The Atrocity of American Gun Culture - After mass shootings like those in Uvalde and Buffalo, pro-gun officials say they don’t want to politicize tragedy. But the circumstances that allow for the mass murder of children are inherently political. - link
The Staff of Uvalde’s Local Paper Cover the Worst Day of Their Lives - The paper’s employees lost neighbors, acquaintances, and a daughter in a school shooting. Then they had to report the story. - link
What the End of Roe v. Wade Will Mean for the Next Generation of Obstetricians - An aspiring ob-gyn’s views on abortion might determine what training she seeks out, which specialities she pursues, and where she chooses to live. In a post-Roe world, that self-sorting process would grow even more intense. - link
When Cars Kill - A boy’s death launches a movement to end pedestrian and cyclist fatalities in New York City and beyond. - link
Is Joe Manchin About to Play the Role of Democratic Spoiler Again? - Preliminary talks about a new spending bill are under way, but the senator from West Virginia is demanding it be constructed on his terms. - link
In the age of electric vehicles, higher gas mileage is more important than ever.
The electric vehicle revolution is charging ahead: Global passenger EV sales grew by 103 percent in 2021. In the last quarter of 2021, they accounted for 13 percent of all new vehicle sales.
And many more EVs are continuing to roll out. Just last week, Ford delivered the first electric version of its F-150 truck, the best-selling vehicle in the United States, to a customer in rural Michigan. Ford plans to invest $25 billion in EVs through 2025. General Motors has two versions of the Bolt for sale, and is planning to begin delivering its Hummer EV this fall. By 2025, GM will invest $27 billion in EVs and by 2035, the company says it will be all-electric.
As gasoline prices reach record highs and the summer road trip season kicks off, getting around without gas is a more appealing prospect than ever. And this year may be an inflection point, where the number of internal combustion engines on the road reach their peak. Countries like Finland, Germany, and New Zealand have plans to phase out gasoline vehicles entirely.
A bit of a milestone:
— Nat Bullard (@NatBullard) June 1, 2022
After 130 years or so of growth, the global fleet of cars with only an internal combustion engine will probably peak in 2022. EVs are already the auto industry’s sales growth driver. Soon they will be the fleet growth driver too. https://t.co/C2GeXoIKnZ pic.twitter.com/wWJ1poyBVs
But while many car companies are driving toward a future filled with electrons, it’s their conventional cars that will be most consequential for the global climate in the meantime. Transportation is the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the US — and cars and light trucks account for 60 percent of this share. In 2021, President Joe Biden committed to cutting US emissions 50 to 52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, which would demand huge cuts in emissions from cars, vans, pickup trucks, and crossover SUVs.
However, despite their growing popularity and availability, electric vehicles still account for just 3 percent of new car sales in the US, and the average car stays on the road for more than 11 years. That means, by 2035, only 13 percent of vehicles in the US may be electric.So even though EV adoption is accelerating, it will take them years to catch up to gasoline and diesel cars.
Meeting climate change goals thus demands a less glamorous and more incremental approach too: Increasing efficiency. And that requires regulations, which the auto industry, oil companies, and some states have long resisted.
“Efficiency regulations are still really important even as automakers are making pledges to electrify their fleets,” said Kate Whitefoot, an associate professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University.
In particular, California has been a leader in setting cutting edge targets for pollution from vehicles, pushing automakers to hit increasingly tough benchmarks. It’s a privilege the Golden State has held for decades due to a legal quirk. But earlier this month, 17 state Republican attorneys general sued to block the Environmental Protection Agency from upholding California’s special status. If successful, the suit could derail progress toward more efficient cars and trucks.
There are other hurdles too. Americans still love big cars. New cars are getting more expensive. The economy is unstable, and inflation and supply chain crunches are making it harder to buy new cars, including EVs. For carmakers, that’s all making it tough to plan ahead. They crave certainty, which is why some are pushing themselves harder to clean up their fleets than regulations require, with EVs and with increasing efficiency.
California historically received an exemption from federal rules on emissions from cars and light-duty trucks under the Clean Air Act. With that privilege, Sacramento has set even more stringent regulations than Washington has for pollutants coming out of tailpipes, including nitrogen oxides, particulates, and, in 2013, carbon dioxide.
A key thing to note is that vehicle emissions and fuel economy are closely related, but they aren’t the same thing. They’re also regulated by different agencies. California can set air pollution standards, but only the federal government — namely, the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — can set fuel economy rules.
Additionally, since 1990, the Golden State has been rolling out a mandate for zero-emission vehicles that requires manufacturers to sell a certain number of battery-electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, and hydrogen-powered cars. In so doing, California has become a laboratory for regulations on cars and trucks.
“California gets to experiment,” said Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law. “They get to kind of go first and explore how much can we reduce emissions.”
When California implements a set of regulations on cars, the federal government watches and sees how feasible they are and often uses the state’s experience as the basis for new nationwide regulations. But as the most populated state and the largest auto market, California can set the de facto standard for much of the rest of the country even before the federal government can act.
The California Air Resources Board, which regulates pollution from vehicles, is now in the process of updating its regulations for clean cars. The agency’s proposal again aims for a higher pollution standard than the federal government. It also aims to increase the number of zero-emissions cars and trucks sold in the state. “The federal government does not have a requirement for [zero-emissions vehicle] sales, unlike California, so there is nothing to compare,” CARB Spokesperson David Clegern told Vox in an email.
Right now, 17 other states have adopted California’s benchmarks for vehicle pollution outright. Car companies, rather than redesigning their vehicles for every state, usually use the California rules as their benchmark for the whole country.
That special status didn’t sit right with some people, including former President Donald Trump. He revoked California’s authority to set its own emissions standards. Then, President Joe Biden restored the waiver in March.
Republican attorneys general from those 17 other states then sued to stop the EPA from restoring California’s special status, arguing that it gives California unfair leverage over the market and raises the costs of cars. And a group of 20 more states and the District of Columbia came out in favor of keeping the status.
It’s hard to say where the litigation will go, but courts have long upheld California’s special status. “It’s a very well-established provision, and now red states are arguing that it’s unconstitutional,” Hankins said.
This year, the federal government updated its own vehicle efficiency rules, known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. They require the US auto industry to average 49 miles per gallon across the fleet by model year 2026, up from the current benchmark of 28 mpg enacted under Trump. According to the Transportation Department, the new rules will cut fuel consumption by more than 200 billion gallons through 2050 compared to the current standard.
“These improvements will also make our country less vulnerable to global shifts in the price of oil, and protect communities by reducing carbon emissions by 2.5 billion metric tons,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in an April statement.
For the $100 billion US auto industry reeling from global supply chain disruptions, getting any standard nailed down is a relief. “Uncertainty in and of itself has a lot of impact on the industry in terms of long R&D planning,” Whitefoot said. Designing a car can take years and if the goalposts keep moving, companies struggle to get cars ready for the showroom. Some car companies have challenged federal regulations and California’s waiver in the past but are now on the sidelines, hoping that the dust settles quickly.
It’s clear that the global auto industry thinks that electric cars and trucks are the future. Toyota, the world’s biggest carmaker, is investing $17.6 billion to produce a line of 30 battery electric vehicles by 2030. Mercedes is planning to introduce 10 new EVs this year. Nissan plans to launch eight EVs by the end of 2023. Acura, Audi, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Land Rover, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo all have big EV releases scheduled between now and 2025
And, of course, there are car companies that exclusively make EVs, like Lucid, Polestar, and Rivian. EV manufacturer Tesla became the most valuable car company in the world.
But car companies also have a lot of room for improvement with their gasoline and diesel offerings. Some are already using new technologies to make their fleets do more with less. “Electric hybridization represents the ultimate efficiency approach for gasoline-fueled vehicles,” according to a report last year from the National Academies. “The internal combustion engine can achieve higher efficiency when specifically developed to take advantage of hybrid synergies.”
This includes a range of systems for melding electric motors to gasoline engines, from automatically stopping and starting engines at stoplights, to acceleration assist systems, to plug-in hybrids that can run fully on electricity or gasoline. Meanwhile, the engines themselves can run at higher compression ratios, and automakers can add more gears to transmissions in order to increase fuel efficiency. Using lighter materials like aluminum and improving aerodynamics can also help cars travel further with less fuel.
The problem is that Americans increasingly want more legroom, ground clearance, trunk space, and power, which in turn demands more energy to move around. That has “offset some of the fleetwide benefits that otherwise would have been achieved from the improvements within each vehicle type,” according to the EPA’s automotive trends report. Even electric vehicles are getting bigger, eating into their performance advantages.
Carmakers also like making larger cars because they tend to have higher profit margins. In 2018, Ford said that, aside from the Mustang, it would stop making sedans altogether, instead focusing on trucks, SUVs, and crossovers.
Since fuel economy regulations are scaled by the size of the vehicle, it’s a further incentive to make larger cars. That’s helped create entirely new categories of vehicles like the crossover, a taller, heavier vehicle built on a car platform (in contrast to sport utility vehicles, which are typically built on truck platforms). SUVs and crossovers now account for half of cars sold in the US. Now, Ford’s electric Mustang is an SUV.
Bigger cars are also more expensive. The average new car in the US now costs more than $47,000. The median income in the US is $41,000, and 85 percent of new car purchases require loans. Automotive debt in the US now tops $1.4 trillion. For most households, transportation is the second-largest expense after housing, and for much of the US, there’s no way to get around without driving. People are driving more as well.
On top of all that, big cars are more dangerous for people outside of them. Larger vehicles have contributed to a rise in pedestrian fatalities. These vehicles often have massive blind spots that are particularly dangerous for children. But for passengers and drivers, they’re safer than smaller cars.
All of this has created a situation where it’s harder to convince people to buy new, more efficient cars or electric vehicles, and those vehicles are not as clean or safe as they could be.
Some lawmakers have called for government discounts to encourage people to swap their gas guzzlers for fuel sippers alongside more incentives for EVs. The Biden administration is also investing the infrastructure to support cleaner vehicles, including $7.5 billion to build 500,000 EV charging stations across the country and close to $10 billion to support hydrogen fuels for vehicles.
But the cars themselves still have to get far cheaper to replace more existing cars in order to draw down the greenhouse gas emissions from driving. It will also require a more extensive reimagining of transportation. About 75 percent of vehicle trips in the US are less than 10 miles, which is a huge opportunity for alternatives to driving — cycling, scooters, car sharing, public transit.
So while electric vehicles may be the destination for the auto industry, the road ahead is filled with potholes and detours. Increasing fuel efficiency will make sure carmakers will stay on course.
If you are mad at Tom Brady about crypto, you should also be mad at Tom Selleck about reverse mortgages.
Amid the current crypto crash, many people are a little miffed at the celebs who have been shilling for this stuff. Gwyneth Paltrow, Tom Brady, Reese Witherspoon, and even Larry David were all happy to assist in the mainstreaming of cryptocurrencies in recent months, only to go quiet now that the going has gotten a little tough. For Matt Damon, “fortune favors the brave” … who are apparently not brave enough to say maybe it was a bit of an oops to try to get regular people to gamble their hard-earned money on hyper-speculative assets.
If crypto were so certain to make you money, to a certain extent, why would it need this many high-profile celebrity endorsements? After all, money is the most famous celebrity there is.
Here’s the thing: famous people are endorsing and backing financial products and services all the time — products and services that fall across the spectrum of sketchiness. If you’re going to get mad at LeBron James for appearing in a Crypto.com ad, you probably should also be annoyed about those Tom Selleck reverse mortgage commercials, or the spots where William Devane talks about buying gold, or the litany of A-listers getting into SPACs. In the 1990s, Whoopi Goldberg was a spokeswoman for Flooz, that era’s cyber currency that was ultimately brought down because of crime and fraud.
This may seem a little obvious to point out — celebrities are always doing endorsements — but I do think them doing so, specifically, with regard to money is worth dwelling on. Personal finance and investing are supposed to be kind of unsexy; how you’re allocating your 401(k) isn’t particularly cool. Now, marketers and advertisers and culture writ large have managed to turn it into a hobby and a lifestyle. Trust has declined so much in traditional financial institutions. People might figure that Bear Stearns wasn’t doing a bang-up job back in the 2000s, so why not take a chance on whatever Floyd Mayweather says is a good idea now? Companies are able to maneuver this institutional distrust, replacing cold, untrustworthy, and faceless banks with likable celebrities, whom consumers might be more open to.
Banks left customers “high and dry” after the 2008 global financial crisis, explained Ana Andjelic, a brand executive and expert in the sociology of business. “What is this trust replaced with?” she said. “With brands, with celebrities.”
Yes, famous people are often wealthy, but not because they took part in a get-rich-quick scheme or made one clever investment in some obscure product. They often have financial advisers who are helping them manage and build their wealth — and those advisers aren’t telling them to pile into dogecoin.
Companies enlist famous people to try to sell their stuff because they know that it can work. According to one 2012 study out of Harvard Business School, athlete endorsers lead to a 4 percent increase in sales. Multiple studies have found that celebrity endorsement announcements boost stock prices.
When it comes to finance specifically, the rich and famous aren’t the most influential in consumers’ lives, but they do make somewhat of a difference. A 2021 Morning Consult survey found that 20 percent of investors and 45 percent of crypto owners would invest in cryptocurrency if famous people endorsed it (though still behind financial advisers, family members or friends, and business reporters). Younger consumers may also be more swayed by fame — CreditCards.com found that 28 percent of Gen Zers and 24 percent of millennials said they were looking for financial advice from social media and influencers.
Because people are no longer plopped in front of network TV on a Friday night, captive audience to commercials, brands are relying increasingly heavily on celebrities and influencers to connect with consumers, explained Shiv Gupta, a digital marketer and principal at the consulting firm Quantum Sight. “The channels are shrinking,” he said. A celebrity can catapult your product to consumers through their existing audiences and spheres of influence. You can see how it happened with crypto. “You’ve had the nerdsphere or the geeksphere push the concept of crypto as something that has potential,” Gupta said. “The next step was Larry David and all the others who came in and started discussing crypto. It was more about saying, ‘See, it’s mainstream.’”
Making a financial product mainstream renders it more comfortable for consumers, making them feel like it’s okay to give this a try. It may make them overlook the stakes as well, even in spaces where the stakes are high.
“A-list celebrities endorsing brands is nothing new, we’ve seen this for decades. Selling crypto and NFTs is, obviously, a lot more complex and I’d say requires more professional responsibility than pitching for typical consumer goods,” said Anindya Ghose, a business professor at NYU. “If you’re endorsing chips and energy drinks, that’s a different thing.”
If you bought a bag of chips because some actor said so and it turned out to be gross, whatever. But if you did a reverse mortgage, which regulators have warned about ads for, and accidentally lost your home because Tom Selleck said, that’s not so good. The focus is on young people and crypto now, but no generation is immune.
“There are those who say, ‘Well, I like Tom Selleck, I grew up with Tom Selleck, he seems like a reputable guy. After all, he fought crime on Magnum PI,’” Gupta said. “It’s a generational thing, he’s kind of aging with you.”
If you had asked 2004 me whether I’d be listening to the guy from The OC or the guy from Good Will Hunting about what to do with my money, I’d hopefully have said neither but probably would have said the Good Will Hunting guy. Turns out, 2004 me would have been wrong. You actually should not listen to either of the Good Will Hunting guys because Ben Affleck shills for sports betting, which also is often not ideal for the end user’s wallet.
As it turns out, I maybe should have said The OC guy, Ben McKenzie. He has some points about listening to famous people about money and, specifically, crypto … which is that you should not. McKenzie called celebrities pumping crypto a “moral disaster” in a 2021 write-up for Slate alongside journalist Jacob Silverman. “These rich and famous entertainers might as well be pushing payday loans or seating their audience at a rigged blackjack table,” they wrote. (To be fair, there’s something for McKenzie to gain here, too — he and Silverman are penning a book about crypto scams right now that they are probably being paid for, and he’s fashioned himself an anti-crypto celeb.)
Celebrities might not have their fans’ best financial interests at heart. Love to Reese Witherspoon, but her crypto tweet, at least for now, feels fairly irresponsible. “At the end of the day, it’s all about the money,” Andjelic said.
It’s not just that celebrities are encouraging unnecessary risk. Kim Kardashian and Floyd Mayweather may have recently been part of a crypto pump-and-dump scheme. The boxer is no stranger to scandal in the crypto space: In 2018, he and music producer DJ Khaled settled charges from the SEC for failing to disclose that they were paid to promote initial coin offerings, or ICOs, a trend so dubious you rarely hear about it anymore. Actor Steven Seagal got in trouble for something similar, too.
It’s easy and tempting to be dismissive of a lot of this — of course celebrities should not be a trusted source of financial information. And regulators do have some say here in protecting consumers — endorsers are supposed to be honest about being paid. But famous people are often creeping into how we think about money in a way that is a bit uncomfortable. If you really think about it for a beat, celebrities partnering with even traditional names in finance is a little, well, huh. Jennifer Garner seems fine but also is not rich just because she is super savvy with her Capital One card.
Celebrities and financial brands are joining forces to sell people on a lifestyle, on an aspiration of riches that may not be realistic. The famous lend their reputations to products that can be dubious. They often do so without acknowledging their own financial stakes — Tom Brady isn’t just a spokesman for crypto exchange FTX, he’s an investor in the company — or while brushing over that they can take risks the average person maybe shouldn’t. And the downside risk for lending out their reputations, if a project does go bottom-up, may not be much.
“It’s not like oh Tom Brady stopped doing anything and now he’s just a crypto boy, you know?” Andjelic said. “People care for one minute.”
Except, of course, the people who lost.
We live in a world that’s constantly trying to sucker us and trick us, where we’re always surrounded by scams big and small. It can feel impossible to navigate. Every two weeks, join Emily Stewart to look at all the little ways our economic systems control and manipulate the average person. Welcome to The Big Squeeze.
Have ideas for a future column? What’s something in the economy that’s just bugging you that you can’t quite put your finger on? Email emily.stewart@vox.com.
Installing advanced security tech doesn’t appear to stop these tragedies, but it can harm students in other ways.
After a shooter killed 21 people, including 19 children, in the massacre at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, last week, the United States is yet again confronting the devastating impact of gun violence. While lawmakers have so far failed to pass meaningful reform, schools are searching for ways to prevent a similar tragedy on their own campuses. Recent history, as well as government spending records, indicate that one of the most common responses from education officials is to invest in more surveillance technology.
In recent years, schools have installed everything from facial recognition software to AI-based tech, including programs that purportedly detect signs of brandished weapons and online screening tools that scan students’ communications for mentions of potential violence. The startups selling this tech have claimed that these systems can help school officials intervene before a crisis happens or respond more quickly when one is occurring. Pro-gun politicians have also advocated for this kind of technology, and argued that if schools implement enough monitoring, they can prevent mass shootings.
The problem is that there’s very little evidence that surveillance technology effectively stops these kinds of tragedies. Experts even warn that these systems can create a culture of surveillance at schools that harms students. At many schools, networks of cameras running AI-based software would join other forms of surveillance that schools already have, like metal detectors and on-campus police officers.
“In an attempt to stop, let’s say, a shooter like what happened at Uvalde, those schools have actually extended a cost to the students that attend them,” Odis Johnson Jr, the executive director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Safe and Healthy Schools, told Recode. “There are other things we now have to consider when we seek to fortify our schools, which makes them feel like prisons and the students themselves feel like suspects.”
Still, schools and other venues often turn to surveillance technology in the wake of gun violence. The year following the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the local Broward County School District installed analytic surveillance software from Avigilon, a company that offers AI-based recognition that tracks students’ appearances. After the mass shooting at Oxford High School in Michigan in 2021, the local school district announced it would trial a gun detection system sold by ZeroEyes, which is one of several startups that makes software that scours security camera feeds for images of weapons. Similarly, New York City Mayor Eric Adams said he would look into weapons detection software from a company called Evolv, in the aftermath of a mass shooting on the city’s subway system.
Various government agencies have helped schools purchase this kind of technology. Education officials have requested funding from the Department of Justice’s School Violence Prevention Program for a variety of products, including monitoring systems that look for “warning signs of … aggressive behaviors,” according to a 2019 document Recode received through a public records request. And generally speaking, surveillance tech has become even more prominent at schools during the pandemic, since some districts used Covid-19 relief programs to purchase software designed to make sure students were social distancing and wearing masks.
Even before the mass shooting in Uvalde, many schools in Texas had already installed some form of surveillance tech. In 2019, the state passed a law to “harden” schools, and within the US, Texas has the most contracts with digital surveillance companies, according to an analysis of government spending data conducted by the Dallas Morning News. The state’s investment in “security and monitoring” services has grown from $68 per student to $113 per student over the past decade, according to Chelsea Barabas, an MIT researcher studying the security systems deployed at Texas schools. Spending on social work services, however, grew from $25 per student to just $32 per student during the same time period. The gap between these two areas of spending is widest in the state’s most racially diverse school districts.
The Uvalde school district had already acquired various forms of security tech. One of those surveillance tools is a visitor management service sold by a company called Raptor Technologies. Another is a social media monitoring tool called Social Sentinel, which is supposed to “identify any possible threats that might be made against students and or staff within the school district,” according to a document from the 2019-2020 school year.
It’s so far unclear exactly which surveillance tools may have been in use at Robb Elementary School during the mass shooting. JP Guilbault, the CEO of Social Sentinel’s parent company, Navigate360, told Recode that the tool plays “an important role as an early warning system beyond shootings.” He claimed that Social Sentinel can detect “suicidal, homicidal, bullying, and other harmful language that is public and connected to district-, school-, or staff-identified names as well as social media handles and hashtags associated with school-identified pages.”
“We are not currently aware of any specific links connecting the gunman to the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District or Robb Elementary on any public social media sites,” Guilbault added. The Uvalde gunman did post ominous photos of two rifles on his Instagram account before the shooting, but there’s no evidence that he publicly threatened any of the schools in the district. He privately messaged a girl he did not know that he planned to shoot an elementary school.
Even more advanced forms of surveillance tech have a tendency to miss warning signs. So-called weapon detection technology has accuracy issues and can flag all sorts of items that aren’t weapons, like walkie-talkies, laptops, umbrellas, and eyeglass cases. If it’s designed to work with security cameras, this tech also wouldn’t necessarily pick up any weapons that are hidden or covered. As critical studies by researchers like Joy Buolamwini, Timnit Gebru, and Deborah Raji have demonstrated, racism and sexism can be built inadvertently into facial recognition software. One firm, SN Technologies, offered a facial recognition algorithm to one New York school district that was 16 times more likely to misidentify Black women than white men, according to an analysis conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. There’s evidence, too, that recognition technology may identify children’s faces less accurately than those of adults.
Even when this technology does work as advertised, it’s up to officials to be prepared to act on the information in time to stop any violence from occurring. While it’s still not clear what happened during the recent mass shooting in Uvalde — in part because local law enforcement has shared conflicting accounts about their response — it is clear that having enough time to respond was not the issue. Students called 911 multiple times, and law enforcement waited more than an hour before confronting and killing the gunman.
Meanwhile, in the absence of violence, surveillance makes schools worse for students. Research conducted by Johnson, the Johns Hopkins professor, and Jason Jabbari, a research professor at Washington University in St. Louis, found that a wide range of surveillance tools, including measures like security cameras and dress codes, hurt students’ academic performance at schools that used them. That’s partly because the deployment of surveillance measures — which, again, rarely stops mass shooters — tends to increase the likelihood that school officials or law enforcement at schools will punish or suspend students.
“Given the rarity of school shooting events, digital surveillance is more likely to be used to address minor disciplinary issues,” Barabas, the MIT researcher, explained. “Expanded use of school surveillance is likely to amplify these trends in ways that have a disproportionate impact on students of color, who are frequently disciplined for infractions that are both less serious and more discretionary than white students.”
This is all a reminder that schools often don’t use this technology in the way that it’s marketed. When one school deployed Avigilon’s software, school administrators used it to track when one girl went to the bathroom to eat lunch, supposedly because they wanted to stop bullying. An executive at one facial recognition company told Recode in 2019 that its technology was sometimes used to track the faces of parents who had been barred from contacting their children by a legal ruling or court order. Some schools have even used monitoring software to track and surveil protesters.
These are all consequences of the fact that schools feel they must go to extreme lengths to keep students safe in a country that is teeming with guns. Because these weapons remain a prominent part of everyday life in the US, schools try to adapt. That often means students must adapt to surveillance, including surveillance that shows limited evidence of working, and may actually hurt them.
Christian Pulisic critical of US support at win over Morocco - U.S. captain Christian Pulisic was critical of the level of American support from the crowd of 19,512 at TQL Stadium during a 3-0 win over Morocco in the first of four World Cup warmup matches in June
Stat: UEFA Champions League final averages 2.76 million viewers in US - Real Madrid’s 1-0 victory over Liverpool in the Champions League final set a record for the largest audience to view the final in the U.S. on English-language television
Jyothi gunning for glory at the Commonwealth Games - National record-holder has come a long way since her first victory at an inter-district meet
NBA Finals preview | Celtics' solid defence vs Warriors' potent offence - Ahead of Game 1 of the NBA Finals, the Jayson Tatum-led Boston Celtics have the best road record in this year's postseason (7-2) while the Stephen Curry-led Golden State Warriors are the only team yet to lose at home (9-0)
Coach Annese bids adieu to Gokulam - Italian led Kerala club to back-to-back I-League titles
Development in Telangana is nation’s proud: Harish Rao - ‘Godavari water changing the face of the Sate’
Andhra Pradesh: The need of the hour is to have more shelter homes, says Sandeep Pandey - The Magsaysay awardee says the government has not been doing much for the mentally ill destitute
Premiere of ‘Major’ to bring defence personnel, kin together - Event to be held at Koppam in Palakkad district today
Govt. ‘regularises’ continued occupation of bungalows in some cases, says Minister - Housing and Urban Affairs Minister says exceptions may be made for those who get ‘another job’
KCR hosts lunch for Nikhath and Esha Singh -
Ukraine war: How long can the Western consensus hold? - As Russia makes some progress in Donbas, are cracks appearing in the Western consensus over Ukraine?
Ukraine war: Russia says US ‘adding fuel to fire’ by sending longer-range rockets - Moscow responds after President Biden says he will supply Kyiv with new long-range missiles.
Turkey wants to be called Türkiye in rebranding move - The country wants to be called Türkiye as part of a campaign launched by its president.
Denmark votes to drop EU defence opt-out in ‘historic’ referendum - Denmark is the latest Nordic country to reassess security policy after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Ukraine beat Scotland in emotional World Cup play-off - A heroic Ukraine rouse a performance dripping in spirit and courage to stun Scotland in an historic World Cup play-off semi-final.
Manipulating photons for microseconds tops 9,000 years on a supercomputer - An optical quantum computer does things we can’t computationally model. - link
NASA chooses two companies to build spacesuits for its 21st-century Moonwalkers - “We knew there was always a transition to industry in our future.” - link
We may already be falling into the same trap of pandemic unpreparedness - At Ars Frontiers, virologist Angela Rasmussen laid out how to thwart the next pandemic. - link
As disruptions in China continue, Apple will start making iPads in Vietnam - Lockdowns in China have Apple taking new measures to meet potential demand. - link
Same price, different niche: New Dell UltraSharp matches Studio Display at $1,600 - Both monitors offer boosted image quality, built-in webcams with particular appeal to Mac owners. - link
Yeah, she’s forever going to be in Depp!
submitted by /u/Minifig81
[link] [comments]
It’s motherfucking gold.
submitted by /u/One-guy-and-his-dog
[link] [comments]
misheard?
submitted by /u/joachim_s
[link] [comments]
That’s M’Shell on my back
submitted by /u/Mob_Rich_Fan
[link] [comments]
There would be mass confusion
submitted by /u/tobias_drundridge
[link] [comments]