with the way things were looking, she just hoped that you safely finished the race.

You were fighting for the World Driver's Championship with no other than Max Verstappen. You, a female driver in a Ferrari, are so close tasting the victory of a championship. It was the second last race of the season, and you needed to finish second with the fastest lap to still be in the championship fight.

At the moment, you were third, behind your teammate and Max. Five laps to go.

Truth is, you and Carlos weren't very friendly this season. It was your second year and due to your phenomenal results in a car that shouldn't give constant P5 and P6 like it did, the Ferrari team principal was quite interested in your talent.

Despite the PR teams trying to get you and Carlos to film videos for challenges like he did with Charles, it never worked. On his end. You tried to be very friendly and since you were the only female driver on the grid, you wanted your teammates support. You didn't expect him to hate you from the moment he met you.

So when he listened to the team orders to let you pass through, you thought that he'd finally play the good sportsmanship card. But what you didn't expect was that after passing him, he was still on your tail using the drag reduction system to try and pass you again. Instead of complaining on the radio, you figured you would race him and show him who the better one of the two drivers truly is.

Even though you smiled and laughed with other drivers, Carlos was one you could not even have a normal conversation with without feeling the need to rip your hair out. So, racing with him when you had an almost killer instinct was much needed.

If he wasn't playing friendly, you weren't either. And to be honest, you were glad that he was putting up a fight, at least you'll be able to prove your worth instead being told that you only had a chance of winning because of your teammate.

Turning into a tight, high-speed corner, you took the inside line, braking late and hoping to turn out in the front. The seconds went by really slow when you heard the impact before you felt it. His Ferrari had hit the rear end of yours, causing debris to fall from your car and a puncture which made your car spin out of control. You held your breath and tried to control the car as best as you could until the car came to a stop which was when it crashed into the barriers.

Some parts of the barrier had landed on top of the front of your car, making it harder to get out. You immediately turned off the car but stayed for a few moments. Trying to wrap your head around the events that happened.

Not even one minute ago, you were fighting for the championship and now, you were out of it.

You hit your hand on the steering wheel multiple times before hearing the voice of your race engineer asking you if you were okay. You responded "fine" in a monotone voice which sounded completely different than your usual tone.

You were told to step out of the car just in case there was a leak which was undetermined at the moment. You sighed, taking off the steering wheel and climbing out of the car. After getting out, you noticed that your teammate's car was no where to be seen which only meant one thing, his car wasn't as damaged as yours which meant he could still race.

One of the marshals led you away from the track and car so you could safely begin your journey to walk to the pits which wasn't too far. You could feel the stares of the fans as you were walking by but didn't have the strength to wave to them. You also felt two cameramen following you. You knew one was for the live broadcast of the race but the other was Netflix.

You hung your head low, not even wanting to take off your helmet yet but you were fuming from anger. You didn't want people to see that.

By the time you got back to the pits, the race was over which was expected as there were only a few laps left. You looked at the board and saw Max was still first, as expected. His teammate was second now because he moved up two spots after the crash. Lewis came in third. Carlos had fell further down the grid, a few places out of the points. The podium celebrations were about to happen soon but you were far from being in a celebratory mood.

Once you got to the garage, you had to weigh yourself with your helmet in hand then you saw your teammate talking to the team principal. You felt your anger take over you and you stalked towards him, pointing a finger right in his face. "You. You're an asshole, an idiot, what did I ever do to you! What did you get out of this huh? A championship?" You scoffed, placing both of your palms on his shoulders and pushing him slightly.

"Fuck off!" He responded which only added fuel to the fire. Instead of accepting his mistake, he chose to tell you off. "don't you dare" you felt someone holding you back and your team principal decided to interfere by saying "it was just a mistake, cool off. Away from each other"

Unbelievable. He would always point out your mistakes even if they were very small.

"Just a mistake? It cost me the fucking championship!" You yelled which silenced everyone in the garage. You slowly looked around and no one dared to make eye contact with you at the moment. Not even Carlos.

Your PR manager placed a hand on your shoulder to lead you towards your drivers room but you brushed it off and left the garage.

Not even ten minutes later, your PR manager stopped by to inform you about the post race interviews which were necessary to attend. You didn't change out of your race suit, just tied the sleeves together on your waist. On the way, she told you about the things you shouldn't answer and to "play nice".

You were hit with so many questions during the interviews and at the moment, you were probably even more popular than Max who won the race. Not in a good way though.

"How do you feel losing a championship because of your teammate?", "do you think the situation could be sorted out differently?", "we heard the team orders given to Carlos, do you think he is a good teammate?", "is this your last year with Ferrari?", "how many years does your contract last?", "do you think you'd be treated differently by both your team and teammate if you weren't a woman?"

All those questions made your head spin but you tried to answer them as best as you could. You were exhausted both physically and mentally. Thinking back to the moments you had to compromise to get better results later, the team orders you had to follow, and the strategies you thought would be better but no one listened. One questioned loomed in your mind "is this your last year with Ferrari?" Since this was your first year with Ferrari, you had initially signed a three year long contract which meant you had two more years to go.

You met up with your friend as she was waiting for you in your drivers room. As soon as you saw her, you broke down into tears and embraced her. You didn't have to tell her what happened in the garage since she witnessed it. She wiped your tears, and made a plan to drown yourselves in alcohol and snacks in your hotel room.

You parted ways for now but she will be joining you later tonight. As soon as you got to your hotel room, you immediately took a shower to freshen up. You checked your phone which was bombarded with many texts from your family and friends who watched the race live. You also received some messages from fans, some hateful, some supporting you. As usual.

You also received messages from Lewis, Daniel, and Sebastian. The three drivers who have made it their mission to ensure you're comfortable in the male dominated sport.

You heard a knock on the door and you expected it to be your best friend, but when you opened it, it was your teammate. "I'm really not in the mood to talk to you"

"Then just listen?" He raised his eyebrows in expectation. You opened the door further and let him in. What was the worst that could happen? Another fight? This time you could punch him in the face if he said something stupid and no one can stop you.

"I'm sorry" Carlos started and you nodded, urging him on. "I know you were fighting for the championship and I ruined that"

"Yes, you did" you responded. "Is that all you're saying?" he asked which confused you. "What do you want me to say?"

"Oh I don't know, maybe accept my apology?" He stated in an oblivious tone. And there it was, Carlos could not be nice for a single conversation.

"There's no point. You'll do something like this again and we'll be in this situation again"

"Technically you could prevent it"

"Me? What about you? See this is why we're never getting along" you pointed at him.

Carlos stepped closer to you and held your chin between his thumb and first finger. "You're such a brat"

You scoffed and rolled your eyes "and what are you gonna do about it?"

"I'm gonna fuck that attitude out of you" he stated before placing his lips on yours, harshly.

You did not expect that but you weren't complaining either. Reciprocating the kiss with the same intensity, you wrapped your arms around his neck, one hand playing and pulling on his hair. He groaned in your mouth, wanting to regain control which made him pick you up effortlessly.

He had changed out of his race suit, wearing just a tee shirt and sweatpants. Dropping you on the bed once you two ran out of breath, he looked at you with a specific look in his eyes. It wasn't love, no, far from it. It was hate. You held yourself up by your elbows, spreading your legs a bit because you expected him to join you.

"Strip for me" he commanded. You stayed still, trying to process his words but he was rather impatient. "Did you not hear me? I said strip. Now" he took advantage of your spread legs and slapped the inside of your thigh.

That movement made you jerk and you started to take off your clothes. First your pants, then your shirt. He was quite surprised to see that you weren't wearing anything under your shirt. You had just taken a shower and were planning on chilling in your room anyways, there was no point of a bra.

You pointed at him and urged him to come closer which he listened to. He slid his body in between your spread legs and started kissing your neck. Kiss wouldn't be the right word, Carlos was sucking on it til marks were made. He wasn't being nice. And you were loving every bit of it.

You bit your lip to suppress the moans he was trying to get out of you. Playing with the hem of his shirt, you pulled it over his head. Your hands roamed around his tanned chest and back. You tried to flip your position, but he held you underneath him. "Brats don't get what they want" he muttered in your ear before his hand roamed near your panties.

His fingers played with the waistband, pulling it out and letting it snap on your waist making you groan due to the pleasurable pain. His fingers then went down to slide over your covered clit, rubbing it at the same time as he took your nipple in your mouth.

You didn't know where to focus since you could feel the pleasure everywhere. His teeth grazed your nipple making you arch your back then he sucked on it hard. You knew you were very wet by now, but he also knew since his fingers were slick as they played with your pussy over your panties.

"Carlos" you moaned his name. "What do you want?" He asked once he left your breast alone, after scattering marks on it. "You"

"You have me" he chuckled once he saw you trying to focus on reaching your edge with the way he was barely touching you. "I need more. Please touch me"

His fingers moved your panties to the side and slowly spread your fold which were embarrassingly slick. "Do our fights make you wet? Is that why you like arguing with me?" He asked as he lightly hit your pussy with his palm, making you jerk in response. "Tell me" his other hand held your jaw, making direct eye contact with you. He slid his fingers inside you, two of them. Watching as your mouth opened in a silent moan.

You shook your head, answering his question. He didn't like that. "No, so you don't look for any dumb reason to fight with me? Just to get yourself off? You've touched yourself thinking about me right?"

You were about to speak up but he interrupted "don't lie. I've heard you" you didn't have a response to that. Because it was true.

"Are you going to keep talking or do something Sainz?" You countered.

He clenched his jaw and pulled his fingers out of you. "On your hands and knees" he instructed. You smiled, finally getting a rise out of him. You turned over, looking back at him with a smirk that he was so eager to wipe off your face.

He took off his sweatpants and boxers, and you almost drooled at the sight of him stroking his cock. He leaned on the bed and lined himself up, sliding his cock in-between your folds. You groaned and muttered his name, trying to get him to do something. "So desperate for my cock" he brought his palm down on your ass harshly which made you move forward. You nodded desperately "yes" you whined.

He slowly pushed his cock in you, hearing your sweet moans. "Fuck. You feel so good"

You started moving your hips according to his slow but harsh thrusts. He placed open-mouthed kisses down your back, occasionally biting you.

He trailed his hand up your body and wrapped it around your neck from the front. Carlos felt you tighten around his cock and from the increasing amount of moans you released, he figured that your liked being choked. He was already planning on teasing you with this information.

His other hand played with your clit, rubbing it in small but agressive circles that made you squirm in his grasp. You chanted his name like a prayer, not even realizing how loud you were because the feeling of pleasure consumed you.

You could feel yourself on edge but you just needed something more. You begged him for more and he listened. His thrusts became faster but also sloppier, indicating that he was close to his orgasm as well. The hand that was choking you, came down to slap your ass again which you didn't expect at all. Since he wasn't holding you up anymore, you pressed your face against the mattress. Bunching the sheets up in your palm, you went over the edge.

Carlos didn't stop as he was chasing his own release but it also built towards your second orgasm. He quickly pulled out and turned you over to face him. Entering you again, he pressed his lips against you to swallow both yours and his moans.

One of your hands were up in his hair, pulling at the strands while the other was trailing down his back. His hand was still at your clit, rubbing circles on it. You reached your second orgasm as soon as you felt his release.

He was holding himself up by both his forearms and looking down at you. "I still hate you" you stated.

"I know. I hate you too" he replied and pressed a kiss against your lips.

Pulling out, he rolled over beside you. You laid there for a moment before he got up and you thought that he would get dressed and leave. Instead, he went to the bathroom and brought a cloth to clean you up. You didn't know why you felt that moment of sadness when you thought he'd leave. This was nothing but a hate fuck. Right?

He tossed the cloth somewhere else and laid down beside you again. This time, he pulled you into him and was dozing off. You were too, after all the sun had set many hours ago. You didn't check your phone to see the time either. Well, even if you wanted to, you couldn't because Carlos wrapped his arm around you, making you the little spoon.

You could hear him lightly snore and you thought that would irritate you, but instead it lulled you to sleep.

Teammates who hated each other, who still claim to hate each other, are sleeping peacefully in one bed. Naked.

[scuderiakarts]

Certain sections of F1 media literally can’t breathe without denigrating Susie Wolff. When she got appointed managing director of F1A - it’s because of Toto. When F1A has success - it’s because she’s married to Toto and he’s influenced the other teams. When Toto is accused of something unethical - “did you know his wife works with the FIA?” [even though she’s not involved in this at all and is not accused of having leaked information]

Susie Wolff is a racing driver in her own right. She’s been a successful Team Principal in Formula E, and CEO of a racing team (one that was in direct competition with Mercedes might I add). She was a Formula 1 development driver and the first woman to drive in a Grand Prix weekend for more than 20 years.

She has a career that she’s earned on her own, completely separate from who she chose to marry, and the reduction of her to just “Toto’s wife” - including by other F1 Team Principals - is such blatant, ugly sexism.

“Imagine if Geri Horner was working in F2?” If Geri Horner had Susie’s resume I would love for her to be working in motorsports because we need more women in motorsports at all levels, including at the top?

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Judd Legum at Popular Information:

Late Friday afternoon, the Trump administration released the details of its 2026 budget request. The 1,223-page document proposes slashing around $163 billion in non-defense spending. That isn't nearly enough to offset the trillions in tax cuts the administration is simultaneously seeking in the reconciliation bill. But the spending cuts would have severe consequences for the most vulnerable Americans, especially poor children. For example, the Trump administration is reducing funding that helps pregnant women, children, and breastfeeding mothers who are nutritionally at risk afford fruits and vegetables. Approximately 6.7 million people currently benefit from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), including 1.5 million pregnant and post-partum mothers, 1.5 million infants, and 3.7 million children under the age of five. To qualify, a beneficiary must live in a household with an income at or below 185% of the federal poverty line and be deemed nutritionally at risk by a healthcare professional or other expert.

Research has shown that the program reduces healthcare costs, leads to improved academic achievement, and results in "fewer infant deaths, premature births, and low birthweight infants." The current fruit and vegetable benefit is modest, and only covers about half of the cost of the recommended daily servings of fruit and vegetables for mothers and young children. Nevertheless, the Trump budget would cut the monthly benefit for fruits and vegetables for pregnant mothers from $54 to $13. Young children living in poor families would see their monthly fruit and vegetable benefit reduced from $27 to $10. The administration's budget document provides no justification for these cuts. Trump has justified other reductions in social safety net programs as a way to encourage beneficiaries to work or eliminate waste and fraud. But this cut impacts millions of infants and children under five. Previously, WIC has enjoyed bipartisan support. In the 50 years since the program was started, its funding has never been reduced.

[...]

Kicking kids out of their homes

One of the deepest cuts in the Trump budget targets the rental assistance programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, including Housing Choice Vouchers and Section 8 assistance. The Trump budget cuts these programs by $26.72 billion, which is a 42% reduction. There are currently 10.1 million people who rely on these programs to keep a roof over their heads. Of that total, 5.6 million beneficiaries are in families with children. (Most of the rest are seniors or people with disabilities.)

The drastic cuts mean that millions of families with children will no longer be able to afford a place to live. The reason why many families cannot afford housing without federal assistance is not due to a lack of employment. "60% of non-disabled, working-age American households receiving Department of Housing and Urban Development rental assistance include at least one worker," according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. The problem is that since 2001, median rent has increased by 23%, but the median income of a renter household has increased by just 5%. These households do not benefit from the two largest federal housing subsidies — the mortgage interest deduction and the capital gains exemption for the sale of a principal residence.

[...]

Taking an ax to pre-K

Preschool Development Grants is a federal program that helps states improve their early-childhood educational systems for children up to age five. States compete for a portion of the grant funding available — $315 million in fiscal year 2024. The money is used to help states offer "high-quality early education to more working families." The funding "helps millions of children have access to safe, quality child care and early learning that can help set them on a strong path for their futures." States use the money for various purposes. Kansas, for example, used some funding "to identify and reduce regulatory burdens associated with operating state child care businesses." Maryland provided training to early education providers to "improve quality among programs for infants and toddlers as well as preschool-age children." Ohio's grant funded "partnerships between early childhood providers and businesses to increase wages and improve recruitment and retention."

The Trump Regime’s FY 2026 budget request includes items that would harm poor children, such as cuts to WIC and housing assistance.

[argumate]

By the time these results emerged, however, Keys’ hypothesis had already gained widespread acceptance among his colleagues, including, importantly, leadership at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). By the late 1960s, a bias in favor of the diet-heart hypothesis was strong enough that researchers with contrary results found themselves unable or unwilling to publish their results. For instance, the largest test of the diet-heart hypothesis, the Minnesota Coronary Survey, involving 9057 men and women over 4.5 years, tested a diet of 18% saturated fat against controls eating 9%, yet did not find any reduction in cardiovascular events, cardiovascular deaths, or total mortality. Although the study had been funded by the NIH, the results were not published for 16 years, after the principal investigator, Ivan Frantz, had retired. Frantz is reported to have said that there was nothing wrong with the study; ‘We were just disappointed in the way it came out’. Frantz's decision not to publish his results in a timely manner resulted in these contradictory data not being considered for another 40 years.

20th century might have been different if we had figured out how to fix the aversion to publishing negative results!

once we "know" that something is true we become peculiarly reluctant to propagate evidence that it isn't.

[todaysdocument]

Cable from Graham Martin, Ambassador to South Vietnam, to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger Concerning the Evacuation of Vietnam

Collection GRF-0127: Saigon Embassy Files Kept by Ambassador Graham MartinSeries: Copies of Files Removed by Ambassasor Graham MartinFile Unit: Saigon to Washington, 4/9/75 to 4/28/75 (1)

[word crossed out] TOP SECRET/SENSITIVE 26/142Z APRIL 1975 VIA MARTIN

CHANNEL

SAIGON 0743 IMMEDIATE

DELIVER IMMEDIATELY

APRIL 26, 1975

TO: HENRY A. KISSINGER

GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY [found in a circle stamp]

FROM: AMBASSADOR GRAHAM MARTIN

[hand written note illegible]

REF: WH 50763

1. With respect to para 2 of your message, I have little to add to my 737.

2. I have exhausted staff and I am not repeat not going to reduce the U. S. Government side, either direct hire or contractors, any more as long as you want us to continue with the airlift. I don't know what you mean by "only" thirty contractor personnel have been reduced. Which of the 243 left would you suggest? We need communications, the tugs for the E&E. Do you want us to abandon any interest in orphans? If so, I'll send out the 5 with IRC. Do you want to tell George Meany we have no interest in labor leader. If so, I'll send out.

without transportation? If so, I'll send out the Air America 87,

who are our last resort when the military gets conflicting instructions from Washington. Do you want to send in more Marines? If so,

AMB: GMartin:ek {crossed out] TOP SECRET/ SENSITIVE

4/26/75.

DECLASSIFIED

E.O. 123556. SEC. 3.4

MR 94-31, #7 State Hr. 5/13/94 [Hand written ?]

By KBH NARA, Date 6/6/94

TOP SECRET[crossed out]/ SENSITIVE page 2

I'll send out the Mission Warden force. As far as other categories are concerned, I don't really know what level we will reach by Sunday night. Attracted by the drama of Big Minh, more reporters are coming back in. With the continuing lack of any military activity, several of the businessmen, we hear, are thinking of returning.

advise . GERALD A FORD LIBRARY[ in a circle stamp]

3. Unless you wish me to [word blurred out] the GVN to refuse any admission to press and businessmen, the former will grow considerably and the latter a little bit over the weekend. I can ask the GVN to deport some of them, but I would prefer you have someone in Washington do the nominations .

4.I really think we have about come to the end of the road on any further pressure on us there about the America community. Since you have left the decision to me, I am not going to reduce any more on the American official community. We have notified other Americans that they are now staying at their own risk.

5.As far as the military pressures on the President are concerned, you might care to inform him that the reports of the SA 2s, which so panicked one of your WSAG meetings, and which resulted in the closing of the Saigon airport to America commercial airlines, turns out to be incorrect. What was sighted was several logging

TOP SECRET[ crossed out]/SENSITIVE

Top Secret/Sensitive

trucks full of logs, I think if the President would simply say that the American community has been reducted to the smallest possible number commensurate with our ongoing activities, although he should not say this) (principally evacuation of "high risk" Vietnamese, and the rest of the community is mainly comprised of American press, which in its best traditions is augmenting its forces somewhat to cover news, he will be home free and maybe the rest of us will have time again to work on more important problems. 6. Warm regards

Martin

GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY [ Grey Circle stamp]

[makeste]

BnHA Chapter 425: New Normal

Previously on BnHA: Everyone was all “and with that we conclude our final battle for better or worse!! We will now commence our slow return to the new normal, beginning with our protagonist and deuteragonist who are miraculously more or less intact, albeit exhausted and mildly traumatized. Also the words ‘more or less’ are kind of doing a lot of heavy lifting there.”

Today on BnHA: The Big 3 and Aoyama are OUT. Shinsou is IN. The Tododrama is PENDING, and the mysterious figure in the shadows is UNIDENTIFIED. Also class 1-A finally becomes class 2-A and it only took them 425 chapters and TEN LONG YEARS. Can you imagine if this series had actually run throughout their high school experience like people once expected. “THE YEAR IS 2044 AND MY HERO ACADEMIA IS FINALLY WINDING TO A CLOSE.” There’s an alternate universe somewhere where this actually happened and we were all so very, very tired.

This is once again a shorter than usual reaction summary post, as opposed to my typical page-by-page liveblog. Not gonna have time to do those for a while yet most likely, but like hell am I gonna miss out on the last days of the series, so here we are.

Once again basing this off of @pikahlua’s spoiler translation summary here!

watching the eighteen inch tall Rat Principal standing at a podium overseeing this graduation ceremony is surreal in the most wonderful way. it’s like receiving your diploma from a sentient Funko Pop

I love how they established that Mic sitting there screaming at the top of his lungs is also a beloved U.A. graduation tradition, and that the senpais just roll with it while everyone else is in varying stages of trying to decide if it’s too late to transfer to another school

ngl sometimes I forget that Ochako and Toga were actually the second canonical f/f ship in this series. shoutout to Hadou and her adorable girlfriend whose name I absolutely cannot recall

absolutely wild that Horikoshi gives credit to Rat Principal for coordinating the entire disaster recovery nationwide. are you serious. the “world-famous” Principal Nezu?? you’re telling me this little capybara is effectively the secret president of Japan now or something. when does he even sleep

“the principal made great contributions to quirk morality education” is also a VERY interesting tidbit that I really want to know more about. “hey guys what if we did a better job at teaching people not to be dicks with their quirks” AND JUST LIKE THAT JAPAN WAS SAVED huzzah

“we lost many things, but we gained nothing” is both HILARIOUS and soundly depressing, but I can see what he’s trying to get at. still an odd choice for a graduation speech though. “our job is all about harm reduction, and we couldn’t even do that this time around, but in the future we hope to balance things out and maybe even get some net positive impact going!” lmao. again it’s all true, and in all honesty it’s spectacular that they managed as well as they did, all things considered. and I guess it would have been disingenuous to just ignore the reality of everything this particular school body has been through and pretend like everything is great right now. but I still can’t help feeling like there was probably a more inspiring way to get this message across lol

regardless of what he says, Aizawa 100% either bribed or threatened Rat Principal behind the scenes in order to stay with his class. and will do so again next year. he can and will keep getting away with it. he is never leaving these kids

and the sheer relief from all of them upon hearing it is all the justification he needs. these kids have four thousand nine hundred and seventeen accumulated traumas among them. they don’t need a four thousand nine hundred and eighteenth. this man is their father ffs. MINA WAS CRYING AND EVERYTHING

Kacchan watched that YouTube video about a dozen times until he managed to tie his tie all on his own with the one hand. and he did an amazing job. he’s such a model citizen now

also it looks to me like he has his right arm hidden in a sling underneath his shirt, which is interesting. if I’m not mistaken (and I very well could be, since it’s been a hot minute since I did any BnHA timeline math), the final battle took place sometime in early May, so this chapter is taking place roughly one month later. the hospital chapter took place about a week after the battle, so it’s been about 3-4 weeks since then. I really want to know what kind of shape Kacchan’s arm is in, but I guess Horikoshi will get to it when he gets to it

also, “we all gotta be together today” was a real wakeup call to me in that it gave me just an absolutely ridiculous amount of feels. just a totally unreasonable amount. and it’s like. listen, self. Kacchan has completed his character growth arc. he’s a team player and a leader who loves all his friends and they all love him in return. we’ve known this for years now. it’s an established fact. you can’t keep bursting into tears or whatever every time he shows it. this is no way to live your life. I need an intervention

anyways later this evening class 2-A is gonna have a celebratory movie night in the common room, and Kacchan is gonna fall asleep two minutes in peacefully surrounded by all his classmates, and they’re all gonna nudge each other and smile fondly and cover him with a blanket and stay up until 2am and Aizawa will have no mercy on them the following morning. it’s gonna be so wholesome you guys

(ETA: I decided to go back and have some more feels about this one tiny Kacchan panel, because apparently the four paragraphs I already wrote about it weren't enough. so the thing is, Sero's wonderment at Katsuki being out of the hospital initially read to me as half bemused awe, and half "oh boy, time to get back into our usual rhythm of antagonizing Kacchan!" but my second time around, I can't help remembering that all of Kacchan's classmates got to watch this kid getting tortured and strangled and stabbed through the heart in 4K. like, even if they were busy with their own fights at the time, there's no way they didn't see the footage later on afterwards.

and that had to have been traumatic for them. their friend literally died and was just lying there so still for so long afterwards. and him getting better and going back to his usual asskicking self later on doesn't just erase those memories, you know? especially with him having lasting, permanent damage afterward. not just his arm, even! like who even knows if his heart is going to be okay long term. when people get organ transplants they have to go on immunosuppressants afterwards because otherwise their body will try to attack the replacement organ. so I wonder how exactly it works when it's still your heart, but it's being held together by various bits and pieces of a spindly little floss man. idk, but I bet you it's still pretty rough.

anyway so long story short, I'm now reading this as one-third bemused awe, one-third joking antagonism, and one-third genuine "no seriously, is it okay for you to be here, please don't do anything to put your health at risk because we seriously cannot handle you dying on us again." and Kacchan's not even disagreeing with him lol, which has to be the most concerning thing of all. "they said it's okay if I rest." even he knows he's pushing it, but it was too important of an occasion to miss. anyway please take it easy kiddo.)

Aoyama leaving makes me sad but it makes total sense for his character after what he’s been through. he needs time to sort things out and continue down his own personal honor-regaining journey. respect

also glad to hear that it was his own choice and that both Rat Principal and Nao would have supported him if he stayed. I still to this day do not understand Naomasa’s actual level of authority lol. like, he’s supposedly a detective, and yet he seems to be personally in charge of every single important police operation, on like a national level. and he has the authority to make decisions like letting Aoyama go free. he is the law, literally

Aoyama trying to feed Deku some farewell cheese also took me out. like he just walked in there and was all “sorry everyone, I’m leaving, but I’ll still aim for the path of a hero and will one day return, don’t you worry!” and at some point in the midst of this tearful speech he made a beeline directly to Izuku and tried to give him some cheese that he apparently just had in his pocket or something. and Izuku was all “YEAH!” all solemnly but HE DIDN’T EVEN TOUCH THAT POCKET CHEESE. like he loves you and accepts you for who you are Yuuga but COME ON

at this point in the chapter it also became clear to me that Aizawa has his hair up in some sort of loosely assembled messy bun and that’s why it looks so especially flowing and gorgeous today. this is great cinema

and then AT LONG LAST, the admission of Shinsou into class 2-A. they tried everything they could to keep him out, BUT NOT EVEN THE END OF THE WORLD COULD STOP HIM. his rightful place

Ojiro’s scandalized response to hearing Fuwa refer to Aizawa as “Era-sen”, and then Fuwa subsequently revealing all of Aizawa’s secrets and Aizawa getting flustered and kicking her out, was one of the most delightful sequences I’ve read. “nooooo don’t tell them that, what the hell am I gonna threaten them with now”

Izuku has not even attempted to crack a smile since the final battle, aside from when he was frantically trying to reassure Kacchan in the hospital. I’m worried about him but also loving this a little bit, ngl. I am content to wait for you to eventually have a proper breakdown, mister Greatest Hero

also I singled him out on the whole not-smiling thing, but really this is true for just about all of them. my heart aches :(

were there really so many people freaking out over Izuku’s hair that Horikoshi felt compelled to throw in that “HEY DEKU-KUN, YOU SHAVED YOUR HAIR LIKE THAT DUE TO AN INJURY, RIGHT? BUT IT’LL GROW BACK, RIGHT!?” line in there lol. the hilarious thing is that this chapter was already in the books before 424 was released, so it means that Horikoshi anticipated the backlash ahead of time. the man knows his audience

and now for this mysterious little barefoot man randomly emerging from some rubble somewhere. who are you. fandom already thinks you’re everyone from Tenko to Hisashi lol. my personal theory is that he’s just a random citizen who’s hurt and traumatized and needs help. and unlike what happened with baby Tenko once upon a time, this young man actually will be helped by a hero in his moment of need, and it’ll be all hopeful and stuff because SOCIETY IS CHANGING FOR THE BETTER NOW HOORAY

or maybe he really is Tenko, idk. what do I know lol. don’t listen to me

lastly, Shouto out here immediately leaving U.A. after class and ruining my dreams of a class 2-A movie night. FINE THEN. GO AND BE WITH YOUR FAMILY my precious little life preserver. and I’m actually really, really excited to see what their endgame is actually, so yes, Horikoshi, bring it on please and thank you

[coraniaid]

It's tempting to ascribe the differing rules parts of the fandom judge Giles and Joyce by when it comes to their roles as parental figures to simple fandom misogyny.

Giles is awarded the status of Good Dad because of several kind or generous things he does for Buffy and for a few positive speeches he gives about respecting her (sentiments which he may or may not actually live up to later on). In the eyes of the fandom, this state of being a Good Dad is something which cannot be cancelled out by any of the bad things he also does to her -- lying to her; keeping secrets from her; constantly questioning her judgment and refusing to take her instincts seriously; being complicit in the Council's plan to rob her of her powers and force her to fight a vampire; abandoning her and her teenage sister when they need him most and haven't got any other adults to rely on -- all of which are the result of decisions he makes entirely of his own free will and in perfect knowledge of all the salient facts.

On the other hand, Joyce is doomed to be forever a Bad Mother because of a handful of times she does treat Buffy very poorly (and never mind that this includes times she was possessed by a demon or being fed mind-altering drugs by a serial killer trying to isolate her from her family: obviously these are just excuses which reveal The Real Joyce). Nothing good Joyce does for Buffy -- moving across the state to find her a new school after she burned down a gym, constantly working late hours or weekends to be able to afford to keep Buffy fed and clothed and educated, repeatedly siding with her against her school principal, telling her how much she loves her and how proud of her she is and how her parents' divorce wasn't her fault, lying to the police when she thinks she just saw Buffy kill a man in front of her; the fact they very clearly enjoy each other's company and spend time alone together both before and after Buffy leaves for college -- can ever make up for Joyce's worst moments, which must at all costs be interpreted without context or even without recourse to the facts observed on screen. (No, Buffy didn't leave town because Joyce kicked her out. No, Buffy very clearly doesn't think of GIles as a better parent to her than Joyce. Be fucking serious.)

The prevailing fandom view is that Giles is a Good Dad because he sometimes does good things to Buffy, while Joyce is a Bad Mother because she sometimes does bad things to Buffy. The fact that they both do good and bad things to Buffy at different times is often ignored entirely. As I said, it doesn't seem much of a mystery what's going on here. A man who sometimes does good things is automatically a good parent; a woman who sometimes does bad things is automatically a bad parent.

But that said, if we inspect the text more closely, is there perhaps a deeper reason for this apparent double standard? Is there something more interesting going on here that a closer reading of the text would elucidate? Am I perhaps being too flippant or reductive here?

No.

[fincrif]

How Overpaying on EMIs Can Save You Interest on Personal Loans

Introduction

A personal loan is a convenient financial tool that helps individuals manage expenses, whether it’s for medical emergencies, home renovation, education, or any other purpose. While these loans come with a fixed repayment schedule, many borrowers don’t realize that overpaying on their Equated Monthly Installments (EMIs) can significantly reduce interest costs and shorten the loan tenure.

In this article, we’ll explore how overpaying on personal loan EMIs can be beneficial, strategies for making extra payments, and key considerations before opting for this approach.

Understanding Personal Loan EMIs

A personal loan EMI consists of two components:

Principal Repayment – The portion of the EMI that reduces the loan amount.

Interest Payment – The cost of borrowing, based on the outstanding loan balance.

In the initial months, a major portion of your EMI goes towards interest, with only a small part contributing to the principal. Over time, as the principal decreases, the interest portion reduces, and a larger share of the EMI is allocated to repaying the principal.

How Overpaying on EMIs Works

When you pay extra towards your personal loan, the additional amount directly reduces the principal balance. A lower principal results in reduced interest costs, leading to significant savings over the loan tenure.

For example, if you have a personal loan of INR 5 lakh at an interest rate of 12% for five years, your EMI would be approximately INR 11,122. If you pay an extra INR 2,000 per month, the total interest paid over the tenure will reduce significantly, and you could repay the loan much earlier.

Benefits of Overpaying on Personal Loan EMIs

1. Lower Interest Costs

By reducing the outstanding principal faster, you decrease the amount on which interest is calculated, leading to substantial savings.

2. Faster Loan Closure

Overpaying helps close your personal loan earlier than the scheduled tenure, freeing up your financial resources for other goals.

3. Improved Credit Score

Regularly making extra payments showcases financial discipline, improving your credit score, which can help you secure better loan terms in the future.

4. Reduced Financial Stress

Paying off your personal loan faster reduces financial burdens, allowing for greater flexibility in managing your income.

Strategies for Overpaying on EMIs

1. Round Up Your EMI Payments

If your EMI is INR 11,122, consider rounding it up to INR 12,000. This small extra payment accumulates over time and can significantly cut down your loan tenure.

2. Make Bi-Weekly Payments

Instead of one monthly EMI, pay half the EMI every two weeks. This results in 26 half-payments annually, equivalent to 13 full EMIs, reducing your loan balance faster.

3. Utilize Bonuses and Windfalls

Any additional income, such as bonuses, tax refunds, or incentives, can be directed toward making lump sum prepayments on your personal loan.

4. Increase EMI Amount When Possible

If your financial situation improves, request your lender to increase your EMI amount, which will expedite loan repayment and reduce interest costs.

Things to Consider Before Overpaying on EMIs

1. Prepayment Charges

Some lenders impose prepayment penalties if you repay your loan earlier than scheduled. Check your loan agreement for applicable charges.

2. Impact on Other Financial Goals

Ensure that overpaying your personal loan does not affect your emergency savings, investments, or other essential financial goals.

3. Alternative Investment Returns

If your loan interest rate is low, consider whether investing surplus funds might yield higher returns than prepaying your loan.

Conclusion

Overpaying on EMIs is a smart strategy to save on personal loan interest and achieve financial freedom sooner. However, it’s important to analyze your financial situation, check prepayment policies, and ensure that extra payments do not compromise other financial priorities. If done wisely, overpaying on EMIs can be a game-changer in efficient loan management and wealth building.

Would you consider overpaying your personal loan EMIs to save on interest? Let us know in the comments!

[apas-95]

When Marxists say that certain groups, are adventurist, they have in mind the very definite and specific social and historical features of a phenomenon, one that every class-conscious worker should be familiar with. The history of Russian Social-Democracy teems with tiny groups, which sprang up for an hour, for several months, with no roots whatever among the masses (and politics without the masses are adventurist politics), and with no serious and stable principles. In a petty-bourgeois country, which is passing through a historical period of bourgeois reconstruction, it is inevitable that a motley assortment of intellectuals should join the workers, and that these intellectuals should attempt to form all kinds of groups, adventurist in character in the sense referred to above.

— V.I. Lenin, Adventurism, 1914

Let us go over to the second point, the question of terrorism. In their defence of terrorism, which the experience of the Russian revolutionary movement has so clearly proved to be ineffective, the Socialist-Revolutionaries are talking themselves blue in the face in asseverating that they recognise terrorism only in conjunction with work among the masses, and that therefore the arguments used by the Russian Social-Democrats to refute the efficacy of this method of struggle (and which have indeed been refuted for a long time to come) do not apply to them. [...] We are not repeating the terrorists’ mistakes and are not diverting attention from work among the masses, the Socialist-Revolutionaries assure us, and at the same time enthusiastically recommend to the Party acts such as Balmashov’s assassination of Sipyagin, although everyone knows and sees perfectly well that this act was in no way connected with the masses and, moreover, could not have been by reason of the very way in which it was carried out—that the persons who committed this terrorist act neither counted on nor hoped for any definite action or support on the part of the masses. In their naïveté, the Socialist-Revolutionaries do not realise that their predilection for terrorism is causally most intimately linked with the fact that, from the very outset, they have always kept, and still keep, aloof from the working-class movement, without even attempting to become a party of the revolutionary class which is waging its class struggle. [...] The first thing that strikes the eye is the words: “we advocate terrorism, not in place of work among the masses, but precisely for and simultaneously with that work.” [...] The day “when the working people will emerge from the shadows” and “the mighty popular wave will shatter the iron gates to smithereens”—“alas!” (literally, “alas!”) “is still a long way off, and it is frightful   to think of the future toll of victims!” Do not these words “alas, still a long way off” reflect an utter failure to under stand the mass movement and a lack of faith in it? Is not this argument meant as a deliberate sneer at the fact that the working people are already beginning to rise? And, finally, even if this trite argument were just as well-founded as it is actually stuff and nonsense, what would emerge from it in particularly bold relief would be the inefficacy of terrorism, for without the working people all bombs are power less, patently powerless. [...]

This fabulous argument, which we are convinced is destined to become notorious, is by no means simply a curiosity. No, it is instructive because, through a sweeping reduction to an absurdity, it reveals the principal mistake of the terrorists, which they share with the “economists” (perhaps one might already say, with the former representatives of deceased “economism”?). This mistake, as we have already pointed out on numerous occasions, consists in the failure to understand the basic defect of our movement. Because of the extremely rapid growth of the movement, the leaders lagged behind the masses, the revolutionary organisations did not come up to the level of the revolutionary activity of the proletariat, were incapable of marching on in front and leading the masses. That a discrepancy of this sort exists cannot be doubted by any conscientious person who has even the slightest acquaintance with the movement. And if that is so, it is evident that the present-day terrorists are really “economists” turned inside out, going to the equally foolish but opposite extreme. At a time when the revolutionaries are short of the forces and means to lead the masses,   who are already rising, an appeal to resort to such terrorist acts as the organisation of attempts on the lives of ministers by individuals and groups that are not known to one another means, not only thereby breaking off work among the masses, but also introducing downright disorganisation into that work. [...]

Nor does the leaflet eschew the theory of excitative terrorism. “Each time a hero engages in single combat, this arouses in us all a spirit of struggle and courage,” we are told. But we know from the past and see in the present that only new forms of the mass movement or the awakening of new sections of the masses to independent struggle really rouses a spirit of struggle and courage in all. Single combat however, inasmuch as it remains single combat waged by the Balmashovs, has the immediate effect of simply creating a short-lived sensation, while indirectly it even leads to apathy and passive waiting for the next bout. [...] This very point is explained in No. 8 of Revolutsionnaya Rossiya, which declares that “it is easy to write and speak” of armed demonstrations “as a matter of the vague and distant future,” “but up till now all this talk has been merely of a theoretical nature.” How well we know this Language of people who are free of the constraint of firm socialist convictions, of the burdensome experience of each and every kind of popular movement! They confuse immediately tangible and sensational results with practicalness. To them the demand to adhere steadfastly to the class standpoint and to maintain the mass nature of the movement is “vague” “theorising.” [...] Demonstrations begin— and blood thirsty words, talk about the beginning of the end, flow from the lips of such people. The demonstrations halt— their hands drop helplessly, and before they have had time to wear out a pair of boots they are already shouting: “The people, alas, are still a long way off....” Some new outrage is perpetrated by the tsar’s henchmen—and they demand to be shown a “definite” measure that would serve as an exhaustive reply to that particular outrage, a measure that would bring about an immediate “transference of strength,” and they proudly promise this transference! These people do not understand that this very promise to “transfer” strength constitutes political adventurism, and that their adventurism stems from their lack of principle. [...] Anyone who really carries on his revolutionary work in conjunction with the class struggle of the proletariat very well knows, sees and feels what vast numbers of immediate and direct demands of the proletariat (and of the sections of the people capable of supporting the latter) remain unsatisfied. He knows that in very many places, throughout vast areas, the working people are literally   straining to go into action, and that their ardour runs to waste because of the scarcity of literature and leadership, the lack of forces and means in the revolutionary organisations. And we find ourselves—we see that we find our selves—in the same old vicious circle that has so long hemmed in the Russian revolution like an omen of evil. On the one hand, the revolutionary ardour of the insufficiently enlightened and unorganised crowd runs to waste. On the other hand, shots fired by the “elusive individuals” who are losing faith in the possibility of marching in formation and working hand in hand with the masses also end in smoke.

— V.I. Lenin, Revolutionary Adventurism, 1902

[reasonsforhope]

"A net-zero power system is closer than we think.

New research, published by RMI, indicates that an exponential surge in renewable energy deployment is outpacing the International Energy Agency’s most ambitious net-zero predictions for 2030. 

That’s right: Surging solar, wind, and battery capacity is now in-line with net-zero scenarios. 

“For the first time, we can, with hand on heart, say that we are potentially on the path to net zero,” Kingsmill Bond, Senior Principal at RMI, said. “We need to make sure that we continue to drive change, but there is a path and we are on it.”

And that’s really good news.

Exponential growth in renewable energy has put the global electricity system at a tipping point. What was once seen as a wildly daunting task — transitioning away from fossil fuels — is now happening at a faster pace every year. 

Based on this new research, conducted in partnership with the Bezos Earth Fund, RMI projects that solar and wind will supply over a third of all global electricity by 2030, up from about 12% today, which would surpass recent calls for a tripling of total renewable energy capacity by the end of the decade. 

Global progress in the renewable energy sector

China and Europe have been leading the way in clean energy generation, but the deployment of renewable energy has also been widely distributed across the Middle East and Africa. 

Research from Systems Change Lab shows that eight countries (Uruguay, Denmark, Lithuania, Namibia, Netherlands, Palestine, Jordan, and Chile) have already grown solar and wind power faster than what is needed to limit global warming to 1.5°C, proving that a swift switch to renewable energy is not only feasible — it’s entirely achievable. 

In order to make that switch, globally, wind and solar need to grow from 12% to 41% by 2030. Denmark, Uruguay, and Lithuania have already achieved that increase in the span of eight years.

Meanwhile, Namibia, the Netherlands, Palestine, Jordan, and Chile have grown solar and wind energy at sufficient rates for five years...

The economic impact of climate progress

Not only is this an exciting and unprecedented development for the health of the environment, but this rapid transition to clean energy includes widespread benefits, like jobs growth, more secure supply chains, and reductions in energy price inflation. 

This progress spans both developing and developed countries, all driven to accelerate renewables for a number of different reasons: adopting smart and effective policies, maintaining political commitments, lowering the costs of renewable energy, and improving energy security. 

And with exponential growth of clean energy means sharp declines in prices. This puts fossil fuels at a higher, uncompetitive cost — both financially and figuratively. 

RMI suggests that solar energy is already the cheapest form of electricity in history — and will likely halve in price by 2030, falling as low as $20/MWh in the coming years. This follows previous trends: solar and battery costs have declined 80% between 2012 and 2022, and offshore wind costs are down 73%."

-via Good Good Good, July 12, 2023

Let me repeat that:

For the first time in history, we are on an actual, provably achievable path to net zero emissions

[boxboxblog]

Explaining F1 Language pt 1

I use a lot of jargon in my posts, so I hope this is informative.

DRS = Drag Reduction System. It is a flap on the rear wing that opens and closes to reduce drag, It is only available in DRS zones of a race track and if your car is within 1 second of the car in front of you.

Chicane = Series of sharp corners, usually in opposite directions (think 'S' shaped), used to slow cars down and encourage overtakes.

Dirty Air = Disrupted, rough, hot air that drivers get when they are behind another car. It makes the car go slower and heat up faster.

Clean Air = Fresh cool air that a car with no one in front gets. Less drag and helps keep car cool.

Halo = Titanium arch that crosses over drivers head, used for safety.

Pole Position = Starting the race in the first position

Pit Wall = A wall where engineers analyze data from sensors in car, watch race, and advise driver. Only a drivers specific race engineer is allowed to talk to them. Team principals are also there.

Points Position = 10th place and up

WDC = World Drivers Championship. The driver with the most points wins.

WCC = World Constructers Championship. the team with the most overall points wins

Straights = The non curved part of a race track, where basic speed is most important

Street Circuit = A race track built over city streets. Often very sharp corners and thin tracks. Examples include Monaco, Singapore, and Baku.

Classic Circuit = A built track that remains, often more typical of older track styles. Often have long straights, wide tracks, and rounded corners.

Undercut = A strat where a driver pits earlier than whoever they are racing against in order to use fresher tires to set a quick lap time and overtake their rival before they exit their own pit stop.

Overcut = Opposite of undercut, where a driver stays out longer than their rival in an attempt to gain time up on them. The goal is that when they pit they come out ahead of their rival due to the gap they create.

The Racing Line = The perfect line for a driver to follow that gets them around the circuit the fastest. Most drivers follow the same line one after the other. There is an outside line and inside line on corners.

Marbles = Small bits of rubber that come off of tires and accumulate off of the racing line. Can reduce grip if driven over.

Dirty Side = Part of track where marbles, dirt, and debris gathers

Clean Side = Usually the racing line, where there are no marbles, debris, or dirt.

Parc Fermé = Area where cars are placed after qualifying and the race. Teams are not allowed to make any changes to their car once they enter this area.

Flat Spot = Flat area on tires caused by aggressive braking. Cause vibrations which means they are to be avoided as much as possible.

Lock-up = When a driver brakes to hard, it causes one or more wheels to stop rotating. Often leads to tire damage or missing a corner.

Blistering = damage to the surface of the tire caused by excessive heat. The tire rubber heats up and peels off. Can lead to bad tire performance.

Graining = When small parts of rubber detach and and reattach to the tire, creating an uneven surface. This reduces grip and often occurs when tire temp is off.

Box = Term used by race engineers to call driver into pit

Push Lap = You'll hear 'push, push' a lot, which essentially means drive aggressive and at max speed.

Mode Push = Engineer tells driver to switch to higher engine mode

Lift and Coast = Fuel or tire saving technique where driver lifts off of throttle early before corner and coasts before braking.

Delta Time = Target lap time during a safety car to ensure they are within allowed speed but keeping up with strat

Oversteer = When the the rear of the car loses traction and slides out in corner, the driver has to correct with opposite steering input. This is oversteer. Overcorrecting can lead to a spin.

Understeer = When the front of the car loses grip, causing the car to continue straight instead of turning, a driver must adjust steering or braking to compensate. This is understeer.

Lifting the Throttle = Slightly reducing pressure to accelerator, often used during fuel management or tire conservation.

Bottoming = When a car's chassis or floor hits the track. Often causes sparks.

Power Unit = Combo of Internal Combustion Engine and Hybrid Energy Recovery Systems (simply, the engine though its more complex then that)

Stint = A period of racing between pit stops. For example a car will go on a 15 lap stint, then pit, then a 30 lap stint after.

Tyre Deg = short for Tyre degradation, when the wear makes the tire (and car) lose performance

Safety Car = Slow car out out to force drivers to slow down when there is debris or a crash on the track. Drivers are not allowed to overtake when the safety car is out.

Virtual Safety Car = System used when they do not want to deploy safety car because incident will be cleaned up quickly. Same rules as safety car.

Brake Bias = Distribution of barking force between front and rear wheels. Can be adjusted to help balance, especially in wet weather.

Quali= The day before a race, drivers aim to set a time and make their place on the lineup order. There is Q1, Q2, and Q3. Only top ten make it to Q3 and attempt for pole.

Purple Sector = Fastest sector time set by any driver during a session.

Track Evolution = The way a circuit's grip improves during a race weekend. Effected by rubber build-up, debris cleaning, temperature, weather, time, and surface type. Big part of strategy.

Out Lap = Lap immediately after leaving the pits during qualifying. Used to warm up tires.

In Lap = Lap where driver is heading for the pits

Flying Lap = a fast lap in qualifying when the driver is trying to set a time

Formation Lap = Lap right before race start where drivers can warm tires and help track evolve

Tear-Off = A thin plastic sheet on driver's helmet that can be peeled away mid race to get rid of dirt and debris. Drivers have several.

Scrubbed Tires = Tires that have been used briefly but still have lost of life. Can be an advantage because they are slightly worn.

Overtake = When a car gets by another car

Recovery Lap = Lap after an incident or pit stop where the driver focuses on getting back into race rhythm and warming tires.

There will be a part 2, I ran out of words. Oops.

Cheers,

-B

[mariacallous]

Several top scientists charged with overseeing research into disease prevention and cures at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were notified that they were subject to a reduction in force on Tuesday as part of a devastating purge of federal employees carried out by US Health and Human Services secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., WIRED has learned.

Multiple sources at the NIH, granted anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media, confirmed Tuesday afternoon that at least 10 principal investigators who were leading and directing medical research at the agency had been fired. Among them is Dr. Richard Youle, a leading researcher in the field of neurodegenerative disorders previously awarded the Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences for his groundbreaking research identifying mechanisms behind Parkinson’s disease.

The Breakthrough Prize ceremony, often referred to as the “Oscars of Science,” was last year attended by Elon Musk, whose Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has served as the tip of the spear in President Donald Trump’s campaign to eliminate large swaths of the federal workforce.

HHS did not respond to WIRED's questions about the firings of NIH scientists. Vianca Rodriguez, an agency spokesperson, pointed to previous statements by Secretary Kennedy, including plans announced last week to eliminate 1,200 NIH jobs in areas of procurement, human resources, and communications.

Multiple NIH sources tell WIRED the layoffs include—in addition to labor, IT, and human resources personnel—several accomplished senior investigators at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), top scientists at the National Institute on Aging, and several researchers noted for their work in HIV, emerging infectious diseases, and child brain and neural disorders.

At an NINDS town hall meeting on Tuesday, leadership at that institute expressed confusion about the cuts, saying they were blindsided by firings of principal investigators, or PIs, who lead research teams. NIH has approximately 1,200 PIs across its 27 centers and institutes. “To get rid of 11 of our senior PIs … we’re hoping that’s a mistake, because we can’t figure out why they would want to do that,” said Walter Koroshetz, director of the NINDS, according to a source present at the meeting.

The labs affected by the layoffs include those involved in clinical trials as well as preclinical studies. It is unclear, NIH staff said, what the plans are for the data they've accumulated or what will happen to patients involved in ongoing trials.

An email sent out Tuesday to more than 2,000 recent college graduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows working at NIH seems to confirm the firings of multiple PIs. “Many of us know someone, directly or indirectly, who received a termination notice today as part of an HHS-wide Reduction in Force,” reads an email by Sharon Milgram, director of NIH’s Office of Intramural Training & Education, which was shared with WIRED.

The NIH supports young researchers through various programs, typically temporary one- or two-years fellowships. These early-career scientists are placed in labs under a PI. In her email, Milgram tells fellows with NIH’s postbaccalaureate, cancer research, and visiting fellows programs whose PI received an RIF notice, “I can assure you that your fellowship appointment is not immediately terminated and that we will work with each of you to explore reassignment options soon.”

An effort is said to be underway by NIH leaders to reverse the firings of the investigators, whose absence, sources say, could paralyze research at the agency into finding targets and biomarkers for drug development and other treatment.

The Trump administration sent out notices to thousands of federal health agency employees Tuesday, including at the NIH, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The NIH, which serves as the world's largest source of funding for research into the causes, prevention, and cure of human disease, was stripped of critical support staff on Tuesday in what Health Secretary Kennedy framed as a shift in his agency's priorities. Roughly a quarter of the agency's staff has been cut since the start of Trump's second term.

In a statement on X, Kennedy called the firings a "difficult moment," while blaming the size of his department's budget. "This overhaul is about realigning HHS with its core mission to stop the chronic disease epidemic and Make America Healthy Again," he said.

A senior scientist at NIH tells WIRED the impact of Tuesday's layoffs was sheer "chaos," with the firings of the lead investigators projected to widely impair and impede diverse ongoing research ranging from mechanisms within cells in the brain to human patients with neurologic conditions.

"It's extremely disruptive to lose the head of a lab," another scientist said. "But this is also disruptive for every single lab that does remain at NIH, because they've removed so much of the administrative support that's necessary for us to function."

On Tuesday, US Senators Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, and Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, sent a letter to Kennedy inviting him to an April 10 Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee meeting on the HHS reorganization.

During his confirmation process, Kennedy committed to providing quarterly updates to the HELP committee, which Cassidy chairs. “This will be a good opportunity for him to set the record straight,” Cassidy said in a statement, “and speak to the goals, structure and benefits of the proposed reorganization.”

[dailyanarchistposts]

I want to talk about money as a moral technology. One of the things that really fascinated me when I was working on my book on debt was the tendency of the logic of the market to colonise and invade other forms of morality, even the language of religion. Almost all the great world religions are incredibly rich in the language of finance – think about words like redemption – and this happens not just in Christianity but pretty much everywhere.

Morality tended to be treated as a matter of paying one’s debts. This was one reason that I actually entered into this particular intellectual journey; I was fascinated with the moral power of the idea of debt, and its tendency to trump any other form of morality, so that people can justify things which they would never dream of trying to justify in other circumstances: the starvation and death of babies, for example, on the grounds that ‘the country took out a loan’.

The invasion of the language of morality by the language of debt and money seems to be part and parcel of another phenomenon, which is the reduction of all social relations to forms of exchange. You find that almost all the great world religions begin with the premise that morality is simply a matter of paying one’s debts. In Brahmin theology for example, all forms of morality are basically forms of debt. It starts with the debt to the gods, which is a debt of life, on which one pays the interest in the form of sacrifice, and will eventually pay the principal when one dies.

If one looks closely, though, the other examples that Brahmins use completely subvert the idea that these moral obligations really are debts. They say you have a debt to your parents that you will pay by having children; you also have a debt to a sage that you will pay by learning wisdom and becoming a sage. You also have a debt to humanity as a whole for making your life possible, which you will pay by being generous to strangers. None of these take the form of repaying debt in the classical sense. Ultimately, what they all seem to imply is that one erases the debt by realising that you owe all this to a totality which includes you, so the idea of debt becomes meaningless. Your debt to the gods is in fact a debt to the universe itself. You cannot really pay a debt to the universe, because that would imply that you and the universe are equal partners doing a business deal; that is, you and everything else that ever existed, including yourself, are making the deal. It is the absurdity of that which annihilates the idea of debt. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition there is a similar notion of primordial debt, but in fact it turns out that what is sacred is not paying one’s debts but the cancellation of debts: redemption. It is almost as if everyone has to start out by saying, ‘morality is really just paying one’s debts’, and then they move away from it.

The question is: Why do they have to do that? Why is it that popular conceptions of morality are already framed so deeply in debt that they always seem to have to start with those premises, even though they then inevitably move away? The best answer I could come up with is that it has to do with relations of power. Essentially, the one thing that history reveals over and over again is that a morality of debt is the most powerful way to make relations of arbitrary, violent power not only seem moral but to cast the victim in the role of the sinner, the person to blame. Mafiosi understand that, of course; so do heads of conquering armies, who generally announce that everyone owes them their lives because they have the power to kill them. It puts you in the position where you can be the benevolent person and the victims are running round, scrambling, feeling miserable and inadequate. It tends to be quite effective for a while. The problem is that it periodically explodes. As Moses Finley pointed out, there seems to be one revolutionary programme in all of antiquity, which is cancel the debts and redistribute the land, in that order.

Debt seems to inspire people to rebel more than any other form of inequality, perhaps because it is premised on an initial notion of equality. If you are saying that you are lower caste you are saying that you are fundamentally inferior, which presumably people do not like, but accept as part of the natural order of things. But if you recast this in a language of debt, you are essentially saying, ‘we should have been equals, but you messed up somehow’. It seems to rankle a lot more, and the common response – which you encounter over and over again in history – is to say, ‘well, wait a minute: who owes what to whom here? We make your food’.

However it is framed, what tends to happen is the only way to resist this language of debt as morality is to cast your response in that same language, in a way that actually expands the zone to which that debt applies. It causes you to reformulate moral relations in the same language. You see the same thing happening nowadays in debates over third-world debt. Who owes what to whom? That is exactly what people end up saying: ‘you owe us for colonialism’; before you know it, this applies to all sorts of historical wrongs, zones that you never thought to commoditise, like ecological damage. The rebellion against debt becomes incorporated in the language of debt. With that language of debt, of course, comes the logic of exchange: that everything, essentially, can be framed in market terms.

This relation of money, debt and morality changes regularly over time, depending on the dominant conception of money, which itself depends on the dominant money form that people use in a given historical period. It seems that there are quite regular shifts across Eurasia, at least, between what I would call periods of virtual credit money and periods of commodity money, where most people are actually using some form of object, usually gold and silver, in everyday transactions, and people conceive money to be a thing. I was fascinated to discover that there is no consensus at all among economists about what money is. You would think if there was anything that economists could agree on, that would be it, but, in fact, money is a bit of a stumper for economists. The dominant schools throw their weight behind the idea of money as a medium of exchange; there are equally compelling arguments that money should be thought of as a unit of account, and therefore the tokens of money are actually tokens of debt. On this view, money is essentially circulating debt. Economists like Keith Hart argue that if you look at the two sides of a coin, you regularly see the same thing. There is one side which is a symbol of state authority, of trust and agreement, money as a social relation, which is credit; on the other side is the actual number of a unit of money, which implies that money is a commodity or a thing.

That tension is always there in the definition of money. What I would add is that, over time, the definition of money shifts back and forth. But, interestingly, virtual credit money comes first. As far as we know, if people went to the marketplace in Sumer, they certainly did not bring anything resembling cash. They certainly did not have coins; they did not even manufacture scales. They probably had the technology to do so, but they did not manufacture scales accurate enough to weigh out the tiny bits of silver that would be required to buy a pig, a sheep, a hammer, a shirt. It seems that everyday transactions were largely based on credit. Certain things did circulate in silver, for certain grains, and so on, but essentially the weight was on a credit economy, which also meant that it made it periodically possible to cancel debts, which is much harder to do in periods of commodity money. The period where money was invented, where cash currency was invented, also corresponds to what Karl Jaspers famously called the ‘Axial Age’, during which you also see the rise of major world philosophies and major world religions, in exactly the same place where money is first created: in the Eastern Mediterranean, in the Ganges Valley in India and the northern plains of China. It seems that coinage is invented largely as a side-effect of military technology, which is closely tied to taxation systems. Gold and silver are the sort of thing that soldiers who have been engaged in looting are most likely to be carrying around. Itinerant, heavily armed soldiers are possibly the people you would least like to extend credit to, if you are a local merchant. But they do have gold and silver. Eventually, after an initial period where money is created by merchants brokering things with soldiers, the state comes in and discovers that the easiest way to provision troops is simply to systematically give them the little bits of precious metal and then tell everyone in your country to give them back again. Suddenly you hire everyone in your kingdom to provision soldiers.

It worked brilliantly well. The fascinating thing about the Axial Age is you have standing armies; currency tends to follow standing armies. You also have the rise of world religions, which in almost every case systematically negate some of the moral logic of these impersonal cash markets which are enabled by commodity currencies, so that ideas of charity seem to always crop up simultaneously. It is as if you say, ‘let us create a space where we have this thing called self-interest’, and if we then simply try to get as many material things as possible for ourselves, someone else is going to come and say ‘all right, well, here we will have a space where we think about why material things are not important; it is better to give than to receive’. This happens pretty much regularly in every place.

The astonishing thing is that it all coordinates really closely across Eurasia. In the Middle Ages those empires reach their apogee, and they collapse. With the disappearance of standing armies and chattel slavery, coinage largely disappears, but instead of reverting to barter, people in fact revert to credit systems. These systems of credit are essentially controlled by the moral and religious systems which originally rose in opposition to the world of cash transactions closely identified with militarism and the state which had come before. With that came the bans on usury, which did not exist in the ancient world at all. It seems that in periods where you conceive money to be a social relation, a system of social conventions – Aristotle’s definition, again, was not widely adopted in antiquity but was then adopted in the Middle Ages – it becomes possible to do things like they did in the ancient world: debt cancellations in medieval Islam and Christianity, or bans on usury, which is much harder to do in periods where you consider money to be a thing.

Despite the fact that both the Athenian and the Roman constitutions were essentially created in a reaction to debt crises, ancient economies almost never resorted to full-on debt cancellations. Instead, they set up redistribution policies, where they essentially threw money at the problem, so that coinage became a sort of moral technology. For example, in ancient Athens people were actually paid to go to the agora and vote. There are all these mechanisms of redistributing money through political means, so that people did not fall so far into debt they would become slaves to the rich and thus destroy the military base of the state.

Starting in 1450, and even before the Iberian discovery of the Americas, commodity money returns in the form of bullion, and with it comes the rise once again of large empires, of standing armies, of chattel slavery, which reappears, however, in a profoundly altered form. I would argue that that period is the one that we are coming out of now, but only very slowly and haltingly. The usual cut-off point is 1971, when Nixon took the dollar definitively off the Gold Standard.

It is interesting that the ban on usury that held during the Middle Ages was gradually eroded. I have always felt that one reason why the Church was so adamantly opposed to usury as against other elements of emergent capitalism was because the morality of debt was so powerful that they could recognise a moral rival when they saw one. The fact is that debt is the most effective means to turn people into utilitarian rational actors, as economists like to imagine, where one has little choice but to see the world simply in terms of possible sources of profit and danger. One of the things I was quite fascinated with was to look at the histories of some of the people who behaved in the most bizarrely, irrationally acquisitive means you can imagine, becoming paradigms for the insatiability of human beings: the conquistadores, for example. The conquistadores were all completely in debt. They started out in debt and they never really got out of it. One reason that they were constantly looking for new kingdoms was because, even after the conquest of the Aztec kingdom, Cortez managed to get himself in debt again 15 years later and started conquering again. All the men were entirely in debt and needed to do whatever they needed to do to get gold, and so committed large atrocities to pay it back.

That kind of manipulation of debt as a form of morality in itself was unleashed and became naturalised, when you think of money as a natural thing: as an object, rather than as a social relation. As a moral technology, money allows certain types of morality to emerge which are incredibly powerful. The people in power, who originally discovered the power of the morality of debt so long ago, do not want to give them up. One of the great mysteries is when you have periods of virtual credit money, whether it is in ancient Mesopotamia or in the Middle Ages, what you normally see is people creating some means to ensure that those with the power to create credit do not effectively end up enslaving everybody else. It happens over and over again and takes different forms, hence periodic debt cancellations in ancient Mesopotamia, the famous jubilees in ancient Judea, and the various usury laws. You find that they were in combination with things like Buddhists promulgating pawn shops and other alternatives to the local loan sharks. The first prevalent use of pawn shops was actually a religious thing, by Buddhist monks in China and later, I believe, the Dominicans took it up in Europe, presumably independently.

There are all these overarching mechanisms created to protect debtors in periods of virtual credit money. Where are our versions of these mechanisms? Granted, we are only 40 years in. This is not very long by the standards we are talking of – 1,000 or 500-year cycles. But we have done exactly the opposite. What we have ended up doing is creating institutions like the IMF, or Standard & Poor’s for that matter: institutions designed to protect creditors against debtors, rather than debtors against creditors. Unsurprisingly, the result for the last 40 years has been an unending series of global debt crises. Consider third-world debt, which led to surprisingly successful forms of resistance, first in East Asia, and then Latin America, from where the IMF has largely been kicked out. These debt crises are continual, they are mounting; it seems to buck the historical trend for an economy based on credit money.

This is why I emphasise the power of money as morality. I believe that there is a contradiction between the long-term interests in the system and those ideological mechanisms that would seem to be legitimating it. The morality of debt and the morality of work seem to be two areas in which the capitalist virtues, the virtues of the economic system, are deeply inculcated into popular consciousness and broadly accepted. To question that opens doors that I think a lot of people are very frightened to open, despite the fact that at this point debt cancellation is almost inevitable.

The reason I say ‘almost’ is because there is such resistance. It is remarkable. It is so clearly in the interests of the ruling class to start cancelling debts in a big way. The Federal Reserve has been trying really hard to get mortgage debts cancelled and they have made no headway for the last year. What is holding it back? It has to be some attachment to this fundamental moral idea, because there are not that many moral underpinnings to the system left.

One of them is the moral value of work. Keynes predicted that by now we could easily have a four-hour day, if we were so inclined, and we could remark, ‘Well, obviously we are not, but obviously this shows that rather than being happy with the amount of goods we want, it has something to do with desire, it has to do with consumerism.’

I do not think that is true at all. I think that if you look at what most people do during the day, they are not doing much that contributes to the production of consumer products. In fact, an unexplored phenomenon in America today is just how many people are secretly convinced that they do not really do anything during the day: that their jobs are completely meaningless and worthless, and probably should not exist. I meet people like this all the time. I know so many people who were at their wits’ end, did not know what to do, went to law school, and are now corporate lawyers. I have hardly met a single one of them who would not, at least if drunk, say, ‘Actually, this job is completely stupid and should not exist.’ You can make money doing this and not being a poet, or whatever they were doing before. It tells you something interesting about what we call the market that there seems to be a very limited demand for poets and talented musicians but an almost infinite demand for corporate lawyers.

I think that we have to think about this in moral terms. Think about all the people who are working four hours a day. You know, there are so many people who go into work and they sit there for eight hours but they do about three or four hours’ worth of work and the rest of the time they are on Facebook or tweeting or downloading pornography or something. I talk to people and so many of them say that, ‘Well, actually I do about two or three hours,’ so in fact we are working fourhour days, but owing to this profound morality of labour we are not willing to actually acknowledge it.

We might want to think about the parallel with the Soviet Union. The Soviet system, I really believe, was based on a fundamental contradiction, in that they inherited an essentially anarchist constituency with a Marxist ideology. During the 1920s and 1930s, it was often noted that the difference between anarcho-syndicalist unions and socialist unions was that the anarchist unions were always asking for fewer hours, and the socialists were always asking for more money. Essentially, the socialists were those who bought into the productivist-consumerist system; anarchists just wanted out: ‘We want to have nothing to do with this. We want to work as little as possible.’ There was a famous debate between Marx and Bakunin over where the revolution would come: would it be the advanced industrial proletariat in Germany? Bakunin said, ‘No, no, it will be the recently proletarianised peasants and artisans of Russia and Spain,’ and, of course, Bakunin was right. So these anarchist constituencies who wanted fewer hours ended up creating revolutions that ended up with a Marxist-productivist elite claiming to want to create a consumer society but utterly incapable of doing so. However, one social benefit that they gave them was that you could not get fired from your job, so in fact people were working four-hour days.

The great contradiction, to me, of these systems was they could not acknowledge or take responsibility for the one social benefit they actually did provide to the public, namely job security on four hours work a day. If you think about it, going from being a backward economy to launching satellites into outer space on four-hour days is pretty impressive. But they could not acknowledge what they were actually giving people. Everybody was pretending to work for eight hours; in fact, they were working four.

It seems that our own societies are beginning to resemble that more and more, as so much work is hollowed from any sort of meaning or point, yet nonetheless people end up feeling obliged, for moral and ideological reasons, to do it more and more. I think a lot of politics can be explained by this. I have always argued that a lot of right-wing populism is based on resentment of people who get to have meaningful jobs. The cultural elite are seen as the people who get to monopolise the jobs where you can actually get paid to do something which is not just for the money. You know, how dare those bastards take all the altruistic jobs?

Similarly, I find fascinating the resentment of autoworkers, or teachers. I think it can only be explained in those sorts of moral terms, that there seems to be a sense that, ‘You guys actually get to do something real. You get to teach kids and make cars, you want benefits too?’ At any rate, I think that we need to think again about how the kind of morality that money enables, both in terms of debt and work, becomes a driving political force in itself, and that many of the issues that we think of as economic issues are also actually political issues in disguise.

[probablyasocialecologist]

"Part of the degrowth literature talks about how historically energy and emissions decoupling has not been fast enough, and uses this to argue for a degrowth strategy," says Kikstra. "We show that this is not a black-or-white debate. The nuance lies in the fact that also under degrowth strategies, forms of decoupling are necessary. But these are structurally different dynamics, which relate to a broad set of policies. A lot of new research is required to model such strategies, and we lay out different options to do so." "The results of the study suggest that fast emissions reductions in countries like Australia could be enabled in scenarios characterized by reduced or zero growth. Possibly even faster than in virtually all of the most ambitious mitigation scenarios described in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report Scenario Database," says Bas van Ruijven, co-author of the study, research group leader, and principal research scholar in the IIASA Energy, Climate, and Environment program. The study also shows that reduced energy demand paired with lower GDP per capita lessens technological feasibility concerns by reducing the need for upscaling solar and wind energy and limiting future material needs for renewables as electricity generation stabilizes in the second half of the century.