Daily-Dose

Contents

• From New Yorker
• From Vox
• From The Hindu: Sports
• From The Hindu: National News
• From BBC: Europe
• From Ars Technica
• From Jokes Subreddit

From New Yorker

• Surviving Hurricane Ian in a Fort Myers Apartment Complex - Facing high winds, rising waters, and careening yachts, a group of neighbors managed a harrowing rescue. - link

• The Oath Keepers’ Radical Legal Defense of January 6th - Legal experts say the interpretation of the Insurrection Act put forward by Stewart Rhodes and his lawyers would dangerously expand the power of the President. - link

• How Iran’s Hijab Protest Movement Became So Powerful - Four decades after the Islamic Revolution, simmering tensions have come to a head. What sets the current wave of protests apart from those that came before? - link

• False Choices and Familiar Stories in a California Homeless Encampment - How do you tell the story of the biggest crisis on the West Coast when every typical journalistic avenue seems to have run its course? - link

• Another City Is Drowning, and We Can’t Look Away - In Bangkok and around the world, live updates about hurricanes and floods are turning us into climate voyeurs. - link

From Vox

• Every movie right now, from Amsterdam to Glass Onion, stars a million A-listers -

  

  On the Endgamification of everything.

  One recent Sunday night, I found myself at the premiere for Amsterdam, a movie for which the word “star-studded” is too modest. Having avoided trailers to that point, I didn’t realize what I was in for until director David O. Russell appeared onstage to introduce the movie and some of the cast. At these events, the more minor cast members are usually introduced first. “Please welcome … Timothy Olyphant!” Russell said. Clad in cowboy boots, a scarf, and a rakish hat, Olyphant loped onto the stage.

  Well, if this was the most minor character, then I was in for something.

  Russell continued to bring on the cast. Andrea Riseborough. Michael Shannon. Mike Myers. Rami Malek. Robert De Niro. (De Niro, and they’re still not done!) Margot Robbie floated onto the stage in a lacy white dress, followed by John David Washington and, finally, Christian Bale.

  “Wow!” I thought. “That’s quite the cast!”

  Then the movie started and I realized, quickly, that this was just a fraction. Alessandro Nivola is in this movie. Chris Rock pops by a few times. Matthias Schoenaerts weaves in and out, as does Zoe Saldana. Anya Taylor-Joy shows up. For Pete’s sake, Taylor Swift is in this movie.

  20th Century Studios

  So far I haven’t told you a single thing about the movie other than its cast. But it barely matters. Some time ago, the studios figured out that they could create marketing buzz, practically without paying for it, by simply “leaking” casting news to the press. It doesn’t even have to be accurate; it just has to be picked up, reminding potential ticket-buyers that the upcoming film project exists. In an age dominated by existing IP movies — from comic book universes to reboots of characters you’ve loved forever — the excitement of seeing a new actor in a familiar role is enough to generate a headline. Or at least a tweet.

  This feeling of worlds colliding started to extend beyond IP movies and into original fare, as long as fans can still experience the thrill of seeing all their famous friends in one place. That has little to do with the actual quality of the film; plenty of terrific actors have been in abysmal movies. (Remember the tricked-out cast, led by Michael Fassbender, of The Snowman?)

  And Amsterdam is pretty good, in part because these actors are enjoying being in a period romp. It’s the story of three friends (Bale, Washington, and Robbie) who met in the aftermath of World War I — in, yes, Amsterdam — and formed a friendship that broke apart when they all left town. Twelve years later, the tide of fascism is rising again in Europe, and the trio finds themselves unexpectedly reunited, thrust into the middle of a world-historical plot. (“A lot of this really happened,” the movie’s opening titles proclaim.)

  Amsterdam’s rhythms never quite gel, thanks in part to an ill-advised flashback structure. But it’s lush and clever and vaguely relevant to our own headlines, and overall, a good time at the movies.

  Yet it clearly draws most of its appeal from the familiar faces that appear onscreen, like quite a few other films this year. The upcoming Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery is a blast on its own, as expected, but it wouldn’t be half as hotly anticipated if it didn’t have such a huge cast of A-listers (Edward Norton, Janelle Monae, Kathryn Hahn, Kate Hudson, Leslie Odom Jr., Dave Bautista, Jessica Henwick, and, of course, Daniel Craig). That’s part of the heritage of certain detective stories; it was echoed in the considerably less fun See How They Run earlier this year (Saoirse Ronan, Sam Rockwell, Harris Dickinson, Adrien Brody, Ruth Wilson, Shirley Henderson, David Oyelowo, Sian Clifford, I could keep going).

  Netflix

  Bullet Train’s massive appeal was partly due to its formula, but mostly its cast (Brad Pitt, Bad Bunny, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Joey King, Logan Lerman, Brian Tyree Henry, Zazie Beetz, Michael Shannon, and a bunch of fun cameos I won’t spoil). I have not yet seen Babylon, from La La Land director Damien Chazelle, but in December we’ll get to trundle into theaters and see Pitt, Robbie, Jean Smart, Olivia Wilde, Samara Weaving, Max Minghella, Tobey Maguire, Katherine Waterston, Spike Jonze, Jeff Garlin, and a bunch of other actors swim the waters of Hollywood’s decadent early decades. And next year, Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer has a cast so overstuffed that I can’t even name them all here.

  The “cast of thousands” effect has even spilled into TV. Recently, the massive, long-running Law & Order franchise sparked a three-hour “crossover event” combining characters and storylines from Law & Order, Law & Order: SVU, and Law & Order: Organized Crime. Talk about a big cast.

  It’s not that mega-star movies haven’t made their appearances in Hollywood before; take all iterations of the various Oceans movies, for instance. The films of Robert Altman, like Nashville, Short Cuts, and Gosford Park, often employed massive casts; his protegee Paul Thomas Anderson likes to do the same in films like Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and Licorice Pizza. Recent years have seen anthology movies like The French Dispatch or the many-interwoven-stories films kicked off by Love Actually. Throw a rock into film history and you’ll hit a big cast list.

  Still, this year, it has felt especially significant. Some of that, undoubtedly, is for practical reasons. With a huge cast, each actor generally takes up less screen time. With Covid protocols in place, it might seem counterintuitive that a big primary cast could be easier to handle, but actors often show up for just a few days to shoot out their scenes, and then they can leave, which could in theory cut down the risk of any one actor breaking out of the “bubble” and getting Covid-19. (And if they do, it might be easier to rejigger the schedule and not waste days.)

  It’s convenient for actors, too, even without Covid in mind. Shooting for a few days or weeks is easier than committing to a months-long shoot, and it frees the calendar to pick up other work.

  For audiences, the effect is more than just amusement. You get the sense, watching a movie like Amsterdam, that this whole world is familiar to you. You belong there because you know these people. It’s comforting, soothing, fun to watch and rewatch. You know, going in, you’re in good hands.

  But I can’t shake the idea that the plethora of cast-of-thousands movies right now is the effect in a gargantuan cause-and-effect relationship. And I think the cause is Avengers: Endgame.

  Remember, this was the ultimate crossover event, where all the stars you’d been watching in the great big cycle of the MCU for decades finally were in a movie together. Perhaps you remember, or were part of, the cheers that went up when all the characters finally showed up on the field of battle together. By now, even the ones who hadn’t been stars when they entered the MCU were surrounded by their own megawattage. The effect was electrifying.

  And it translated to dollars, which in Hollywood is what matters. Avengers: Endgame is still the second-highest-grossing film of all time (the first is Avatar). It’s a gold standard for blockbusters. In Hollywood, whatever makes money spawns imitations. So you can imagine that even directors making original films manage to get them greenlit by studios by suggesting a top-heavy cast.

  Paramount Pictures

  Is the phenomenon bad? No, not really. I like watching Knives Out as much as the next person. But you do have to wonder if it’s harder for new stars to fight their way up the ladder when even minor supporting roles are filled by known faces. Many of today’s “stars” are character actors at heart, and they’re good in the roles. But the sense of discovering a new face gets harder and harder.

  All that can’t diminish the pleasure of watching Taylor Swift strut onto the screen in Amsterdam, or Kathryn Hahn smirk her way through Glass Onion. Movies, after all, have long been about the stars. Now, more than ever.

  Amsterdam opens in theaters on October 7. Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery opens in select cinemas in November and on Netflix on December 23.

• Kim Kardashian’s Instagram story just cost her $1.26 million -

  

  The Securities and Exchange Commission kept up with the Kardashians.

  The crypto crackdown has come for Kim Kardashian.

  The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced on Monday that the queen of influencers did a little too much influencing when it came to the EthereumMax (EMAX) token, which Kardashian promoted on her Instagram in June 2021. She’s agreed to pay $1.26 million and not promote crypto securities for the next three years.

  The settlement shows that the SEC is ready, willing, and able to go after celebrity crypto endorsers. Many of them made plenty of money promoting what ended up being shady crypto schemes that quickly collapsed, leaving investors (often their own fans) with empty pockets.

  SEC chair Gary Gensler did a little social media influencing of his own, announcing the settlement with a tweet that included a video of him warning people about celebrity endorsements of investments.

  Today @SECGov, we charged Kim Kardashian for unlawfully touting a crypto security.
  
  This case is a reminder that, when celebrities / influencers endorse investment opps, including crypto asset securities, it doesn’t mean those investment products are right for all investors.

  — Gary Gensler (@GaryGensler) October 3, 2022

That tweet may well serve as a warning to the celebrities themselves, too. Gensler has made no secret of his desire to go after the loosely regulated and highly volatile world of crypto investments. The SEC has already investigated some of the biggest platforms and people in it. While Kardashian is one of the first, and surely the highest-profile celebrity, to get dinged for promoting crypto to her fans, it’s doubtful she’ll be the last. She may not even be the last celebrity the SEC charges for promoting EthereumMax, which also enlisted boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr. and basketball player Paul Pierce to endorse the token. The SEC noted that its investigation into EthereumMax “is continuing.”

Kardashian’s Instagram story was marked as an ad with “#ad.” That wasn’t good enough for the SEC, which said in its release that the post didn’t include all the information that was legally required for security endorsements, including the source and amount of that compensation. Kardashian was paid $250,000 for her story, the commission said.

Kardashian’s settlement includes that $250,000, interest, and a $1 million penalty. It’s a tiny fraction of her net worth, which is estimated at nearly $2 billion. Kardashian probably won’t even notice it’s missing. But there’s a symbolic value, too: this shows that the SEC isn’t afraid to go after some of the biggest celebrities in the world.

“Ms. Kardashian is pleased to have resolved this matter with the SEC,” Patrick Gibbs, a lawyer for Kardashian, said in a statement. He added that Kardashian cooperated with the SEC and will continue to do so. “She wanted to get this matter behind her to avoid a protracted dispute. The agreement she reached with the SEC allows her to do that so that she can move forward with her many different business pursuits.”

EthereumMax spiked in value when Kardashian, Mayweather Jr., and Pierce promoted it. It plummeted quickly afterward. The three are also the subject of a class action lawsuit that accuses them of working with EthereumMax to artificially inflate the token’s value, also known as a “pump and dump.” The crypto world has been especially susceptible to these, with many celebrities promoting tokens to their fans, only for those tokens to crash in value shortly afterward.

Ben McKenzie, an actor who has become an outspoken critic of the crypto market — specifically the “Hollywoodization” of it — wrote about Kardashian’s EMAX promo last October for Slate as an example of how celebrities were taking advantage of their fans by endorsing shaky crypto investments.

“The wheels of justice grind slow, but at long last government regulators have struck a death blow to the nascent crypto industry. I speak, of course, of Kim Kardashian and EthereumMax,” McKenzie told Recode.

Update, 3 pm ET: This story has been updated to include a statement from Kardashian’s lawyer.

• The Supreme Court appears determined to shrink the Clean Water Act -

  

  But it isn’t sure how.

  Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, which the Supreme Court heard on Monday, is a devilishly difficult case. It involves the proper meaning of a vague phrase in the Clean Water Act, the principal law protecting America’s waters from a wide range of foreign substances.

  That 1972 act prohibits “discharge of pollutants” into “navigable waters.” But it also defines the term “navigable waters” vaguely and counterintuitively, to include all “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” While nearly everyone agrees that major bodies of water such as rivers and large lakes qualify as “waters of the United States,” Sackett, which involves a couple that wants to fill in wetlands on their residential lot near an Idaho lake, asks just how closely a wetland must be connected to such a larger body of water before it is also subject to the Clean Water Act’s prohibitions.

  A decision removing the act’s protections from even some wetlands could have significant implications for the nation’s water supply, as that nation’s water system is interconnected. A pollutant dumped in a wetland miles from a major lake can nonetheless migrate to that lake.

  On the eve of oral arguments in Sackett, the Court appeared likely to settle on one of two approaches suggested by two conservative justices in Rapanos v. United States (2006), the last Supreme Court case to consider how to define the term “waters of the United States.” But neither test seemed to satisfy a majority of the Court during Monday’s oral argument.

  At least six of the justices expressed concerns that a narrow reading of the Clean Water Act suggested by Justice Antonin Scalia (who was joined, in 2006, by three of his fellow Republican appointees) in Rapanos is at odds with the act’s text. Indeed, a majority of the justices seemed so critical of Scalia’s approach — and of conservative lawyer Damien Schiff’s advocacy for that rule — that Schiff seemed to be headed for a loss when he sat down after presenting his first round of arguments to the justices.

  Yet, if environmentalists thought they had reason to celebrate when Schiff left the podium halfway through Monday’s argument, those hopes were dashed not long after DOJ attorney Brian Fletcher began his oral arguments.

  A majority of the justices appeared concerned that the alternative test Justice Anthony Kennedy proposed in Rapanos is too vague to be manageable. Worse, for environmentalists and for the government, the Court’s Republican-appointed majority appeared equally concerned that the federal government’s reading of the statute is too vague — and that it gives landowners too little warning about whether they will have to comply with the law.

  The most likely result in Sackett, in other words, is that the Court will make a significant cut at the Clean Water Act, but perhaps not the deepest one that environmentalists feared before Monday’s arguments. It is less clear whether the justices will come up with a test to determine which waters are subject to the law that brings any real clarity to this difficult question.

  The Court appears dubious of a narrow reading of the Clean Water Act proposed by Justice Scalia

  Plaintiffs Chantell and Michael Sackett bought a residential lot near Priest Lake in Idaho, much of which consists of wetlands. They attempted to fill in these wetlands with sand and gravel, but the federal government told them to stop — on the theory that effectively destroying these wetlands would violate the Clean Water Act.

  Although sand and gravel aren’t the sorts of things that many people ordinarily think of as pollutants, the Clean Water Act prevents the destruction of at least some wetlands because of the natural role wetlands play in protecting more significant bodies of water from pollution. Wetlands act as filters that trap pollutants that could otherwise infiltrate navigable waters. They also act as sponges to absorb floodwaters.

  But the question of which wetlands qualify as “waters of the United States,” and therefore are protected by the Clean Water Act, turns out to be quite difficult. In Rapanos, four justices joined an opinion by Justice Scalia that would have excluded most American wetlands from the act’s scope. Under Scalia’s proposed test, a wetland is only subject to the act if it has a “continuous surface connection” with a “relatively permanent body of water” that makes it “difficult to determine where the ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins.”

  According to an amicus brief filed by professional associations representing water regulators and managers, Scalia’s test would “exclude 51% (if not more) of the Nation’s wetlands” from the act’s protections.

  But many of the justices suggested on Monday that Scalia’s proposed rule from Rapanos is at odds with a provision of the Clean Water Act that indicates that the act does cover wetlands that are “adjacent” to navigable bodies of water.

  Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, argued that a train station ordinarily is considered to be “adjacent” to the train tracks, even if those tracks do not literally touch the train station physically. Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that, in 1977, the Army Corps of Engineers made it clear that a wetland may be “adjacent” to a body of water even if it is separated from that larger body by berms, dunes, dikes, or other such features. And Kavanaugh seemed to argue that Congress incorporated the Army Corps of Engineers’ understanding into the Clean Water Act itself.

  As Justice Amy Coney Barrett told Schiff, “the biggest problem for you, clearly,” is that the law seems to encompass wetlands that are merely nearby a larger body of water, and not just wetlands that are so integrated into that body of water that it is “difficult to determine where the ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins.”

  The Court could ultimately settle on a rule that is even more restrictive than Scalia’s

  Yet, while a majority of the Court did seem to shy away from Scalia’s proposed rule on Monday, all of the Court’s six Republican appointees appeared concerned with what Justice Samuel Alito referred to as a “vagueness problem.” Or, as Justice Neil Gorsuch put it, how is a “reasonable landowner” supposed to determine whether their land is covered by the Clean Water Act?

  In Rapanos, Justice Kennedy proposed what is often referred to as the “significant nexus” test. Under this test, wetlands are subject to the act’s restrictions if they “significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable.’” But several of the justices fretted that this test is too vague to allow landowners to determine upfront whether they must comply with the law.

  Which is not to say that landowners are helpless. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out, a landowner may ask the EPA to look at their land and determine if it is subject to the act before they begin a construction project on that land. And even if the act does apply, a landowner may still seek a permit allowing them to build despite the act’s restrictions.

  But it is far from clear that a majority of the Court will deem these procedures sufficient to protect landowners.

  Several members of the Court also seemed to have concerns that the provision of the Clean Water Act stating that “adjacent” wetlands fall within the scope of the act is also too vague. Could a wetland be “adjacent” to a lake if it was three miles away from it, Gorsuch asked at one point? What if it was just one mile away?

  And the government’s proposed reading of the statute — that a wetland is covered if it is “in reasonable proximity to other waters of the United States” — doesn’t really do much to clear up this vagueness problem.

  The ultimate problem facing the Court is that the statute itself does not draw a clear line that determines when a wetland is so far from a larger body of water that the act no longer applies. And without a clear line, the conservative Court is likely to determine that edge cases simply do not qualify.

  Indeed, in the worst case for the government, the Court could declare much of the act void for vagueness. As Gorsuch has written, in a somewhat hyperbolic majority opinion for the Court, “In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all.”

  In any event, it’s not yet clear that the Court will go quite that far. Most of the justices appeared to spend Monday morning struggling with how to read a law that gives them little clear guidance, at least with respect to close cases. How they resolve that remains to be seen.

From The Hindu: Sports

• Leicester earns first EPL win, drops Forest into last place - Getting 22 new signings to gel is proving to be a mightily difficult task for Nottingham Forest manager Steve Cooper

• UCL Matchday | Barca meets Inter in standout match tonight - A look at what’s happening in the Champions League on Tuesday as the competition heads into the third round of group games:

• ‘I can’t play cricket anymore’: A.B. de Villiers after undergoing eye surgery - A.B. de Villiers revealed plans for the future after undergoing an eye surgery but ruled out a playing return to cricket

• National Games | Purnima Pandey grabs gold in 87kg weightlifting -

• Lovlina’s last-minute entry big boost for boxing - Lovlina, Simranjit, Ankushita and Saweety have been selected for the Asian championships

From The Hindu: National News

• Rajasthan political crisis: Sachin Pilot meets State Minister Khachariyawas - State Minister Rajendra Gudha, who was considered close to Ashok Gehlot, has recently given statements in support of Sachin Pilot

• 10 killed in a road accident in Gujarat - A container truck coming from Surat hit a three wheeler in which passengers were travelling

• Top news of the day: Three scientists share Physics Nobel for quantum mechanics; At least 4 mountaineering trainees killed in Uttarakhand avalanche, and more - The major news headlines of the day and more

• Bihar municipal poll schedule in jeopardy as HC declares quotas for OBCs illegal - The High Court ruled that the elections be held “only by re-notifying the seats reserved…..treating them as general category seats”

• Poor rainfall in Gangetic plains may spike food inflation in near-term: report - According to the Agri ministry's first advance estimate for FY23, Kharif food production is 3.9% lower at 149.92 million tonne

From BBC: Europe

• Ukraine makes breakthrough in south against Russia - Ukraine makes fresh gains in occupied territory annexed by Russia, straining Russian supply lines.

• Calais migrants: Smugglers cause fresh problems for police - New Calais smuggling networks are making it even harder to stop rising numbers of Channel crossings.

• Danish Royal Family: Queen ‘sorry’ after stripping grandchildren’s titles - But she did not reverse the decision to remove titles from four of her grandchildren.

• Zelensky and Musk in row over Ukraine ‘peace plan poll’ - The Tesla boss asked followers to vote on his ideas to end Russia’s invasion, prompting criticism.

• Ramzan Kadyrov: Chechen leader vows to send teenage sons to front line - Ramzan Kadyrov claims his sons, aged 14, 15 and 16, are well trained and ready to fight for Russia.

From Ars Technica

• Walmart, CVS face trial for putting sham homeopathic products next to real meds - A three-judge panel reversed lower courts’ dismissal of the lawsuits. - link

• Still can’t buy a Raspberry Pi board? Things aren’t getting better any time soon - 400,000 Pis are still being made every month, but most are going to businesses. - link

• Big data trove dumped after LA Unified School District says no to ransomware crooks - Confidential incident reports, personnel records, and more are leaked online. - link

• SCOTUS weighs first case testing Big Tech liability for recommending content - Section 230 to face its first Supreme Court challenge. - link

• Linux 6.0 arrives with support for newer chips, core fixes, and oddities - Intel and AMD gear, yes, but support for RISC-V, LoongArch, and Gaudi2 show up. - link

From Jokes Subreddit

• A priest visits his cousin, who is also a priest. -

  The two priests, both in their forties, sit down to dinner.

  The visiting priest says, “Cousin, I couldn’t help noticing that your housekeeper is quite a young and attractive woman. I take it relations between the two of you are not always completely platonic?”

  “How dare you! I am a man of the cloth, as are you! I assure you, there is nothing inappropriate going on between us!”

  After the visiting priest leaves, the housekeeper says to the priest, “Father, I don’t know how to say this, but our silver gravy ladle is missing, and it’s been missing since your cousin’s visit. I don’t know what to do! I’m sure I didn’t misplace it!”

  The priest tells the housekeeper that he’ll handle it. He writes his cousin:

  “Dear cousin. A matter of some delicacy has arisen. Our silver gravy ladle is missing. Now I’m not saying you stole it, and I’m not saying you didn’t, but the fact is that it’s missing. If you have anything to tell me about this, please do so.”

  The answer:

  “Dear cousin. Regarding your letter, I’m not saying you’re sleeping with your housekeeper, and I’m not saying you’re not, but if you were sleeping in your own bed, you would’ve found your silver gravy ladle.”

  submitted by /u/LadeeAlana
  [link] [comments]

• A husband and wife are waiting at the bus stop with their nine children. -

  A blind man joins them after a few minutes. When the bus arrives, they find it overloaded and only the wife and the nine kids are able to fit onto the bus.

  So the husband and the blind man decide to walk. After a while, the husband gets irritated by the ticking of the stick of the blind man as he taps it on the sidewalk, and says to him, “Why don’t you put a piece of rubber at the end of your stick? That ticking sound is driving me crazy.”

  The blind man replies, “If you had put a rubber at the end of YOUR stick, we’d be riding the bus, so shut the hell up.”

  Edit: Formatting

  submitted by /u/Alchem1c
  [link] [comments]

• What can you say to a dentist that you can also say to a prostitute? -

  Give me oral, B!

  submitted by /u/balxy
  [link] [comments]

• Poll: Have You Ever Watched Malcom in the Middle? -

  [YES]

  [NO]

  [MAYBE, I DON’T KNOW]

  [CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?]

  submitted by /u/archiearcher
  [link] [comments]

• Surveys show that 80% of women who wear yoga pants never do yoga … -

  And 100% of men don’t care.

  submitted by /u/freddie54
  [link] [comments]