#excel percent of increase

[autotopic]

1938 Mercedes-Benz W154

In September 1936, the AIACR (Association Internationale des Automobile Clubs Reconnus), the governing body of motor racing, set the new Grand Prix regulations effective from 1938. Key stipulations included a maximum engine displacement of three liters for supercharged engines and 4.5 liters for naturally aspirated engines, with a minimum car weight ranging from 400 to 850 kilograms, depending on engine size.

By the end of the 1937 season, Mercedes-Benz engineers were already hard at work developing the new W154, exploring various ideas, including a naturally aspirated engine with a W24 configuration, a rear-mounted engine, direct fuel injection, and fully streamlined bodies. Ultimately, due to heat management considerations, they opted for an in-house developed 60-degree V12 engine designed by Albert Heess. This engine mirrored the displacement characteristics of the 1924 supercharged two-liter M 2 L 8 engine, with each of its 12 cylinders displacing 250 cc. Using glycol as a coolant allowed temperatures to reach up to 125°C. The engine featured four overhead camshafts operating 48 valves via forked rocker arms, with three cylinders combined under welded coolant jackets, and non-removable heads. It had a high-capacity lubrication system, circulating 100 liters of oil per minute, and initially utilized two single-stage superchargers, later replaced by a more efficient two-stage supercharger in 1939.

The first prototype engine ran on the test bench in January 1938, and by February 7, it had achieved a nearly trouble-free test run, producing 427 hp (314 kW) at 8,000 rpm. During the first half of the season, drivers such as Caracciola, Lang, von Brauchitsch, and Seaman had access to 430 hp (316 kW), which later increased to over 468 hp (344 kW). At the Reims circuit, Hermann Lang's W154 was equipped with the most powerful version, delivering 474 hp (349 kW) and reaching 283 km/h (176 mph) on the straights. Notably, the W154 was the first Mercedes-Benz racing car to feature a five-speed gearbox.

Max Wagner, tasked with designing the suspension, had an easier job than his counterparts working on the engine. He retained much of the advanced chassis architecture from the previous year's W125 but enhanced the torsional rigidity of the frame by 30 percent. The V12 engine was mounted low and at an angle, with the carburetor air intakes extending through the expanded radiator grille.

The driver sat to the right of the propeller shaft, and the W154's sleek body sat close to the ground, lower than the tops of its tires. This design gave the car a dynamic appearance and a low center of gravity. Both Manfred von Brauchitsch and Richard Seaman, whose technical insights were highly valued by Chief Engineer Rudolf Uhlenhaut, praised the car's excellent handling.

The W154 became the most successful Silver Arrow of its era. Rudolf Caracciola secured the 1938 European Championship title (as the World Championship did not yet exist), and the W154 won three of the four Grand Prix races that counted towards the championship.

To ensure proper weight distribution, a saddle tank was installed above the driver's legs. In 1939, the addition of a two-stage supercharger boosted the V12 engine, now named the M163, to 483 hp (355 kW) at 7,800 rpm. Despite the AIACR's efforts to curb the speed of Grand Prix cars, the new three-liter formula cars matched the lap times of the 1937 750-kg formula cars, demonstrating that their attempt was largely unsuccessful. Over the winter of 1938-39, the W154 saw several refinements, including a higher cowl line around the cockpit for improved driver safety and a small, streamlined instrument panel mounted to the saddle tank. As per Uhlenhaut’s philosophy, only essential information was displayed, centered around a large tachometer flanked by water and oil temperature gauges, ensuring the driver wasn't overwhelmed by unnecessary data.

[eng8b24]

Lockheed YF-104A Starfighter by Benjamin Donnelly Via Flickr: The fourth of the 1950s era “Century Series,” the F-104 Starfighter was designed around one single element: speed. Clarence “Kelly” Johnson, head of Lockheed’s famous “Skunk Works” factory, had interviewed US Air Force pilots during the Korean War, seeking their input on any new fighter. Since the pilots reported that they wanted high performance more than anything else, Johnson returned to the United States determined to deliver exactly that: a simple, point-defense interceptor marrying the lightest airframe to the most powerful engine then available, the superb General Electric J79. When Johnson offered the L-098 design to the USAF in 1952, the service was so impressed that they created an entire competition for the aircraft to be accepted, ostensibly as a F-100 Super Sabre replacement. The Lockheed design had the clear edge, though both North American’s and Northrop’s design went on to be built themselves—the North American F-107A Ultra Sabre and the Northrop T-38 Talon. The USAF purchased the L-098 as the F-104A Starfighter. The design changed very little from initial design to prototype to operational aircraft, which was done in the astonishing time of two years. When the first F-104As reached the USAF in 1958, pilots quickly found that it was indeed a hot fighter—too hot. The Starfighter’s design philosophy of speed above all else resulted in an aircraft with a long fuselage, T-tail for stability, and small wings, which were so thin that special guards had to be put on the leading edges to avoid injuring ground personnel. Because of its small wing, the F-104 required a lot of runway, and blown flaps (which vents airflow from the engine over the flaps to increase lift) were a necessity; unfortunately, the airflow system often failed, which meant that the F-104 pilot would be coming in at a dangerous rate of speed. Because it was feared that a pilot who ejected from a F-104 would never clear the tail, a downward-ejection seat was fitted, but after killing over 20 pilots, the seat was retrofitted with a more reliable, upward-firing type. The design also was not very maneuverable in the horizontal, though it was difficult to match in the vertical. Its shape earned it the moniker “Missile With a Man In It” and “Zipper.” One thing pilots did not complain about was its speed—the listed top speed of the F-104 was Mach 2.2, but this was because above that the fuselage would melt. The J79 was a near flawless engine that gave the Starfighter an excellent thrust-to-weight ratio; uniquely, the intake design of the Starfighter gave the engine a bansheelike wail. So superb was the F-104 at level speed and climbing that NASA leased several as trainers for the X-15 program, and in setting a number of speed and time-to-climb records. If the F-104 had gotten a mixed reception at best in the USAF, Lockheed felt that it had potential as an export aircraft. Beating out several excellent British and other American designs in a 1961 competition, every NATO nation except France and Great Britain bought F-104s and manufactured their own as the F-104G; Japan also license-built Starfighters as F-104Js, while still more were supplied to Pakistan and Taiwan. Just as in USAF service, accident rates were incredibly high, particularly in West German and Canadian service—Germany lost 30 percent of its initial batch, and the Canadians over half. Worries that the F-104 was too “hot” for pilots usually transitioning from the F-86 were ignored, and later it was learned why: German, Dutch, and Japanese politicians later admitted to being bribed by Lockheed into buying the Starfighter. Its high accident rate earned such nicknames as “Widowmaker,” “Flying Coffin,” and “Ground Nail.” Pakistani pilots simply called it Badmash (“Criminal”) and the Japanese Eiko (“Glory,” inferring that it was the easiest way to reach it). German pilots joked that the quickest way to obtain a F-104 was to buy a patch of land and wait. Nonetheless, once pilots learned how to tame the beast, the accident rates eased somewhat, and NATO pilots discovered that the Starfighter excelled as a low-level attack aircraft: fitted with bomb racks, the F-104 was remarkably stable at low altitude and high speed, and Luftwaffe pilots in particular found that they could sneak up on a target, launch a simulated attack, and be gone before ground defenses could react. The Italians in particular loved the F-104, building their own as the F-104S: these aircraft were equipped with multimode radar and armed with AIM-7 Sparrow and Aspide radar-guided missiles, making them a superb interceptor. Though most NATO nations reequipped their F-104 units with F-16s, F-18s, or Tornados beginning in 1980, the Italian F-104S fleet was continually upgraded and soldiered on until final retirement in 2004. 2578 F-104s were built, mostly F-104Gs; today over 150 survive in museums, with at least ten flyable examples, making it one of the best preserved of the Century Series. The second oldest F-104 left (only the YF-104A in the National Air and Space Museum is older), 55-2967 was delivered to the USAF as one of 17 YF-104 pre-production aircraft--and one of only two left, as the others were either expended as drones or crashed during testing. 55-2967 never served in a frontline or ANG unit: it went directly to Air Force Systems Command at Edwards AFB, California, in 1956. It only flew for a year before it was heavily damaged in a bad landing at Bergstrom AFB, Texas. 55-2967 would never fly again, but rather than scrap it, it was turned into a GF-104A ground instruction trainer. Ironically, the hard landing that grounded 55-2967 saved it from the fate of the other YF-104s, and in the late 1960s, as the F-104 was phased out of USAF service, it was put on display on the cadet grounds at the US Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. However, the airframe suffered from being out in the open, and the AFA wanted to replace it with something of a little newer vintage. It was then donated to the Pueblo Weisbrod Museum, and trucked down to its new home. It was restored and moved inside in 2011. When I got the picture, I didn't realize this was either a YF-104 or that I'd almost certainly seen it as a kid when Dad and I visited the AFA on several occasions. Though few if any USAF F-104s flew in overall ADC Gray, this better preserves the aircraft; the font is also incorrect, but that's a nitpick on an excellent preservation job. A Tactical Air Command patch is carried on the tail. I always love being reacquainted with aircraft I would've seen when I was little!

[forevergulag]

International charity does not exist; it begins at home, for the United States as for everyone else. The role of foreign aid is primarily domestic--the U.S. economy aids itself--and it was defined by none other than Roberto Campos, when he was the ambassador for Goulart's nationalist government, as a program of broadening foreign markets to absorb U.S. surpluses and alleviate superproduction in U.S. exporting industries. In the early days of the Alliance for Progress, the U.S. Department of Commerce pointed to its successful creation of new businesses and job sources for private enterprise in forty-four states. 30 In January 1968, President Johnson assured Congress that more than 90 percent of U.S. foreign aid in 1969 would be applied to financing purchases in the United States, and that he had personally and directly intensified efforts to increase this percentage. In October 1969 cables sizzled with statements by Carlos Sanz de Santamarfa, chairman of the Alliance's Inter-American Committee, who said in New York that the aid had turned out to be excellent business for the U.S. economy and for its treasury. After the disequilibrium of the U.S. balance of payments became critical at the end of the 1950s, loans were conditioned upon buying U.S. industrial goods, usually costing more than similar products from other countries. More recently, certain mechanisms were put into effect, among them "negative lists" to see that the credits are not used for exporting articles which the United States can sell on the world market under good competitive conditions without recourse to autophilanthropy. Subsequent "positive lists" have made possible the sale through "aid" of certain U.S. manufactures at prices from 30 to 50 percent higher than the same goods from other sources.

Eduardo Galeano, Open Veins of Latin America

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Venezuela teams up with Brazil's biggest landless movement

Jorge Arreaza, a Venezuelan former foreign minister, on Tuesday announced an agreement between Venezuela and the Landless Workers Movement (MST), Brazil’s most important pro-land reform organization, in order for Brazilians to work there.

In a message on Telegram, Mr. Arreaza said that the MST was given 10,000 hectares of land “to start.” He’s currently the executive secretary at the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America – People’s Trade Treaty (ALBA-TCP), a group of Latin American countries led by leftist governments, including Cuba and Nicaragua.

“Excellent lands in the Bolívar state of Venezuela. Healthy food, healthy soil, for our communities and for the world,” the message says.

The Bolívar state borders Northern Brazil, including the city of Pacaraima, the first stop of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants. Over 192,000 Venezuelans entered Brazil in 2023, an 18 percent increase from 2022.

Continue reading.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Julian Adorney, Mark Johnson and Geoff Laughton

Published: Mar 23, 2024

In The Divine Conspiracy, Dallas Willard tells the story of a jet fighter pilot who was practicing high-speed maneuvers. As Willard puts it, “She turned the controls for what she thought was a steep ascent—and flew straight into the ground. She was unaware that she had been flying upside down.”

What if we were flying upside down? But let’s go further. What if an entire generation was flying upside down–flying through fog and danger, unable to see either ground or sky, and the well-intended adjustments pushed on them by “experts” were just bringing them closer to catastrophe?

That’s the lens through which we interpret Abigail Shrier’s New York Times bestseller Bad Therapy.

There’s no denying that the youngest generation is in crisis. As the Addiction Center notes, members of Generation Z “run a higher risk of developing a substance abuse problem than previous age groups.” A 2015 report found that 23.6 percent of 12th graders use illicit drugs. The American Psychological Association reports that just 45 percent of Gen Zers report that their mental health is “very good” or “excellent,” compared with 51 percent of Gen Xers and 70 percent of Boomers. A concerning 42 percent of Gen Zers have been diagnosed with a mental health condition, and an astounding 60 percent take medication to manage their mental health.

It gets worse. The rate of self-harm for girls age 10-14 increased over 300 percent from 2001 to 2019 (before the pandemic). According to a 2021 CDC survey, 1 in 3 teenage girls have seriously considered killing themselves.

Well-meaning therapists, teachers, and school counselors are trying to help the next generation to rise up. But what if everyone involved is upside down? What if, like the fighter pilot that Willard describes, what they think is rising up is actually bringing them into deeper danger? Shrier makes a strong case that that’s exactly what’s happening.

Lots of educators encourage kids to spend more time checking in with their feelings. In the 2021-2022 school year, 76 percent of principals said that their school had adopted a Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) curriculum. Common SEL practices include: asking students how they’re feeling at the start of each day, teaching that students should be more aware of how they’re feeling in any given moment, and encouraging students to use activities like writing and art to express their feelings.

The problem is that all of this obsession with feelings can actually make students feel worse. As Yulia Chentsova Dutton, head of the the Culture and Emotions Lab at Georgetown University, says, “Emotions are highly reactive to our attention to them.” “Certain kinds of attention to emotions, focus on emotions,” she explains, “can increase emotional distress. And I’m worried that when we try to help our young adults, help our children, what we do is throw oil into the fire.” Or to put it another way: when we ask kids over and over again how they’re feeling, we’re subtly and accidentally encouraging them to feel bad.

The reason is that, as psychiatry professor Michael Linden explains, most of us don’t feel happy all the time. Dealing with life involves ignoring a certain amount of moment-by-moment discomfort: I’m tired, my feet hurt, I’m sore from sitting down all day, I’m a little worried about my mom. When we encourage kids to check in many times per day on how they’re feeling, we’re tacitly encouraging them to bring to the surface–and then dwell on–all the things going on in their minds that are not “happiness.” That’s why, as Linden puts it, “Asking somebody ‘how are you feeling?’ is inducing negative feelings. You shouldn’t do that.”

But it gets worse.

Obsessing over our emotions can actually prevent us from doing the things that might make us feel better. Anyone who’s spent too long wallowing after a bad break-up knows this; at a certain point, you have to shelve your unpleasant emotions so that you can get on with your life. Psychologists describe two mental states that we can occupy at any given time: “action orientation” and “state orientation.” “State orientation” is where you focus primarily on yourself (e.g., how you feel about doing the task at hand, whether your wrist hurts or you’re starting to get sick, etc.). “Action orientation” is where you primarily focus on the task at hand. As a study published by Cambridge University Press notes, only the latter is actually conducive to pursuing and accomplishing goals. “State orientation is a personality that has difficulty in taking action toward goal fulfillment,” the authors warn. By encouraging young people to focus so much on their feelings, we might be hurting their ability to adopt the mindset necessary to accomplish goals in life. If so, that would make them even more unhappy. 

But the dangers posed by well-meaning “experts” telling students to fly in the wrong direction–towards the ground instead of towards the sky–go well beyond encouraging unhappiness and depression. Rates of suicide and self-harm for young people are skyrocketing. But in their attempts to cope with the spike, well-meaning administrators might be making the problem worse. Here are questions from the 2021 Florida High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey, administered to students age 14 and up:

During the past 12 months, did you ever feel so sad or hopeless almost every day for two weeks or more in a row that you stopped doing your usual activities?  During the past 12 months, did you ever seriously consider attempting suicide?  During the past 12 months, did you make a plan about how you would attempt suicide?  During the past 12 months, how many times did you actually attempt suicide?  If you attempted suicide during the past 12 months, did any attempt result in an injury, poisoning, or overdose that had to be treated by a doctor or nurse?

A survey authored by the CDC asked students “During the past year, did you do something to purposely hurt yourself without wanting to die, such as cutting or burning yourself on purpose?” Another survey offered this question to Delaware middle schoolers: “Sometimes people feel so depressed about the future that they may consider attempting suicide or killing themselves. Have you ever seriously thought about killing yourself?”

Administrators may be asking these questions with the best of intentions, but the end result is to normalize suicide in young peoples’ minds. If you were 12 years old and taking a survey like this along with all of your classmates, you might reasonably conclude that suicide, or at least suicidal ideation and/or self harm, were pretty common at your school. Otherwise, why would everyone your age have to take such an exhaustive assessment about it?

One reason this is so dangerous is that, as Shrier writes, “The virality of suicide and self-harm among adolescents is extremely well-established.” Following the release of Netflix’s TV show 13 Reasons Why, which some said valorized a fictional girl who killed herself, several studies found a spike in teen suicide rates. The CDC agrees. In a post warning about the dangers of “suicide contagion,” the CDC said that journalists should avoid things like:

“Engaging in repetitive, ongoing, or excessive reporting of suicide in the news.”

“Reporting ‘how-to’ descriptions of suicide.”

“Presenting suicide as a tool for accomplishing certain ends” (i.e., as a “means of coping with personal problems”).

But this is most of what the surveys described above are doing. They are deluging students with repetitive and excessive discussion of suicide. They are describing different methods for killing yourself (e.g., cutting or burning yourself). One survey, which asks students who have considered killing themselves why they did so (possible answers include “demands of schoolwork,” “problems with peers or friends,” and “being bullied”) is a textbook example of presenting suicide as a “means of coping with personal problems.”

The authors of these surveys seem to at least recognize the risk that students are flying upside down, and that these surveys might take them closer to the ground. One survey concludes by telling students, “If any survey questions or your responses have caused you to feel uncomfortable or concerned and you would like to talk to someone about your feelings, talk to your school’s counselor, to a teacher, or to another adult you trust.” The survey also includes links to different hotlines.

Communicating to kids that suicide is normal and a possible solution to their problems might be the worst way that some schools are failing kids, but it’s also far from the only way.

Schools are increasingly lax about standards, willing to let almost anyone get away with almost anything. Some accommodations do make sense: for example, it makes sense to give a kid with dyslexia more time to complete the verbal component of the SAT. But Shrier argues that standards are falling for perfectly healthy students too. “School counselors—students’ in-school ‘advocates,’” Shrier writes, now “lobby teachers to excuse lateness or absence, forgive missed classwork, allow a student to take walks around the school in the middle of class, ratchet grades upward, reduce or eliminate homework requirements, offer oral exams in place of written ones, and provide preferential seating to students who lack even an official diagnosis.”

Shrier documents stories of students who have been allowed to turn in work late because they were having a “tough Mental Health Day” or because “I was having a rough day and dealing with my gender identity.”

The problem with this is that one of the primary things that children and teenagers do is try to figure out the boundaries of the world. When a child throws a tantrum, it’s not malicious–they’re trying to understand this new world and figure out what they can get away with. As Jordan Peterson writes in Twelve Rules for Life, young children are “like blind people, searching for a wall.” “They have to push forward, and test,” he writes, “to see where the actual boundaries lie.” What’s true of young children is also true of older children and even (to a lesser extent) adults. All of us are trying to figure out the rules of life–that is, what we can get away with. If well-meaning teachers and counselors tell students that one of the rules is that you don’t have to do your homework on time if you say that you’re having a rough day, then we shouldn’t be surprised when more young people seem to manifest rough days.

But this is the opposite of what students need–especially the truly disadvantaged students who so many of these efforts seem to be aimed at helping. In his memoir Troubled, clinical psychologist Rob Henderson writes that, “People think that if a young guy comes from a disorderly or deprived environment, he should be held to low standards.” But, he warns, “this is misguided. He should be held to high standards. Otherwise, he will sink to the level of his environment.”

So kids are depressed, anxious, and poorly behaved. Educators are trying to help them by encouraging them to tap in more to their feelings, by asking them more questions about suicide, and by trying to accommodate their difficulties even more. But all of this is backwards. Educators are encouraging students to do what they think will take them higher–away from the ground and back to the safety of the sky. But both kids and educators are upside down. And every adjustment that the “experts” are telling kids to make just brings them closer to the ground–and a catastrophic collision.

Now’s a good time to emphasize that this isn’t all schools, all teachers, or all administrators–not by a long shot. There are heroic educators working every day to help students to rein in their problems, stop taking advantage of accommodations that they don’t need, and develop the emotional resilience to deal with the problems of adolescence. But the problems documented above do represent a trend. And while it’s not every school, the trend is too big to ignore.

What will happen if this trend continues–if an entire generation keeps going “up” until they crash into the ground? Most severe and most damaging is the harm to the generation itself. Shrier tells the story of Nora, a 16-year-old girl who helps put a human face on all of the brutal statistics described in the introduction to this piece. Nora describes her friends as going through a litany of serious mental health problems: “anxiety,” “depression”; “self-harm” (as Shrier notes, “lots of self-harm”) including “Scratching, cutting, anorexia,” “Trichotillomania” (pulling your hair out by the roots); and more. As Shrier writes, “Dissociative identity disorder, gender dysphoria, autism spectrum disorder, and Tourette’s belong on her list of once-rare disorders that are, among this rising generation, suddenly not so rare at all.”

But the dangers can also ripple out beyond just one generation. The full danger may be nothing less than an imperiling of our democracy.

As Shrier notes, many kids in school are almost constantly monitored. Her own kids have “recess monitors” at their school–“teachers who involve themselves in every disagreement at playtime and warn kids whenever the monkey bars might be slick with rain.” On the bus home, they have “bus monitors.” Better that kids know they’re being observed by an adult at all times than that one kid push another to give him his lunch money.

One of the most pervasive forms of monitoring is what are called “shadows”—ed techs or paraeducators whose job is to cling closely to one particular student so that they don’t have any issues. The original intention certainly made sense. If a child had autism, a shadow could help the kid to integrate into the main classroom rather than being sent to Special Ed. But, as Shrier notes, scope creep has been substantial. “Today,” she writes, “public schools assign shadows to follow kids with problems ranging from mild learning disabilities to violent tendencies.” Nor is the problem restricted to public schools: “private schools advise affluent parents to hire shadows to trail neurotypical kids for almost any reason.” Shadows monitor and guide almost every interaction with their chosen student, from when to raise her hand to how long to hug a fellow student.

As Peter Gray, professor of psychology at Boston College and an expert on child development, puts it, “Kids today are always under the situation of an observer. At home, the parents are watching them. At school, they’re being observed by teachers. Out of school, they’re in adult-directed activities. They have almost no privacy.”

But when kids spend their entire waking lives being monitored by an adult, they start to think that kind of monitoring is normal. Worse, they start to think that they need it. If a child gets constant guidance from an adult, what are the odds that she’s going to cultivate her own independence? If she expects authoritarian adults to monitor and run every aspect of her life already, what is she going to think of a liberal democracy that more-or-less leaves people free to handle their own affairs?

No wonder just 27 percent of Americans age 18-25 strongly agree with the statement that “Democracy may have problems, but it is the best system of government” (compared to 48 percent of Americans as a whole). 

So what’s the solution? If our kids are upside down and getting lower to the ground, then the only thing that makes sense is to help them reverse course. Is there something that’s the opposite of always asking them about their feelings, telling them that life is too much for them or their peers to cope with, and constantly telling them that they’re too fragile to do their homework if they’re having a rough day? Yes. That something is called antifragility.

Antifragility is the idea that whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. As social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression Greg Lukianoff note in The Coddling of the American Mind, kids are naturally antifragile. That doesn’t just mean that they’re tough. It means that “they require stressors and challenges in order to learn, adapt, and grow.” Not letting a kid hand in homework late doesn’t just teach them to do their homework on time; it also teaches them that they can deal with a 0 in class and not die. They can pick themselves up, brush themselves off, and even earn an A in the class overall if they bust a sweat for the rest of the semester. Telling a kid who’s having a “tough mental health day” that you’re sorry to hear it but they still need to take today’s test doesn’t just teach the kid that low-level excuses don’t fly; it also teaches them that a hard day isn’t enough to stop them. It teaches them that they’re stronger than whatever negative emotions they’re currently experiencing.

It’s time to remind kids that they are strong–before it’s too late.

All quotes not otherwise attributed come from Abigail Shrier’s book Bad Therapy.

-

About the Authors

Julian Adorney is a Contributing Writer to FAIR’s Substack and the founder of Heal the West, a Substack movement dedicated to preserving and protecting Western civilization. You can find him on X at @Julian_Liberty.

Mark Johnson is a trusted advisor and executive coach at Pioneer Performance Partners and a facilitator and coach at The Undaunted Man. He has more than 25 years of experience optimizing people and companies. He blogs at The Undaunted Man’s Substack.

Geoff Laughton is a Relationship Architect/Coach, multiple-International Best-Selling Author, Speaker, and Workshop Leader. He is the founder of The Undaunted Man. He has spent the last twenty-six years coaching people world-wide, with a particular passion for supporting those in relationship, and helping men from all walks of life step up to their true potential.

[kjwongsbrain]

A successful creative is almost an oxymoron. Not because it does not exist, but simply because it is such a rarity that the idea of intentionally setting out to be a successful creative could be considered a fool’s endeavor. Despite the fact that the status of mild significance has been democratized thanks to the emergence of digital social platforms and the lowering of the barrier of entry for content production and distribution, the statistics still reflect that the number of creatives that achieve a level of notoriety or fame to be considered significant is but a miniscule reflection of the sum total of all the individuals attempting to be those creatives. I would posit that the statistic actually hasn’t changed and what we are seeing isn’t necessarily an increase in the percentage of success due to the democratisation of the process, but rather a result of pure brute force quantity. Even if the success rate of something is a thousandth of a percent, when you have a billion people attempting it, the result is going to be a hundred thousand success stories. That’s just math for you.

I am not, however, in the business of discussing the actual rise of the social celebrity thanks to the proliferation of public internet platforms, but rather the thing that I wish to discuss is the way in which these successful individuals seem to achieve their levels of success, the ideas to which they attribute their ability to rise to the top, their preached methods of replicating that success, and also why I believe the vast majority of it is but a sea of worthless platitudes. I do also believe that much of it is either wrong, or bad, or both. 

In order to afford this rather long and unnecessary rant some level of structure, I’m going to attempt to weave my thoughts around three central points. The first being my thoughts on the concept of quiet excellence, then how the world is constantly proving me wrong, and lastly why I believe I’m right nonetheless. 

First, some background. All sound arguments require a competent amount of context, a standard to which I shall comply.

I have been a lifelong creative. My credentials as a professional creative may lend weight to that statement, but I truly do believe that the core of my very being was to harness and process the creative energy that resides within my brain. Still, it is quite a bold proclamation especially when the stuff I was creating when I was a young child can hardly be distinguished from any other nonsense from any other random children. I would counter by saying that creativity should never only be judged by its output, but rather its process. And I think my processes were mostly creative, at least as far as I can remember. I’ve dabbled in creative endeavors in multiple disciplines. I was a professional musician for a significant portion of my adult career, and I have dabbled in the fields of writing, poetry, filmmaking, and, most recently, woodworking. But beyond those disciplines traditionally regarded as being creative disciplines, I have also applied much of that same creative energy into much more regular tasks like cooking, home repair, storage solutions - the limits of the applications of creativity are only bound by your, well, creativity. A creative exponent if you will, creative squared. I’ve recently started challenging the traditional interpretation of the right brain versus left brain theory of creative and artistic tendencies or thought processes versus analytical or mathematical tendencies or thought processes. For as long as I can remember, I have been in possession of both. And as far as I can tell, they are not in opposition with one another, but instead find their roots in similar soil. The largest perpetrators of this idea come in the form of management trainers, or any other profession of that same ilk. Their concept of splitting the movers and the shakers into fields of either creative thought or analytical thought serve only to sell the opportunity to tell anyone or any corporation that they have one but lack the other. It’s a smart business strategy if you think about it. Divide the world into two very vague groups of individuals, arbitrarily determine the strengths and weaknesses of each, then actively tell willing paying clients which ones they are and which ones they need to hire immediately. I can assure you that history and science are on my side if you try your best to research the topic any further than a basic ‘left brian vs right brain’ google search. Maybe perhaps the idea that there are hemispheres in the brian that are decidedly involved in different types of thought is sound, but the idea that one is largely dominant in all individuals is demonstrably bogus.

To take things further, the reason I mention this is because I genuinely do think that the analytical, logical, and systematic mind is in fact the same thought factory as the creative, innovative, and artistic one. Some scientific studies have demonstrated that logical puzzle solving triggers the same pleasure centers of the brain as different creative expressions. I’ve also delved before into discussions regarding the nature of where creativity even comes from, and there can be very little room for nurturing creativity without the existence of systems to begin with. So one has to process the understanding of these systems in a logical and analytical way in order to then use them to harness the concept of creativity. I won’t rehash my statements here because I’ve already made another video discussing these ideas in the past, but I will summarize that I do believe that the nature of creativity is nestled between the traditionally understood dichotomy of the left and right brain. 

I am getting distracted.

Creativity is very often a personal journey. It can also prove incredibly fruitful in a much more collaborative environment, but its development and growth and eventual application is often the responsibility of the individual alone. A creative subjects themselves willingly to the rigorous and often unglamorous, repetitive ritual of practice and honing of their skills with close to no external motivating factors other than the simple desire to be better at it. One does not, for instance, practice painting the waves of foam on a sandy beach because it leads to better digestion, or a growth in pectoral muscles. One does not refine their ability to play Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata because it magically summons comfortable beds into existence, or McDonalds Happy Meals. One masters their craft simply to master it, for no other validation other than the validation of self. Or at least it begins that way. 

This natural introversion is often what stifles the ability of a creative to find any level of social success. We spend far too much time in our own little caves, whittling away at the spear points of our desired craft, spending lengthy periods of time away from the people that we then show up in front of with our sharpest pointy points seeking some kind of approval or recognition of just how pointy our pointy points are. The only problem here being that while we were doing this, the people who we are trying very hard to convince that this in itself is an achievement have been taking their own not so pointy points and using them to actually generate resources and wellbeing for the entire community. Sure, ours is way pointier, but has yet to find a purpose in the thick of it all. 

What often goes unmentioned is that no matter how ridiculous the endeavor is, no matter how unnecessary or impractical our chosen spear point is, no matter how much time might seem wasted whittling away at it while other clearly more productive activities could have been achieved, there lies the instinctive desire to share the products of creativity.

The saying goes, if a tree falls in the forest and none hears it, does it still make a sound? A silly philosophical pursuit, but only because the tree isn’t afforded any agency in the example. The tree does not exhibit any desire to tell anyone else of the noise it has made. 

But if a jazz musician plays the greatest solo in the world in the middle of that forest and nobody is there to hear it, is music still made? Whatever the answer is, you can be sure the musician will refuse to stop telling everyone about it. The strong and human desire to share the creative craft is embedded deep into their natural being. Even in the extreme cases where the creation process ends in the destruction of the final piece, the creative will still call witnesses to the destruction and demise of the piece because that was the whole point of the entire effort. And at the same time, a regular creative with a regular personality and a regular participant in a regular community will quickly note that they should not immediately behave as though whatever they have achieved is in fact the greatest achievement in the history of humanity. That would be bragging, and nobody likes that. The creative also can understand the sheer redundancy of the result when compared with the pragmatism of the rest of the world. So one must ingratiate their creative accomplishments to the rest of the community in order to foster a proper understanding of why the creative thinks the achievement is noteworthy to begin with. I believe the very first attempts to do this were modest. My flailing understanding of history and anthropology suggests that early endeavors such as these were often met with sticks and stones instead of praise. Or at the very least, public scorn. And at the very worst, maybe being burnt at the stake.

Present day climates will prove that the creatives did in fact, very slowly perhaps, successfully ingratiate themselves and their endeavors to the rest of the purely pragmatic crowd, which is very much a reflection of where we find ourselves today. 

At some point in history, the scales do tip in the opposite direction. I suppose it happens as society progresses to higher and higher levels of public health and safety, economic wealth and prosperity, political stability, and all other forms of human progress. Once the hunger meter is kept down, the walls put up to defend against the zombies or whatever, and the fever kept at bay by technology and nutrition, the appreciation for the pointiest of points becomes something not quite so unfathomable as it once was. I believe this is what gives rise to the growth in excellence of leisurely activities like sports, art, cuisine, music, literature, and all other mediums of creative expression. When society no longer has to worry about the things that will quite efficiently bring about its demise, then there is time and space to appreciate the finer things. I do say all of this with no real reason to have any authority on the topic whatsoever, save for the fact that it makes a whole lot of sense in my own brain. 

And so now, instead of being at the bottom end of the societal hierarchy, the creative rises to the top. It is indeed marvelous how pointy the pointy point is. The fact that the creative did in fact spend a ridiculous number of hours refining and honing that previously almost unproductive skill has now become a heralded achievement, an exemplar of hard work and dedication to be followed by all in whatever they do. Suddenly, the achievements of the creative outweigh that which was once of the utmost importance. Where once society perhaps made famous the person who brought home the largest animal of the hunt, now it makes famous the person that makes the largest and most beautiful animal out of clay.

From anonymity to notoriety. From notoriety to glory. There is still a caveat. As I mentioned, the idea of a successful or glorified creative is a statistical super minority. So while it may seem as though the world would be bursting at the seams with all varieties of pointy point whittlers, the reality is that few ever become them. 

I am, however, getting ahead of myself. I’d like to cycle back to the earlier discussion about the introversion that accompanies the creative activity. As mentioned, much of this journey is done in silence, in private, and sometimes in secret. Before the widespread acceptance of creative undertakings, one would not survive the slightest bit of boasting about it. No one would dare proclaim ‘come watch me whittle the pointy point to the pointiest of points!’. Maybe some did, but I would imagine it never went well for them. 

This is where I think the concept of quiet excellence comes from. Because of how bespoke the skill is, and because of how little of its progression is ultimately on display, or because of how little people care generally, the results have to speak for themselves. I will not shout about what I am doing and why I think you should be paying attention, but I will win you over with pure competence. You may not understand why I am painting the ceiling when it is already holding itself up and stopping the weather from coming in, and I will not ask you to pay attention while I am doing it. When I am done with my chapel ceiling, however, you will come to understand the years I poured into this and it will all have made perfect sense.

Quiet excellence is perhaps the biggest weapon in the arsenal of the creative, but it is a razor sharp double edged sword. On the one hand, it effectively validates all the work the creative puts into their craft, all the hours spent doing something that at the time felt completely worthless. On the other, the level of excellence that must be achieved is completely unforgiving. If the chapel ceiling was anything less than Sistine, they would’ve hung dear Michael at the first glance upwards.

And perhaps there is one more layer to this. As a creative individual myself, I have to hold true to the idea that excellence does in fact speak for itself. It must. It does not require advocacy because it is inherently beautiful and valuable and desirable. That has to be true because that is the only thing that drives us to pursue it in the first place. It does not bring nor sustain life in any real tangible manner, but yet it does. It must. And so both components of quiet excellence complement each other because the quiet allows the excellence room to speak, and the excellence doing all the talking enables the quiet. It seems so foundational to almost any creative endeavor.

Even as we progress through the turn of the societal perception of creative undertakings towards acceptance and then marvel, the ideas of quiet excellence seem to continue to ring true. There are countless creatives in all fields pursuing and perfecting their craft, releasing their completed works into the public with little to no pomp and circumstance with the understanding that the excellence will in fact draw in the attention from those who understand it and appreciate it. Excellence will find its audience. Make it amazing, and the masses will know.

If you’re an aspiring creative, this sounds painfully familiar to you. 

With this idea firmly established, we can now return to the idea of success. One of the many trappings of fame and success, especially the kind of widespread success that often accompanies creatives in our current society, is its ability to inspire. Creatives often celebrate the fact that their excellence in any craft inspires another generation of creatives to pursue that same path, to strive for even higher levels of excellence never before seen or achieved by any person. In the present climate of creative acclaim that can potentially be achieved, more and more harbor the aspirations to reach that same acclaim. 

And creatives, at least those that have a belief and understanding in the value of the created work itself instead of value solely in the creator, are more than happy to share their philosophy of how to achieve that success and acclaim. And most of them, based on their own personal experience with the journey towards creative success, share the same story - quiet excellence. There are many reasons to want to preach this philosophy, not just the simple fact that it is true. One of them is the fact that loudness doesn’t play very well with projected excellence. Most of the time, loudness is the compensation for the lack of excellence, much like loud cars and small dicks. Another is simply because of the amount of time spent in the honing and refining period, the ecosystem of the creative universe greatly benefits from the relative quiet. While I would dare say that most activities in life would certainly benefit from an overall atmosphere of quiet no matter what, the need to be unbothered by circumstances and surroundings in order to focus on the creative task at hand is particularly intertwined with this quiet nature. To foster this quiet atmosphere is not only in the interest of the end results of that quiet, but it is also for the sake of the other creatives in the ecosystem. Yet another reason to perpetuate this mantra of quiet excellence would be the fact that the perception of a particular creative endeavor is often formed around the perception of the people involved in that endeavor. And loudness tends to also be associated with a lack of seriousness, or a lack of respect. No creative would wish for the presence of loud individuals in their creative community after having spent a significant amount of time trying to legitimize the quality of the creative work through quiet excellence. We must pause here and ask a very obvious question - is there not such a thing as loud excellence? 

Yes, there is, but think of how exactly you perceive an individual who is both loud and excellent. You almost begrudgingly accept whatever accomplishments come from that individual. You might even brush them off as lady luck’s inebriated patronage due to the sheer size of the ego in question. You’d be looking for every fault in their work to be able to call the achievements into question. You’d be waiting and watching to see the moment of their supposedly inevitable collapse. And even if they continue to prove you wrong with their success, you don’t accept it. Not willingly anyway, and certainly not with the same level of respect. This is why it is so important to preserve this notion of quiet excellence.

And of course the other end of the spectrum would be quiet mediocrity, which is more commonly known as just being ordinary. And the last of the four quadrants would be loud mediocrity, which is associated with buffoonery. Or politicians.

To take this concept and apply it to the most current arena of creatives and aspiring creatives, we can look to the world of social platforms and content creators. We will have to gloss over many of the talking points with regards to older distribution media and gatekeeping and the debate surrounding the democratisation of internet media and whether or not it is a net positive or negative for the world. We will instead accept our reality and focus instead on the pathway to this new level of creative success as demonstrated by its largest contributors. This will, however, not be our single example in part two of where I’m taking this train of thought because the exploration of how the philosophy of quiet excellence has seemingly been abandoned by the population at large does not only demonstrate itself within the arena of internet media but in all creative fields. 

Before we get there, I will conclude this first section with the note that most creators with any level of recognition on the newest of these platforms, especially those who were early into the space and brought with them traditional practices and values associated with their creative fields, when asked about the path to their success often cited the philosophy of quiet excellence, or at the very least some variation of it. Make something good and it will find its audience. Like a Monty Oum that released a Dead Fantasy into the world without also skywriting the URL across the Rhode Island sky, or a Roosterteeth for that matter that released a RvB without any real means of making sure people watched it other than by the reputation of its quality alone. But even beyond the confines of the internet, you will hear this story repeated again and again as aspiring creatives seek out the advice of their heroes who have achieved a level of success they’d like to replicate. That one burger stall that just made the best burgers they ever could instead of splashing their advertisements across every possible square inch of New York subway hallways. The musician that spent their years quietly honing their skills in front of smaller audiences right before getting their big break in the industry. The comedian that slogged away night after night refining and honing that simple ten minute set till it was absolute perfection finally receiving critical acclaim for their Netflix special. It’s the same story over and over. Head down, nose to the grindstone, get good at what you do, and the success will follow. 

But how true is this really? 

My position is biased. I must admit to this fact and the context I provided for my own creative endeavors is to confirm this in your opinion of me, not to hide it. But I am also abjectly aware of the existence of confirmation bias and echo chambers which allows me to openly observe and welcome the opposing opinion. I invite it into my cage of belief and I wrestle with it to see if my opinions are as robust as I claim them to be. This is no different.

Where do we even begin to chart the steady decline of the foundational principle of quiet excellence? I might be tempted to throw the blame at the rise of the advertising industry. And yes it is very much an industry in every sense of the word. I view it as a great machine of a thousand moving parts with terrifyingly dangerous appendages, clothed in billows of nefarious poison smoke with a heart of glowing uranium at its center sending shades of comically green radiation through its evil eyes or whatever a machine’s interpretation of a face would be. A machine that has dug its tendrils into so many facets of our lives and integrated itself into the very living structure of the world that it is nigh impossible to be rid of it no matter how much we may despise it. My language might suggest that I do indeed blame this machine. Fine, I’ll admit it. I do blame it. It is somewhat hilarious to me that some of the earliest discovered examples of any kind of advertising were tied to political undertakings. Advertisements for political campaigns were found in the ruins of Pompeii and Arabia. As already sardonically alluded to, politics is perhaps in the exact opposite quadrant of the quiet excellence of the creatives. And so it would be in fact the poison of the industry associated with politics that subverted that once highly regarded philosophy. Even if we will not blame politics for once, the great machine of advertising served only one master - capitalism. The growth of wealth quickly became the pursuit to end all pursuits. You can rationalise the necessity of this great evil by demonstrating how population growth and increase in demand needed a facilitator to connect them to the supply. The one thing about quiet excellence is that it requires patience because while the excellence does speak for itself, the quietness makes the process a lot slower. And a slow pace is not exactly the recipe for the expedited growth of wealth. So what was recommended instead was a high pitched shriek that would spread far and wide, piercing through the opacity of the masses and signalling to all to ‘buy this shit right here because the money you give me will undoubtedly make your life that much better’. 

As you can tell, this runs counter to the idea of quiet excellence just as much as our political advertising example. The concept of making something so good that it warranted someone else’s attention was quickly replaced by the idea that you could grab their attention first, then use whatever means you could to convince them that what you had was good, whether it was or not. The rise of the industrial machine of advertising was further fueled by the rise of industry itself. The printing press turbocharged the ability for advertising to shriek louder than it had ever done before. And radio and television transmission gave the shrieking beast a microphone hooked up to that comically large speaker in Back to the Future. Then good old Ronald Reagan shoved it speedingly down a hill before it soared off the ramp that is the internet. 

What makes the story ever more tragic is the fact that this worked. The advertising industry won. They successfully convinced not just the general public, but every single industry out there including the creative ones, that they held the keys to success and they could bring upon all of us the wealth of kings. They turned the creators into vendors and hawkers, the creations into products, and the public into consumers, all beholden to the singular power of money. 

Businesses became popular not on the strength of their excellent products, but by the loudness of their advertising campaigns. Food chains drummed up success by engaging the efforts of the parasitical influencers that plague our society instead of simply making the best cuisine they could. Film production companies spent equal amounts of resources on making the actual artistic work as they did marketing said artistic work, shouting it to the entire world and plastering their teal and orange posters on every available inch of public real estate. Offer your sacrifices to the great mechanical beast called advertising and it will reward you with riches beyond your wildest imagination. Such was the new message preached.

This toxicity might have found its place among the fight for the consumers’ attention, but its perforation into the world of creativity is where it manifests its ugliest head. Where sales of food and clothing and other more regular products might not have necessarily needed to embrace the philosophy of quiet excellence due to their nature of being fundamental necessities, the non-essential creative endeavor almost certainly did. Quiet excellence was the creative’s way to win over those unfamiliar with the practice in question. It was exactly because it was not shrieked that it was accepted and eventually revered. The beast of advertising would disagree. The all consuming machine added creative work to its menu and reduced it to a mere product, another thing that can simply be sold. 

The larger problem with this is that it is a tantalising proposition. Creative endeavors require resources, not just in the form of personal sacrifices by the creative individual. While the pursuit of the creative endeavor is rewarding in of itself and is often the main motivating factor to the creative, the reality is that sustenance still comes in the material form and the creative is still housed in a squishy human body which rather unfortunately does not run on grass. The more money made, the more creative endeavors can be undertaken. Unfortunately this isn’t even the end of it. It is already beguiling enough given the fact that most creatives are often so deeply engrossed in the process of being creative that they often forget or forsake their own personal requirements, sometimes as plain as forgetting to shove calories into their bodies. No, the poisonous words of the advertising machine go far deeper than that. They whisper into the ear of the creative much like Wormtongue does into the ear of Theoden, telling them that if they’ve worked so hard on something and spent all that time and energy and money taking it to the highest levels of excellence that they can achieve, then people ought to know. It would be a shame if nobody knew of this delicious bowl of ramen that you’ve perfected over the last 10 years. It would be a waste if your months of work on that chainsaw carving went unseen by the public. Your creative accomplishments deserve to be noticed by as many people as possible. We can help you with that. 

So the contract is completed, the unholy marriage of creativity and business conducted and consummated. Sell your upheld values of quiet excellence and in return receive all the validation and praise and glory and wealth that you truly deserve. And more, perhaps.

The ecosystem of creativity has been invaded by successful harbingers of loud mediocrity. Maybe that’s a little harsh, but there is definitely now a departure from the corner of quiet excellence and a significant representation of the entire spectrum from quiet to loud. The noise level increases exponentially, and the only way to fight it is with equivalent noise. Where once the preachers of quiet excellence cultivated a community of modesty and quality, the esteemed halls of creativity have now been turned into shouting matches, all vying for attention whether deserved or not. Consumerism falls victim to these shouting matches, believing that the loudest voices are the ones to be paid the most attention. The discerning individual is still able to appreciate the practitioners of quiet excellence but it requires a dedicated level of seeking in order to find them buried under the sea of noise. 

The creatives are told to maintain a social media profile, to post regularly and capitalise on the most recent of trends. They are told to learn how to market themselves because it is the only way to gain any level of success in the modern world. They are told that it is now of equal importance to both learn the art of the craft and learn the art of selling the craft. The creatives are told to document the process as the consumer seeks for some notion of authenticity in the sea of noise, not realising that the notion of authenticity has already become part of noise. The creatives are shown metrics to convince them to participate in the many algorithmically driven advertisement campaigns on multiple platforms. The creatives are told that if you do not do these things, it does not matter how excellent you are.

The ironic thing is that the more the creatives embrace this loudness, the more the excellent part of it also goes away. What we find is that not only are the practitioners of quiet excellence consistently being outnumbered, but those that abandon their notion of quiet also forgo their excellence and become one of the enemies. Just like zombies. Every death is not just a reduction in our numbers, but an increase in theirs. 

And this is where we find ourselves today. In a world of celebrated mediocrity. The Noodle House that is perfectly average generating queues of hundreds of people each day because some self declared Key Opinion Leader said that it was the best that they ever had. The musician who plays covers of songs that anyone could with a moderate amount of practice getting millions more views than some of the most established artists in the world simply by throwing on a metric ton of makeup and showing a little bit more skin in their constant Instagram flooding. The 5 minute craft ideas that objectively contain more lies than truth outshining genuine craftspeople because they have an army of robots promoting their garbage across hundreds of channels. The plastering of celebrity over every conceivable consumer product just so it can outsell everything around it regardless of quality.

If ever there was a nightmare universe for creatives, this would be it.

The temptation to succumb to the noise and participate in it is all too palpable. There is no other way. Fuck it, I’ll make an Instagram page. 

I am tempted to end this here because my love of bleak narratives and my genuine enjoyment of any kind of subversion of a happy ending makes this the perfect point to end this already unnecessarily long and nearly incoherent ramble. But I cannot. Because there is another way. It has been staring at us the entire time. Quiet excellence. 

It has to still be true. It must. I have to believe it. I must believe it. I do believe it. The world is wrong. Despite how often it seems to be right.

If you’re a struggling creative, then I shall attempt to be your balm in this nonsensical world you find yourself in. I shall be a guardian of the beacon of hope for those of you who despise how necessary it seems to immerse yourself in the commerce of your creativity. I shall be your refuge from the endless social media platforms accosting you and demanding your presence there. Together we shall hold our middle fingers high and wave them at fucking Tik Tok. 

I choose to believe that excellence still does speak for itself and those that will listen to it are the only people that I really should care about. Even if those people are solely my wife and my mom, then so be it. The great Bill Waterson wrote that his endeavors were always for the amusement of his wife, Melissa, and himself. I choose not to prostitute myself on the streets of consumerism. I will hide within the walls that keep me safe while I whittle away at my pointy point. Those that hear the sound of my tinkering, smell the dust from my tools, and see the sparks of joy firing out from the space under my door, they shall be my audience and them alone. Our pledge to quiet excellence is ultimately an exploration of how we determine our own success, and whether we finally choose to conform to how the world defines it. As long as the success of creativity and the arts is in how pointy the pointiest of points is, then quiet excellence will forever be your sacred home. The success of a creative endeavor should never be defined by how many people perceive it to be so. Many will say that the excellence of something as ephemeral as creativity and art is far too subjective to have any kind of quantifiable metric. These are the same people trying to uphold the unholy marriage of business and creativity, of commerce and art. 

But that is not my only retort. I believe that creative excellence can be quantified. And it can be quantified in very similar metrics. The only danger is that they may sometimes seem so similar to those opposed to quiet excellence that one is tempted to argue that they might as well be the same thing. But it is not. Where one uses the simple metric of eyeballs and popularity and clothe it in the veneer of something seemingly more meaningful like ‘engagement’, there is in fact a metric of true engagement. The engagement metric that ought to matter must also be accompanied by the scale of difficulty through which that engagement manifests. 

Engagement in the form of a ‘like’ on Facebook or a comment on Youtube, or an upvote on Reddit, is far too cheap for it to count for anything. It is perhaps why the faceless algorithm sees positive and negative feedback as the same thing for the cost to do so is near nothing that any value in the content of that engagement is rendered completely worthless. When the cost becomes realised, however, the actual content of the engagement becomes something worth taking into account. Let us, for example, put an arbitrary price on the ability to leave a comment on this very article. Ten dollars. Only then can you say whatever you want about this nonsense here. If anyone chooses to pay such a toll simply to have their opinion on a matter heard, then the opinion suddenly becomes something far more serious than one thrown around for free, whether positive or negative. 

Of course the problem with using this as an example is that the currency of, well, currency is quite a bit broken in our world today due to the imbalanced nature of global economics. There are people with certainly far too much money that would not consider this toll to be of any value at all and would gladly pay it to leave a poo emoji behind, or a real turd if they could. Then there are many who would desire to engage in a positive way that do not have the resources to do so and their opinions are certainly no less valuable than an expensive poo emoji. So while the idea of putting a price on engagement should not be taken seriously, the principle behind the idea still stands. The value of engagement must be weighed according to the cost or difficulty through which it manifests.

A loving piece of fan-art crafted by an ardent follower of a fantasy series over hours and hours of painstaking labor is by far more valuable than any number of anonymous clicks on any social media platform. An audience member that waited the extra thirty minutes into the night to make sure they could say how wonderful the show was to the performers on stage far exceeds the value of twenty thousand likes on a youtube video. The person that strikes up a conversation to know every detail about a handmade item when buying it. That one evangelist that organizes group outings to their favourite restaurant just so they can see their friends experience what they know is amazing for the first time. The host of a watch party for one of their favourite movies that did not get much attention or screenings in their area. 

The appreciation of quiet excellence is as expensive as quiet excellence itself. Or at least it should be. Only then does it carry any weight at all. 

This is the metric through which the excellence of creativity ought to be measured, to hell with what everyone else says. All other metrics serve to measure the excellence of the marketing of creativity, not the excellence of the creativity itself, and as creatives we are in service to the excellence of the creative work and it alone. Nothing else. 

The world rejects this metric. Most of what we know of how the world chooses to function these days has been corrupted by materialism and capitalism. There are no metrics for humanity, no metrics for empathy and compassion, no metrics for morality or charity, no metrics for humility or responsibility. The reductive power of wealth and money has rendered all other objectively measurable qualities inconsequential, or worse, undesirable. It is why basic human rights and living conditions are so easily sacrificed for the sake of making a green number bigger. 

We must reject this rejection. And if we search deep within the heart and soul of a creative, deep into the very essence of what birthed the creative to begin with, we find that the natural proclivity of all creatives is towards creativity for the sake of itself, nothing else. Creatives start out this way, we all know this to be true. Any diversion from this model is but a corruption of the creative entity, succumbing to the overwhelming power of undeserving external forces that demand to be exalted above the creative endeavor. It is a betrayal to turn away from the desire to excel in our creative field for the sake of fucking TikTok views. 

So this is where I choose to make my stand. While many aspects of the global ecosystem have no appreciation whatsoever for any kind of quiet excellence in any field, while it continually rewards the marketing of creativity as much as or sometimes more than the creativity itself, while every example of definable success around us is a ratification of the unholy marriage of commerce and art, I choose not to participate in it. I am a servant of my own creativity. I will abandon all else for the sake of its excellence. No ounce of energy will be spent on any amount of noise, any amount of boasting, any amount of sales and marketing. I will believe the creative work speaks for itself. I must. 

This is perhaps where the stones will come. This is perhaps where I will be labeled as a sanctimonious prick, perhaps deservedly so. Many would call this bitterness, jealousy and envy towards the rewarding harvest of loud mediocrity. The fear of such labels is real. It reminds us of the time long ago when the whittling of the pointiest points would have drawn scorn from the ones actually keeping society alive. And this is where quiet excellence once again is the answer. For as long as I remain quiet and hidden away, the stones will never land. The labels will be on my closed door, not on me. It is quiet excellence that becomes the shield against persecution for appearing to be such self aggrandizing creatives. 

Perhaps the writing of this rant is in itself dissonant from the principle of quiet excellence that I profess to uphold. But it is also the fact that few will ever read this and I have no real desire to shout this in any public square that demonstrates my willingness to embrace the quiet. And I will take the opportunity to ask that you embrace the quiet yourselves. The idea that creative work is its own reward is the guiding light that allows for its continuous growth and survival, and its biggest detractor is the idea that the creative work inherently deserves to be seen and it is by this singular metric of visual appreciation that success be defined. This is a lie, despite how practically true it may seem right now. 

The desire for recognition and validation is impossible to separate from creativity, but it must not supercede the desire to undertake the endeavor for the sake of the undertaking. This will be what defines a true creative from those who start their creative journey with a pre-existing determination of success already written on the white board of achievables and goals. This isn't a gesture of gatekeeping, nor a cynical and judgemental discrimination against the many other creatives in the space today, nor is it even a coping mechanism for my comparative lack of success by the metrics of the world, but it is a plea for the sake of creative endeavors across all mediums. It is time to end the slop. 

This idea will flow into many other conversations, like the one surrounding the proliferation of artificial intelligence in the mediums of creativity, or the destruction of creative livelihoods by vast corporations and streaming platforms. As the monetization of art continues to be at odds with the art in question, the artist’s only remaining course of action is not to combat it, but to dissociate. The war cannot be won, it must be abandoned. Some would consider that defeat, succumbing to the continued rise of democratized platforms that reduce all artforms and creative endeavors into pleas for popularity and turn creatives into slaves of sales and marketing. The admission that it is but a necessary evil is perhaps a concession that is already far too compromising. Perhaps that is the line that must be drawn, no matter how many have already gone past it. Much like how the poison of ubiquitous media in the world of political truths and propaganda has slowly awakened us to the reality that one cannot win the fight against untruth with truth alone, the poison of the overwhelming success of the loud mediocrity in the world of creativity has shown us that you cannot fight the flood of this mediocrity by producing excellence in its territory. You can't flood the platforms with the highest quality of creativity, hoping that it would eventually tip the scales of the algorithm and prevent it from promoting the slop. That too is part of the lie, that we can make the platforms better overall by simply making better art on it. 

This has to end somewhere. 

A successful creative is almost an oxymoron. But perhaps we ought not to even care about what defines the success of a creative and indulge in the creativity alone. Perhaps there doesn't need to be such a thing as success when we consider creative fields. Perhaps it is time to try and divorce the union of art and commerce. We may be shackled to the monster of capitalism but to hell with trying to be its roommate. Like a monk retreating to the mountains in search of tranquility and enlightenment, I shall retreat to my hallowed halls of quiet excellence. And if I should die without the recognition I am told to hunger for, then I shall die without it. But I will have submitted into the world a pointy point which has never been seen or conceived of before, and that will be enough. 

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Grist:

When the Racetrac chain of convenience stores was deciding whether to install electric vehicle chargers, project lead Rushi Patel started with a blank Excel sheet and a lot of questions. Did the financials make sense? Where is the best to install them? What features should they have? The answers to questions like these could go a long way toward establishing an economic argument for building out America’s public EV charging infrastructure.

“We found our guests using new types of fuels, like electrons, and we wanted to be with them as part of that journey,” said Patel, the diversified energy manager at Metroplex Energy, a subsidiary of Racetrac. But he was clear that “it’s important to have an offer that does make money.” 

Patel slowly started to populate his spreadsheet in 2021, filling cells with EV adoption rates, utility prices, construction costs and a range of other metrics. He also took the company’s executives on a two-hour tour of charging spots in Atlanta, where Racetrac is based. One was tucked behind a shopping plaza, the other was deep within the bowels of a mall garage. It was clear to them that Racetrac could do better.

Two years later, Racetrac installed its first Level 3 fast charger in Oxford, Alabama — complete with the company’s logo and a canopy to shade people from the sun as they pump electrons. It has since opened seven more in three states. So far, he said, “[the business model] is holding up pretty well.”

Those eight chargers are among the 61,000 that blanket the country, a figure that has more than doubled since 2022. The increase comes as mounting evidence shows EV charging stations can be a boon to businesses, and not only by selling electricity. 

A recent study in the journal Nature Communications looked at chargers in California and found that, pre-pandemic, businesses saw an average annual boost of $1,500 when at least one of the devices stood nearby. Another paper examined Tesla Supercharger installations nationally and saw they brought a 4 percent increase in visitors to a business. The effect was particularly pronounced if the chargers were within 500 feet, and if it was the first one in the area. This boon is due to the fact that it can take 30 minutes or more to fully charge an EV, giving drivers plenty of time to shop.

“The places that tend to get the biggest bump, is the place that aligns with how long it takes you to charge your car,” said Gordon Burtch, an author of the paper and a professor of information systems at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business. “Sit-down restaurants aren’t benefiting as much as fast-food restaurants.”

[hazbinhazbinhazbinreblog]

Alastor: Alright, explain the terms of this particular contract you have here.

Vox: Uh, well…

Alastor: According to this contract—

Vox: According to the contract I'm able to obtain 30% of revenue from the TV stations, which increases to 35% during times of high viewership!

Alastor: So during turf wars that means…?

Vox: I earn 35% of the revenue, which means that according to the data, they've been neglecting to give it to me!

Alastor: Excellent! …where are you going?

Vox: Home, of course. We finished going over a third of my contracts. Besides it's not like the next Overlord meeting is anytime soon, right? But, uh…do you think I'll make the cut? There's a lot of demons who wanna become Overlords.

Alastor: Hm, interesting.

Vox: What?

Alastor: Well, I predict that you will probably pass—

Vox: Yes!

Alastor: —in the bottom percent of that class.

Vox: What?

Alastor: If you're going for mediocre, you've done great.

Vox: That's not fair.

Alastor: Look Vox, when I died and started working for my power at first they laughed at me. Just like they're laughing at you right now. You can't regain your power if you don't keep working for it. To win you have to follow through with things. Now, I would suggest that you stay over. I have a spare room you can use. We can continue going over your contracts that way.

Vox, smiling: You got me there. Why do you always have to be right?

Eats this /pos I'm banging my fists on a table

[cindylouwho-2]

RECENT SEO & MARKETING NEWS FOR ECOMMERCE, JULY 2024

If you are new to my Tumblr, I usually do these summaries of SEO and marketing news once a month, picking out the pieces that are most likely to be useful to small and micro-businesses.

You can get notified of these updates plus my website blog posts via email: http://bit.ly/CindyLouWho2Blog or get all of the most timely updates plus exclusive content by supporting my Patreon: patreon.com/CindyLouWho2

TOP NEWS & ARTICLES 

There is a relatively new way to file copyright claims against US residents, called The Copyright Claims Board (CCB). I wrote more here [post by me on Patreon]

After a few years of handwringing and false starts, Google is abandoning plans to block third-party cookies in Chrome. Both Safari and Firefox already block them. 

When composing titles and text where other keywords are found, it can be useful to have a short checklist of the types of keywords you need, as this screenshot demonstrates. While that title is too long for most platforms and search engines, it covers really critical points that should get mentioned in the product description and keyword fields/tags as well:

The core keywords that describe the item

What the customer is looking to do - solve a problem? Find a gift? Feel better? 

What makes the product stand out in its field - why buy this instead of something else? Differentiating your items is something that should come before you get to the listing stage, so the keywords should already be in your head. 

Relevant keywords that will be used in long tail searches are always great add-ons.

What if anything about your item is trendy now? E.g., sustainability? Particular colours, styles or materials/ingredients are always important.  

SEO: GOOGLE & OTHER SEARCH ENGINES 

Google’s June spam update has finished rolling out. And here is the full list of Google news from June. 

Expect a new Google core update “in the coming weeks” (as if we needed more Google excitement).

Google’s AI overviews continue to dwindle at the top of search results, now only appearing in 7% of searches.

Despite Google trying to target AI spam, many poorly-copied articles still outrank the originals in Google search results. 

Internal links are important for Google SEO. While this article covers blogging in particular, most of the tips apply to any standalone website. Google also recently did a video [YouTube] on the same topic. 

Google had a really excellent second quarter, mostly due to the cloud and AI. 

Not Google

OpenAI is testing SearchGPT with a small number of subscribers. Alphabet shares dropped 3% after the announcement. 

SOCIAL MEDIA - All Aspects, By Site

General

New social media alert: noplace is a new app billed as MySpace for Gen Z that also has some similarities with Twitter (e.g., text-based chats, with no photos or videos at this time). iOS only at the moment; no Android app or web page. 

Thinking of trying out Bluesky? Here are some tips to get the most out of it. 

Facebook (includes relevant general news from Meta)

Meta’s attempt at circumventing EU privacy regulations through paid subscriptions is illegal under the Digital Markets Act, according to the European Commission. “if the company cannot reach an agreement with regulators before March 2025, the Commission has the power to levy fines of up to 10 percent of the company’s global turnover.”

If you post Reels from a business page, you may be able to let Meta use AI to do A/B testing on the captions and other portions shown. I personally would not do this unless I could see what options they were choosing, since AI is often not as good as it thinks it is. 

Apple’s 30% fee on in-app ad purchases for Facebook and Instagram has kicked in worldwide as of July 1. 

Facebook is testing ads in the Notifications list on the app. 

Meta is encouraging advertisers to connect their Google Analytics accounts to Meta Ads, claiming “integration could improve campaign performance, citing a 22% conversion increase.”

Instagram

The head of Instagram is still emphasizing that the number of DM shares per post is a huge ranking factor. 

LinkedIn

Another article on the basics of setting up LinkedIn and getting found through it. 

You can now advertise your LinkedIn newsletters on the platform. 

Pinterest

Pinterest is slowly testing an AI program that edits the background of product photography without changing the product. 

Is Pinterest dying? An investment research firm thinks so. 

Reddit

If you want to see results from Reddit in your search engine results, Google is the only place that can happen now. 

More than ever, Reddit is being touted as a way to be found (especially in Google search), but you do have to understand how the site works to be successful at it. 

Snapchat

Snapchat+ now has 9 million paying users, and they are getting quite a few new personalization updates, and Snaps that last 50 seconds or less. 

Threads

Threads has hit 175 million active users each month, up from 130 million in February. 

TikTok

TikTok has made it easier to reuse your videos outside of the site without a watermark. 

TikTok users can now select a custom thumbnail image for videos, either a frame from the clip itself, or a still image from elsewhere.  

Twitter

You can opt out of Twitter using your posts as data for its AI, Grok. 

YouTube

YouTube has new tools for Shorts, including one that makes your longer videos into Shorts. 

Community Spaces are the latest YouTube test to try to get more fan involvement, while moving users away from video comments.

(CONTENT) MARKETING (includes blogging, emails, and strategies) 

Start your content marketing plans for August now, including back-to-school themes and Alfred Hitchcock’s birthday on August 13. 

ONLINE ADVERTISING (EXCEPT INDIVIDUAL SOCIAL MEDIA AND ECOMMERCE SITES) 

Google Ads now have several new updates, including blocking misspellings. 

Google’s new Merchant Center Next will soon be available for all users, if they haven’t already been invited. Supplemental feeds are now (or soon will be) allowed there. 

STATS, DATA, TRACKING 

Google Search Console users can now add their shipping and return info to Google search through the Console itself. This is useful for sites that do not pay for Google Ads or use Google’s free shopping ads. 

BUSINESS & CONSUMER TRENDS, STATS & REPORTS; SOCIOLOGY & PSYCHOLOGY, CUSTOMER SERVICE 

The second part of this Whiteboard Friday [video with transcript] discusses how consumer behaviour is changing during tight economic times. “People are still spending. They just want the most for their money. Also, the consideration phase is much more complex and longer.” The remainder of the piece discusses how to approach your target market during these times. 

Prime Day was supposedly the best ever for Amazon, but they didn’t release any numbers. Adobe Analytics tracked US ecommerce sales on those days and provides some insight. “Buy-now, pay-later accounted for 7.6% of all orders, a 16.4% year-over-year increase.”

MISCELLANEOUS

You know how I always tell small business owners to have multiple revenue streams? Tech needs to have multiple providers and backups as well, as the recent CrowdStrike and Microsoft issues demonstrate. 

If you used Google’s old URL shortener anywhere, those links will no longer redirect as of August 25 2024. 

[danceworshipper]

@hphm-ship-week Prompt 2: Quidditch

aka part one of my 'Rowan is gay no matter what gender they are' agenda

Ship: m!Rowan/Murphy 💙🦅

Date: June 3rd, 1989 (fifth year)

Rowan quickly decided that the view from the Commentary Box was the best. Well, of course it was, logistically speaking, it needed to be so that Murphy could accurately describe what was going on to the whole crowd, but he hadn't realized just how much better it was up here. The view was easily worth the amount of stairs he'd had to climb. He'd only thought about asking to be levitated like Murphy a few times.

It still felt like he was somewhere he wasn't supposed to be, despite none of the professors telling Rowan to rejoin his fellow Ravenclaws. Murphy had said that he was allowed to have a friend or two with him, but Rowan had never seen anyone else be invited up here until today. He hoped that meant he was special.

Murphy was as animated as ever, speaking fast enough to not miss a single detail of the match. Ravenclaw vs Gryffindor, playing for the Quidditch Cup - it was a big deal. It was big enough, in fact, that Murphy seemed to be having a spot of trouble remaining unbiased.

"An excellent block by the Ravenclaw keeper," he exclaimed. "Better luck next time, Gryffindor!"

After a while, Rowan found himself no longer paying attention to the match at all, instead watching Murphy. He really was in his element up here; it was no surprise that he'd been the commentator since he first arrived at Hogwarts. Murphy was clever, too, if his creative strategies were anything to go off of. He'd been sneakily helping Ravenclaw win from behind the scenes all year. Rowan wondered if Madam Hooch had actually not caught on, or if she simply didn't care enough to stop him.

"Gryffindor's seeker spots the snitch!" Murphy announced, and the Ravenclaw seeker's neck nearly snapped with how fast she turned it.

Rowan watched as she pushed her broom to the absolute limits, Murphy ignoring a goal from Gryffindor to cheer her on, much to Professor McGonagall's annoyance. Gryffindor's seeker dove hard to the right, causing Ravenclaw's to fly past him, but the maneuver backfired when the snitch darted to the left instead, directly into the Ravenclaw seeker's outstretched hand. She stared at it in shock before lifting it high above her head with a victory cry.

"Ravenclaw has caught the snitch!" Murphy shouted. "With 320 points, Ravenclaw wins the match!"

Professor Flitwick nearly fell off the bench behind Rowan as he scrambled to set off a Blue Sparks charm in his excitement. The crowd down in the stands went absolutely wild, screaming and throwing hats, scarves, whatever they could as they rushed out of the stands to congratulate the winning team. Rowan had little interest in being a part of that stampede, so he stayed right where he was.

It had nothing to do with wanting to talk to Murphy, who looked positively ecstatic that Ravenclaw had won.

"I knew they could do it!" he told Rowan. "That last bit of broomwork was some of the most impressive I've ever seen! Even if she hadn't gotten to the snitch first, I've never seen someone with an older model be able to catch up to someone like that - I suspect that Gryffindor will demand a detection spell on that broom to make sure it wasn't enchanted, which it wasn't obviously because she'd never do that - "

"Parkin would," Rowan interjected.

Murphy narrowed his eyes, considering. " ...fair. But did you see? That strategy I invented for the beaters saved our chasers from eighty-seven-point-three percent of the bludgers, a twenty-two-point-five percent increase from the last match - "

Rowan leaned against the ledge of the box, jaw in his hand as he listened. Admittedly, he hadn't been watching the beaters much, but he'd been Murphy's guinea pig for explaining the new strategy so he knew exactly what he was talking about. The whole thing had almost made Rowan wish that he'd tried out for the team when there was an opening, but he knew he was better off watching. He was a member of the much more relaxed Quidditch Club and it suited him just fine.

"Do you think they'll have to test if the snitch was charmed too?" Rowan asked, cutting Murphy off again.

Murphy hummed. "About a fifty-six-point-eight percent chance, if they have the broom checked."

"Where do you come up with these numbers?"

"Incredible mental math," Murphy said, and winked.

Rowan laughed, but that wink did things to him... it mostly just made him nervous.

They stayed in the Commentator Box until long after the professors had all cleared out - Professor McGonagall confidently telling Professor Flitwick that he wouldn't be so lucky next year - lost in their talk of strategy and how the team could improve even more next year. They only paused when Orion came up to find Murphy, saying that the team desired his presence at their victory party.

"The jubilance is high, but your energy is missing," Orian said. "Equilibrium will not be found until our guiding hand is present."

Whatever that meant.

"Can't let the team down," Murphy told him. "Any chance you can get me out of here?"

"Of course. Allow me to reach the ground first. Walk with me?" Orion asked, addressing Rowan.

"Oh," Rowan said, caught off guard. "Yeah, sure. See you in a minute, McNully."

Too many stairs, Rowan thought to himself, trying to breathe evenly so that Orion didn't notice his struggle. Orion had such a grace to him, both in flight and on the ground, which was something that Murphy brought up frequently when brainstorming strategies. Orion simply wasn't an aggressive enough player for a good portion of the well known strategies, which is why Murphy started inventing new ones in the first place. The way he talked about it, Orion was actually an advantage to Ravenclaw, because he made moves that none of his opponents ever saw coming. He was well deserving of being the captain of the team.

"The two of you seem well in harmony," Orion said, startling Rowan.

"Huh?"

Orion smiled knowingly. "I expect good news soon in regards to you both. Maybe even today?"

Rowan was certain that he was bright red. "I don't know what you're implying," he protested.

"You do."

Well then.

They stepped out into the sunlight, and Orion raised his wand to levitate Murphy out of the box. Rowan wondered why no one had thought to install an elevator, even if it had to be a manual one due to the high magic saturation in the air near the castle. Surely that would be easier than this? Maybe he should suggest the idea to Professor Flitwick the next time he met with him.

"Ah, solid ground," Murphy said, wheeling over to Rowan and Orion. "Party time!"

"Indeed," Orion agreed.

Murphy turned his head. "Hey, Khanna, you coming?"

Rowan scratched the back of his neck, suddenly very nervous. "I mean, it's in the common room, so I guess I have to, don't I?"

"Reluctance, that's the spirit!" Murphy joked.

Orion tilted his head, that knowing smile reappearing. "Perhaps, Murphy, you should accompany him, so he does not feel left out."

Too busy glaring at Orion, Rowan almost missed Murphy turning red.

"I think it's an excellent idea, don't you?" Orion pressed.

Murphy cleared his throat with a cough. "Yeah, yeah, I could do that. Easy. We can continue our conversation," he added, quickly regaining confidence. "I may take you on properly as a strategy apprentice, Khanna. You've got good insights."

Rowan's voice cracked when he laughed. If only a Cursed Vault would suddenly open, causing a terrible emergency. Alas, the earth never opens up and swallows you when you want it to.

[denimbex1986]

'A one-man Uncle Vanya could easily have come off as a stunt. How do you turn an Anton Chekhov staple, one that has visited New York stages multiple times in the past few seasons alone, into a solo show, and an utterly new experience? But Vanya turns out to be good theater and, more surprisingly, very good Chekhov.

Credit adaptor Simon Stephens, whose distillation of the 1897 classic is a robust and clever update. Also director Sam Yates, whose economical, efficient staging keeps the intense emotions from boiling over. Most of all, credit the remarkable Andrew Scott, who creates eight distinct characters and burrows deep into their psyches, and exudes a physicality that brings them to life in a way never seen before.

It’s Vanya, yet there’s no “Vanya” in it. Stephens has tweaked many of the names and reset Chekhov in a modern-day estate of no particular nationality. Cellphones aside, there aren’t a lot of indicators about time or place, but it’s all utterly credible. Vanya is now Ivan, the discontented brother of the late Anna, wife of Alexander, who subsequently married the much younger Helena, who fascinates both Ivan and Astrov (now called by his anglicized first name, Michael), a visiting doctor whom Alexander’s daughter, Sonia, lusts after. Lurking about the perimeter are Ivan’s mother Elizabeth, housekeeper Maureen, and farm helper Liam. Stephens has trimmed the stage time of these three, and admittedly, one tends to forget about them—he even jokes about that. Alexander, Chekhov’s retired professor, is now scorned by Ivan as a “generation-defining filmmaker,” an encomium he regards as ridiculous.

So how do you play eight roles, keep them clear, and carry on conversations with yourself in ways that don’t feel contrived? Stephens helps, expanding the monologues and cutting down on the back-and-forth dialogues that would require Scott to change personas with every few words. But Scott does the heavy lifting. He has distinctive voices, walks, and body language, and a fearlessness of emotion that suits every character. Perhaps a viewer may not be sure who he is 100 percent of the time, but 90 percent is a high batting average. His Michael is deep-voiced and attractive, and, rather like the actor, charismatic in a way that he knows he’s charismatic but doesn’t over-peddle it. His Ivan is high-pitched and excitable; his Sonia, understated and despairing; his Alexander, stiff and superior. At one point he has to play a love scene between Helena and Michael, and—how does he ever do this?—it’s pretty hot.

Dan Balfour’s excellent sound design has Scott sounding perfectly natural and unamplified, yet at a few intervals he puts his hand near his mouth and the volume increases. It may be a hidden mic, it may just be his voice projecting at unexpected moments. At any rate, he can whisper and be audible in the last row, demonstrating a kind of training that’s rare and getting rarer. He’s also unafraid to … pause. These characters are frequently deep in thought, and the many silences across the two hours tell of lost, searching individuals struggling to give purpose to their existences and verbalize feelings they haven’t entirely yet located.

Rosanna Vize’s spare, appropriate set gives Scott plenty of room to leap, dance, and generally dazzle an audience with his movement (Michela Meazza is credited with “physicality”). James Farncombe’s lighting features fluorescent industrial lights that know when to calm down, while Natalie Pryce’s costume affords Scott a basic uniform plus several accessories to help with character identification—a scarf for Alexander, a necklace for Helena, a rag for Sonia, a tennis ball that the restless Michael keeps bouncing.

An oddity: some brief musical sequences of unclear intent, including a rendition of “If You Go Away” that suggests Scott won’t be doing many musicals. His voice is a magnificently expressive instrument, though, and, more than in other versions of Uncle Vanya, the audience’s emotional connection with the people, er, person onstage is palpable.

Didn’t Chekhov call his plays comedies? This Vanya is also funny, with Scott exercising surprising inflections and top-banana timing to give lines like Alexander’s “Human beings weren’t designed to live in the country” extra resonance. As an actor’s workout, if you’ve been around long enough, Vanya may put you in mind of Lily Tomlin’s The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe, or, going way back, an evening of Ruth Draper monologues. Such evenings require versatility, stamina, and plenty of star quality. Scott proves he has all of the above.'

[thomastheunwise]

Alright, so. A friend linked me a video that seemed like it contained some dubious information, and I went on a deep dive to see if it was legit or not. I don't want to link the original video, because it contains a lot of misleading information, but the topic was on experimental weather control and how it might have contributed to hurricane Helen.

So, the first big red flag in the video is a lack of sources. The creator of the video fails to site any source other than "I asked AI." She also does not provide links to any sources in the video description. That alone should make anyone watching the video view it with a healthy does of skepticism. She does show screenshots of text to occasionally support her claims, but does not say where they come from. Most of them look like the output of ChatGPT. Since AI has famously gotten some things very wrong and fabricated others seemingly from nowhere, I don't think we should rely on AI as a reliable source. Not yet.

I'm honestly not sure what the main point of the video even was, but I THINK it was that some nebulous "they" used weather modification, specifically cloud seeding, to create hurricane Helen for.... Reasons? Something to do with quartz? There was a quartz mine that was pretty thoroughly trashed, so maybe she was saying that the hurricane was deliberately created just do that? That seems like a stretch. There are many, much easier ways to commit industrial sabotage that don't involve nearly as much collateral damage.

Now, weather modification through cloud seeding is a real, experimental technology. The idea being to kick-start the formation of clouds and increase precipitation to alleviate drought. It's typically done by spraying particulate, usually sodium iodine, into a cloud formation. Water and ice crystals attach to the particle, accumulating until the cloud drops them as precipitation. The results of cloud seeding attempts have been mixed, and the efficacy of such efforts is questionable at best. You can read more about it here:

Then there was the infamous NOAA project Stormfury, an attempt to seed clouds in such a way as to weaken hurricanes or even disperse them entirely. It was deemed ineffective and abandoned in 1983.

But to date, no one has had much success with cloud seeding or weather modification in general. Certainly not anything close to producing hurricane level storms or precipitation.

Now, the frequency and intensity of hurricanes IS increasing due to human activity. But NOT from experiments with weather modification. The increase in tropical storm activity is due to anthropogenic climate change. We pump BILLIONS of tons of carbon into the atmosphere annually. Carbon gas acts a blanket, trapping thermal energy in. The ocean, making up most of the surface area of the earth, comes in the most contact with the thermal energy in the atmosphere, and water is an excellent thermal conductor. Thus, our oceans are absorbing about 90% of the excess heat that is trapped in the air due to greenhouse gas emissions. One of the ways all that heat in the oceans gets dispersed by re-aborbing into the atmosphere, providing fuel for bigger and badder storms. So we get storms of ever greater frequency and intensity forming over the oceans and pummeling our coastal regions. This is well understood and documented by NASA and NOAA

Now, back to content of the video and some of the specific claims made there.

She starts by talking about some mysterious "blue jelly balls" that "fell from the sky" and were found in a man's back yard somewhere in Britain. To her credit, the video creator acknowledged that scientists did examine these balls. The conclusion was that they were gel capsules filled with solidum polyacrylate. Sodium polyacrylate is an extremely water absorbent substance used in diapers and in gardening. Cut open the thick part of a diaper and you'll find a bunch of tiny gelatin beads of sodium polyacrylate. A larger version of these beads is sometimes placed at the bottom of flower pots. In both cases, the purpose is the same: Absorb moisture and prevent leakage. This presents a much more likely explanation for the presence of these "blue jelly balls" in a man's garden than that they "fell from the sky." They could have spilled out of some broken plant pottery or been carelessly tossed out by an inconsiderate neighbor. But no, that's not the conclusion that this video creator goes to. Occam's razor? She's never heard of it.

Before I go on, there is another more recent use for sodium polyacrylate. It is being studied for its ability to absorb heat and emit cooling mist. There is some hope that it could be incorporated into building materials or even clothing to replace air conditioning, reduce energy consumption, and thus help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

The video creator seems to have found this information. She also found a video clip of a droplet of liquid being stimulated by a piezoelectric transducer. Piezoelectric materials are materials that can produce an electric current when subjected to physical pressure. Among these materials are ceramics and quartz. Piezoelectrics have a variety of uses. More information on them:

Anyway, the droplet in the video clip she showed was spherical and blue, just like the beads of sodium polyacrylate found in the man's garden. Put a pin that for now.

She claims that piezoelectric transducers seed clouds using ultrasonic sound waves. I did find that piezoelectric devices can be used for generating ultrasound, but I couldn't find a single reliable source saying that ultrasound had ever been used for cloud seeding. I'm not even sure how that would work, since cloud seeding relies on water and ice crystals clinging to some kind of particulate. I'm no physicist, but I don't see how pumping sound into the cloud would help. If I'm missing something here, please point it out to me.

That aside, the "evidence" she presents that ultrasonic sound waves are being used to seed clouds is a video clip of people standing outside in a storm and hearting a very loud, grating sound seemingly coming from the atmosphere. Now, I'm not going to speculate on what that sound actually was. But I can tell you what it wasn't: It wasn't ultrasonic. Ultrasonic, by definition, means sound in a frequency wave too high for a human ear to detect. If ultrasonic sounds were being used to modify the weather, we wouldn't hear them at at all.

So, getting back to the mysterious "blue jelly balls." She took the superficial similarity of a drop of liquid being stimulated by a piezoelectric device to a bead of sodium polyacrylate, the polyacrylate's usefulness for absorbing water and heat, and came to the conclusion that.... These blue beads are piezoelectric weather control devices? Do I have that right? I honestly don't see the connection here. The beads were filled with sodium polyacrylate. Not quartz or any other piezoelectric material. So... Huh?

She also talks about how piezoelectric devices can be used in "energy harvesting." I find it interesting that she uses that term. She talks about the "magical means" by which energy is converted from one for to another and keeps using "energy harvesting" like it's some sinister term. But the thing is? We harvest energy every day. Every time a wind turbine rotates, it's harvesting the kinetic energy of the wind and turning it into electric energy to power homes. Coal plants burn coal and use the heat to boil water which produces steam that then spins a turbine. Potential energy (coal) converted to thermal energy (fire) converted to kinetic energy (steam pushing a turbine) converted to electrical energy (a magnet on the turbine oscillates around a conductive wire, creating electrical current). There's nothing magical or sinister about it. And as for piezoelectric devices being used to harvest energy? Well, sure... In that piezoelectric materials are used in most digital devices today. Which brings us to the last point.

She spends some time at the end of the video sort of demonizing quartz because it is a piezoelectric material, which is apparently bad because they're being used for weather control (they're not). But she then goes on to say that quartz is being used by AI, not to power it directly, but to make the hardware that runs it. And like... No shit? Pure, high quality quartz is a semiconductor. AI runs on computers. Computers use microchips to rapidly perform calculations. Every microchip we have made to date has been composed of transistor gates made of semiconductive materials, including.... You guessed it, quartz!

She ends the video by pointing out the dollar value of quartz. As I said at the beginning, I'm not sure what the point of all this mess actually was. My best guess is that, because Helen took out a quartz mine and that will have an impact on the supply chain for tech products (including AI), some people think that the hurricane was created deliberately? I don't know. I don't really follow the logic. I mostly just wanted to try to debunk the misinformation presented. I hope I managed to do that. If you want to watch the original video and draw your own conclusions, I can provide the link to it.

[beardedmrbean]

Newspaper Helsingin Sanomat highlighted that greenhouse gas emissions in the Helsinki metropolitan area fell significantly last year.

The newspaper said that across the entire capital region emissions have fallen by 20 percent. In Helsinki, emissions decreased by 25 percent. In Espoo and Kauniainen, they dropped by 15 percent, while Vantaa experienced an emissions reduction of eight percent.

This is according to preliminary figures published by Helsinki Region Environmental Services Authority (HSY). While energy production figures have already been accounted for, HSY still needs to add new information on traffic.

HSY's experts said a number of factors help explain the drop in emissions.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine spurred Finland to replace Russian natural gas with coal and oil, which led to a spike in emissions for 2022.

Emissions also dropped in 2023 as the capital region moved away from coal on a large scale, shutting down coal power plants like Hanasaari.

Additionally, there were other factors responsible for the capital region's emission reduction, such as an increase in wind power capacity and electricity from the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant.

Electricity consumption also fell in the Helsinki metropolitan area, but only by about 3.5 percent, despite high electricity costs last year.

Soini on upcoming EU elections

Business daily Kauppalehti interviewed the Finns Party's retired ex-chair — and current political commentator — Timo Soini on the upcoming EU elections.

The EU-sceptic Soini made it clear that the main issue with the European Union is where the sovereignty of nation-states ends and where that of the EU begins.

"But there is more to the EU than that, as the recent security situation in Europe has shown us very well," Soini said.

The far-right in Europe looks poised to win big and a possible coalition between the centre-right European People's Party, far-right Europe of Conservatives and Reformists, and the radical right Identity and Democracy groups could form in the European Parliament after the elections.

"Marine Le Pen made an excellent political play by proposing to Giorgia Meloni that they join forces. It's a big play, because there are up to 30 right-wing MEPs from both countries," Soini said, referring to France's Le Pen proposing last week to Italian PM Meloni that the two should ally together in the European Parliament.

Soini added that in the future more member states might take the route of Hungary and Poland, opposing the EU in favour of the nation-state, despite the threat of disciplinary measures against those states.

At the same time, Soini also said that he would not accept pro-Russian parties, such as Hungary's Fidesz in the Europe of Conservatives and Reformists.

"Pro-Russian parties are not for Europe or peace," Soini said.

Finland's maple syrup?

Rural-focused newspaper Maaseudun Tulevaisuus posited that Finns may not be reaping the full rewards of the forest's bounty.

Citing the success of North America's maple syrup industry, the newspaper looked at other natural products found in Finnish forests that could be sold to reap profits for forest owners.

While berries and some long-established edible mushrooms have served as some sources of profit, there are a few other ways for Finnish forest owners to make money besides selling firewood and wood chips.

A survey commissioned by MT last winter said that more than two-thirds of forest owners had not received any side income from their forests in the past five years.

Certain items like birch sap — that could be turned into syrup — and chaga (Inonotus obliquus) — a fungus that grows on tree bark used often in East Asian medicinal teas — are not intensively cultivated in Finland.

However, ramping up production for such natural products presents itself with many bottlenecks. For example, inoculating and growing chaga is so new that 'farmed' chaga has never been harvested, and commercial sales have been limited to the wild-grown variant.

This means that the fungus is rare and difficult to commercially replicate as a natural product.

[helenadurazzo]

The Lord of The Underworld And His Lady of Spring Part 6

Next in the HPHM x Twisted Wonderland AU, it is time for the testing, as both groups of the boys go through it, Idia, along with Helena and Ortho go through the data to look for interesting results

“Test One complete.” Ortho confirmed, “Subjects are cooling down within the simulation.”

“All vital signs for the three subjects are normal.” An employee, Moor Eiriniko, of Helena recalled his name right, reported. “And blot accumulation is within standard range.”

“There are the numbers I expected as well.” Idia observed, “Time to see if they differ with the next test.”

“Simulator has been synced with the Lachesis System.” Another employee, this time, Etern Skotadi, was the one to talk, “We are set for the second test.”

Idia nodded firmly, “Take it away Ortho.”

“Roger!” Ortho obeyed, “Virtual enemy mode standby. Commencing dive!”

~~~

“Test two complete.” Ortho reported, “Subjects are cooling down in the sim.”

“Vital signs remain normal.” Moor typed on a tablet as he talked, “Yet there has been an increase in blot accumulation.”

Etern looked at the system and made modifications, “Lachesis System desynchronizing. Down to five percent… four, three, two… desync complete.”

“Simulator cooldown has finished.” Ortho’s voice sounded, “Subjects are being transported to the recovery room.”

“Excellent.” Idia breathed a sigh of relief, “When you are done with that, prepare Subjects B and D for their testing.”

“Roger.” Ortho’s holographic figure nodded before disappearing.

“Now let’s read the stats for these famed housewardens.” Idia grinned as he went over to a large screen.

“The difference in their blot accumulation rates is fascinating.” Helena observed, walking up to Idia to stand beside him.

“Totally.” Idia smiled at her and then looked at the screen, “Let’s look at Riddle first. He busts out spells like he is in hyperdrive. And his magic pool is way beyond other mages his age. Likely had training in magic at a young age. Like a sports pro who practiced their whole lives since they could walk. It’s the only way he could wield such numbers. If you ask me, his strength is more from hard work than from innate talent.”

Helena hummed, “He also has a tendency to elevate his output and brute force his magic during moments of indecision.”

“Whiles it is inefficient.” Idia admitted,

“he had the power to back him up”

“And his mental state is impacted by external factors rather than internal ones.” Helena pointed out, “If my memory serves him right, he had quite the controlling mother watching over him, a skill mage doctor in the Queendom of Roses.”

“Despite everything though.” Idia starred at the screen, “Its safe to say he has a strong offense but a paper thin defense. Being quite fragile physically and mentally when he isn’t in control of his surroundings.”

“Yet compare that to Azul,” Helena observed, looking at his results. “Despite his slow speed at casting, he is precise and deadly accurate with his spells.”

“He served as a support for Riddle’s brash actions!” Idia declared. “On one hand he is calm and efficient, on the other you could say he is cowardly for hiding behind the magical gifts of others.”

“Or it just means he can be suited as a healer.” Helena shrugged playfully.

“Perhaps he is careful because he has a small magic pool.” Idia theorized, “like he is banking up on his quick thinking to make up for his little reserves or something. It’s not like he can use his signature spell willy nilly.”

“Making him the opposite of Riddle.” Helena observed, “Then there is the case of Vil, who is unique in his own right.”

“Oh boy talk about STABLE.” Idia exclaimed. “All of his numbers are remarkably high and he hardly breaks a sweat. His lack of sharp performance strikes may be one thing, but he is solid in both offense and defense. And I am pretty sure Vil didn’t get any specialized training prior to his enrollment.”

“His physical and mental resilience is rather impressive.” Helena observed.

“He would make a perfect tank!” Idia declared with confidence. “Vil’s signature spell is a long duration debuff curse… and since he’s got a big magic pool, it is a long lasting one, that’s huge. I would hate having to fight these guys, but oh man they’d be a blast to play if they were in an RPG!”

~~~

“That was quick.” Idia exclaimed with wide eyes, “They figured out how the system worked immediately.”

“Well Leona is the type of guy who knows when he is dreaming.” Helena reminded him.

Idia sighed, “Where’s the fun in that? And Jamil’s stress levels barely moved to. How did these guys overblot? Vil as well for that matter.”

“Simulator cooldown complete.” Ortho reported as astern worked on desyncing the system, “Transferring subjects to the recovery room.”

“Testing sequence completed at 2245” Moor took note of.

“Good, good.” Idia muttered then looked at the two employees, “You two are free to go once the data is backed up.”

“Roger.” The two men nodded.

Ortho suddenly entered the room, “All subjects are in the recovery room Idia. They’re fast asleep.”

Helena laughed, “When is Leona not asleep? Not surprising at all.”

“Nice job Ortho.” Idia spoke calmly

“You to Idia!” Ortho cheered happily, “What do the results look like for Leona Kingscholar and Jamil Viper?”

Helena gasped as Idia put the data on the monitor, “Their numbers are exceptional!”

Idia started with looking at Leona’s data, “Spoiled or not, Leona is still royalty. Totally makes sense that he would have top notch magic instruction as a kid. His casting speed is off the charts and his magic pool is huge and he is quite efficient which helps with minimizing blot accumulation.” Idia sighed, “But I already knew Leona was tough and could handle whatever danger is thrown at him. And it’s hard to measure resilience when it comes to inner turmoil.”

“He does seem to commonly exhibit a great mental fortitude.” Ortho agreed. “And a drastic change could lead to an increase in blot accumulation.”

“Stat-wise he would be a great tank like Vil.” Idia continued. “But given his personality, he isn’t best suited for a leader. Now that I mention it, their personalities don’t seem to match with their ideal class.”

“What class do you believe Jamil would be?” Helena pondered.

“He’s tricky.” Idia admitted with a shrug, “He could fit just about anywhere TBH. But he tends to go for efficiency over speed, just like Azul. Looking at his background… he had no training before arriving at Night Raven College. Yet where he differs is how he is really quick and precise with defensive magic. Perhaps it’s his natural state given how he guards Kalim.

“So perhaps a Melee to defend a tank or a healer?” Ortho proposed.

“Something like that.” Idia nodded. “Just imagine it, Night Raven Quest, the RPG, now that’s a game I’d play even more given these additional stats.”

“You should totally make it Idia!” Ortho energetically requested, “It would be a blast! And it could be open world!”

“Development costs would be too much for open world for such a ridiculous concept.” Idia pointed out. “Besides development for a joke concept like this would be a pain and waste of my time.”

“Say Idia.” A lightbulb seemed to light up for Ortho, “Why don’t you invite the Housewardens to play with you and Muscle Red?”

“What!? No!” Idia was simply horrified, “Where did you get that idea!? None of these guys are interested in gaming! They are complete normies! And besides, we are going to send them to the River Lethe before they return to Night Raven College. They will forget everything, and possibly us as well.”Glancing briefly over at Helena and her Pomegranate lenses that his parents insisted on if their detail instructions before their departure, before finally turning his gaze to Ortho, “There is no use with making friends with them…”

[lauralot89]

Transition and Athletics

Before her own transition in 2004, Harper expected that her 10,000-meter race time might increase by "a minute or two" as her testosterone level dropped and she slowed. But in less than a year, Harper was running a full 5 minutes slower than her personal best. "It just blew me away, and it very much piqued my interest as a scientist."

In 2005, Harper realized her experience wasn't unique after reading an article in Runner's World about another transgender female runner who had also become significantly slower. But when Harper searched for studies about the physiology of transitioning, she found none. So on nights and weekends, she began to moonlight on a research project.

Harper showed that the athletes' age grades before and after hormone therapy remained nearly the same. That is, the women were as competitive with their age- and sex-matched peers as they had been when competing against men. They weren't, in other words, likely to dominate women's races. "No one had previously looked at actual performance of transgender athletes pre- and posttransition," Vilain says.

Harper has since shown similar results for a transgender rower, a cyclist, and a sprinter. Together, the findings make a case that previous exposure to male levels of testosterone does not confer an enduring athletic advantage.

— "This scientist is racing to discover how gender transitions alter athletic performance—including her own" Science.org

Additionally, the hormone-replacement therapy—which starts before surgery can occur and is taken by many who don’t choose to have surgery—also has a tremendous impact on athletic performance. The extent to which testosterone blockers (given to transgender women in conjunction with estradiol, a form of estrogen) erode a runner’s strength and stamina is hard to measure, says Dr. Wylie Hembree, a New York–based endocrinologist who has been treating transgender patients for 20 years. He says, “Anecdotally, I have had avid runners say to me that they can no longer run the distances and speeds they could run before, and one can presume that that could be due to the reduction in testosterone levels.”

Gapin noticed that despite putting in the same effort, she was running slower, losing a minute or even two per mile fairly soon after starting on hormones. She also experienced a significant decrease in her vitamin D levels (although this is not a common side effect of hormone-replacement therapy), which went undiagnosed for two years and greatly affected her training. “When I started taking supplements to raise my vitamin D levels, I’d get to a point in my running where I’d just be crushing it and running 50 miles a week, and then again, I would plummet to 6 miles, so I was yo-yoing back and forth,” she says.

In the three-plus years she has been on hormones, Liston believes she has lost around 10 percent of her running speed; working her way back up to where she was before is no easy feat. “But I’ve also come to accept some of that as part of aging,” she says. “My body at 47 is different than my body at 40, and despite the hormones—I now wear a B cup—and my stamina being less, I also don’t have the same goals with my running that I used to before my transition, when I was running with anger and frustration. Now, running is much more soothing to me.”

— "Being Transgender and What It Means for a Runner," Women's Running

She used to be able to run 5:30s. Now she can’t. She trains, she pushes herself, she uses everything she has; it doesn’t matter. On the weekend-morning group runs, when serious Marin runners gather near trailheads to pace each other up the dirt roads that climb Tamalpais, Janet starts with the pack, as she has nearly every Saturday and Sunday for 25 years. “Usually there are a lot of guys,” she says. “They start slow. I stay with them for the first mile. Then I start falling away. They’re chatting. They don’t even notice.”

When she was Jim Furman, a 5’11”, 148-pound middle-aged man in excellent physical shape, she kept up.

As Janet Furman Bowman, a 5’11”, 148-pound middle-aged woman in excellent physical shape, she’s too slow.

That, to her astonishment and irritation and unceasing soft regret, is the permanent price she has paid.

— "A 6-Minute Difference," Runner's World

or basically

[rjzimmerman]

The Climate Peril We Overlook. (New York Times)

Excerpt from this New York Times Op-Ed:

Our planet has just endured its hottest summer on record, with 2024 on track likewise to become the hottest year since recordkeeping began.

We see the impact of this heating in thousands of ways: The city of Phoenix this year endured 100 days of 100 degrees or hotter; some 1,300 Hajj pilgrims in Saudi Arabia reportedly died in the heat; Arctic ice is shrinking and far below average; and in some places monkeys and bats have tumbled out of trees from the heat.

We tend to focus on the cataclysmic risks of climate change — polar ice caps melting, seas rising dramatically, our planet becoming uninhabitable — and those are real. But over the last couple of decades we’ve accumulated evidence that the more mundane impacts of heat are already upon us, impacting our daily lives. For example, more people fall off ladders on hot days than on cool days. They are more likely to kill themselves. They are also more likely to kill someone else.

Meanwhile, students learn less on hot days. They perform worse on exams. After a natural disaster, students are less likely to go to college. In other words, extreme weather damages far more than property, for it also is devastating to human capital.

“The familiar climate catastrophe framing may be missing some of the most important features of the real climate change story,” R. Jisung Park, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania, notes in his excellent recent book, “Slow Burn.”

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter  Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.

Professor Park argues persuasively that we have been so focused on apocalyptic scenarios that we haven’t focused enough on the other consequences of climate change.

Unless we do more to address the impact on education, hotter temperatures may reduce student learning in the United States by about 10 percent over the course of a year, Park’s research finds. Because Black and Latino students disproportionately live in hotter parts of the country and attend schools with less air-conditioning, rising temperatures appear to magnify the learning gap, Park says.

Then there are forest fires. We focus on the immediate damage caused by fires, such as the 20 to 30 people who die in America from wildfires in a typical year. But wildfires linked to climate change are exposing more people to smoke that may claim far more lives.

Air pollution already is linked to an estimated seven million deaths globally each year, mostly by contributing to heart disease, respiratory diseases and cancer. Researchers estimate that in the United States, wildfire smoke claims 5,000 to 15,000 lives each year — yet these deaths don’t get attention because there is no dramatic footage of flames to frighten us. People may think that their loved ones died of heart disease or old age, but another factor may have been climate change.

Climate change may influence crime as well, for researchers find that murder, aggravated assault and rape all are more common when the mercury rises. One researcher estimated that the increase in temperatures because of climate change may lead to 1.6 million additional cases of aggravated assault and 200,000 additional rapes in the United States over this century.

We also know that hotter temperatures impair our productivity. A naval officer makes an average of 11 or 12 mistakes per hour in translating Morse code when the temperature is between 85 and 90 degrees, a British study found, but 95 mistakes per hour when the temperature rises to 105 degrees.

Even professional athletes are affected. One study looked at how tennis players do when temperatures rise. When it is 95 degrees, the likelihood of a double fault increases, and rallies are shorter.

Yet always remember that climate is complicated.