Unlike for alcohol or heroin, there are no targeted medications to help drug users wean off stimulants like cocaine and methamphetamine. While the deadly opioid crisis might make more headlines, 65 percent of drug-related deaths in California now involve stimulants, especially meth. Deaths from these kinds of stimulants more than quadrupled between 2011 and 2019, and the number of amphetamine-related E.R. visits increased nearly 50 percent between 2018 and 2020, according to an analysis by the Oakland nonprofit California Health Care Foundation. Therefore the state is urgently looking for new ways to rein in the drug crisis, and in early 2023, it began the controversial experiment: paying people to stay sober. This could be one part of the puzzle in securing an unexpected outcome: For the first time in decades, overdose deaths have plummeted by 10 percent between April 2023 and April 2024.

Two dozen counties, including San Francisco, Los Angeles and Orange, are participating in the “recovery incentive” or “contingency management,” as it’s called. The state has allocated $60 million for the pilot phase. The 24-week program essentially uses positive reinforcement with the aim of readjusting people’s brains so they associate being sober with gratification. After each negative drug test, they receive a reward. For the first negative test, they get a gift card in the amount of $10, for the second $11.50, up to $26 or a total of $599 (because any amount larger than that needs to be reported to the IRS). It is part of a bigger initiative, CalAIM, to connect the most vulnerable and high-need citizens with resources and non-traditional benefits in a whole-person approach.

Most importantly, when clients test positive, there are no negative consequences. They simply don’t get their reward and drop back to the initial $10 the next time they deliver a negative test. “If they test positive, we take it as an opportunity to engage with them,” Duff explains. “We say, ‘We’re glad you’re here. Let’s sit down and talk about what happened.’ The goal is to keep them completely engaged. The longer they stay talking to a counselor, the better off their chances in the long run.”

cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/17644126

Archived version (South China Morning Post)

A Chinese professor has sparked a public backlash after he asked a visiting Kazakh diplomat how to make Chinese women “have children obediently, early and in large numbers” at a think tank event.

Wang Xianju, a professor at Renmin University and a former counsellor at the Chinese embassy in Belarus, was speaking to Erlan Qarin, the state counsellor of Kazakhstan, who visited the university in November.

Qarin had given a speech on Kazakhstan’s domestic reforms and relations between the two countries at an event hosted by the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, a think tank based at the university.

The institute published Wang’s remarks on its WeChat account in November but the article only gained online traction – and criticism – this week. It has since been deleted.

During the question-and-answer period, Wang said he was surprised to find there were many children when he visited Kazakhstan.

He said Kazakhstan apparently had effective policies encouraging births, and he wondered how that might be possible, given that Chinese women did not want to get married and have children, and would not listen to their parents or supervisors.

“I even heard that women in Kazakhstan immediately have children after they graduate college, they have children one after another,” Wang said in a now-deleted WeChat article by the think tank.

“How could they listen to you and obediently, submissively have children, have children early and have lots of children?”

But we assumed that they were male, to the point that we named one Rudolph.

Where does this myth come from, is it harmless, and what does it say about us?

Once upon a time, Nova Gorica and Gorizia were one; the two cities were created – and separated – in 1947 after World War Two when the Treaty of Paris established Europe's new borders, restricting travel between Italy and the former Yugoslavia. An Allied commission determined that Gorizia should belong to Italy and the less-developed part of town should be part of the Slovenian republic within the Socialist Federalist Republic of Yugoslavia. The new town was to be called Nova Gorica (New Gorizia), and from that moment on, Nova Gorica and Gorizia have existed as two towns split across two countries.

But with Slovenia's entry into the EU in 2004, the border between them was dissolved, allowing a cross-cultural exchange for the first time in generations. And in 2025, Gorizia/Nova Gorica will reunite as the first transnational European Capital of Culture, in a project called GO!2025.

It was difficult to choose where to throw this.

cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/17544837

Archived

The term “revenge society,” or “revenge against society,” is used in China to refer to acts of violence against innocent civilians committed in blind desperation by those on the bottom rung of society to protest social and political injustices for which there seems no recourse. Emerging online in the early 2000s, the term has been applied in both mainstream (CCP-led) news coverage and online discourse to random attacks on unsuspecting victims, generally in cases where the perpetrators are thought to have disadvantaged and precarious positions economically and socially.

On November 11, 2024, dozens of Chinese were killed and many more injured as a 62-year-old driver unhappy about a divorce settlement plowed his car into a stadium in the southern city of Zhuhai, running down people on the sports track. Just five days later, eight people were killed and 17 wounded in a knife attack on the campus of a vocational school in Yixing, in Jiangsu province, a city famed since ancient times for its clay teapots. The suspect was reportedly enraged because he had failed an exam and not received his graduation certificate.

These cases were merely the latest in a string of brutal attacks in China killing scores of people in the fall of 2024. Collectively, they brought renewed discussion over a period of weeks of a phenomenon that has been a feature of Chinese media coverage of such cases since at least the 1990s — “social revenge” (报复社会). Not used in other Chinese-language contexts such as Taiwan and Hong Kong, “social revenge,” or “revenge against society,” is the idea that assailants, particularly from the disaffected ranks of society, have perpetrated attacks against innocent people in a desperate bid to air their grievances.

...

The term “revenge society” was regularly used through the 2000s. In August 2005, after a 42-year-old farmer with terminal lung cancer set off a homemade explosive on a bus in the city of Fuzhou, injuring 31 people, the magazine Lifeweekly (三联生活周刊) called the incident “individual terrorism” (一个人的恐怖主义), but noted that the incident did not clearly fit the pattern of “revenge against society.” People discussing the case, it noted, had been “unable to find the actual rationalization behind his social revenge” (却找不到他报复社会真实).

The term often seemed a way to frame or make sense of cases of incredible and sometimes mysterious brutality — particularly against the backdrop of a controlled media environment in which it was difficult to openly discuss many of the objective social factors behind these cases, including labor rights violations, forced demolition, and migrant discrimination.

...

The late 2000s was still a time of relative discursive space for China’s press, though always under the watchful eye of Chinese Communist Party “guidance.” In its own, indirect way, China Youth Daily was suggesting that more responsibility should be placed on the government in such cases, implying that poor governance, and failing rule of law, were factors behind issues of social injustice. “When revenge is committed against society, the government should understand that it can change society and transform it through good governance to achieve social justice at a higher level,” the newspaper wrote.

...

A glimpse at medieval western European astronomy, following a Roman theory that Mercury and Venus orbit the Sun and how it influenced Copernicus's heliocentric model a millennium later.

Archived

China is urging colleges and universities to provide "love education" to emphasise positive views on marriage, love, fertility and family, in a bid to boost the country's flagging birth rate.

Beijing has been promoting various measures to try to make having children more attractive to young couples after China posted a second consecutive year of population decline in 2023.

China has the second-biggest population in the world at 1.4 billion, but it is ageing quickly, which will increase the demands on government spending in the future and put pressure on the economy.

College students will be the biggest driver of fertility but they have significantly changed their views on marriage and love, the Jiangsu Xinhua newspaper group said, citing China Population News, an official publication.

[...]

The measures would help create a "healthy and positive marriage and childbearing cultural atmosphere."

[...]

The state council, or cabinet, rallied local governments in November to direct resources towards fixing China's population decline and spread respect for childbearing and marriages "at the right age," although demographers said the moves were unlikely to resonate with young Chinese.

Around 57% of college students polled by China Population News said they did not want to fall in love, mainly because they did not know how to allocate time to balance the relationship between study and love, the publication said.

[...]

Universities could focus on teaching junior college students about population and national conditions, new marriage and childbearing concepts, it said.

Senior college students and graduate students could be taught through "case analysis, group discussion on maintaining intimate relationships and communication between the sexes."

The courses would be able to help them "improve their ability to correctly understand marriage and love and manage love relationships."

A girl who attends a school with classmates whose mothers work is more likely to be in the workforce when she has a child herself than a girl who grows up in local circles where most mothers stay at home, Cornell researchers have found.

“Role models pull girls in different directions in adolescence, a period when preferences are formed, when they decide what to do in their life,” said Eleonora Patacchini, the Stephen and Barbara Friedman Professor of Economics in the College of Arts and Sciences. “When they decide whether to return to work after having a child, they remember the mothers and fathers of their peers.”

Women trail men in the workforce largely because of the “child penalty” – women leaving work upon having a child and not returning. Social norms and culture influence a girls’ later decisions about participation in the work force; when she looked into precisely how, Patacchini, with doctoral student Giulia Olivero and Henrik Kleven, professor of economics at Princeton University, found that greater exposure to working moms at a very local level – the school – decreases the child penalty for girls. Meanwhile, exposure to working fathers increases the child penalty, a “striking” asymmetric effect, Patacchini said.

Girls who are socialized in an environment where most mothers work are more likely to develop a gender-role ideal that reconciles career and motherhood, they conjecture, compared with girls who are socialized in an environment where most mothers stay at home.

...

Given the emphasis on community and belonging in our cultural moment, the impulse to save everything we can is understandable: to restore storm-damaged buildings, hold back the tide, snuff out the wildfires, and show that by outwitting nature we are still our own masters. There’s an implicit guilt behind these salvage attempts: a recognition that our suffering now and in future is caused by what we ourselves have wrought. In Pacifica, on the California coast, the local administration talks about ‘managed retreat’ to describe its medium-term evacuation process in response to wildfires, to the dismay and anger of some residents. The episode of the podcast This American Life telling their stories was headlined ‘Apocalypse Now-ish’. Politically, it is an invidious problem – no politician wants to be accused of ‘abandoning a community’, or to tell someone who loves their home: ‘It’s time to go – and to let go.’

Can we learn to embrace impermanence? Climate realists make a compelling case, reminding us that generations to come will have to ‘find the beauty in our burnt planet’ since they deserve beauty too. The balance to be struck is between acknowledging the worst effects and likely future impacts of climate change, and insisting that we continue to resist them – pushing for changes that will save lives, communities and ecosystems. An honest appraisal of how ‘burnt’ things are becoming should not give way to climate nihilism. Letting go of settlements is not the same as ‘giving up’. In Holderness, people have been learning to let go for thousands of years.

How does knowing two or more languages affect the way we process emotion? Recent research suggests that each language can make its speakers perceive reality in a different way, and people can even notice a change in themselves as they switch from one language to another.

Other studies have shown that bilingual people may behave differently depending on the language they use. The people talking to them also perceive them differently depending on which language they are speaking.

[...]

If you speak multiple languages, you process words that define or describe emotion differently depending on whether you use your mother tongue (which you learn in childhood and predominates your thought and speech) and your second language (which has been learned, either formally or organically).

The mother tongue tends to have an emotional edge over the second language – bilingual or multilingual people feel greater emotional intensity when speaking theirs, especially when recalling experiences they had in this language.

Some studies have shown that people describe childhood memories more vividly if they speak in their mother tongue, since this is the language in which they label and remember these experiences. The second language, in contrast, offers a degree of emotional distance, allowing the speaker to feel less anxiety or shame when talking in complex situations, like when they need to express anger or apologise.

In other words, the mother tongue is perceived as a more emotionally rich language, while the second language is less expressive, but more practical. This means that emotional expression in the mother tongue is felt more intensely, regardless of whether the emotion is positive or negative.

Different language, different personality?

The choice of language in which bilingual people communicate affects not only emotional intensity, but also the way they perceive themselves and others. Using one language or another can influence the construction of discourse, and reveal cultural and social aspects that are specific to the language communities to which they belong.

[...]

Driving the news: English professors across the country say college students are struggling to finish books, The Atlantic reports. That’s in part because middle and high school teachers have noted kids’ attention problem and started assigning poems, short stories or excerpts of books instead of full works.

Kids shows are getting shorter. Episodes of Bluey, one of the most popular kids shows, are about seven minutes long on average, Vulture notes. Pop songs are simpler, shorter and more repetitive to give them a better chance of going viral on TikTok and Instagram in snippet form, Forbes reports.

Zoom out: Studies have linked excessive screen time to problems focusing in kids.

All of us — including kids and teens — have a world of entertainment at our fingertips, and we can just keep scrolling if something doesn’t grab us.

Research shows that individual acts of kindness and connection can have a real impact on global change when these acts are collective. This is true at multiple levels: between individuals, between people and institutions, and between cultures.

This relational micro-activism is a powerful force for change – and serves as an antidote to hopelessness because unlike global-scale issues, these small acts are within individuals’ control.

Manual textile-making has historically been a communal process, too, providing space for conversation, solidarity and, sometimes, resistance. Over the past decade, textile arts have been responsible for some of Australia’s most popular exhibitions. And yet as a form, textiles have a history of marginalisation in the high art world; associated with women, domesticity, First Nations traditions, and queer and class activism. They have been ignored or dismissed by the “pale, male and stale” art canon.

Radical Textiles at the Art Gallery of South Australia revels in its rejections of this bias and in its enthusiastic reverence for expert craft. Nearly 200 works are on show, gathered from more than 150 artists, designers and activists from Australia and abroad, and ranging from tapestries to trousers, union banners to sewn sculptures – disparate forms that communicate shared ideas about community, empathy and collective identity.

Inside the album were 377 black-and-white photos taken between 1940 and 1942. They included street scenes with civilians and ubiquitous German soldiers, going about the business of Occupation near some of the most recognizable landmarks: Montmartre, the Place de la Concorde or the Champs-Elysées.

But there was no indication of who had taken the pictures, and with good reason.

During the German Occupation of France, the Nazis strictly prohibited outdoor photography; taking pictures without an official permit was punishable by imprisonment or death.

Adding to the intrigue were the captions on the back of the photos, written in block letters as if someone were trying to mask their handwriting. Not only was the location, date and exact time of day noted, but there was also often a snarky caption about the German soldiers, whom the photographer referred to, pejoratively, as "Fritzes."

One read: "After 10 months of Occupation, the Fritzes still can't find their way around Paris."

My grandmother was a good Catholic who didn’t go to college and had eight children. Her oldest child went to college and had one child, me. Your own family probably fits this pattern. In a decline that correlates with education and secularism, and is concentrated in the Global North, women across the world are having about half the number of children they had only fifty years ago.

However strange it may sound to characterize the post-Roe present as overflowing with reproductive choice, the mainstream center-left tends to agree with the far right that this choice is a new phenomenon, and that our predecessors were spared the existential dilemma. As Dutch philosopher Mara van der Lugt writes in Begetting: What Does it Mean to Create a Child?, “Traditionally, and biologically, having children was not something that is decided upon, but something that occurs.” Likewise, in What Are Children For? On Ambivalence and Choice, Anastasia Berg and Rachel Wiseman assert that until fairly recently, having children was “not, as it is steadily becoming today, one possible path to take among several equally legitimate ones.” It was “just what people did.”

Books like these emphasize free choice by foregrounding a modern could-be parent (who happens to be the author, but might as well be the reader) struggling to make this incredibly consequential, and individual, decision, in the face of a society that would make that choice for her. Against her culture’s repository of inherited givens and traditional foreclosures, freedom is when she discovers, for herself, what that right choice is. Yet what happens to “society” when it becomes the name of this “modern” problem? What if the problem isn’t new? What if it isn’t a problem at all?

Books like these imply or outright state that the birthrate is falling because of a new epidemic of chosen childlessness. But the data doesn’t show us that; what it shows is that people have far fewer children, one or two instead of eight. (Meanwhile the sharp decline in teen pregnancy alone accounts for half the drop in the United States’ general fertility.) Opinion columnists and reactionary politicians habitually infer rampant childlessness from the declining number of total births, but the modern childless woman (and debates about “parents” are mainly talking about women) remains the same kind of statistical outlier she has always been.

As recently as 2016, the percentage of U.S. women between ages 40 and 44 who had borne a child was 86 percent—higher than it’s been since the mid-1990s and down only from 90 percent in 1976, a time when only about 10 percent of women earned a bachelor’s degree. The rate fell as low as 80 percent in 2006, but these are still strikingly high numbers. Direct comparisons to the past are tricky, but it’s telling that in 1870, for example, only 84 percent of married American white women had borne a child, compared to 93 percent in 1835. (Imagine the panicked op-eds! Of course, among enslaved women, for whom reproduction was truly compulsory, the number was about 97 percent.) If we remember that perhaps 1 in 10 American women today struggle with infertility, it seems hard to imagine it could be much higher (at least in a reproductively free society).

While hearing aids are relatively speaking uncontroversial, the internal portion of a cochlear implant requires surgery, which of course entails risk. There is a significant period of rehabilitation as the brain learns to make sense of a totally new type of electronic input, and the external processor itself is slightly larger and more visible on the head. Deaf adults can of course make this decision for themselves, but increasingly the recommendations are for parents to implant their children in infancy as this generally produces the best outcomes. Even in the past few years, the age of recommended implantation for severely to profoundly deaf babies has dropped to nine months. Their astonishing success rate in aiding the understanding of speech has meant a new generation of deaf adults are emerging who do not use sign language in the way they would have done only a few decades earlier.

While for some this is one of the great advances of modern medicine, for others it is a deeply worrying evolution. The new technological possibilities and their swift adoption have understandably caused widespread consternation in Deaf communities globally. The future of their complex and rich visual languages is endangered by the developments, as well as the communities and ways of life that stem from them. These are genuine and valid concerns, and ones that are rarely addressed in moderate, bipartisan terms. There are also broader ethical concerns raised by surgical intervention of this kind on children whose lives are not threatened, and who are not in a position to request or consent.

Why is the case of cochlear implantation so different from other parallel medical situations that a parent has to navigate? Why is it controversial in the way that an artificial limb or cornea transplant is not? Unlike the parent of a child with vision loss who pursues laser surgery in an uncomplicated way, the parent of a deaf child is implicated in a much larger politico-cultural struggle. To my outsider’s eyes, a lot of this was not the tangled snarl of identity politics, but seemed largely to stem from a fundamental disagreement over the metaphysics of deafness. Whereas the hearing world, hand in hand with the medical one, has conceptualised deafness as a sensory deficit that can be relatively effectively ‘restored’ – albeit partially, temporarily and imperfectly – parts of the Deaf-World argue that this approach demonstrates an outdated pathologisation of difference.

Sue Gordon, who served as the principal deputy director of national intelligence — the nation’s top career intelligence post — shared her big concern: What if America just doesn’t meet the moment? What if, coming out of the pandemic, America just fails to step up as great powers, adversary nations, partisan polarization, and rising income inequality upends the global system that has kept watch for 80 years? “Our institutions are not keeping up with the turn of the Earth, and they’re being devalued in the moment,” she told me. “Society requires government, yet we’re running out of the structures that make it work.”

As I wrote then, “There are massive economic, societal and security benefits that come from being the world’s leading superpower. What happens if we’re not anymore? Imagine a U.S. that doesn’t attract top talent. What if the next great innovations happen in Europe or Asia instead of Silicon Valley? What if Chinese venture capitalists get first crack at the hottest deals in the world?”

A few years back, my local mom Facebook group started a weekly thread to share the best deals on groceries around town. We tried to look through supermarkets’ circulars to pull out the best deals we saw. Someone started a spreadsheet comparing prices at Costco versus non-warehouse stores.

The effort fizzled quickly. Why? Not because it wasn’t useful, but because it was so much work to do on a volunteer basis.

What if a local news organization did this for us, making it part of a reporter’s job? Better yet, what if local news organizations around the country made it part of their mission to help readers compare grocery prices around town? What if, on every digital local news site, a “groceries” vertical highlighted the week’s best deals across stores? Where I live, Market Basket generally has the lowest prices on everything — but once in awhile Star Market beats its price on butter or broccoli or bagels. A weekly digest letting me know this would provide a genuine service. A regularly updated Costco or BJs spreadsheet on a local news site? Yes, please.

archive.is link

Everyone loves to judge what rich people do with their money, and no one has a better front-row seat than those they keep closest: their personal assistants. For decades, Brian Daniel worked as a PA for ultrawealthy clients; now, he helps recruit and train other high-level PAs for some of the world’s richest families and top-earning CEOs and has built a deep network of people in the private-service industry along the way. Here, he talks about what a typical day of work might entail, how he snags a table at the most in-demand restaurant at the last minute, and what it’s like when your boss has never heard the word “no.”