Vox’s Dylan Matthews looks at philosophy to explain why the whole Bernie Sanders, Joe Rogan thing turned into a controversy, and he stumbles into territory of explaining how cancel culture came to be in the first place.

Most liberals have what I would characterize as a deontological opposition to discrimination. That is, they think that discriminating against or maligning someone on the basis of membership in a protected class — women, trans people, black people, and other racially oppressed communities, etc. — violates a rule that should be inviolable. […]

The main rival to deontology is a school of thought known as “consequentialism.” In this view, the morality of actions must be judged by their consequences: The more grievous the consequences (be it in terms of human happiness, or suffering, or human freedom, etc.), the more heinous the action.

To over simplify things, you’ve got the left as the consequentialists, and the radical left as deontologists. Ignoring nuance, these schools of thought line up similarly to idealism versus realism, and they also track well with the left-to-right political spectrum.

The main objection philosophers have raised against deontological restrictions is that they’re overly rigid. Immanuel Kant, the originator of this school of moral philosophy, famously argued that it was immoral to lie in all circumstances, even to a murderer who’s asking for your friend’s whereabouts so he can kill her. Few people today think a rule that rigid is viable. But if we as a society accept more and more forms of discrimination and animus as absolutely unacceptable — adding poverty to the list, say — we are left with an ever-more-restrictive moral code that forces us into ever-thornier moral dilemmas..

Clearly, there’s a balance to be struck between consequentialism and deontology. Right now in American politics, conservatives are closer to the consequentialist POV. The radical left is balls to the wall for the deontology POV. Moderates and moderate leftists are the ones trying to figure out where that balance lies. Allow me to offer the following modified box and whisker plot as a guide for where we need to be.

While there are more and more people joining the factions at the polar ends of this spectrum, I would assert that there are far more people in the middle than it seems. People who are on the edges (particularly in the deontology camp) are exorbitantly loud, and seem to have a much larger societal presence than they really do. Its also worth noting that the consequentialism point is further to the right than the deontology point is to the left; this placement is intentional, those on the radical left seem to adopt more aggressively deontological belief systems more than those on the equivalently radical right seem to adopt aggressively consequentialist belief systems.

What a classless way to deliver such a tragic piece of news. Crude language. Bold, irreverent font. The headline itself forced more than halfway down the page by aggressive ads. Reporters and media outlets have less and less shame by the day; anything for clicks and ratings. Disgusting.

On Tuesday, Joe Rogan more or less endorsed Bernie Sanders on his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience. He commended Bernie for his consistency and for having a fairly clean record. It was a good episode that touched on a lot of important subjects, I’d recommend giving it a listen.

Anyway, Bernie’s campaign tweeted a clip from the podcast, more or less accepting the endorsement:

“I think I'll probably vote for Bernie... He’s been insanely consistent his entire life. He’s basically been saying the same thing, been for the same thing his whole life. And that in and of itself is a very powerful structure to operate from.” -Joe Rogan pic.twitter.com/fuQP0KwGGI

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) January 23, 2020

This seems like a good thing for anyone who wants Trump out of the White House. Joe Rogan has a huge audience, and he’s not decidedly liberal or conservative. Ezra Klein (@erzaklein on Twitter) offered the following take:

Bernie’s strength is that he can win over some voters who are skeptical of Democrats - like Joe Rogan. If you think getting Trump out of office is actually important, that’s a good thing, and he should lean into it.

People from the radical left, particularly trans people, disagreed. They accuse Rogan of many horrible things, namely they want people to believe that he’s transphobic (a weightless accusation to begin with; Rogan’s take on trans people boils down to treating people equally while acknowledging biological facts). Further, they purport that Bernie’s acceptance of Rogan’s endorsement is just absolutely egregious, and they’re expecting apologies from Bernie, expecting him to denounce the endorsement, and are even claiming that all the truly woke people on the left won’t support Bernie now that he’s accepted this endorsement. To think that Rogan is transphobic is ridiculous, let alone that Bernie’s acceptance of Rogan’s endorsement makes Bernie transphobic by proxy. It’s almost incomprehensibly stupid that real people think this way.

Let’s acknowledge the irony of this situation, wherein pointing out that Bernie had very little that could be used against him, Rogan gave people something to use against Bernie. Of course, Rogan was expecting the opposition to come from the right — the side who would naturally oppose Bernie, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist — but instead, the outrage is pulsing from the radical left.

This is why cancel culture is such a parasite to our society. If you disagree with them at all, they’ll try to cancel you and anyone near you, and not only is it childish and temperamental, it’s self destructive. Klein, again:

This’ll get me ratio’d or whatever but a lot of Twitter seems to want to enforce a politics where you only work or ally with people you agree almost totally with. but to get anything done in our system requires working with people you often disagree with.

Tearing down Bernie (currently the highest polling democratic candidate in Iowa and New Hampshire) will only make it more likely that Trump gets reelected, and he’d certainly be less of a positive force for trans people. The lack of foresight these “progressives” have is absolutely mind boggling.

Christians, listen up. If you voted for Donald Trump because you think he’s such a terrific Christian role model and he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and criminalize abortion, you’d be pleased to hear that today, Donald Trump is speaking at an anti-abortion rally.

However, you may not be pleased to hear that in 1999, he was asked in an interview with NBC “would President Trump ban partial birth abortion?” to which he replied “I’m very pro-choice.” The interviewer confirmed with him “you would not ban it?” and he reaffirmed “No. I am pro-choice in every respect and as far as it goes”.

I personally have mixed feelings about abortion: I believe we ought to restrict it to cases of incest and danger to the mother. Donald Trump disagrees. The fact that he’s pounding a different drum now is not indicative of a change of heart, it’s indicative of the fact that he knows his audience and knows how to squeeze votes out of his evangelical base. I believe true Christians will ultimately see through his deception on the abortion issue.

What Trump is doing is not motivated by a respect for human life, it’s motivated by greed and a desire to keep himself in Christians’ good graces so that they’ll reelect him. Unfortunately, Trump’s recently adopted stance on abortion won’t do anything to curb the practice in the long run. While his statements and actions have enflamed state legislatures to the point that a few very red states have passed new laws banning abortion, those laws are all too radical and incendiary to make a real difference; they’ll be overturned as soon as the current leaders in those states are replaced. For example, Alabama has now restricted abortion to such a ridiculous extent that if a 10 year old girl were to be raped and impregnated by her father, and she decides to abort the baby, she could be imprisoned for life. Virtually nobody on either side thinks that’s the right way to handle this issue.

The legislation needed to restrict abortion will have to be carefully weighed to ensure that abortion is an option in the very rare cases where it makes sense, but not available as a form of birth control. Donald Trump is hurting the long term prospects of such legislation ever being passed by radicalizing the opposition and leading them to take up positions that make them less supportive of any new laws that would restricting abortion, but we know that ultimately doesn’t matter to him, because as he’s confirmed, he’s “very pro-choice”.

But just because Trump isn’t really pro-life doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t be, and we have another option.

Abortion has been a well-documented practice since the height of the Greek and Roman civilizations millennia ago, and governments have tried making it illegal, without success in reducing the number of abortions. It’s certainly something that we need to address, but broadly criminalizing it is not the best way to actually prevent abortions from happening, it’s just a good way to punish people who have them. And unfortunately, punishing someone after they’ve had an abortion doesn’t undo the loss of life.

There’s a better, more immediate way to reduce abortions than just making it illegal, and that is by improving sex education and increasing access to birth control and contraceptives so that fewer unwanted pregnancies occur in the first place. You can argue for abstinence, but realistically, that’s not a solution: not everyone’s religion requires them to abstain from sex until marriage, and regardless of whether you think they’re wrong or right, we can agree that out of wedlock sex that doesn’t lead to unwanted pregnancy is favorable to out of wedlock sex that does lead to unwanted pregnancy where women may consider abortion.

Donald Trump has no plan to reduce the number of abortions taking place in America, but Joe Biden does. Joe’s plan would provide greater access to birth control and contraceptives. If you truly want to see progress on reducing abortions in the United States, pick Joe Biden.

You may have noticed that CopyrightBro had lots to say after the first and second democratic debates, but neglected to publish anything about debates 3, 4, 5, and 6. This wasn’t a mistake. Those debates were all rather unmemorable; none of them were groundbreaking, and none of the candidates seemed to evolve much or show new sides of themselves. It was a very “same story, different day” sort of situation. Honestly, I was sick of hearing the same argument about healthcare every. Single. Time. I got burnt out.

I do want to briefly comment on some of the candidates and note how my thoughts on them have changed over the course of the the four debates I haven’t already commented on.

The Defeated

Harris: Kamala also seemed to use her blackness as a tool at times, which I just think is bad form. She dropped out rather suddenly, citing a lack of funding. That’s plausible — she was taking hits in the debates and donations seemed to stall — but I think her exit could potentially be explained by blackmail. She seems like she might have some particularly nasty skeletons in her closet. In any case, she’s demonstrated that she’s a terrific senator and prosecutor during the Kavanaugh hearings, and I think we’re better off having her stay in the Senate.

O’Rourke: He’s gone. Unfortunately, he gave Republicans a terrific sound bite to use to rile up their base when he yelled “hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15” during a nationally televised debate.

Gilibrand: As predicted, she simply didn’t have enough momentum to get to the White House. I still like her dedication, though, and she’s still memorable months after leaving the debate stage.

Booker: While I was warming up to him, he didn’t seem particularly genuine to me in a lot of scenarios, and he seemed to accentuate his blackness when it was convenient. I don’t think he was a bad guy, but I’m not upset that he’s out of the race.

Gabbard*: Tulsi is no longer one of my top picks. I think she’s a very interesting candidate, but I’m less convinced of her character. Perhaps I’ve been swayed by the negative media coverage she’s received in the wake of being caught up in a twitter storm that accused her of being a Russian asset. In any case, it’s also interesting that she feels so at home on Fox News; I’m not sure what to think of that. It’s worth noting that she was the only candidate to not qualify for a debate, and then qualify for the one that succeeded the one for which she didn’t qualify.

Yang*: He made it farther than I expected, and he was somehow able to hype up his Freedom Dividend plan the whole way.

*It’s worth noting that while these candidates didn’t qualify for the most recent debate and I’ve characterized them as “defeated”, they still haven’t ended their campaigns, so they technically aren’t out of the running.

The Late Boomers Bloomers:

Tom Steyer: Bought his ticket.

Mike Bloomberg: Bought his ticket.

The Pack Leaders

Elizabeth Warren: I think Elizabeth Warren has the best chance of beating Donald Trump. The other serious contenders, Pete, Biden, and Bernie, each have flaws which I think will be enough to keep them from pulling enough Trump voters onboard, despite that they do all boast unique advantages. All in all, I think Warren has a solid set of plans, and if she can truly crack down on corruption to even a tenth of the extent to which she hopes, America will be much better for it.

Pete Buttigieg: I like Pete’s more moderate politics more than I like Warren’s more progressive ideas, and I think Pete has made a good effort to reach out to independents and moderate Republicans. I think it’s more important than ever to try to slow down the swing of the political pendulum, and the best way to do that, in my opinion, is to get people from both sides of the aisle on your team, not just enflame your base against your competition; the enflamatory approach will just make those who lose the election even more angry and the winning side will feel more vindicated, deepening the divide in our country. However, I don’t think Pete is terribly electable because he’s gay. Even though he’s the type of guy whose sexuality doesn't precede him, it will be difficult for a gay man to take votes away from Trump’s evangelical base. All in all, I think that if Pete gets the nomination, the amount of hate that would flow from Trump’s ignorant base would be enough to move gay people back, regardless of whether Pete wins the general election. While I like him the best and would like to see a same-sex attracted president, I don’t think America is ready for that. Give it another ten years, and then I think a same-sex attracted man could make a strong run for the presidency without incurring so much hate that his candidacy ultimately results in a step back for LGB people.

Bernie Sanders: Bernie’s health is a concern, as well as his age. From a policy standpoint, he’s very similar to Elizabeth Warren. I’m not surprised that he’s a serious contender, but I don’t think he’s our best option. The fact that he calls himself a democratic socialist gives the right a lot of ammunition to use against him and convince him that he’s a threat to democracy, even though those same people would likely agree with a decent amount of Bernie’s ideas. The word “socialist” has such strong connotations that I doubt anyone claiming such a label could win against the republican propaganda machine.

Joe Biden: I really had hoped that people wouldn’t still be taking Joe Biden seriously at this point, but here we are. While his name recognition will help him and the nostalgia of the Obama administration may pull a select few undecided voters to his team, I think there’s a solid argument to be made that he’s the most career-y of the career politicians running in 2020. Not to mention the fact that Trump has already gotten a head start on attacking Biden, I don’t think it’s smart to give him the nomination. As far as policy goes, he’s very similar to Pete, except he’s way older, and given the choice, I think we’d be crazy not to install a younger POTUS.

Last But Not Least

Amy Klobuchar: I think Amy is a another very interesting candidate. If you’d asked me four months ago to list the candidates who’d still be around at this stage, I never would’ve guessed Amy would have a place in that group. I still find her to be a very genuine candidate. The facts that her jokes don’t always land is retable yet cringeworthy. I appreciate her moderate take on a lot of issues, and her demonstrated ability to win in purple and red districts is a huge plus. She handles herself well in debates and would wipe the floor with Donald Trump. Unfortunately, I don’t think she has a great chance of getting the nomination due to her low rank in the polls and the fact that she’s facing two stronger candidates who are also occupying that moderate space, but who have the benefit of being male (though one is gay, so that detracts a bit from the male privilege points he receives). It seems unlikely that she’ll be the nominee, but I’ll be very happy if she is.

UPDATED: 1/24/20, 09:27

Until recently, I was under the impression that iCloud backups were protected by end-to-end encryption. Devastatingly, this is not the case.

Apple does use end-to-end encryption for some data stored in iCloud, but this does not include device backups, and it also doesn’t include a lot of the information stored separately from your backups — including notes, photos, calendar events, Safari bookmarks and tabs, contacts, or Messages in iCloud — though they do protect the rest of it with standard encryption. The things they do use end-to-end encryption for include home data, health data, stored passwords, payment information, and learned keyboard vocabulary, which are the most sensitive types of data stored in iCloud.

The fact that Apple doesn’t protect all of your data with end-to-end encryption doesn’t necessarily mean your data is at great risk. The standard encryption is strong enough to keep bad actors from accessing it; you don’t need to worry about Apple getting hacked or anything along those lines, but the difference between standard encryption and end-to-end encryption is still a big deal. Put simply, end-to-end encryption means that the only key that can unlock your data resides with you, in the form of a password, while with standard encryption, you have your key, but Apple also keeps a key in case you lose yours. The upside of Apple keeping a key is that if you do lose yours, they can help you get your data back, but the downside is that they could be persuaded to share their key with the government if subpoenaed. With end-to-end encryption, you’re the only one who has a key, so it’s inherently safer, but if you forget your password, then you lose the data and nobody in the world can help you.

Apple apparently considered using end-to-end encryption for iCloud backups a few years ago, but decided not to do so at the time. If this is true, it’s a major loss for consumer privacy. While many people may not care about having fully protected iCloud backups, it would be nice if we at least had the option. You can fully encrypt backups to a Mac or PC, but it’s much more cumbersome to connect your device to a computer to back it up when iCloud could be doing it for you automatically.

As pointed out by John Gruber on Daring Fireball, Tim Cook’s comments in a 2018 interview (with a German publication — here’s a translated copy) indicated that users would soon be able to employ end-to-end encryption to protect their iCloud backups. Hopefully, this is the case, and hopefully that option comes soon.

It’s a shame that Apple has left this door open, and it seems downright irresponsible for them to just ignore it. Though they’re already leagues ahead of all their competition, they need to be doing all they can to differentiate themselves from companies like Google if they’re going to continue to market themselves as the privacy company. Unfortunately, until all iCloud data (backups, notes, photos, etc.) is end-to-end encrypted, true privacy and security are but myths for anyone who uses iCloud.

This story for The New York Times by Jack Nicas is primarily about the Pensacola shooter’s iPhone, (a story that we commented on a few days ago to highlight the danger of the FBI’s public attack on encryption), but it raises another good point about device security. Machines exist that are capable of unlocking Apple devices via a brute force method that tricks the iPhone or iPad into allowing an unlimited number of passcode attempts in quick succession. Essentially, this means that one of these devices could break into your phone in as little as a few minutes.

A four-number passcode, the previous default length, would take on average about seven minutes to guess. If it’s six digits [the current default length], it would take on average about 11 hours. Eight digits: 46 days. Ten digits: 12.5 years.

If the passcode uses both numbers and letters, there are far more possible passcodes — and thus cracking it takes much longer. A six-character alphanumeric passcode would take on average 72 years to guess.

The point is that you need to use a strong passcode if you want to truly protect yourself from brute force threats like those posed by anyone in possession of one of these aggressive little boxes, whether that’s law enforcement or an individual will ill intent who manages to get their hands on one of them. Apple does all they can to fix bugs that allow these devices to work, but there’s only so much they can do: security is a cat and mouse game, and you’ve gotta look out for yourself. I’ve been using a seven digit alphanumeric passcode for about two years, and it hardly takes any longer to punch in than the six digit passcode you’re probably already using. Plus, if you’re using Touch ID or Face ID, you probably don’t type in your passcode most of the time when you unlock your device anyway.

To set up an alphanumeric passcode on your iOS device, open Settings → Face ID & Passcode (it may say “Touch ID & Passcode”, depending on what device you have). It will then prompt you to enter your current password. After you’ve punched it in, tap “Change Passcode”. It will prompt you to enter your passcode again, and then slide to the next screen where you can either enter a new passcode. Above the keypad, tap “Passcode Options”, and select “Custom Alphanumeric Code”. This will allow you to set up a passcode that uses a combination of numbers and letters: be sure to include at least one of each, maybe an uppercase letter, and shoot for at least 6 characters. After you enter the new passcode, it will have you confirm it, and then you’re done! Congrats, you just protected your iPhone for about 70 years worth of underhanded, illegitimate, brute force passcode attempts.

It’s concerning that the National Archives would have allowed a photo they’re displaying to be censored in the first place, but at least they’re making it right.

We made a mistake.

As the National Archives of the United States, we are and have always been completely committed to preserving our archival holdings, without alteration. pic.twitter.com/VTWOS4R7GY

— US National Archives (@USNatArchives) January 18, 2020

This tweet perfectly complements my piece on militarized masculinity.

A huge chunk of American gun culture basically boils down to a way for grown men to play soldier without ever having to actually put themselves in a harm's way. This image encapsulates a strain of modern masculinity that wants all of the "toughness," but none of the risk. https://t.co/CEvlEU36If

— Jarret Ruminski (@TheDevilHistory) January 20, 2020

These fat, grown ass men wearing tie dye and tactical gear aren’t protecting anyone, they’re just stroking their own egos and trying to feel important in a world where the weak are less reliant on men to protect them than ever before. This perverts the true courage and sacrifice demonstrated by those who actually put their life on the line to protect and serve our country. Hoarding rifles doesn’t make you a man, especially when the only thing you’re using them to defend is your own manliness.

If you’re reading this and you’re one of these people who thinks you need to stockpile guns for an impending (imaginary) war, you’re a coward. If you’re one of these people but you don’t think you’re a coward, here you go.

Joe Heim, reporting for The Washington Post:

The Archives acknowledged in a statement this week that it made multiple alterations to the photo of the 2017 Women’s March showcased at the museum, blurring signs held by marchers that were critical of Trump.

Gotta love state sponsored censorship.

This is a classic case of same story, different day. If you recall, in the wake of the San Bernardino shooting in 2015, the FBI had a showdown with Apple where they wanted Apple to give them access to the shooter’s iPhone 5c, which was locked with a passcode. Apple provided what help they could, but stopped short of doing what the FBI ultimately asked them to do, which was build a backdoor that would’ve let them in.

Now, in the wake of the Pensacola shooting, the FBI is again asking Apple to unlock a device for them. Apple has provided all of the data they can, including information from the shooter’s iCloud account, but they are again refusing to build the FBI a backdoor.

The technological aspects of this can be quite confusing, but put simply, the type of encryption that Apple uses to secure iPhones and iPads prevents anyone who doesn’t have that device’s passcode, including the FBI and Apple itself, from being able to access the contents of that device. There is no backdoor, there is no secret key. They do not exist.

While it would be possible for Apple to build a key that would let the FBI in, it would be inexplicably dangerous. It would require Apple to build an altered version of iOS which could then be installed on a device that law enforcement wants to unlock. Apple’s concern is that if such software was created, law enforcement could take advantage of it, a rogue operative could get access to it and then spread it around on the dark corners of the internet, etc. There are an infinite number of ways that the existence of such software could destroy the security of every iPhone and iPad in the world. In essence, if Apple creates software to get around the passcode of this one device, that same software could be used to get around the passcode on YOUR device. Apple CEO Tim Cook described such a version of iOS as the “software equivalent of cancer”.

The FBI is framing this in a way that makes it sound like they don’t want a magic key, they just need into this one device. They keep asserting that they don’t want a backdoor. But the problem is that, essentially, they’re still asking for a backdoor. They’re getting deep into the semantics to try and move public perception to their favor. In any case, what they call it doesn’t matter, because what they want is a master key. Once that master key is created, it’s out there forever, and your device’s passcode has been cracked, too.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

— Benjamin Franklin

Breaking Olds, courtesy of Ben Lovejoy from 9to5Mac:

 An alarming test carried out by Princeton shows that the five largest US carriers fail to properly protect their customers against so-called SIM-swap attacks.

This isn’t really alarming unless you haven’t been paying any attention to technology — we’ve been aware of this flaw for years — but it is still a big problem. Lovejoy’s shoddy, clickbait journalism doesn’t detract from the importance of this issue.

The bottom line is that the carriers need to do a better job of protecting their customers. In the mean time, make sure your account is as secure as possible: change your account PIN, update your security questions, change your password, etc.

Isabelle Khurshudyan and David L. Stern, writing for The Washington Post:

Ukraine knew Flight 752 had been shot down, but it was careful not to antagonize Iran […]

Ukraine wanted its investigators to gather hard evidence of their own to prove that a missile had downed the plane, Danilov said, suggesting that their work ultimately pressured Iran into accepting responsibility. They were also careful to avoid sharp criticism of Iran during this time to ensure its cooperation in the probe. […]

“Once again, Zelensky walked a thin diplomatic balance beam and came out without falling flat on his face,” said Nina Jankowicz, a scholar at the Wilson Center. “For a political novice, he seems to have a keen sense of exactly how to appease opposing factions in order to protect Ukraine’s interests.”

The United States shouldn’t need to look to Ukraine for an example of how to conduct diplomacy, but the Commander in Cheeto needs to grab his magic marker and take some notes.

Props to Zelensky for dealing with Iran responsibly in the wake of a tragedy that could’ve easily led to war; we can all exhale a bit, now. Let’s not forget that while the plane that Iran shot down was mostly carrying Iranian passengers, there were also Brits, Canadians, Germans, and Swedes onboard. This could’ve been an international disaster for the U.S.

Handled poorly, this event could’ve gone down very similarly to the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand (the event that kickstarted the First World War). Ferdinand’s assassination likely would’ve been of relatively little historical significance had a multitude of powerful nations not gotten involved to protect their smaller allies, but that’s not how things went down. What started out as a conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia dramatically escalated at each turn, until it had quickly devolved into the most devastating war humanity had ever experienced. The international alliances of 1914 were positioned in such a way that just a handful immeasurably impactful decisions lied between peaceful resolution and The Great War. Fast forward 105 years, and Zelensky found himself having to make a similarly impactful decisions, and he made the right call.

It’s troublesome that the person with the undeniable biological advantage is the one who society sees as being treated unfairly in a sporting competition. Enter: Rachel McKinnon, professional victim cyclist.

Timothy Mead, writing for Townhall:

She set a new world best time in qualifying and went on to take gold in the sprint for a second consecutive year," according to Cycling Weekly. The world record McKinnon set in the qualifying round was 11.649 for the female age 35-39 group. In the male 35-39 age group, the top qualifying round time was 10.498. 

That “record” doesn’t sound like it’s worth very much, given that she wouldn’t even have qualified for the race against other people with XY chromosomes. Sure, she may have had her nuts chopped off and therefore have a qualifyingly low level of testosterone now, but her balls were still attached when he went through puberty, and that’s when the male testosterone levels are going to make the biggest difference for muscle development. It’s not fair for her to compete against women with XX chromosomes who didn’t have the advantage of having testicles to pump out a bunch of testosterone to boost their muscle development during puberty.

Karolinksa Institute in Sweden also conducted research that suggested testosterone suppression for transgender women has little effect on reducing muscle strength.

N.Y. Post is using these findings as support for the argument that transwomen athletes shouldn’t be required to take testosterone suppression meds, but it seems to better support the argument that they shouldn’t be allowed to compete with women at all. Allowing people with XY chromosomes who benefited from male puberty to compete against people with XX chromosomes who went through female puberty is unfair, and it erodes the legitimacy of women's sports, as one of McKinnon’s competitors noted:

“It was an unfair race, and I accepted that when I pinned on the number, and I tried to do my best to overcome the unfairness,” said Jennifer Wagner-Assali, who took bronze behind McKinnon last year. […] “I do feel that hard-fought freedoms for women’s sport are being eroded.”

McKinnon, addressing criticism of her participation in competitions again XX women:

Real champions want stronger competition. If you win because bigotry got your competition banned… you’re a loser.

Misogynistic bullshit. Trans people absolutely deserve equal rights. They don't deserve special rights.

John Gruber, on Daring Fireball:

An utterly uncritical story on Facebook’s anti-disinformation team appears on Teen Vogue with no byline but no “sponsored content” label. Then Sheryl Sandberg links to it approvingly. Folks at Facebook deny it’s sponsored content, including those profiled in the story. Then the article disappears from Teen Vogue. Then it reappears with a “sponsored content” label. Then it disappears again.

Facebook payed Teen Vogue to write an article hyping up how trustworthy Facebook is, and then lied about whether they had paid for it. A great look for Facebook and Teen Vogue. The hypocrisy is remarkable.

#deletefacebook

I’m not a fan of cancel culture, I’m not saying we should “cancel” him. But how many times can one dude swing and miss before he decides to lay the bat down? Justin Bieber’s new song “Yummy” sucks, and the promotional ploys accompanying it have ranged from outright creepy to wildly desperate.

The song is repetitive and unintelligent. Sonically, it’s okay — it would be fine if the lyrics weren’t so lame and immature. Somehow, it took him and four other songwriters to create this nonsense. I’d be fine if I never heard it again. Better than fine, actually, I’d be quite pleased.

Throughout the song, the word “yummy” is used as a euphemism for sex. For some reason, Justin decided to promote the song by flooding his Instagram page with photos of babies, each accompanied solely by the hashtag #yummy. Inside joke? Pedophilia? Who knows, who cares. It’s weird.

Following that perturbing promotional choice, he felt the need to shove “Yummy” down everyone’s throat in an apparent effort to convince himself he’s still relevant by getting the single to the #1 spot on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. He encouraged fans to purchase the song multiple times, create Spotify playlists that only contain the song and play them on repeat at a low volume without pause, and even suggested that international fans install Virtual Private Networks to reroute their IP address’s locations through U.S. destinations so that their streaming the song would to contribute to his domestic numbers.

I’ve.. never seen anyone so desperate in my life pic.twitter.com/NoCo2NndTZ

— cody (@codyspearz) January 10, 2020

Like. Jesus, dude. Get a grip. For better or for worse, you’re never going to top “Baby”, and your legacy will forever be one of a thirteen year old with a squeaky voice. But hell, is that worse than one of a seemingly strung out (sure, blame it on Lyme disease) twenty-something with pink hair and a face tattoo?

In the wake of what was very nearly a war between the United States and Iran, we need to ask ourselves how we ended up on the brink and take an uncomfortable look at what happened while we were there.

What Went Down

Background info: In 2017, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, an agreement between Iran and the U.S., the U.K., France, China, Germany, and Russia that was negotiated by President Obama in 2015 and arranged for the lifting of economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for them to ramp down their nuclear developments. The deal wasn’t perfect, but Iran was at least playing by the rules, and (for the most part) continued to do so even after the U.S. pulled out. The current conflict kicked off in May, 2019 with a report from Israeli intelligence officials that alerted the U.S. to an alleged Iranian plot to attack U.S. forces in the region, prompting the United States to send the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier to the Middle East as a reinforcement measure, leading to a month of threats between leaders of the two nations. Tensions grew worse a month later when Iran shot down a U.S. drone; they say the drone was in Iranian airspace, the U.S. claims it was over international water. Iran also bombed a Saudi oil field last September; this attack was largely unprovoked, though there was growing pressure within the country for their leaders to do something, due to the recession they were experiencing as a result of the sanctions reimposed by Trump when he pulled the U.S. out of the Iran Nuclear Deal (which caused a 75% decrease in Iranian oil exports). The attack on the Saudi oil field further damaged U.S.-Iranian relations because Saudi Arabia is a United States ally (for some reason).

December 27, 2019: A rocket attack on an Iraqi air base killed one American civilian-contractor, injured four American servicemen, and killed two Iraqis. The attack was allegedly carried out by Kata'ib Hezbollah, a military group supported by Iran.

December 29, 2019: The United States attacked five facilities in Iraq and Syria which had ties to Kata’ib Hezbollah; the attacks resulted in the deaths of at least 25 people.

December 31, 2019: An Iran-backed mob attacked the United States embassy in Baghdad, Iraq. No U.S. citizens were harmed because they were able to shelter in a safe room inside the compound, though the mob did start fires and vandalize the embassy. This prompted President Trump to deploy additional troops to Iraq.

January 3, 2020: President Trump authorizes a missile strike killing Qasem Soleimani (the second most powerful person in Iran and the figurehead of the Iranian military) at an airport in Baghdad. Trump warned Iran not to retaliate, and preemptively sent more troops the area as a precaution (at this point, 14,000 troops have been deployed to the Middle East since May, 2019).

January 4, 2020: Donald Trump threatens to attack Iranian cultural sites if they retaliate after Soleimani’s killing. Targeting cultural sites is a war crime under international law.

January 5, 2020: Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have both explicitly contradicted the President’s statement that they intended to target cultural sites, leading Trump to double down on his commitment.

January 5, 2020: Iran announces that they will no longer honor the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, completely abandoning all the commitments they made to limit their nuclear development.

January 7, 2020: Iran attacks Iraq’s Al Asad and Erbil air bases, both of which house American troops. No casualties were reported, and Iranian officials indicated that this would be the extent of their revenge for the killing of Soleimani.

January 8, 2020: Donald Trump delivers an address announcing that the U.S. will refrain from using force in response to the 1/7/20 missile attacks, instead announcing further sanctions and encouraging other nations to withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Things To Consider

We aren’t at war right now, and by all indications, this chapter of the saga is over. While I feel compelled to give Trump credit for showing the restraint it took to not respond to the Iranian attack on the Iraqi bases at Al Asad and Erbil with military force, that would be a bit like rewarding a toddler for safely exiting a pool after jumping into the deep end with no floaties. While the United States has had a complicated and troubled relationship with Iran for decades with more than a few points of contention, the U.S. seems responsible for exacerbating things this time. So, why did this whole thing spiral so quickly towards a war?

Simply put, it was because the Trump administration claimed that they had credible intelligence suggesting an imminent attack against Americans, and that killing Soleimani was an effort to stop it: that’s the big kickoff point for this whole thing. Yes, there were events that led up to it, but they were all pretty tit-for-tat, low consequence actions. The Soleimani strike was the headline grabbing event that really catapulted this ordeal to a much higher level.

So, was it justified? Evidence of an imminent attack has not been released, and the White House has so far refused to provide any further information. Democratic and Republican Senators have condemned the administration for providing little to no justification of their decision to kill Soleimani, after having received a briefing from the White House where they were given access to confidential details surrounding the strike (some Senators have also said that the information they receiving was not of a sensitive nature, and should be made available to the public). So, the question here is why the strike was ordered in the first place, given that it seems quite disproportionate to kill Iran’s second highest ranking official as a direct response to a far less significant attack on our Iraqi embassy where nobody was hurt.

A few potential answers to this question exist. Perhaps Trump was itching for a war. After all, he has publicly and repeatedly demonstrated in the past that starting a war with Iran is a good way to win reelection. Perhaps he wanted to distract from the impeachment proceedings at the start of the week when they could’ve potentially gotten ramped up again. Maybe he was expecting the unsavory headlines announcing that John Bolton — Trump’s previous National Security Advisor who was on the infamous Ukraine call at the heart of the impeachment inquiry — was willing to testify if subpoenaed by the Senate, and wanted to do something that take attention away from that development. However, let’s try to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, here. It’s not impossible that the action was truly taken to prevent an imminent attack against the U.S. Unfortunately, this seems less likely given that, after the White House’s briefing, even some Republicans have dismissed the intelligence on the alleged attack as being trivial and disingenuous.

Another thing that we need to ruminate upon is Trump’s willingness to commit war crimes. Soleimani’s killing, given his rank in the government of a sovereign state (and despite his role as a leader of paramilitary terrorist groups) can be categorized as an assassination and therefore a war crime in its own right. This is troubling, but it’s also a gray area. It’s easy to see that killing him wasn’t a proportionate response, but it’s hard to call it a war crime (even though it technically was) given that Soleimani has committed a long list of atrocities and certainly deserved to be taken out (a point where Democrats and Republicans seem to agree). More troubling, though, is that Trump threatened to attack Iranian targets of cultural significance. This displays a blatant disregard for international law, even while Trump’s advisors were adamantly against the idea. Yet, Trump doubled down. There’s not much we can analyze here: Trump threatened to willfully and indisputably break international law. Love him or hate him, that’s not something any voter with a conscience can ignore; it’s enough to give even the most passionate Trump fans pause.

It’s also appropriate that we acknowledge the loss of life that has transpired as a result of the actions our country has taken. Fortunately, only one American lost their life, but that’s not true for the Iranians. Soleimani’s death sent Iran into an emotional tailspin, and at least 56 people died after being trampled in a stampede at Soleimani’s huge, public, very emotional funeral procession. Additionally, 176 people died after Iran shot down a Ukrainian airliner shortly after it took off from Tehran, presumably by mistake, as a result of the heightened tensions and fear of attack that led them to more aggressively defend their airspace. I’m not saying that any of these deaths are the United States’ fault — they all boil down to Iranian government negligence — but none of those people would be dead if we hadn’t exacerbated this conflict by killing Soleimani. It’s not a great look, and our allies likely aren’t thrilled with us right now, as the plane that crashed was carrying not only Iranian citizens, but also Canadians, Brits, Germans, and Swedes.

We must also ask: are we safer? Trump said that killing Soleimani was an action taken to avoid a war, not start one. Unfortunately, one of the most significant consequences of his action against Iran was that it gave them an excuse to get out of the nuclear deal, and they’re now back to unbounded development of their nuclear program. Do you feel safer?

This whole episode is one that should cause Americans to reflect. We almost sent a bunch of nineteen year olds to war with a country who had done little to provoke such response, and for what? What did we stand to gain? What were we defending ourselves from? The American people and our allies deserve answers to those questions, and the Trump administration owes them to us. Hopefully those answers don’t lie in the lined pockets of America’s defense contractors.

UPDATED: 1/10/20, 20:21

Fortunately, early reports indicate that no Americans were killed.

If this is the case, we need to cut our losses and pull our troops out before American life is lost: we need to do everything we can to deescalate this whole situation immediately. Any further action from the U.S. will all but guarantee a war with Iran that nobody wants (except those at Lockheed Martin and anyone facing impeachment trials), and Iran has promised to attack on U.S. soil if we retaliate. Not that we should fear them, but we should have enough respect for the lives of Americans at home and abroad to stop antagonizing and provoking the Iranians.

UPDATE: 1/8/20, 11:40;

President Trump just announced that no military action will be taken against Iran, though he will impose economic sanctions. Though he mischaracterized Iran’s attack as “stepping down” when, in reality, that’s exactly what he’s doing, his decision not to pursue a military “solution” nonetheless seems appropriate, and assuming Iran was honest in indicating that they have no plans to further avenge Soleimani’s assassination, the United States is dodging a boomerang. However, let us not forget that Trump’s confirmation that was more than willing to commit war crimes, should this situation have escalated.

Lauren Goode, writing for Wired:

The ThinkPad X1 Fold is expected to ship sometime in mid-2020, and will start at $2,499.

So far, I haven’t seen a compelling use case for foldable displays,* and certainly nothing worth $2,500 to a consumer.

The problem here is that two handed typing on a touchscreen keyboard kinda sucks. Even when it’s done well, its finicky and less precise than a hardware keyboard. If a horizontal touchscreen with a software keyboard and trackpad were good input methods, we’d already have laptops with horizontal screens: the fact that we couldn't, until now, bend the display at the device’s hinge to make one continuous screen from the horizontal to vertical surfaces was never an issue. This Lenovo thing is solving a problem that nobody has.

What I want is not a laptop with a horizontal screen. In my mind, a better solution would be something along the lines of Apple’s Touch Bar, but more expansive. I think it would be useful to have tiny displays, e-ink or otherwise, on each key of a keyboard so that they could change dynamically (they could adapt to show different characters to work with any language, show emojis, present app-specific controls, etc.). This would allow a much greater degree of flexibility while maintaining the tactile benefits of discrete, moving buttons.

*One legitimate (though not exactly consumer facing) use case for foldable displays that very few people know exists but which many benefit from: the iPhone X.

John Gruber’s take from Daring Fireball:

They didn’t even tweak it. Just outright copy-and-paste. […]

They might as well use an apple with a bite out of it, too.

Here’s the logo Samsung used on stage at CES on the left, with Apple’s Face ID symbol on the right.

I suppose it’s just a cultural difference, but these Asian companies are absolutely shameless when it comes to stealing intellectual property. Gross.