Search

1000 results for “data_from_space”

He Who Remains @[email protected] · 2026-04-06 · 03:00 UTC

An impossible Jupiter-sized gas giant, TOI-5205b, the first exoplanet of its kind with an atmosphere containing far fewer heavy elements than similarly sized objects, as well as its own host red dwarf star - TOI-5205, discovered in data from NASA’s alien planet-hunting Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS).
Kanodia described TOI-5205b’s orbit of its host stars as a “pea going around a lemon” as opposed to Jupiter’s orbit of the Sun, which is like a “pea going around a grapefruit.”
Carnegie's Shubham Kanodia quoted in 2023:
TOI-5205b’s existence stretches what we know about the disks in which these planets are born. In the beginning, if there isn’t enough rocky material in the disk to form the initial core, then one cannot form a gas giant planet.
And at the end, if the disk evaporates away before the massive core is formed, then one cannot form a gas giant planet. And yet TOI-5205b formed despite these guardrails. Based on our nominal current understanding of planet formation, TOI-5205b should not exist; it is a “forbidden” planet.
https://futurism.com/space/astronomers-forbidden-size-star
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230222141146.htm
#TOI5205b #Exoplanet #Planet #Star #RedDwarf #Science #Space

#toi5205b #exoplanet #planet #star #reddwarf #science
Ermanno @[email protected] · 2020-07-18 · 21:35 UTC

CW: The police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor were sparks that reignited smoldering fury against authorities across the globe. One of the most watched locations has been Seattle, where protestors barricaded off a cop-free zone, drawing outsize attention and, in the process, forming a new case study in the uses of technology both to […]

♲ @[email protected]:
For Seattle’s cop-free protest zone, tech is both a revolutionary asset and disastrous liability
The police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor were sparks that reignited smoldering fury against authorities across the globe. One of the most watched locations has been Seattle, where protestors barricaded off a cop-free zone, drawing outsize attention and, in the process, forming a new case study in the uses of technology both to advance a cause and to drown it in disinformation.

From the actual recording of Floyd’s killing and the protests and riots that followed, to documenting the police’s brutal response and sudden withdrawal, to the establishment of and widespread commentary on an improvised community, technology has played a crucial role throughout. But to center things properly, it is how people are using technology, not the technology itself, that has become more important.

More than ever before, information truly is power, and imbalances in who holds that power have been both reinforced and challenged in the course of events here. It’s heartening to see live streaming and instant distribution of video lead to accountability, but it’s also sickening to see deliberate campaigns to manipulate and subvert reality — and I say reality because it’s what I’ve seen with my own eyes. As a brief preamble, I should disclose some things.

First, I support the causes being advanced by protestors in Seattle. It would be useless to deny that I have taken sides here — partly because claims of objectivity are little more than a fig leaf for editorial decisions in matters of grave injustice and obvious abuses of power; but my presence at the protests has unavoidably been documented whether I like it or not, so there’s no sense in denying it.

Because second, I live on Capitol Hill, just blocks away from the zone. I’ve been eyewitness to important events, (with a built-in tech angle at that) and it would be irresponsible for me not to use the privilege of this platform to share aspects of them that have been only sporadically covered.

And third, these protests have been organized and led by people of color, and I am a white guy who, comparatively, has only barely taken part. On issues of race, policing, and inclusion I will defer to others better equipped to educate: writers like Ijeoma Oluo (whom we recently interviewed), researchers like Joy Buolamwini, and publications like Blavity.

With that out of the way, this article will focus on three topics: The collection and use of digital media on both sides of police clashes; the use of social media and battle of information versus disinformation in the cop-free zone; and the emergence of live streaming as an indispensable medium for this and future movements.
A matter of perspective

techcrunch.com/wp-content/uplo…
Image Credits: JASON REDMOND/AFP / Getty Images

The initial protests in Seattle in late May, which devolved in some locations into riots involving the despoliation and destruction of police cruisers (somehow left unattended and filled with weapons), are difficult to track because they were full of movement and chaos. But they were thoroughly, if haphazardly, documented by attendees with the presence of mind to record what they were seeing.

It’s telling that there has been little or no attempt at a counter-narrative from Seattle authorities when their officers were repeatedly (and continually as of this writing) filmed employing plainly excessive force against unarmed, often unresisting protestors, or indiscriminately firing tear gas, pepper spray, and flashbangs into crowds. One woman’s heart stopped three times after being struck by a blast ball that appeared to be deliberately aimed at her, while thousands watched.

Where, one wonders, is the exonerating footage from the police side showing the protestors being described as aggressive, or non-compliant, or whatever key words officers use to justify brutality during a melee of their own creation? And yet the police are at a loss. Presented with innumerable examples of bad behavior, the force seems to have decided day after day to stand fast and let it blow over.

But it’s hard to do that when you have something like a video going viral of a child who’s been maced:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/uKdqmBN744U?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

This image, which came to represent the Seattle PD’s inhumane treatment of protestors (they stand by wielding batons as the crying kid is treated), was taken by a local named Evan Hreha. It’s hard to erase such a powerful image — so they arrested him.

Hreha was arrested a week later by a dozen officers and booked into jail for, supposedly, pointing a laser at police. It hardly needs to be said that this account strains credibility. For one thing, Hreha says he was running a hot dog stand with friends at the time of the alleged offense. But it is absurd that police would or could identify one person in a crowd at a distance, then investigate and arrest them — for anything, let alone a fleeting non-violent laser use. And it just happens to be the man behind a viral video that makes the cops look bad.

This seems to be plainly a case of retaliation, but the police have made themselves unaccountable by controlling the information available. I contacted the records department to ask for anything related to the investigation and arrest of Hreha (among others), but it will be months before the police will release anything, if indeed they ever do.

Hreha was released two days later with no charges filed. But the chilling effect of intimidating someone who caught police in an act of brutality on camera had been accomplished. The officer who maced the kid, incidentally, has yet to be officially identified or disciplined.
Does tech have the guts to deploy its resources against police brutality?
https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/09/does-tech-have-the-guts-to-deploy-its-resources-against-police-brutality/embed/#?secret=gdf5qC5tCH

This is exemplary of the power imbalance in conflicts of this type: On one side, voluminous documentation from people on the ground that is disorganized and difficult to bring to bear; on the other, documentation that is carefully organized and tightly controlled, allowing the exertion of authority using that control as leverage. Police have also begun the process of repurposing news and protestor footage for their own purposes.

But this story doesn’t always play out the way the cops would prefer.

In the first week of June, protestors were marching up Pine to confront the police for this and other acts, after which they would have, like many similar protests, moved on to rally in Volunteer Park and then gone home, to do it again another day. But police blocked them at 11th and Pine with a barricade and line of police in riot gear.

techcrunch.com/wp-content/uplo…
SEATTLE, WA – JUNE 08: A person holds flowers as demonstrators clash with police near the Seattle Police Departments East Precinct shortly after midnight on June 8, 2020 in Seattle, Washington.

The group did not disperse as ordered, saying they would stay and protest peacefully until the police moved out of the way. Predictably, when curfew came, the police were liberal in their deployment of tear gas and flashbangs, causing serious harm to some protestors and terror across the entire neighborhood. This continued and grew in intensity for several days and nights. (In many cities these clashes are ongoing.)

The justification for using their “less lethal” tools with such gusto was predictable: The crowd was violent, throwing bricks and even improvised explosives at officers. But these claims were repeatedly and firmly dismantled, because these encounters were filmed in high definition from multiple angles, practically from start to finish.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/D5sQt_bQS4A?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

One particularly revealing video was shot by a person on a roof directly over the barriers. It quite clearly shows a peaceful crowd chanting and definitely not throwing rocks and bottles. Anyone can review it and see that there was not only no violence on the part of protestors, but that the flashpoint moment occurred (documented in other videos as well) when a cop tore a now-famous pink umbrella from the grip of a person, who in offering any resistance provided the excuse for the police to retaliate — indiscriminately and utterly disproportionately.

Huge volumes of evidence of police brutality have resulted almost solely from the oft-mocked habit of young people to always have their phone in hand. (We’re not far from the always-recording situation I posited nearly 10 years ago.)

“They picked the wrong generation to pull this shit on,” said TK, a protest organizer I spoke with. “Because governments didn’t create this power — this was created by normal, regular-smegular people just like all of us. The only people that can stop it is the people that created it.”

Rarely have the police released images or footage of their own, and when they do it is often a brutal self-own. They posted images of the aforementioned “improvised explosive” on Twitter shortly after one group assault on protestors, and within seconds people had pointed out it was a prayer candle, probably from a nearby memorial smashed during the melee. The police revised their reference to it as an “incendiary device,” which, while technically true, exposes the type of willful obscuration of the truth that was frequently to be found in the department’s communications.

Following another incident, body cam footage was released to support the narrative that a “violent crowd” had prevented the police from reaching a shooting victim in the protest zone and were therefore culpable in his death. People soon pointed out that timestamps visible in the video show that the cops arrived 20 minutes after the shooting, and after the victim had been taken to the hospital in a private car — because EMTs (for good reason) would not enter the scene before police secured it.
We now know that the public statement put out by Seattle Police following the shooting at CHOP on Friday night, was mostly fictitious, as revealed by their own bodycam footage. They showed up 10 minutes later than they claim, after the victim had been transported to Harborview. pic.twitter.com/wN62gQxX8c

— Spek the Lawless (@spekulation) June 22, 2020

When the police chief made claims of rape and violence in the protest zone, it was pointed out that the SPD’s own crime reports system showed no such thing. Then her claim that armed gangs were extorting local businesses was quickly put down as well, by the businesses themselves — embarrassingly, the source of that claim was a totally invented account on a right-wing blog. (Ironically, once the police retook the zone, businesses quickly complained that their presence had forced them to close.)

And of course there are the innumerable videos, here as elsewhere, of extreme force being used on unresisting protestors, frequently with the apparently now requisite knee on the neck. These will hopefully prove useful later as counterbalance to police claims, and while officers still obscure their badges and refuse to identify themselves, the quality of the video makes identifying them by other means trivial.
Cops attack peaceful protestors at Broadway and Pine. 5:30pm July 2nd. Dive tackled the kid next to me, put a knee on his neck. Can’t stress enough he did nothing.

Please share.#SeattleProtests #SeattleProtestComm #Seattle pic.twitter.com/mI5DTASEI4

— eli (@sre_li) July 3, 2020

The digital record has resulted in officers, the department and the chief being caught in lie after lie after lie. These are not misunderstandings or honest mistakes but misrepresentations deliberately crafted to discredit protestors and shield the department. It’s clear that if others were not carefully documenting every encounter, and critically investigating police statements and evidence, the lies would have shortly become the only, and therefore the true, record of what happened.

What I’ve described took place in Seattle, but others have compiled abuses in L.A., New York, Portland, and Chicago — where cops have just been caught in another type of large-scale manipulation of the record.

Now in many cities these departments are facing cuts or total defunding, as much as the result of their failure to successfully falsify the narrative as their more fundamental failures as institutions.

“This generation is not dumb, as much as they want to believe that. ‘You guys are just a bunch of dumb kids.’ Okay, well, this bunch of dumb kids is about to get the city to take half of your budget,” said TK. “So we ain’t that dumb, apparently.”

A last example of the power of social media in the pursuit of problematic police came late in the writing of this piece. After two protestors were struck and one killed on a closed highway after a driver circumvented police barriers, a detective from the King county Sheriff’s office made several brutally offensive posts on Facebook — public ones.

techcrunch.com/wp-content/uplo…

These were spotted by concerned citizens, who took screenshots not just of the content but also the list of people who had liked or commented positively on the posts, looking them up, as well. This proved to be a shrewd tactic, for when the posts began to make waves online, Brown’s entire Facebook page was deleted.

Turns out Detective Brown is not only Governor Jay Inslee’s cousin, but reportedly also the head of county executive Dow Constantine’s security detail and his sometime driver; a 40-year veteran of the force who has been accused of abusive behavior before. Within 48 hours Detective Brown was on leave and being investigated. One hopes that the officers and public officials who publicly endorsed Brown’s behavior will soon be confronted, as well. But how quickly this avenue of recourse would have disappeared had they been tipped off.

Keeping the cops honest is a welcome application of what might be termed citizen forensics, but social media would soon provide a counter-example of technology being deployed to discredit the protestors and mislead millions.
In the Zone

techcrunch.com/wp-content/uplo…
A rally at the cop-free zone on Capitol Hill on June 10.

Believe it or not, the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone wasn’t anyone’s idea.

The now infamous cop-free area barricaded off by protestors has been profiled frequently and, almost without exception, incompletely and inaccurately, in mainstream news and on social media. It’s an instructive but deeply frustrating example of how, as the old saying goes, “A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.”

A very brief origin story is as follows: On June 8, following a particularly violent yet ultimately unsuccessful attempt to purge the area of protestors the previous night, the police abruptly announced they would be leaving the East Precinct building, taking all valuables, weapons, and sensitive documents with them.

Protestors were astonished. They had not asked for this and had no reason to — their demands were about defunding the police, investing in the community, and releasing jailed protestors. Incredibly, even now no one has taken responsibility for ordering the abandonment; the mayor and police chief have both denied doing so. But abandon it, they did.

Protestors immediately continued marching, some continuing to Volunteer Park and others remaining behind, citing the need to protect the precinct from anyone who might want to damage it, for days on end if necessary and at all hours. If you’re skeptical, remember: This is all on video. People learned early on that many people only believe what they have seen, and even then only sometimes.

Since a car had nearly plowed through protestors the previous day and the driver actually shot someone (before being gently taken into custody by police), and hearing reports of right-wing agitators in the area, the protestors redeployed the barriers to make a safe zone at the ends of nearby streets. Someone spray painted “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” on one, inadvertently branding the whole movement.
‘Welcome to Free Capitol Hill’ — Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone forms around emptied East Precinct — UPDATE
https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2020/06/welcome-to-free-capitol-hill-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone-forms-around-emptied-east-precinct/embed/#?secret=qUJTj18w53

What followed in the CHAZ (later the CHOP) was several days and nights of compelling events, speakers and tributes to lost lives, attended by thousands, including myself.

But what followed online was a nonstop deluge of wild exaggerations, manipulated media, racist vitriol and, of course, innumerable death threats. It would be impossible to list even a fraction of the information online that I could contradict with what I saw with my own eyes, but here are a few examples.

The most glaring one has to be, of course, Fox News photoshopping a gunman into multiple unrelated scenes of destruction and dishonestly using those as evidence of chaos in the zone. This was done so poorly it would be comical if it were not part of a larger, continuing narrative seeking to discredit the protests and zone as an antifa-run separatist state.

techcrunch.com/wp-content/uplo…
One of the images run by Fox News, a combination of one by David Ryder (whose photos for Getty illustrate this piece) with two by Karen Ducey.

The separatist narrative, which persists even today, was invented and amplified by lazy or traffic-hungry outlets and pundits with little evidence besides the tongue-in-cheek name.

There was not always the need to invent controversial imagery (indeed, the gunman Fox used really existed). Video of one person handing out rifles to his crew quickly made the rounds and, combined with the police chief’s irresponsible rumor-mongering, word of a “warlord” emerged.

Without getting into the complex and largely improvisational politics of the zone, this character and his heavily armed presence were generally not approved of. But for the weeks following this event I saw the image, his name and the warlord trope posted thousands of times, coming up every single day.

It’s tempting to say it’s hard to misconstrue a guy distributing assault rifles from the back of his car. But it is testament to the fractured narrative presented online that crucial context was almost always left out or substituted by falsehoods. Not only had a gunman actually shot a protestor after driving his car into the crowd the previous day, but at the very moment of the video, the police were suspected to have been engaged in a disinformation campaign intended to provoke conflict.

Public police scanner frequencies that night (which it was known protestors were monitoring) were full of reports of a group of 20-30 armed “Proud Boys” (a far-right group) moving toward the protest zone. Bike police on scanners said they followed the group for blocks, asked where they were headed (the CHAZ), tried to dissuade them from going there, and eventually reported that they spontaneously dispersed before reaching their destination.

Now, a large group of armed men working their way up from Downtown to Capitol Hill would be a rather conspicuous sight even in those days when record numbers of armed men walked the streets. Yet none of the thousands of protestors and allies spread throughout the city watching for them saw anything matching that description during or after. No communications from known Proud Boys (some of whom would in fact show up later to attack a protestor on video) indicated a presence. More directly, police descriptions of the group crossing certain intersections were contradicted by live traffic cameras showing those intersections, which showed no such thing.

But once again the apparent police intention of provocation via misinformation had been achieved. People at the CHAZ, already justifiably worried about violence, were put on high alert and armed themselves, producing a spectacle that even now persists on social media as a way to paint the entire protest with one brush.

The repeated amplification of individual images had some troubling commonalities, in particular the barely veiled parlance of racism. People in the protest zone and especially Black men, images of whom frequently accompanied these tweets and other posts, were invariably described as “thugs,” “savages,” “animals,” “feral,” and all the rest. Tellingly, those employing this vile lexicon were seldom Seattle or Capitol Hill residents; Twitter is very efficient at importing hate.

Indeed it did not take long for the CHAZ, having achieved the dubious distinction of attracting what is called national interest, to become the target of coordinated interference, harassment and disinformation campaigns by people all over the country. The resulting mess is a concise illustration of the incredible promise and complete inadequacy of online platforms in times like these.

The number of people and groups involved in these protests had made Twitter, with its accessibility and relative permanence, an invaluable tool for the dissemination of important information. While private groups on Signal, WhatsApp and Discord were also used, it was clearly better for things like police positioning, march updates, attacks on protestors and other crucial live communications to make the information as prominent and public as possible.
“There was a lot of momentum being built up, people learning and educating themselves. So this was the chance to finally put everything we’d learned into action.”

TK and her fellow organizer Tatii explained that social media was at the heart of their work, though the end result of taking to the streets was always the ultimate goal.

“Social media is a huge part because without it, we can’t do shit,” Tatii said bluntly. “When it comes to finding the information that we need and finding resources to help Black people, all of that is through technology. That’s how we network with people, that’s how people reach out to us. That’s how we get people telling us about police scanners. There are a lot of group chats, like with our medics, our car brigade, our bike brigade. It’s all through social media.”

“Scouts let us know if like there’s 30 bike cops coming down Broadway. It’s crucial when you are trying to strategically plan around that type of stuff, to keep from being cornered and boxed in,” said TK.

“At least on the Black side of social media, it’s constantly been talked about, Black Lives Matter,” added Tatii. “There was a lot of momentum being built up, people learning and educating themselves. So this was the chance to finally put everything we’d learned into action.”

It’s easy to take Twitter for granted, so we should be sure to give the platform due credit for the fundamental capability it provides. Many I’ve spoken to here emphasized that they trusted what they read from accounts with a verifiable track record more than what they saw in the perennially out-of-date local news. In fact, as Tatii and TK noted, many of their fellow organizers came to Seattle specifically to learn for themselves the truth behind mainstream reports that didn’t pass a gut test.

But the choice to publicly organize via hashtag, for all that it made important information available quickly to as many people as possible, had two major consequences.

First, it fragmented that information almost to the point of usability: One never knew whether it was #seattleprotest or #seattleprotests, #seattleprotestcomms, #seatleprotest (yes), plain old #seattle, #defundSPD, or a handful of others. This was only exacerbated with the creation of the CHAZ, which birthed a dozen new hashtags of varying quality and population. Instagram provided powerful amplification effects but little verification or network building.

Twitter also exposed this stream of important information to eager antagonists across the country, who flooded those hashtags with abuse and misinformation. Posts with images from other or past protests were used to mislead or misrepresent the present ones, and pictures of police around the area from other times were used in an attempt to spook those who had learned to be wary of SPD’s presence. Fake names and events were publicized, fake demands issued and met, and fake accounts claiming to represent protestors or the zone.

techcrunch.com/wp-content/uplo…
This post, though seen by many, was heeded by few.

The ownership of one particular account was hotly contested, and confused by such tantalizing hints as it following Huawei leadership (you can imagine the theories this spawned), and for an “official” statement ending with what appeared to be a few stray pixels from a Biden presidential campaign graphic.

Later, when attempting to provoke a “mission accomplished”-style early exit from the zone after the Mayor cut million from the police budget, the account exhorted its readers to vote for Biden. Needless to say this was not among the commonly agreed-upon demands or positions of the protests. Unless whoever was behind this strange yet prominent account exposes themselves, we may never know if it was a government plant, an agent provocateur or a practical joker, or what their intentions really are.

The enduring, chaotogenic myth that the CHAZ was an attempt to secede and form a socialist, anarchist utopia led to rebranding efforts. The misconception had become so widespread that it was decided to “officially” (as far as that concept existed in the space) change the name to the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest — then, noting the fact that Seattle itself is an “occupation” of native land, change the O to Organized.

This led to a further fragmentation of information channels: No one on the ground wanted to use #CHAZ and its relatives because it was no longer what organizers wanted to call it. But the name had entered the common parlance. So posts now needed to be #CHAZ, #CHOP, #CHOPCHAZ, and others like #CHAZSeattle and so on. It became very difficult to track an event — be it positive, like a march or speaker, or negative, like a fight or shooting — never knowing where to look or how to parse the information there.

It’s hard to overstate how effective the fractured narrative and opposing efforts were at shaping the national and global understanding of events surrounding these protests.

As they say you can never step into the same river twice, so it was on social media around the protest and the zone. The ever-shifting flow of Twitter sometimes produced absolutely vital data unavailable anywhere else, but always polluted with incomplete or premature judgments, ignorance, racism and false reports.

When I asked what digital tools were needed to better organize and avoid interference, protestors I spoke with generally said some sort of centralization and interoperability. Being able to colocate multiple feeds, authors, videos, images and static links in a dynamic, accessible way would save them huge amounts of time and effort. Certainly it would have helped to alleviate some of the problems noted above.
Stream of conscience

“Live streaming and having our phones out every single day is our best form of self defense.”
Despite the shortcomings of social media at large, one digital medium that has proven itself truly indispensable to this protest and others to come is live streaming.
Although the technology has risen to mainstream popularity as a new form of passive entertainment on Twitch and other live platforms, it quickly became clear that it was the technology of choice for documenting these and other protests and social movements.

As TK put it: “People are visual learners; until they see it for themselves they don’t really believe it. And when it’s live, it’s live. You’re not seeing the cut, clipped and edited version. You can’t dispute what you see in raw live footage. You can’t ignore it.”

In Seattle, two people have become familiar faces, or voices, as they have doggedly documented every step of the protests this way, from before the CHOP to well after: Omari Salisbury and Joey Wieser.

techcrunch.com/wp-content/uplo…
Image Credits: Jake Gravbot

Salisbury runs Converge Media, an independent web-distributed news organization. He comes from a broadcast and networking background, and when the CHOP emerged literally outside his doorstep — the studio door opened onto the police line before officers left — he took the opportunity to share the story, as objectively as possible. To him, the only tool that fit the bill was live streaming.

“The viewer needs to be able to see the context, because if the viewer can’t see the context, then it becomes something else,” he said. “People appreciate us because the stream is long, we keep the camera there and we let people make their own decisions.”

He was there not just for the controversial or terrifying moments, like clashes between provocateurs and protestors, or the shootings that occurred later on, but for the huge number of peaceful hours when people would share their own experiences at Salisbury’s prompting. The result is an incredibly valuable archive of hundreds of hours of live footage, ground truth from inside the zone that has been watched by millions.

Joey Wieser has no media background, but rather just a passing familiarity with the systems and social media methods that can grab people’s attention. Yet his stream came to be relied on by many, and the events he captured also racked up millions of views, simply because he decided to take advantage of the tools at his disposal.
“It's not that we don't have umbrellas. We just never met a storm worthy of one.

Until this week.” -Seattle pic.twitter.com/STGnwIc3sZ

— Joey Wieser (@itsjosephryan) June 8, 2020

“Live streaming and having our phones out every single day is our best form of self defense. Every day that I walk out my doorstep, I hold my phone as if it is my ultimate shield, my ultimate weapon,” he said. “Without it, I feel like I don’t have a role in this movement. It’s not like I’m some prolific live streamer, or that I know what Black communities need best. I’m just some white guy and I happen to work in tech. Having an understanding of what social media best practices look like, understanding analytics and social amplification — that combined with my community activism allowed me to come out here and do this.”

For Wieser, having the right connections or network was less important than being in the right place at the right time, even if it put him in danger. (He and Omari were both tear gassed multiple times and near shootings and other altercations.)

“I think it really puts the viewer at home in the driver’s seat,” he said. “Because they’re able to not only watch an uninterrupted stream, but to engage and have a real live conversation with somebody that’s there on the ground. You know, they can say, hey, turn to the left. What was that? It’s a participatory experience in a way watching the news doesn’t allow.”

One such incident I saw play out almost defies belief. Wieser was streaming the protest when a truck blasted through, nearly hitting several people. Minutes later, a person watching the stream was surprised when that very truck pulled up outside their apartment — it was their DoorDash driver, who announced proudly that they had just run down some protestors. (The driver’s plates and info were quickly sent through the proper channels.)
THE PLOT THICKENS: The man in this truck is a driver for @DoorDash and was making a delivery. The customer was literally watching the livestream as the silver truck pulled up outside their home. pic.twitter.com/di1eI9bQjE

— Joey Wieser (@itsjosephryan) July 1, 2020

Being a two-way medium, it provides new opportunities for interference as well as engagement. Both Salisbury and Wieser experienced repeated attempts to pollute their comment sections or attack them personally.

“It’s not lost on me that this amplification can be used against us, but I think one of the important things about live streaming is that you can inject your own narrative, rather than let it be to the whim of, you know, Fox News or Sinclair,” said Wieser. “Regardless of whether or not the trolls take it over in the comment sections or in the hashtags, if you’re actually listening to the content, and if you’ve got someone out here who has the right heart and the right passion and the right analysis, you can reclaim that narrative.”
“The citizen journalist has always existed. They just never had the tools to be on equal footing with national news.”
Salisbury, for his part, expressed that it is not always sufficient to simply document — one has to report, and that’s what he does.
“People rock with me because just turning on the camera and streaming, it’s not enough. Knowing the history of Seattle, the history of the neighborhood, understanding political positions… and you got to put paint where it ain’t, you know what I’m saying? The citizen journalist has always existed. They just never had the tools to be on equal footing with national news,” he said.

“People underestimate the tech that’s out there, especially the free stuff,” he continued. “I know people have their views about platforms and privacy. And I think that’s a different discussion. But I will say that what’s going on here allows for citizen journalists to touch the world. I used to build OTT and streaming platforms in Europe and across Africa. So understanding the actual technology that goes into this, man, I really don’t take no stream for granted. I’ve got people in Australia who’ve been on since day one. What if I had to cultivate that through my own contacts, do my own server, do my own everything? How would I reach them? It doesn’t work that way.”

He credits live streaming with putting pressure on local and national outlets to up their game, as well — being showed up by one person with a phone doesn’t look good for a major news organization.

“Citizen journalists and streamers came out here and forced the local media to change their whole game,” he said. “I mean, a guy with a cell phone didn’t get no respect back in the day. But I had my interviews with the mayor before anybody, my interviews with Chief Best before anybody. You see what I’m saying? I’m just a guy with a phone. Now the Seattle Times has a streamer out here. This situation has made the media adapt new technology.”

While live broadcasts have been part of local and national news for decades, it was in truth a totally different medium. But it’s now difficult to imagine coverage of events like these without modern live streaming, and legacy media have begun to recognize that. Technology has always been a double-edged sword. The events in Seattle and across the country have illustrated this powerfully, and it seems unarguable that whatever happens in terms of policy and politics, the nature of protesting and the power dynamic that has defined it for decades has begun to change.

Ultimately, though, the power does not belong to the tech, but to the people.

“Technology plays a big part in all this, but I’m gonna be real with you, what you need is more old fashioned beating your feet to the streets,” concluded TK. “It’s not that the technology is insufficient, but that people are choosing not to use technology to understand.

“We’ve proven it time and time again that the only ones that really got our back is us.”

feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/Techc… feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/Techc… feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/Techc… feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/Techc… feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/Techc… feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/Techc…
techcrunch.com/2020/07/18/for-…

#seattle #chaz #seattleprotest #seattleprotests #seattleprotestcomms #seatleprotest
Redish Lab @[email protected] · 2025-07-18 · 20:51 UTC

@elduvelle_neuro @Andrewpapale
@BrianMSweis
#CrossSpecies #neuroscience
As Andy Papale said, we have a bunch of papers with both rats and mice on the #RestaurantRow task. (The data is all in https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-04235-6, and publicly available.) Generally, we talk about similarities, but mice learn slower. Rats show the transition from wait zone to #precommitment in the offer zone in a few days, while mice take a lot longer.
Another space where I think there have been rat and mouse comparisons (although I don't find any explicit comparisons) is in the place field stability literature. My memory is that Cliff Kentros had really cool data on (#PlaceCell) #PlaceField stability as a function of #hippocampus #dopamine levels and task. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-04235-6) Rats tended to live on the high-DA (place cells are stable) side while mice tended to live on the low-DA (place cells are unstable) side. But both could be manipulated with tasks and #dopamine (ant)agonists. I don't know if anyone explicitly looked at this.

#crossspecies #neuroscience #restaurantrow #precommitment #placecell #placefield
Redish Lab @[email protected] · 2025-07-18 · 20:51 UTC

@elduvelle_neuro @Andrewpapale
@BrianMSweis
#CrossSpecies #neuroscience
As Andy Papale said, we have a bunch of papers with both rats and mice on the #RestaurantRow task. (The data is all in https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-04235-6, and publicly available.) Generally, we talk about similarities, but mice learn slower. Rats show the transition from wait zone to #precommitment in the offer zone in a few days, while mice take a lot longer.
Another space where I think there have been rat and mouse comparisons (although I don't find any explicit comparisons) is in the place field stability literature. My memory is that Cliff Kentros had really cool data on (#PlaceCell) #PlaceField stability as a function of #hippocampus #dopamine levels and task. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-04235-6) Rats tended to live on the high-DA (place cells are stable) side while mice tended to live on the low-DA (place cells are unstable) side. But both could be manipulated with tasks and #dopamine (ant)agonists. I don't know if anyone explicitly looked at this.

#crossspecies #neuroscience #restaurantrow #precommitment #placecell #placefield
Redish Lab @[email protected] · 2025-07-18 · 20:51 UTC

@elduvelle_neuro @Andrewpapale
@BrianMSweis
#CrossSpecies #neuroscience
As Andy Papale said, we have a bunch of papers with both rats and mice on the #RestaurantRow task. (The data is all in https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-04235-6, and publicly available.) Generally, we talk about similarities, but mice learn slower. Rats show the transition from wait zone to #precommitment in the offer zone in a few days, while mice take a lot longer.
Another space where I think there have been rat and mouse comparisons (although I don't find any explicit comparisons) is in the place field stability literature. My memory is that Cliff Kentros had really cool data on (#PlaceCell) #PlaceField stability as a function of #hippocampus #dopamine levels and task. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-04235-6) Rats tended to live on the high-DA (place cells are stable) side while mice tended to live on the low-DA (place cells are unstable) side. But both could be manipulated with tasks and #dopamine (ant)agonists. I don't know if anyone explicitly looked at this.

#crossspecies #neuroscience #restaurantrow #precommitment #placecell #placefield
Redish Lab @[email protected] · 2025-07-18 · 20:51 UTC

@elduvelle_neuro @Andrewpapale
@BrianMSweis
#CrossSpecies #neuroscience
As Andy Papale said, we have a bunch of papers with both rats and mice on the #RestaurantRow task. (The data is all in https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-04235-6, and publicly available.) Generally, we talk about similarities, but mice learn slower. Rats show the transition from wait zone to #precommitment in the offer zone in a few days, while mice take a lot longer.
Another space where I think there have been rat and mouse comparisons (although I don't find any explicit comparisons) is in the place field stability literature. My memory is that Cliff Kentros had really cool data on (#PlaceCell) #PlaceField stability as a function of #hippocampus #dopamine levels and task. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-04235-6) Rats tended to live on the high-DA (place cells are stable) side while mice tended to live on the low-DA (place cells are unstable) side. But both could be manipulated with tasks and #dopamine (ant)agonists. I don't know if anyone explicitly looked at this.

#dopamine #hippocampus #placefield #placecell #precommitment #restaurantrow
Redish Lab @[email protected] · 2025-07-18 · 20:51 UTC

@elduvelle_neuro @Andrewpapale
@BrianMSweis
#CrossSpecies #neuroscience
As Andy Papale said, we have a bunch of papers with both rats and mice on the #RestaurantRow task. (The data is all in https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-04235-6, and publicly available.) Generally, we talk about similarities, but mice learn slower. Rats show the transition from wait zone to #precommitment in the offer zone in a few days, while mice take a lot longer.
Another space where I think there have been rat and mouse comparisons (although I don't find any explicit comparisons) is in the place field stability literature. My memory is that Cliff Kentros had really cool data on (#PlaceCell) #PlaceField stability as a function of #hippocampus #dopamine levels and task. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-04235-6) Rats tended to live on the high-DA (place cells are stable) side while mice tended to live on the low-DA (place cells are unstable) side. But both could be manipulated with tasks and #dopamine (ant)agonists. I don't know if anyone explicitly looked at this.

#crossspecies #neuroscience #restaurantrow #precommitment #placecell #placefield
Panethos @[email protected] · 2025-04-13 · 06:05 UTC
American cities with the most trees per square mile
Source: thoughtco.com
Listed below are those larger American cities for whom data on tree canopies is readily available, that have the most trees per square mile. Bear in mind that some examples are solely from inside the city limits proper, while others like Miami are for both the city and surrounding county.
Most surprising from the data gathered is the extent of the tree canopies in some Texan cities, especially Dallas and its suburbs, as well as Austin. Also, an unfortunate number of cities have not estimated the extent of their tree canopy.
One would have thought that ever city with a collegiate forestry or landscape architecture program would have long since calculated the extent of their tree canopy. Certainly, some have, as Athens, Austin, Seattle, Ann Arbor, Gainesville, and Fort Collins all can attest. But to not find comparable numbers from places like Boulder, Eugene, Raleigh, or Madison was quite unexpected.
Peace!
Note: Data is for all trees on both public and private property.
_______
1. Athens, Georgia = 13.3 million or 112,640 trees per square mile
2. Austin, Texas = 33.8 million or 103,522 trees per square mile
3. Orlando, Florida = 7.5 million or 67,812 trees per square mile
4. Tampa, Florida = 9.9 million or 56,474 trees per square mile
5. Seattle, Washington = 4.35 million or 51,909 trees per square mile
6. Ann Arbor, Michigan = 1.45 million or 51,408 trees per square mile
7. Houston, Texas = 33 million or 49,624 trees per square mile for Houston
8. Gainesville, Florida = 2.95 million or 46,714 trees per square mile
9. Springfield, Missouri = 3.6 million or 43,742 trees per square mile
10. Bellevue, Washington = 1.4 million or 41,841 trees per square mile
11. Lewisville, Texas = 1.652 million or 38,870 trees per square mile
12. Dallas, Texas = 14.7 million or 38,103 trees per square mile
13. Washington, DC = 2.43 million or 35,578 trees per square mile
14. Denton, Texas = 3.5 million or 35, 425 trees per square mile
15. Milwaukee, Wisconsin = 3.38 million or 35,135 trees per square mile
16. Cleveland, Ohio = 2.37 million or 30,502 trees per square mile
17. Baltimore, Maryland = 2.8 million or 30,418 trees per square mile
18. Arlington, Texas = 2.965 million or 29,589 trees per square mile
19. Arlington, Virginia = 755,000 = 29,038 trees per square mile
20. Grand Rapids, Michigan = 1.28 million or 28,444 trees per square mile
21. Tulsa, Oklahoma = 5.2 million or 26,329 trees per square mile
22. New York City, New York = 7.0 million 23,133 trees per square mile
23. Plano, Texas = 1.6 million or 22,222 trees per square mile
24. Los Angeles, California = 10.5 million or 20,887 trees per square mile
25. Cincinnati, Ohio = 1.6 million or 20,566 trees per square mile
26. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania = 2.9 million or 20,322 trees per square mile
27. Providence, Rhode Island = 415,000 or 20,165 trees per square mile
28. Miami-Dade County, Florida = 36 million 0r 18,499 per square mile
29. Chicago, Illinois = 4.1 million or 18,038 trees per square mile
30. Minneapolis, Minnesota = 979,000 or 17,026 trees per square mile
31. Denver, Colorado = 2.2 million or 14,379 trees per square mile
32. San Francisco, California = 669,000 or 14,264 trees per square mile
33. Portland, Oregon = 1.4 million or 10,491 trees per square mile
34. Sacramento, California = 1.0 million or 9,990 trees per square mile
35. St. Paul, Minnesota = 500,000 or 8,897 trees per square mile
36. San Jose, California = 1.6 million or 8,825 trees per square mile
37. Fort Collins, Colorado = 500,000 or 8,741 trees per square mile
38. Irvine, California = 550,000 or 8,384 trees per square mile
39. Birmingham, Alabama = 1.0 million or 6,803 trees per square mile
40. Virginia Beach, Virginia = 3.2 million or 6,438 trees per square mile
41. El Paso, Texas = 1.28 million or 4,954 trees per square mile
42. Oakland, California = 200,000 or 2,564 trees per square mile
43. Buffalo, New York = 130,000 or 2,476 trees per square mile
SOURCES:
#cities #climateChange #environment #forests #geography #history #landUse #nature #planning #travel #treeCanopy #trees #urbanForests #urbanForsts #woodlands
#cities #climatechange #environment #forests #geography #history
Spaceflight 🚀 @[email protected] · 2026-01-14 · 16:36 UTC

• #KID separated from #PSLV ~18 minutes after takeoff, likely as a result of the flight anomaly
• The demo craft was able to withstand peak forces around 28 Gs
• KID’s thermal protection system was able to maintain a temperature of ~30 degrees Celsius, while external temperature readings showed ~85 degrees 🌡️ Celsius
• The vehicle successfully transmitted data, while screaming through the atmosphere at a non-nominal trajectory
https://payloadspace.com/exclusive-orbital-paradigm-emerges-as-the-lone-survivor-of-failed-pslv-launch/
#ISRO #RUD ##OrbitalParadigm

#kid #pslv #isro #rud #orbitalparadigm
tallship @[email protected] · 2023-01-20 · 02:09 UTC

#### takahē - A new Fediverse paradigm
#### 19 January 2023
Fresh out of the oven is #Takahē, introducing a very interesting basic functional motive for development and delivering a beautiful #UX. It also derives inspiration in the form of its #mascott from a species once thought extinct for about a century.
That is, until a single man obsessed with the saga of this large, flightness bird since his early childhood, endlessly sought out and eventually rediscovered it was actually extant 75 years ago through his tireless efforts.
In recent years, and not without some particularly problematic attempts in the management of this #endangered_species, the population of these magnificent birds has more or less stabilized at around 100 members living in the wild, thanks to the committed efforts of a government sponsored #refoliation, hatching, and rearing program; in conjunction with a comprehensive scientific tagging, tracking, and monitoring effort of those members released into the wild alongside the wild-born members of the #population.
The software project itself has struck me as rather special too, and not just for its two functionally unique characteristics amongst other #Fediverse platforms - first, and similar to name based #SSL hosting on #HTTP servers with #SNI, Takahē provides multi-domain virtual hosting capabilities to #ActivityPub - this is huge, and opens the door for for even the casusl home self-hoster to provide #turnkey #SaaS offerings to their friends and family members in the form of small and #single_user "virtual Fediverse server instances", in consumer based home #LAN environments - let alone the potential for commercial hosting endeavors.
To my knowledge, this is the very first time this novel approach to Fediverse networking over ActivityPub has been broached.
https://jointakahe.org/
If you hurry, you might still be able to secure for yourself an account in their limited beta program.
Go ahead, you can do that now, I'll still be here when you get back 😎
And as if that alone were not enough to revolutionize the paradigm and dynamic of the Fediverse, Takahē also introduces multiple account (alt) identities for each user user account on the server. This can only be described as freaking groundbreaking!
A single user account for a person might be the base for say, both @[email protected] AND @userone@SLD02 .TLD02 AND @usertwo@SLD02 .TLD02 - that, at least to me, can only be described as, "The Bees Knees".
I'm sure that many will cite, and of course it is not only possible but quite likely, that this will lower the bar for abusive actors to engage in shenanigans. However true as that may be, such potential (and existing practice) exists already within the Fediverse so the ease with which bad actors will avail themselves of such toolings only is only trivially simplified, not introduced; besides, complaining about such a thing is irrelevant - the cat is already out of the bag.
Indeed, there are already other Fediverse server platforms (such as the Hubzilla (ZOT) and Misskey families of forks and variants that already support the creation and management of multiple identities under a single account anyway - but Bringing the SNI shared hosting experience into production with a single Fediverse server instance is truly unprecedented in Fediverse space.
There's a lot more. Did I mention the beautiful, and exceedingly intuitive UI? Of course I did!
There's another corollary that I alluded to. Did you miss it? It was right there, before your eyes.
Yes, there's a metaphor, craftily scripted between the lines of everything you just read (that is, if you didn't tl;dr).
The impetus for much of #decentralization (DeSoc) and the #Genesis of the Fediverse is arguably the notion of what was indeed a #decentralized #World_Wide_Web over the fully decentralized #Internet, having falling victim to capture by special interests - the #deprecated, #proprietary, #privacy_disrespecting and #legacy #monolithic_silos - owned, spawned, and managed by mega surveillance-capitalism #data_mining corporations.... IOW, the so-called, Sunnyvale Syndrome.
This effectively killed of much of the notion that there even still existed an independant, #distributed_network of services and sites truly belonging to the #individual_participants, i.e., average #schmoes like you and me.
For sometime now, many have even claimed and argued that the kinder, friendlier #web of days gone by, where small #communities of #people and #websites belonging to #individuals and small businesses were actually #extinct in reality - with only those well heeled analytically correct, SEO optimized, #subjugated websites and #chattel in the form of people that had sworn #fealty to their lords and masters remaining. #Apple, #Amazon, the #Google and #Faceplant having long since taken #possession of their souls and #identities.
It's dark, so incredibly dark. And you have awakened to find yourself at the bottom of a well that you apparently have fallen into. There's plenty of water, you're knee deep in it, and a voice from above booms aloud that food will be delivered so long as, "It puts the lotion on its skin!"
And in a manner of speaking, following an "Internet century" (think, 'dog years') of a #dystopian #feudal Institution where Homo sapien drones existing in #Lords_and_Vassals lockstep, told what to think, how to believe, where to shit, and when to wake up and punch the time clock, had completely replaced the actually extinct human race... Well?...
Fast forwarding to the scene where...
Some awkward little child in a dimly candlelit bedroom, many children, truth be told, consumed with the dreams of, and empowered with an obsessive belief that, a world where real, unique and independently diverse human beings actually existed, grew up and many years later rediscovered that they really did still walk the earth.
Kinda like the true story of the Takahē. And we too, are beautiful.
I'm leaving the rest for you to discover for yourselves, and look forward to many discussions on this invigorating topic. In the meantime, you can follow:
@takahe
I can be reached on Matrix at:
@tallship:matrix.org
via XMPP at:
[email protected]
and in the Fediverse at:
@[email protected]
I hope that helps! Enjoy!
#tallship #FOSS #virtual_hosting #multiple_identity #DeSoc #Sunnyvale_Syndrome #AOL_Effect
⛵
.

#fediverse #foss #decentralized #activitypub #decentralization #proprietary
Space Data Scientist @data_from_space · 2025-08-26 · 07:44 UTC

Saw a institute announcing their latest #data #science #astrophysicist #professor #hire, saying how passionate he is about his #hobby, piloting planes. Really? In this day and age, we are proud of that? Should I say I love beating animals as a hobby? If you still love #flying today you are either bad at #physics or dislike #data, or you don't believe in the #scientificmethod. #WTF #climatechange #astrodon #AcademicChatter

#data #science #astrophysicist #professor #hire #hobby
WorldPopProject @[email protected] · 2026-04-30 · 08:16 UTC

New webinar: integrating WorldPop’s 100m population open data into DHIS2 is reshaping vaccine delivery in remote regions 🌍
From mapping underserved communities in the Central African Republic to reaching 19,000 zero-dose children in Uganda, geospatial data is driving smarter microplanning.
Learn more: https://www.worldpop.org/blog/new-webinar-showcases-how-geospatial-data-reaches-zero-dose-children-in-remote-regions/
#DHIS2 #GlobalHealth #Geospatial #Vaccines #DataForGood #Immunization

#dhis2 #globalhealth #geospatial #vaccines #dataforgood #immunization
WorldPopProject @[email protected] · 2026-03-24 · 14:39 UTC

📊 Webinar: Immunization microplanning with WorldPop data in DHIS2
🗓️ Apr 23, 14:00 (CET)
Learn how high-resolution population data strengthens microplanning to reach every community. Featuring a CAR use case from HISP Rwanda + demos by HISP UiO and WorldPop.
Register here: https://dhis2.org/events/immunization-microplanning-worldpop/
#Immunization #GlobalHealth #GIS #Data4Health #DHIS2

#immunization #globalhealth #gis #data4health #dhis2
Miguel Afonso Caetano @[email protected] · 2025-10-17 · 03:37 UTC

"So why did America's trading partners agree to anticircumvention law? Well, that was down to the tender ministrations of the US trade rep. Countries that didn't pass anticircumvention were threatened with US tariffs.
I used to occasionally guest-lecture at an international relations grad program at the Central European University in Budapest, and one summer, I had a student who had served as the information minister to a Central American country while the US was negotiating the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). This student described getting a phone call from their country's chief negotiator who said, "I know you told me not to budge on anticircumvention, but the USTR tells me that if we don't give them this, they will block our agricultural exports. I'm sorry." Country by country, the world fell into line.
When someone tells you, "You'd better do what I say or I'm going to burn your house down," and then they burn your house down, you'd be an absolute sucker if you kept up your part of the bargain.
I find it absolutely bizarre that the USTR spent decades racing around the world, getting every country on earth to sign up to "America First" policies by threatening them with tariffs, and then Trump actually imposed the tariffs anyway, which has opened up the space for every country to get rid of those America First policies."
https://pluralistic.net/2025/10/15/freedom-of-movement/#data-dieselgate
#Eurostack #Anticircumvention #Copyright #USA #Trump #Tariffs #DigitalSovereignty #USTR

#eurostack #anticircumvention #copyright #usa #trump #tariffs
realhackhistory @[email protected] · 2023-09-29 · 15:05 UTC

New Years Eve at Times Square – 1982-1983, CBS
1983 was the year that popular culture in the US caught on to the existence of hackers, hacker culture and first set foot on the path to total hacker hysteria. When I say “hackers” here I mean the “computer underground”, “blackhats” or the “dark side” of computing enthusiasts, not model railroad builders or programming hobbyists.
The year 1983 started with journalists using awkward phrases like “data diddlers” to describe hackers and ended with demands in newspaper opinion pieces for federal laws to criminalise and exact punishment for people caught hacking.
There are five or six books I would write about the history of hacking if I had the time and energy, the story of how 1983 forever changed how hackers are viewed is one of them.
The word “hacker” in relation to computer crimes had been used before 1983 in the US but it was not commonplace, it had not entered into every day usage, by the end of 1983 it was well and truly lodged in the American public’s lexicon.
Then it happened, the movie War Games was released and mass numbers of sixth grade to all ages flocked to see it. The problem wasn’t that the movie was bad, it was that now EVERYONE wanted to be a hacker/phreak. Novices came out in such mass numbers, that bulletin boards started to be busy 24 hours a day. To this day, they still have not recovered. Other problems started to occur, novices guessed easy passwords on large government computers and started to play around… Well it wasn’t long before they were caught, I think that many people remember the 414-hackers.
“A Short History of Phreaking courtesy of the Jolly Roger”
There are four events that took place during 1983 that brought American hackers out of their computer cubbyholes, emerging blinking into a harsh media spotlight. Two of these events were pop culture related, the release of WarGames in cinemas and Whiz Kids on TV, and two were related to the arrests of actual hacker groups in the United States and the headlines those arrests generated.
Illustration from TIME article on Dalton Gang hackers, January 12th, 1981
There had been hacker groups busted before 1983, there was the so called “Dalton Gang”, four 13 year old high-schoolers who were apprehended, but not charged, by the FBI in 1980. There was also the group of “computer phreaks” (as the few reporters in California who were paying attention labelled them at the time) that Kevin Mitnick belonged to who also fell afoul of the law in 1981 and may have been called the “System Crashers” back then.
Below are excerpts from coverage of Kevin Mitnick and Lewis DePayne’s antics, “Computer Crime Spreads in U.S.” from the Daily News on the 14th December 1981 which goes into some details around dumpster diving, login and password guessing, social engineering, BBS culture and the fact that hacking and phreaking is “very addictive. Sometimes it’s better than sex.”

Those previous cases just did not capture the public imagination though and I think that is in large part because a movie like WarGames hadn’t created a space for hackers to occupy in people’s imagination yet. Estimates are that in 1983 there were two million personal computers in the US, if computers themselves were a curiosity most people had little contact with then hackers were not even on the radar of the average person.

WarGames – May 1983
WarGames premiers in American cinemas on May 7th of 1983. The word “hacker” is never uttered by any of the characters, but the movie is essentially about a teenage hacker named David Lightman who uses a war-dialler to hunt for modem numbers to connect to and alters his high-school grades after gaining access to his school’s computers.
Things escalate rapidly when Lightman stumbles upon a system while war-dialling that he believes belongs to a video game company and discovers a listing of games that include “Theaterwide Biotoxic and Chemical Warfare” and “Global Thermonuclear War”. Little does David suspect that he has in fact connected to a US military NORAD supercomputer known as WOPR (War Operation Plan Response), setting in motion a potentially catastrophic sequence of events.
WarGames, UK poster, 1983
David initiates a game of ‘Global Thermonuclear War’, playing as the Soviet Union and targeting American cities. WOPR then initiates a simulation that briefly convinces NORAD military personnel that actual Soviet nuclear missiles are inbound. The computer continuously feeds simulated data about Soviet bomber incursions and submarine deployments to NORAD, pushing them to increase the DEFCON level toward a potential real world retaliation that would trigger World War III.
Based on this we could expect a backlash against hackers in newspaper columns after the movie is released, right?

Above we can see an article from the Free Lance-Star published on the 10th of May 1983, “How real is the horror of ‘War Games’?”. “Launching under attack could increase the possibility of war by accident since the president might be certain that an attack had actually taken place.. Can any technology be absolutely reliable when it comes to making close to instantaneous decisions on the survival of the world?” asks the Free Lance-Star.
“Anxieties About Nuclear War Make ‘WarGames’ Controversial, Richard Halloran, Youngstown Vindicator 10th June, 1983
Looking back at articles written around the release of WarGames the same themes come through over and over again, fear of potential nuclear war with suspicion of computers generally coming a very distant second. The antics of teenage hackers barely enter into the media discourse at all despite how central they were to the plot of the movie, but that was about to change.
You can watch a very grainy trailer for WarGames from 1983 that specifically touches on computer security below.

414s – August 1983
In August of 1983 the story of Milwaukee hacker group the 414s breaks in the media. The 414s had been hacking into dozens upon dozens of systems across America via the commercial Telenet network. Members are primarily called “computer raiders”, “home-computer pranksters”, “young computer wizards”, “computer hobbyists”, “electronic invaders” and “computer phreaks” by the press.
The word “hacker” does appear on the cover of Newsweek alongside a photo of 414s member Neal Patrick posing with a computer. Many of the hacking history narratives you’ll find repeated on the web will pin this as the first time “hacker” is “used by mainstream media”, I don’t buy that but it is one of the first times it is used as prominently as the front cover of a popular publication like Newsweek.
“Computer Capers”, Newsweek September 5th, 1983
The story of these hackers is linked to WarGames in article after article, the fact that the 414s had hacked systems at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, described in the reporting from the time as “a nuclear weapons laboratory” made this a media sensation.
“The movie ‘War Games’ glamorized what the 414s were doing, each of them saw the film at least once” writes Jackie Hyman for the Associated Press, despite also admitting that the 414s had already “accessed a number of computers in the spring” of 1983, well before WarGames was in cinemas. In fact as we will see below the 414s were not a group of kids who met in a Scout troop and became hackers after watching a movie, they were hackers who met on hacker BBSes and joined a Scout troop to spend more time hanging out in real life.
“The 414s: A group of computer whizzes from Milwaukee shows how easy it is to break in on any system”, Jackie Hyman, Associated Press
A lot of the coverage of the 414s from around the time of the FBI raids was very similar, written by journalists who didn’t really seem to understand the tech angle or the hacker subculture and were essentially writing very similar, shallow articles. One that stands out though in terms of depth of coverage and quality of prose is by Timothy Harper, writing for the Associated Press, I quote some of the article below.
The seven young Milwaukeeans first met “on the boards,” corresponding by electronic messages. Their keyboards struck responsive chords in each other as they shared tips on hardware, software, what movies to see and what magazines to read. Mostly, though, they shared an unspoken dedication to this technology that allowed them, without leaving their bedrooms or dens, intercourse with a challenging new world.
A few months ago, the seven agreed to meet face to face. They began gathering every couple weeks or so at homes or in pizza joints where they could exchange unlisted corporate telephone numbers and secret passwords over sausage and mushrooms.
They began calling themselves “the 414s” after Milwaukee’s area code, a joking reference to the Milwaukee youth gangs that take their names from the streets in their neighborhoods. The gang on 27th Street, for instance, is known as the “Two-Sevens.”
Neal, president of an Explorer Scout post sponsored by IBM and specializing in computers, asked the other 414s to join the scouts. They all did. Their Explorer meetings became another place to ex- a change information, although they emphasize that neither the adult leader, an IBM manager, nor any of the dozen other scouts knew about the accessing.
“Computer Raiders I: Was It Really a Game?”, Timothy Harper (AP), The Lewiston Daily, Sunday 29th August, 1983
So there you have it, the myth of the 414s as Explorer Scouts who somehow became corrupted by hackers as shown in the media or were left unsupervised around computers too long and somehow spontaneously became hackers can be put to bed.
The quote in the introduction to this blog from Jolly Roger about the post-WarGames explosion in novice hackers getting in trouble that he included the 414s in? The 414s were already hacking before the movie came out, though the movie may also have fired up their youthful imaginations.
“FBI May Take Action Against Computer Raiders” – The Dispatch 12th August, 1983
You can watch a short, free documentary on the 414s below, it shows the level of media and public interest in their case.

Whiz Kids – October 1983
Whiz Kids premiered on CBS on October 5th of 1983. The show revolved around teenage computing genius Richie Adler, who calls himself a “hacker”, and his friends who solve crimes and thwart evil schemes with the help of what was essentially hacktivism. Richie hacks computers to reveal corrupt corporations, the machinations of mafia gangsters and plots by Soviet spies, this show really did have it all.
Whiz Kids episode one, “Programmed For Murder”, October 5th, 1983, CBS
Whiz Kids marketing explicitly made an appeal to 80’s nerd culture, D&D, video games, this show made connections between different strands of nerd culture in the U.S. at the time that I don’t see anywhere else at that time. I am planning a blog about the fact that, in my mind, Whiz Kids is the best 80’s hacker media, I’ve also made a YouTube video about the show.

Backlash against the show began before it was ever released, and only got worse once it actually aired on TV.
“CBS’s ‘Whiz Kids’ Could Get Straight A’s In Crime”. Barbara Holsopple, Pittsburgh Press, June 15th, 1983
In June, four months, before the first episode hit TV screens, TV critics like Barbara Holsopple above were deeply concerned about the themes within Whiz Kids and that was before the 414s were revealed in the media. Whiz Kids producer Philip DeGuere described the show as “intelligent human beings using their resources to to bring about the triumph of good over evil” but TV critics were not convinced.
On the books, snooping in other people’s computers is illegal. DeGuere isn’t so sure it ought to be.
“We are going through tremendous technological changes in our society, the impact of which we do not know,” the producer says. “I do not know the computer laws. I do not know if what these kids do is illegal. These questions have not yet come up in court. But I’m not sure anybody has the right to establish databases and keep information away from anybody else.”
This show, DeGuere says, will be a factor in developing how people deal with these issues.
“CBS’s ‘Whiz Kids’ Could Get Straight A’s In Crime”. Barbara Holsopple, Pittsburgh Press, June 15th, 1983
You can watch one of the first videos I ever made on the history of hacking below, all about Whiz Kids.

Inner Circle & the Phalsers – October 1983
On October 11th the FBI raids against the Inner Circle, the Phalsers and other hackers begin. Telenet had been a playground for hackers since at least the Dalton Gang back in 1980, but the publicity around the 414s, I think, had increased security oversight of the network. When a member of the Inner Circle began wiping systems and locking out user accounts as part of an internal feud the FBI were notified by Telenet and began ‘Operation Mainframe’ to apprehend the hackers involved. Journalists actually use the words “hacker” and “hackers” from the outset of coverage of these arrests.
“Teenagers Face Prosecution If Found To Have Entered Defense Computer Systems”, Ludington Daily News 15 Oct 1983.png
Looking at the articles written about the Inner Circle raids it is pretty obvious that, for the most part, the novelty of WarGames and hackers as a curiosity was already wearing off, there seems to be a lot less sympathy or curiosity and a lot more unease. I imagine that parents were becoming concerned that their quiet, studious teenage computer addicts could become embroiled in a national security nightmare or nationwide FBI investigation and journalists had a harder time finding a Neal Patrick to put a friendly face on this new hacker case.
The four kids that initially made the news in relation to the Inner Circle were not members of the hacking group itself and appear to have been kids who were in the friends circle, possibly in real life, of one of the actual Inner Circle members. From what I can gather from the way media coverage developed one or more of their parents hit on what has become a tried and true method of insulating young hackers from criminal prosecution, getting out in front of any potential charges and throwing themselves at the mercy of the press.
“FBI raids teen computer ‘hackers’” – The Day 14th October, 1983
Lots of photos of the kids looking sad and, eventually, an attempt to portray an Inner Circle member the Cracker as a ringleader who had entrapped the kids into breaking the law inadvertently. The Cracker was the original Kevin Mitnick, demonized in the newspapers of the time as the archetypal sinister hacker.
The raids of the Inner Circle also helped increase the media profile of one of the most infamous and hated characters in 80’s US hacker lore, John Maxfield, aka Cable Pair, who was to become an FBI asset, anti-hacker hacktivist and talking head on the menace of hacking.

You can watch part one of a planned two parter video series on the Inner Circle that I created below.

Conclusion
The year 1983 began with journalists discussing “electronic vandals”, “data tappers” and “computer raiders” and ended with a newspaper publishing a “what is a real hacker anyway” type think piece.
“Are they hackers or criminals?” – The Free Lance – Star 24th December, 1983
One way to gauge how pivotal a year 1983 was is to look at what happened the year after. In 1984 the Phalsers would get 2600 Magazine up and running and the Legion of Doom and Cult of the Dead Cow would be formed, hacker BBS culture continued to flourish and grow across the US.
Illustration by Heidi Stetson, The Boston Phoenix, 13th March 1984
In 1984 journalists would go from observing hackers from a safe distance to becoming part of the story themselves. Newsweek writer Richard Sandoza found himself victimized by hackers and subjected to a “teletrial” on a hacker BBS, accused of crimes against hackerdom after joining hacker BBSes posing as a hacker called “Montana Wildhack” to research an article.
I plan a future article or video on the phenomenon of “teletrials” as I think they are a riveting part of hacker history that continued as a strand of community revenge into the 90s.
“Writer who snitched feels vengeful byte of hackers”, The Orlando Sentinel, December 5th, 1984
If you’ve enjoyed this blog please share it and check out realhackhistory on Mastodon, YouTube and (if you must) Twitter.
https://realhackhistory.org/2023/09/29/1983-the-year-pop-culture-caught-up-with-hackers/
#1980s #1983 #2600 #414s #computer #crashers #DaltonGang #FBI #hacker #hackers #hacking #history #InnerCircle #KevinMitnick #Mitnick #movie #newspaper #Phalse #Phalsers #police #RoscoeGang #WarGames #WarGames #WhizKids

#1980s #414s #computer #crashers #daltongang #fbi
Voice of East @[email protected] · 2026-01-27 · 12:41 UTC

From Ukraine To Greenland: How Trump’s Arctic Strategy Is Rewiring Europe’s Russia Policy

From Ukraine To Greenland: How Trump’s Arctic Strategy Is Rewiring Europe’s Russia Policy
By Uriel Araujo
A “100% ready” US-Ukraine security agreement emerges as Europe faces growing pressure from Washington on Greenland. The Arctic factor adds a new layer of uncertainty, encouraging European leaders to diversify diplomatic channels. The “100% ready” deal may be only the beginning, not the conclusion, of a far more complex realignment.
When President Volodymyr Zelensky announced, recently, that a bilateral US-Ukraine security guarantees agreement is “100% ready” and awaiting only a date and venue for signature, this sounded reassuring to a war-weary public and to increasingly divided Western backers. As a matter of fact, the timing of the announcement also reflects a broader unease in Europe, sharpened also by Washington’s recent willingness to brandish coercive tools against its own allies.
The deal, as described by Ukrainian officials, focuses on post-war guarantees against renewed hostilities, rather than NATO membership. Thus far, details remain deliberately vague, with Kiev focusing on assurances before any broader settlement advances.
This US-led track in any case unfolds as Europe quietly repositions itself. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and French President Emmanuel Macron have both called for reopening channels with Moscow, with Meloni proposing a special EU envoy to ensure Europe is not sidelined. This may signal a strategic shift.
The question many are asking is whether Europe might attempt to undermine, or at least dilute, the US-Ukraine security deal, as happened during earlier negotiation efforts, including the ill-fated Istanbul talks of 2022. Russian officials have repeatedly accused European capitals of sabotaging talks, a claim echoed again in late 2025 amid renewed US mediation attempts. Yet something may be changing: Europeans increasingly understand that Trump’s second administration is pursuing an unmistakably unilateral approach across theatres, with Europe also being a target. In other words, an understanding is emerging that the real threat lies West, not East.
Here the Greenland factor enters the equation. The American threats to annex the island by force or impose sweeping tariffs on European imports are part of a broader Arctic strategy, one that exposed Europe’s vulnerability to pressure from its principal “ally” and reinforced the logic of diversifying diplomatic leverage.
Though such threats were later dialled back into a “framework” arrangement with Denmark (involving expanded US access and arms purchases), Trump’s unpredictability remains a structural problem for Europe, amid speculations about cognitive decline.
European vulnerability in Greenland is well documented: analysts have warned that the European bloc is still unprepared to defend the island, despite its growing strategic value amid Arctic militarization. Legal scholars have also noted that Trump’s threats tested the credibility of international law’s prohibition on the use of force. In a way, a “Overton Window” approach is being employed by the US President on global law.
Against this backdrop, Europe’s renewed interest in dialogue with Russia may reflect leverage-seeking behaviour, so to speak. With Washington willing to brandish tariffs and security ultimatums against allies, European leaders have incentives to diversify diplomatic options. As I’ve argued, from an European perspective, engaging Moscow, even cautiously, offers one such option, especially in energy security, reconstruction planning, and Arctic governance.
This dynamic intersects with the Trump administration’s broader peace framework circulated in the end of last year, a 28-point plan outlining limits on Ukraine’s military size, demilitarized zones, phased sanctions relief, and security guarantees from both sides. While many elements remain disputed and only partially confirmed, the mere existence of such a plan underscores the American desire for a managed exit in that theatre (which has long been a US proxy war) as Washington now pivots elsewhere. In that case, what incentive is left for Europe to continue to carry such a burden?
Europe this time is therefore unlikely to sabotage the US-Ukraine security deal outright. Instead, it will likely pursue parallel engagement, seeking a seat at the table and “insurance” against abrupt US policy shifts. Poland and the Baltic states may resist any EU envoy seen as “weak”, but Berlin and Paris appear increasingly receptive. Recent data suggest Russian oil and gas revenues have faced some downward pressure since late 2025 due to price dynamics, logistical constraints, and sanctions enforcement, even as exports continue through alternative channels. Again, from a European perspective, this mixed picture could give European powers some confidence.
In that context, renewed dialogue would not be a zero-sum exercise. For Russia, engagement with Europe offers a channel to stabilize long-term energy trade and investment planning in a fragmented but still interconnected market. For Europe, talks with Moscow are about regaining strategic agency at a moment when US policy under Trump has become too unpredictable. Sustained communication thus reduces miscalculation risks and opens space for post-conflict reconstruction frameworks. Be as it may, such engagement can be framed as risk management rather than concession. This pragmatic logic explains why calls for engagement are resurfacing across European capitals, not as an ideological shift but as an acknowledgment of geopolitical realities.
A US open occupation or annexation of Greenland would threaten not only European sovereignty but also Russia, as I’ve detailed elsewhere. This means that the American appetite for Greenland has made European and Russian strategic interests converge in the Arctic.
The most plausible scenario is thus coordinated European engagement rather than open friction. Europe will neither torpedo the US deal nor subordinate itself fully to Trump’s whims; it will hedge. Greenland, unresolved enough to resurface at any moment, adds urgency to that hedging. Trump’s threats may have receded for now, but they linger as precedent and could re-escalate at any time.
In this scenario, Europe’s possible outreach to Russia is about autonomy. It would reflect an attempt to navigate a landscape in which Washington, as a volatile “partner”, is increasingly turning into an open enemy. Whether such a European balancing act gains traction will depend on February’s negotiations and on Trump’s next move. Thus, the “100% ready” deal may be only the beginning, not the conclusion, of a far more complex Eurasian realignment.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

#DonaldTrump #EU #Europe #Geopolitics #Greenland #NATO #Russia #TheArctic #Ukraine #USA

#donaldtrump #eu #europe #geopolitics #greenland #nato
Voice of East @[email protected] · 2026-01-27 · 12:41 UTC

From Ukraine To Greenland: How Trump’s Arctic Strategy Is Rewiring Europe’s Russia Policy

From Ukraine To Greenland: How Trump’s Arctic Strategy Is Rewiring Europe’s Russia Policy
By Uriel Araujo
A “100% ready” US-Ukraine security agreement emerges as Europe faces growing pressure from Washington on Greenland. The Arctic factor adds a new layer of uncertainty, encouraging European leaders to diversify diplomatic channels. The “100% ready” deal may be only the beginning, not the conclusion, of a far more complex realignment.
When President Volodymyr Zelensky announced, recently, that a bilateral US-Ukraine security guarantees agreement is “100% ready” and awaiting only a date and venue for signature, this sounded reassuring to a war-weary public and to increasingly divided Western backers. As a matter of fact, the timing of the announcement also reflects a broader unease in Europe, sharpened also by Washington’s recent willingness to brandish coercive tools against its own allies.
The deal, as described by Ukrainian officials, focuses on post-war guarantees against renewed hostilities, rather than NATO membership. Thus far, details remain deliberately vague, with Kiev focusing on assurances before any broader settlement advances.
This US-led track in any case unfolds as Europe quietly repositions itself. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and French President Emmanuel Macron have both called for reopening channels with Moscow, with Meloni proposing a special EU envoy to ensure Europe is not sidelined. This may signal a strategic shift.
The question many are asking is whether Europe might attempt to undermine, or at least dilute, the US-Ukraine security deal, as happened during earlier negotiation efforts, including the ill-fated Istanbul talks of 2022. Russian officials have repeatedly accused European capitals of sabotaging talks, a claim echoed again in late 2025 amid renewed US mediation attempts. Yet something may be changing: Europeans increasingly understand that Trump’s second administration is pursuing an unmistakably unilateral approach across theatres, with Europe also being a target. In other words, an understanding is emerging that the real threat lies West, not East.
Here the Greenland factor enters the equation. The American threats to annex the island by force or impose sweeping tariffs on European imports are part of a broader Arctic strategy, one that exposed Europe’s vulnerability to pressure from its principal “ally” and reinforced the logic of diversifying diplomatic leverage.
Though such threats were later dialled back into a “framework” arrangement with Denmark (involving expanded US access and arms purchases), Trump’s unpredictability remains a structural problem for Europe, amid speculations about cognitive decline.
European vulnerability in Greenland is well documented: analysts have warned that the European bloc is still unprepared to defend the island, despite its growing strategic value amid Arctic militarization. Legal scholars have also noted that Trump’s threats tested the credibility of international law’s prohibition on the use of force. In a way, a “Overton Window” approach is being employed by the US President on global law.
Against this backdrop, Europe’s renewed interest in dialogue with Russia may reflect leverage-seeking behaviour, so to speak. With Washington willing to brandish tariffs and security ultimatums against allies, European leaders have incentives to diversify diplomatic options. As I’ve argued, from an European perspective, engaging Moscow, even cautiously, offers one such option, especially in energy security, reconstruction planning, and Arctic governance.
This dynamic intersects with the Trump administration’s broader peace framework circulated in the end of last year, a 28-point plan outlining limits on Ukraine’s military size, demilitarized zones, phased sanctions relief, and security guarantees from both sides. While many elements remain disputed and only partially confirmed, the mere existence of such a plan underscores the American desire for a managed exit in that theatre (which has long been a US proxy war) as Washington now pivots elsewhere. In that case, what incentive is left for Europe to continue to carry such a burden?
Europe this time is therefore unlikely to sabotage the US-Ukraine security deal outright. Instead, it will likely pursue parallel engagement, seeking a seat at the table and “insurance” against abrupt US policy shifts. Poland and the Baltic states may resist any EU envoy seen as “weak”, but Berlin and Paris appear increasingly receptive. Recent data suggest Russian oil and gas revenues have faced some downward pressure since late 2025 due to price dynamics, logistical constraints, and sanctions enforcement, even as exports continue through alternative channels. Again, from a European perspective, this mixed picture could give European powers some confidence.
In that context, renewed dialogue would not be a zero-sum exercise. For Russia, engagement with Europe offers a channel to stabilize long-term energy trade and investment planning in a fragmented but still interconnected market. For Europe, talks with Moscow are about regaining strategic agency at a moment when US policy under Trump has become too unpredictable. Sustained communication thus reduces miscalculation risks and opens space for post-conflict reconstruction frameworks. Be as it may, such engagement can be framed as risk management rather than concession. This pragmatic logic explains why calls for engagement are resurfacing across European capitals, not as an ideological shift but as an acknowledgment of geopolitical realities.
A US open occupation or annexation of Greenland would threaten not only European sovereignty but also Russia, as I’ve detailed elsewhere. This means that the American appetite for Greenland has made European and Russian strategic interests converge in the Arctic.
The most plausible scenario is thus coordinated European engagement rather than open friction. Europe will neither torpedo the US deal nor subordinate itself fully to Trump’s whims; it will hedge. Greenland, unresolved enough to resurface at any moment, adds urgency to that hedging. Trump’s threats may have receded for now, but they linger as precedent and could re-escalate at any time.
In this scenario, Europe’s possible outreach to Russia is about autonomy. It would reflect an attempt to navigate a landscape in which Washington, as a volatile “partner”, is increasingly turning into an open enemy. Whether such a European balancing act gains traction will depend on February’s negotiations and on Trump’s next move. Thus, the “100% ready” deal may be only the beginning, not the conclusion, of a far more complex Eurasian realignment.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

#DonaldTrump #EU #Europe #Geopolitics #Greenland #NATO #Russia #TheArctic #Ukraine #USA

#usa #ukraine #thearctic #russia #nato #greenland
Voice of East @[email protected] · 2026-01-27 · 12:41 UTC

From Ukraine To Greenland: How Trump’s Arctic Strategy Is Rewiring Europe’s Russia Policy
From Ukraine To Greenland: How Trump’s Arctic Strategy Is Rewiring Europe’s Russia Policy
By Uriel Araujo
A “100% ready” US-Ukraine security agreement emerges as Europe faces growing pressure from Washington on Greenland. The Arctic factor adds a new layer of uncertainty, encouraging European leaders to diversify diplomatic channels. The “100% ready” deal may be only the beginning, not the conclusion, of a far more complex realignment.
When President Volodymyr Zelensky announced, recently, that a bilateral US-Ukraine security guarantees agreement is “100% ready” and awaiting only a date and venue for signature, this sounded reassuring to a war-weary public and to increasingly divided Western backers. As a matter of fact, the timing of the announcement also reflects a broader unease in Europe, sharpened also by Washington’s recent willingness to brandish coercive tools against its own allies.
The deal, as described by Ukrainian officials, focuses on post-war guarantees against renewed hostilities, rather than NATO membership. Thus far, details remain deliberately vague, with Kiev focusing on assurances before any broader settlement advances.
This US-led track in any case unfolds as Europe quietly repositions itself. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and French President Emmanuel Macron have both called for reopening channels with Moscow, with Meloni proposing a special EU envoy to ensure Europe is not sidelined. This may signal a strategic shift.
The question many are asking is whether Europe might attempt to undermine, or at least dilute, the US-Ukraine security deal, as happened during earlier negotiation efforts, including the ill-fated Istanbul talks of 2022. Russian officials have repeatedly accused European capitals of sabotaging talks, a claim echoed again in late 2025 amid renewed US mediation attempts. Yet something may be changing: Europeans increasingly understand that Trump’s second administration is pursuing an unmistakably unilateral approach across theatres, with Europe also being a target. In other words, an understanding is emerging that the real threat lies West, not East.
Here the Greenland factor enters the equation. The American threats to annex the island by force or impose sweeping tariffs on European imports are part of a broader Arctic strategy, one that exposed Europe’s vulnerability to pressure from its principal “ally” and reinforced the logic of diversifying diplomatic leverage.
Though such threats were later dialled back into a “framework” arrangement with Denmark (involving expanded US access and arms purchases), Trump’s unpredictability remains a structural problem for Europe, amid speculations about cognitive decline.
European vulnerability in Greenland is well documented: analysts have warned that the European bloc is still unprepared to defend the island, despite its growing strategic value amid Arctic militarization. Legal scholars have also noted that Trump’s threats tested the credibility of international law’s prohibition on the use of force. In a way, a “Overton Window” approach is being employed by the US President on global law.
Against this backdrop, Europe’s renewed interest in dialogue with Russia may reflect leverage-seeking behaviour, so to speak. With Washington willing to brandish tariffs and security ultimatums against allies, European leaders have incentives to diversify diplomatic options. As I’ve argued, from an European perspective, engaging Moscow, even cautiously, offers one such option, especially in energy security, reconstruction planning, and Arctic governance.
This dynamic intersects with the Trump administration’s broader peace framework circulated in the end of last year, a 28-point plan outlining limits on Ukraine’s military size, demilitarized zones, phased sanctions relief, and security guarantees from both sides. While many elements remain disputed and only partially confirmed, the mere existence of such a plan underscores the American desire for a managed exit in that theatre (which has long been a US proxy war) as Washington now pivots elsewhere. In that case, what incentive is left for Europe to continue to carry such a burden?
Europe this time is therefore unlikely to sabotage the US-Ukraine security deal outright. Instead, it will likely pursue parallel engagement, seeking a seat at the table and “insurance” against abrupt US policy shifts. Poland and the Baltic states may resist any EU envoy seen as “weak”, but Berlin and Paris appear increasingly receptive. Recent data suggest Russian oil and gas revenues have faced some downward pressure since late 2025 due to price dynamics, logistical constraints, and sanctions enforcement, even as exports continue through alternative channels. Again, from a European perspective, this mixed picture could give European powers some confidence.
In that context, renewed dialogue would not be a zero-sum exercise. For Russia, engagement with Europe offers a channel to stabilize long-term energy trade and investment planning in a fragmented but still interconnected market. For Europe, talks with Moscow are about regaining strategic agency at a moment when US policy under Trump has become too unpredictable. Sustained communication thus reduces miscalculation risks and opens space for post-conflict reconstruction frameworks. Be as it may, such engagement can be framed as risk management rather than concession. This pragmatic logic explains why calls for engagement are resurfacing across European capitals, not as an ideological shift but as an acknowledgment of geopolitical realities.
A US open occupation or annexation of Greenland would threaten not only European sovereignty but also Russia, as I’ve detailed elsewhere. This means that the American appetite for Greenland has made European and Russian strategic interests converge in the Arctic.
The most plausible scenario is thus coordinated European engagement rather than open friction. Europe will neither torpedo the US deal nor subordinate itself fully to Trump’s whims; it will hedge. Greenland, unresolved enough to resurface at any moment, adds urgency to that hedging. Trump’s threats may have receded for now, but they linger as precedent and could re-escalate at any time.
In this scenario, Europe’s possible outreach to Russia is about autonomy. It would reflect an attempt to navigate a landscape in which Washington, as a volatile “partner”, is increasingly turning into an open enemy. Whether such a European balancing act gains traction will depend on February’s negotiations and on Trump’s next move. Thus, the “100% ready” deal may be only the beginning, not the conclusion, of a far more complex Eurasian realignment.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

#DonaldTrump #EU #Europe #Geopolitics #Greenland #NATO #Russia #TheArctic #Ukraine #USA

#donaldtrump #eu #europe #geopolitics #greenland #nato
Voice of East @[email protected] · 2025-11-01 · 09:42 UTC

$6 Billion Icebreaker Deal: U.S.-Finland Alliance Signals Strategic Arctic Encirclement
$6 Billion Icebreaker Deal: U.S.-Finland Alliance Signals Strategic Arctic Encirclement
By Uriel Araujo
America signals it’s in the Arctic race to stay. The question is: in heating up tensions in the High North, does the West secure interests or court conflict in a new domain?
The United States just inked a $6.1 billion deal with Finland to build 11 new icebreakers for its US Coast Guard, a move billed as historic and aimed straight at boosting America’s lagging presence in the Arctic. These 11 vessels — mix of polar and Great Lakes types — will extend operational seasons, support research, and assert presence amid rising activity from multiple players.
Deliveries should start in 2028 — with Finnish shipyards lending their expertise to revive a US industry in a niche sector it once pioneered (when it comes to modern polar-class icebreakers) but that has been gathering dust for decades.
This of course isn’t just about ships — it’s the latest chapter in the intensifying Arctic race, where melting ice opens new shipping lanes, resource grabs, and strategic chokepoints. The US Coast Guard as of now operates a mere three polar icebreakers, the newest dating back to 1997.
Still, much of the Western media hype around this deal has been disproportionately triumphalist. Some commentary described it as a “game changer” that would quickly close the gap with Russia’s longstanding Arctic fleet advantage. It’s not so simple.
Russia, by contrast, fields around 50 polar icebreakers, including nuclear-powered giants suited to its vast northern coastline and over two million Arctic residents plus critical infrastructure.
Talk of an “icebreaker gap” gets hyped often enough, but the real issue lies in America’s capabilities versus the growing demands of Arctic security. Northern routes are busier than ever, with China sending research icebreakers over US-claimed seabed off Alaska just this August, prompting the Coast Guard to dispatch its aging Healy for monitoring.
The real issue here, however, is not numerical parity with Russia, but rather Washington’s intent to securitize the Arctic and reshape the region’s political landscape in favour of the Atlantic axis.
From an American perspective, Finland steps in as the saviour here. Its shipyards build icebreakers fast and cheap — take Polaris, completed in three years for around €125 million ($147 million); this is a smaller vessel but still a proof of efficiency that shames US delays.
America’s own program for new heavy icebreakers, in contrast, has ballooned to $1.9 billion per ship; the troubled Polar Security Cutter program has been plagued by delays and ballooning budgets, with the first now slipping to 2029 at best. Suffice to say, America’s domestic shipbuilding sector proved incapable of meeting strategic demand thus far. No wonder Washington looked north to Helsinki, fresh off it joining NATO in 2023 and eager for Western buyers. It fits into broader NATO expansion across Scandinavia and beyond — Finland and Sweden’s entry, renewed US focus on Greenland — all part of encircling key Arctic zones.
Impact-wise, the deal bolsters US Coast Guard readiness for busier Bering Strait traffic and potential provocations. In any case, Peter Rybski, a former US naval attaché in Helsinki, put it plainly: America got by with few icebreakers when Arctic shipping was sparse, but that’s changing fast enough to demand action.
Risks loom large, though. Delays plague US shipbuilding thus far; costs could spiral as they have with domestic programs. Not to mention that geopolitical tensions escalate blatantly in this race — NATO exercises off Norway send signals not just northward but eastward too, risking miscalculations in a region long the world’s quietest frontier. This could change pretty soon.
Finland’s shipbuilders themselves remain cautious: while the agreement promises jobs and investment, it may also expose Helsinki to retaliation from Moscow — a country with which it previously maintained pragmatic economic relations. The arrangement may also deepen Finland’s integration into NATO military procurement chains, limiting future neutrality in high-stakes diplomacy.
The Arctic’s transformation into a chessboard in such a way reflects alliance reflexes better suited to past eras than a multipolar setup. Push too hard on energy sanctions or seabed claims, and retaliation could surface in unexpected spots, like the Gulf of Finland or shifted LNG flows to Asia.
Underreported amid Middle East and Ukraine headlines, Norway, for instance, is also emerging as the West’s quiet Arctic battleground, with NATO steadily expanding across Scandinavia and the US seeking to secure access to Arctic resources under the banner of “security”. This icebreaker deal adds fuel, expanding the confrontation between the US-led Atlantic axis and emerging Eurasian interests northward.
Control of the Arctic increasingly means control of emerging trade routes, energy corridors, and even undersea data cables — infrastructure likely to define the 21st century. The US-led West, unwilling to come to terms with the reality of Russia’s geographic advantages, seeks to neutralize them through alliances and the encirclement of key chokepoints. Moscow, understandably enough, responds by strengthening self-reliance and partnering with Eurasian allies.
The underreported dimension in mainstream discourse is that this deal further militarizes a region that should remain a zone of cooperation. Washington’s Arctic ambitions are not just about navigation safety or scientific research; they are tied to a wider containment policy targeting both Russia and China. And if Arctic cooperation collapses, miscalculations will become more likely — particularly given NATO’s growing activity in Norway’s waters and the Barents Sea. Again, these moves send signals not only to Moscow but also to Beijing, which sees the High North as a shared space of strategic interest.
This is a region that desperately needs diplomacy rather than gunboat-style signalling. Be as it may, the $6.1 billion investment marks a pivot. It plugs immediate gaps with Finnish speed while building long-term US capacity. Thus, America signals it’s in the Arctic race to stay. The question is: in heating up tensions in the High North, does the West secure interests or court conflict in a new domain?

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

#China #Eurasia #Finland #Geopolitics #HighNorth #NATO #Russia #TheArctic #TheWest #USA

#thewest #china #eurasia #finland #geopolitics #highnorth
Voice of East @[email protected] · 2025-11-01 · 09:42 UTC

$6 Billion Icebreaker Deal: U.S.-Finland Alliance Signals Strategic Arctic Encirclement
$6 Billion Icebreaker Deal: U.S.-Finland Alliance Signals Strategic Arctic Encirclement
By Uriel Araujo
America signals it’s in the Arctic race to stay. The question is: in heating up tensions in the High North, does the West secure interests or court conflict in a new domain?
The United States just inked a $6.1 billion deal with Finland to build 11 new icebreakers for its US Coast Guard, a move billed as historic and aimed straight at boosting America’s lagging presence in the Arctic. These 11 vessels — mix of polar and Great Lakes types — will extend operational seasons, support research, and assert presence amid rising activity from multiple players.
Deliveries should start in 2028 — with Finnish shipyards lending their expertise to revive a US industry in a niche sector it once pioneered (when it comes to modern polar-class icebreakers) but that has been gathering dust for decades.
This of course isn’t just about ships — it’s the latest chapter in the intensifying Arctic race, where melting ice opens new shipping lanes, resource grabs, and strategic chokepoints. The US Coast Guard as of now operates a mere three polar icebreakers, the newest dating back to 1997.
Still, much of the Western media hype around this deal has been disproportionately triumphalist. Some commentary described it as a “game changer” that would quickly close the gap with Russia’s longstanding Arctic fleet advantage. It’s not so simple.
Russia, by contrast, fields around 50 polar icebreakers, including nuclear-powered giants suited to its vast northern coastline and over two million Arctic residents plus critical infrastructure.
Talk of an “icebreaker gap” gets hyped often enough, but the real issue lies in America’s capabilities versus the growing demands of Arctic security. Northern routes are busier than ever, with China sending research icebreakers over US-claimed seabed off Alaska just this August, prompting the Coast Guard to dispatch its aging Healy for monitoring.
The real issue here, however, is not numerical parity with Russia, but rather Washington’s intent to securitize the Arctic and reshape the region’s political landscape in favour of the Atlantic axis.
From an American perspective, Finland steps in as the saviour here. Its shipyards build icebreakers fast and cheap — take Polaris, completed in three years for around €125 million ($147 million); this is a smaller vessel but still a proof of efficiency that shames US delays.
America’s own program for new heavy icebreakers, in contrast, has ballooned to $1.9 billion per ship; the troubled Polar Security Cutter program has been plagued by delays and ballooning budgets, with the first now slipping to 2029 at best. Suffice to say, America’s domestic shipbuilding sector proved incapable of meeting strategic demand thus far. No wonder Washington looked north to Helsinki, fresh off it joining NATO in 2023 and eager for Western buyers. It fits into broader NATO expansion across Scandinavia and beyond — Finland and Sweden’s entry, renewed US focus on Greenland — all part of encircling key Arctic zones.
Impact-wise, the deal bolsters US Coast Guard readiness for busier Bering Strait traffic and potential provocations. In any case, Peter Rybski, a former US naval attaché in Helsinki, put it plainly: America got by with few icebreakers when Arctic shipping was sparse, but that’s changing fast enough to demand action.
Risks loom large, though. Delays plague US shipbuilding thus far; costs could spiral as they have with domestic programs. Not to mention that geopolitical tensions escalate blatantly in this race — NATO exercises off Norway send signals not just northward but eastward too, risking miscalculations in a region long the world’s quietest frontier. This could change pretty soon.
Finland’s shipbuilders themselves remain cautious: while the agreement promises jobs and investment, it may also expose Helsinki to retaliation from Moscow — a country with which it previously maintained pragmatic economic relations. The arrangement may also deepen Finland’s integration into NATO military procurement chains, limiting future neutrality in high-stakes diplomacy.
The Arctic’s transformation into a chessboard in such a way reflects alliance reflexes better suited to past eras than a multipolar setup. Push too hard on energy sanctions or seabed claims, and retaliation could surface in unexpected spots, like the Gulf of Finland or shifted LNG flows to Asia.
Underreported amid Middle East and Ukraine headlines, Norway, for instance, is also emerging as the West’s quiet Arctic battleground, with NATO steadily expanding across Scandinavia and the US seeking to secure access to Arctic resources under the banner of “security”. This icebreaker deal adds fuel, expanding the confrontation between the US-led Atlantic axis and emerging Eurasian interests northward.
Control of the Arctic increasingly means control of emerging trade routes, energy corridors, and even undersea data cables — infrastructure likely to define the 21st century. The US-led West, unwilling to come to terms with the reality of Russia’s geographic advantages, seeks to neutralize them through alliances and the encirclement of key chokepoints. Moscow, understandably enough, responds by strengthening self-reliance and partnering with Eurasian allies.
The underreported dimension in mainstream discourse is that this deal further militarizes a region that should remain a zone of cooperation. Washington’s Arctic ambitions are not just about navigation safety or scientific research; they are tied to a wider containment policy targeting both Russia and China. And if Arctic cooperation collapses, miscalculations will become more likely — particularly given NATO’s growing activity in Norway’s waters and the Barents Sea. Again, these moves send signals not only to Moscow but also to Beijing, which sees the High North as a shared space of strategic interest.
This is a region that desperately needs diplomacy rather than gunboat-style signalling. Be as it may, the $6.1 billion investment marks a pivot. It plugs immediate gaps with Finnish speed while building long-term US capacity. Thus, America signals it’s in the Arctic race to stay. The question is: in heating up tensions in the High North, does the West secure interests or court conflict in a new domain?

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

#China #Eurasia #Finland #Geopolitics #HighNorth #NATO #Russia #TheArctic #USA

#china #eurasia #finland #geopolitics #highnorth #nato
Voice of East @[email protected] · 2025-10-07 · 07:34 UTC

Beyond Ukraine: Norway Becomes The West’s Silent Front In Arctic Tensions With Russia
Beyond Ukraine: Norway Becomes The West’s Silent Front In Arctic Tensions With Russia
By Uriel Araujo
As NATO conducts exercises off Norway’s coast and Washington deploys spy aircraft, Arctic tensions are reaching a breaking point. Moscow’s Arctic strategy, once centred on cooperation, is turning defensive. The frozen frontier is quietly becoming the epicentre of a new East-West rivalry.
So much is written about the developments pertaining to Ukraine, but one crucial theatre of tension between Russia and the West remains underreported: the Arctic and the wider High North, as visible in Norway, a founding member of NATO. Despite a recent visit by Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) delegation to Norway — led by Major General Andrei Kudimov, who smiled for the cameras as both sides discussed “cooperation” on border control and fishing rights — Russo-Norwegian relations are, as a matter of fact, deteriorating fast.
Despite those talks, NATO has been conducting large-scale military exercises off Norway’s coast. Moreover, the United States reportedly deployed advanced reconnaissance and P-8 submarine-hunting aircraft into Norwegian territory, flying missions uncomfortably close to Russia’s north-western frontier. The symbolism is clear enough: whatever “dialogue” exists between Moscow and Oslo, the military logic of deterrence — and provocation — still dictates the Atlantic agenda.
The Arctic, long portrayed as a realm of scientific cooperation and peaceful exploration, has quietly become the new crucible of Great Power competition. I have previously argued that the next confrontation between Russia and the West may well unfold not in Ukraine or Syria, but in the frozen North — where NATO’s overreach could ignite unprecedented tensions. That observation now seems increasingly on point.
Russia, for its part, has been revising its Arctic strategy, with new emphasis on military readiness and control over the Northern Sea Route — a shipping corridor that could transform global trade as the ice recedes.
Meanwhile, NATO has steadily expanded its footprint across Scandinavia. Finland and Sweden’s accession to the Alliance, and the renewed US interest in Greenland all form part of a wider encirclement strategy. As I wrote, the US has long sought to secure access to Arctic energy and mineral resources under the banner of “security.”
Beyond the military manoeuvres, the economic dimension of this rivalry is equally telling. The European Union, Norway, and Iceland have recently announced the end of their cooperation with Russia within the “Northern Dimension” framework — an initiative that once symbolized regional pragmatism and coexistence. The abrupt suspension, justified on geopolitical grounds, effectively dismantles one of the few remaining platforms for cross-border coordination in the Arctic.
Meanwhile, the cod fishing industry — historically a linchpin of the Barents Sea economy — has become collateral damage. As analysts have noted, growing geopolitical frictions could severely impact the joint management of fisheries that both Norway and Russia depend on.
The result? Rising costs, fractured supply chains, and yet another example of how Western sanctions and “security” policies often end up hurting the very regions they claim to protect. So much for “rules-based cooperation.”
Thus far, Western media have treated Arctic (and Baltic) tensions as footnotes to the Ukrainian crisis. Yet these northern frontiers are arguably equally strategic — and volatile. The Baltic Sea, heavily militarized, has become a corridor of confrontation. Poland’s nuclear ambitions, in turn, illustrate how the region’s security spiral is intensifying. As I’ve argued elsewhere, Warsaw’s nuclear trajectory is less a defensive reflex than a bid for great-power revival — one encouraged by a US eager to outsource its strategic burdens.
The logic is the same across the North: smaller states, emboldened by NATO, are taking risks they would not have dared a decade ago — from Baltic air patrols to Arctic manoeuvres. Norway’s hosting of US anti-submarine aircraft is but the latest link in a chain of escalations that collectively erode the fragile balance once maintained through calculated restraint.
Be as it may, the Kremlin sees NATO’s northern buildup as part of a long-term encroachment, not a series of isolated incidents. Moscow’s revision of its Arctic doctrine is thus both defensive and adaptive. And it is worth noting that Russia’s cooperation with China in Arctic development — through energy projects, infrastructure, and shipping — adds another layer of complexity to the equation. As I noted recently, as Arctic ice retreats, it exposes deep fault lines running through today’s global power architecture. No wonder Washington now seeks to “bolster” its own polar presence — a polite euphemism for militarization.
What makes the northern escalation particularly dangerous is its subtlety. Unlike the Ukrainian front, where lines and allegiances are visible, Arctic tensions evolve through technical adjustments — radar deployments, flight routes, research bans, maritime patrols — each justified as “defensive.” Yet taken together, they form a creeping militarization of one of the planet’s most fragile environments.
This is not simply about deterrence. Control of the Arctic means control of future trade routes, energy corridors, and even undersea data cables — the infrastructure of the coming century. The US-led West, unwilling to accept Russia’s geographic advantages, seeks to neutralize them through alliances and encroachments. Moscow, surrounded and sanctioned, responds by doubling down on self-reliance and Eastern partnerships.
This dynamic, left unchecked, could lead to dangerous miscalculations. NATO’s exercises off Norway’s coast send signals not just to Moscow but to Beijing as well, both of which view the High North as a space of shared strategic interest. The idea that Europe can isolate Russia economically while containing China militarily — all without consequences in the Arctic — is, to put it simply, delusional.
The real story, underreported and underestimated, is that the global confrontation between the American-led Atlantic axis and the emerging Eurasian bloc is expanding northward. The Arctic — long the world’s quietest frontier — is becoming its most revealing one. As the ice recedes and new frontiers emerge, the northern theatre may well determine the contours of the next Cold War.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management
#Europe #Geopolitics #NATO #Norway #Russia #Scandinavia #TheArctic #TheBaltics #TheWest #Ukraine #USA

#europe #geopolitics #nato #norway #russia #scandinavia
Voice of East @[email protected] · 2025-10-07 · 07:34 UTC

Beyond Ukraine: Norway Becomes The West’s Silent Front In Arctic Tensions With Russia
Beyond Ukraine: Norway Becomes The West’s Silent Front In Arctic Tensions With Russia
By Uriel Araujo
As NATO conducts exercises off Norway’s coast and Washington deploys spy aircraft, Arctic tensions are reaching a breaking point. Moscow’s Arctic strategy, once centred on cooperation, is turning defensive. The frozen frontier is quietly becoming the epicentre of a new East-West rivalry.
So much is written about the developments pertaining to Ukraine, but one crucial theatre of tension between Russia and the West remains underreported: the Arctic and the wider High North, as visible in Norway, a founding member of NATO. Despite a recent visit by Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) delegation to Norway — led by Major General Andrei Kudimov, who smiled for the cameras as both sides discussed “cooperation” on border control and fishing rights — Russo-Norwegian relations are, as a matter of fact, deteriorating fast.
Despite those talks, NATO has been conducting large-scale military exercises off Norway’s coast. Moreover, the United States reportedly deployed advanced reconnaissance and P-8 submarine-hunting aircraft into Norwegian territory, flying missions uncomfortably close to Russia’s north-western frontier. The symbolism is clear enough: whatever “dialogue” exists between Moscow and Oslo, the military logic of deterrence — and provocation — still dictates the Atlantic agenda.
The Arctic, long portrayed as a realm of scientific cooperation and peaceful exploration, has quietly become the new crucible of Great Power competition. I have previously argued that the next confrontation between Russia and the West may well unfold not in Ukraine or Syria, but in the frozen North — where NATO’s overreach could ignite unprecedented tensions. That observation now seems increasingly on point.
Russia, for its part, has been revising its Arctic strategy, with new emphasis on military readiness and control over the Northern Sea Route — a shipping corridor that could transform global trade as the ice recedes.
Meanwhile, NATO has steadily expanded its footprint across Scandinavia. Finland and Sweden’s accession to the Alliance, and the renewed US interest in Greenland all form part of a wider encirclement strategy. As I wrote, the US has long sought to secure access to Arctic energy and mineral resources under the banner of “security.”
Beyond the military manoeuvres, the economic dimension of this rivalry is equally telling. The European Union, Norway, and Iceland have recently announced the end of their cooperation with Russia within the “Northern Dimension” framework — an initiative that once symbolized regional pragmatism and coexistence. The abrupt suspension, justified on geopolitical grounds, effectively dismantles one of the few remaining platforms for cross-border coordination in the Arctic.
Meanwhile, the cod fishing industry — historically a linchpin of the Barents Sea economy — has become collateral damage. As analysts have noted, growing geopolitical frictions could severely impact the joint management of fisheries that both Norway and Russia depend on.
The result? Rising costs, fractured supply chains, and yet another example of how Western sanctions and “security” policies often end up hurting the very regions they claim to protect. So much for “rules-based cooperation.”
Thus far, Western media have treated Arctic (and Baltic) tensions as footnotes to the Ukrainian crisis. Yet these northern frontiers are arguably equally strategic — and volatile. The Baltic Sea, heavily militarized, has become a corridor of confrontation. Poland’s nuclear ambitions, in turn, illustrate how the region’s security spiral is intensifying. As I’ve argued elsewhere, Warsaw’s nuclear trajectory is less a defensive reflex than a bid for great-power revival — one encouraged by a US eager to outsource its strategic burdens.
The logic is the same across the North: smaller states, emboldened by NATO, are taking risks they would not have dared a decade ago — from Baltic air patrols to Arctic manoeuvres. Norway’s hosting of US anti-submarine aircraft is but the latest link in a chain of escalations that collectively erode the fragile balance once maintained through calculated restraint.
Be as it may, the Kremlin sees NATO’s northern buildup as part of a long-term encroachment, not a series of isolated incidents. Moscow’s revision of its Arctic doctrine is thus both defensive and adaptive. And it is worth noting that Russia’s cooperation with China in Arctic development — through energy projects, infrastructure, and shipping — adds another layer of complexity to the equation. As I noted recently, as Arctic ice retreats, it exposes deep fault lines running through today’s global power architecture. No wonder Washington now seeks to “bolster” its own polar presence — a polite euphemism for militarization.
What makes the northern escalation particularly dangerous is its subtlety. Unlike the Ukrainian front, where lines and allegiances are visible, Arctic tensions evolve through technical adjustments — radar deployments, flight routes, research bans, maritime patrols — each justified as “defensive.” Yet taken together, they form a creeping militarization of one of the planet’s most fragile environments.
This is not simply about deterrence. Control of the Arctic means control of future trade routes, energy corridors, and even undersea data cables — the infrastructure of the coming century. The US-led West, unwilling to accept Russia’s geographic advantages, seeks to neutralize them through alliances and encroachments. Moscow, surrounded and sanctioned, responds by doubling down on self-reliance and Eastern partnerships.
This dynamic, left unchecked, could lead to dangerous miscalculations. NATO’s exercises off Norway’s coast send signals not just to Moscow but to Beijing as well, both of which view the High North as a space of shared strategic interest. The idea that Europe can isolate Russia economically while containing China militarily — all without consequences in the Arctic — is, to put it simply, delusional.
The real story, underreported and underestimated, is that the global confrontation between the American-led Atlantic axis and the emerging Eurasian bloc is expanding northward. The Arctic — long the world’s quietest frontier — is becoming its most revealing one. As the ice recedes and new frontiers emerge, the northern theatre may well determine the contours of the next Cold War.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management
#Europe #Geopolitics #NATO #Norway #Russia #Scandinavia #TheArctic #TheBaltics #TheWest #Ukraine #USA

#europe #geopolitics #nato #norway #russia #scandinavia
psf @[email protected] · 2026-01-02 · 00:54 UTC

While I was working on this, the article Python Numbers Every Programmer Should Know appeared on the orange website. In #LuaLang, and on a 16-bit target, these overheads are less -- for example, a number weighs 10 bytes instead of 24 bytes -- but overheads don't have much place to hide on a small, slow machine.
(Btw numbers cost 7 bytes each in 8-bit Microsoft BASIC so Lua isn't gratuitously inefficient here, even by the standards of 50 years ago.)
One place that makes overhead really obvious: a 64K segment holds a table of length, at most, 4,096 entries. That's 40,960 bytes, and Lua's strategy is to double allocation size every time it wants to grow the table. 2 x 40,960 exceeds a 64K segment, so 4,096 entries is the growth limit.
On a 640K machine, after deducting the ~250K (!) size of the interpreter (which is also fully loaded into RAM), you'll get maybe five full segments free if you're lucky. So that's like maybe 20,000 datums total, split across five tables.
Meanwhile a tiny-model #Forth / assembly / C program could handle 20,000 datums in a single segment without breaking too much of a sweat!
The efficiency has costs to programmer time, of course. Worrying about data types, limits, overflows, etc. The kinds of things I was hoping to avoid by using Lua on this hardware -- and to its credit, it does a good job insulating me from them. Its cost is that programs must be rewritten for speed in some other language once out of the rapid prototyping phase and having reasonable speed / data capacity becomes important.
I'd estimate the threshold where traditional interpreters like Lua become okay for finished/polished software of any significant scope, is somewhere around 2MB RAM / 16MHz. So think, like, a base model 386. Maybe this is why the bulk of interpreters available in DOS are via DJGPP which requires a 386 or better anyway.
#BASIC was of course used on much smaller hardware, but was famously unsuited to speed or to large programs / data.
I know success stories for #Lisp in kilobytes of memory, but I'm not quite sure how they do it / to what extent the size of the interpreter, and overhead of data representation (tags + cons representation), eats into available memory and limits the scope of the program, as seen with other traditional interpreters.
This is beginning to explain why #Forth has such a niche on small systems. It has damn near zero size overhead on data structures. (The only overhead is for the interpreter core (a few K) and storing string names in the dictionary (which can be eliminated via various tricks)). ~1x size and ~10x speed overhead is the bargain of the century to unlock #repl based development. However, you're still stuck with the agonizing pain of manual memory management and numeric range problems / overflows. Which is probably why the world didn't stop with Forth, but continued on to bigger interpreters.
#retrocomputing

#lualang #forth #basic #lisp #repl #retrocomputing
psf @[email protected] · 2026-01-02 · 00:54 UTC

While I was working on this, the article Python Numbers Every Programmer Should Know appeared on the orange website. In #LuaLang, and on a 16-bit target, these overheads are less -- for example, a number weighs 10 bytes instead of 24 bytes -- but overheads don't have much place to hide on a small, slow machine.
(Btw numbers cost 7 bytes each in 8-bit Microsoft BASIC so Lua isn't gratuitously inefficient here, even by the standards of 50 years ago.)
One place that makes overhead really obvious: a 64K segment holds a table of length, at most, 4,096 entries. That's 40,960 bytes, and Lua's strategy is to double allocation size every time it wants to grow the table. 2 x 40,960 exceeds a 64K segment, so 4,096 entries is the growth limit.
On a 640K machine, after deducting the ~250K (!) size of the interpreter (which is also fully loaded into RAM), you'll get maybe five full segments free if you're lucky. So that's like maybe 20,000 datums total, split across five tables.
Meanwhile a tiny-model #Forth / assembly / C program could handle 20,000 datums in a single segment without breaking too much of a sweat!
The efficiency has costs to programmer time, of course. Worrying about data types, limits, overflows, etc. The kinds of things I was hoping to avoid by using Lua on this hardware -- and to its credit, it does a good job insulating me from them. Its cost is that programs must be rewritten for speed in some other language once out of the rapid prototyping phase and having reasonable speed / data capacity becomes important.
I'd estimate the threshold where traditional interpreters like Lua become okay for finished/polished software of any significant scope, is somewhere around 2MB RAM / 16MHz. So think, like, a base model 386. Maybe this is why the bulk of interpreters available in DOS are via DJGPP which requires a 386 or better anyway.
#BASIC was of course used on much smaller hardware, but was famously unsuited to speed or to large programs / data.
I know success stories for #Lisp in kilobytes of memory, but I'm not quite sure how they do it / to what extent the size of the interpreter, and overhead of data representation (tags + cons representation), eats into available memory and limits the scope of the program, as seen with other traditional interpreters.
This is beginning to explain why #Forth has such a niche on small systems. It has damn near zero size overhead on data structures. (The only overhead is for the interpreter core (a few K) and storing string names in the dictionary (which can be eliminated via various tricks)). ~1x size and ~10x speed overhead is the bargain of the century to unlock #repl based development. However, you're still stuck with the agonizing pain of manual memory management and numeric range problems / overflows. Which is probably why the world didn't stop with Forth, but continued on to bigger interpreters.
#retrocomputing

#lualang #forth #basic #lisp #repl #retrocomputing
psf @[email protected] · 2026-01-02 · 00:54 UTC

While I was working on this, the article Python Numbers Every Programmer Should Know appeared on the orange website. In #LuaLang, and on a 16-bit target, these overheads are less -- for example, a number weighs 10 bytes instead of 24 bytes -- but overheads don't have much place to hide on a small, slow machine.
(Btw numbers cost 7 bytes each in 8-bit Microsoft BASIC so Lua isn't gratuitously inefficient here, even by the standards of 50 years ago.)
One place that makes overhead really obvious: a 64K segment holds a table of length, at most, 4,096 entries. That's 40,960 bytes, and Lua's strategy is to double allocation size every time it wants to grow the table. 2 x 40,960 exceeds a 64K segment, so 4,096 entries is the growth limit.
On a 640K machine, after deducting the ~250K (!) size of the interpreter (which is also fully loaded into RAM), you'll get maybe five full segments free if you're lucky. So that's like maybe 20,000 datums total, split across five tables.
Meanwhile a tiny-model #Forth / assembly / C program could handle 20,000 datums in a single segment without breaking too much of a sweat!
The efficiency has costs to programmer time, of course. Worrying about data types, limits, overflows, etc. The kinds of things I was hoping to avoid by using Lua on this hardware -- and to its credit, it does a good job insulating me from them. Its cost is that programs must be rewritten for speed in some other language once out of the rapid prototyping phase and having reasonable speed / data capacity becomes important.
I'd estimate the threshold where traditional interpreters like Lua become okay for finished/polished software of any significant scope, is somewhere around 2MB RAM / 16MHz. So think, like, a base model 386. Maybe this is why the bulk of interpreters available in DOS are via DJGPP which requires a 386 or better anyway.
#BASIC was of course used on much smaller hardware, but was famously unsuited to speed or to large programs / data.
I know success stories for #Lisp in kilobytes of memory, but I'm not quite sure how they do it / to what extent the size of the interpreter, and overhead of data representation (tags + cons representation), eats into available memory and limits the scope of the program, as seen with other traditional interpreters.
This is beginning to explain why #Forth has such a niche on small systems. It has damn near zero size overhead on data structures. (The only overhead is for the interpreter core (a few K) and storing string names in the dictionary (which can be eliminated via various tricks)). ~1x size and ~10x speed overhead is the bargain of the century to unlock #repl based development. However, you're still stuck with the agonizing pain of manual memory management and numeric range problems / overflows. Which is probably why the world didn't stop with Forth, but continued on to bigger interpreters.
#retrocomputing

#retrocomputing #repl #lisp #basic #forth #lualang
psf @[email protected] · 2026-01-02 · 00:54 UTC

While I was working on this, the article Python Numbers Every Programmer Should Know appeared on the orange website. In #LuaLang, and on a 16-bit target, these overheads are less -- for example, a number weighs 10 bytes instead of 24 bytes -- but overheads don't have much place to hide on a small, slow machine.
(Btw numbers cost 7 bytes each in 8-bit Microsoft BASIC so Lua isn't gratuitously inefficient here, even by the standards of 50 years ago.)
One place that makes overhead really obvious: a 64K segment holds a table of length, at most, 4,096 entries. That's 40,960 bytes, and Lua's strategy is to double allocation size every time it wants to grow the table. 2 x 40,960 exceeds a 64K segment, so 4,096 entries is the growth limit.
On a 640K machine, after deducting the ~250K (!) size of the interpreter (which is also fully loaded into RAM), you'll get maybe five full segments free if you're lucky. So that's like maybe 20,000 datums total, split across five tables.
Meanwhile a tiny-model #Forth / assembly / C program could handle 20,000 datums in a single segment without breaking too much of a sweat!
The efficiency has costs to programmer time, of course. Worrying about data types, limits, overflows, etc. The kinds of things I was hoping to avoid by using Lua on this hardware -- and to its credit, it does a good job insulating me from them. Its cost is that programs must be rewritten for speed in some other language once out of the rapid prototyping phase and having reasonable speed / data capacity becomes important.
I'd estimate the threshold where traditional interpreters like Lua become okay for finished/polished software of any significant scope, is somewhere around 2MB RAM / 16MHz. So think, like, a base model 386. Maybe this is why the bulk of interpreters available in DOS are via DJGPP which requires a 386 or better anyway.
#BASIC was of course used on much smaller hardware, but was famously unsuited to speed or to large programs / data.
I know success stories for #Lisp in kilobytes of memory, but I'm not quite sure how they do it / to what extent the size of the interpreter, and overhead of data representation (tags + cons representation), eats into available memory and limits the scope of the program, as seen with other traditional interpreters.
This is beginning to explain why #Forth has such a niche on small systems. It has damn near zero size overhead on data structures. (The only overhead is for the interpreter core (a few K) and storing string names in the dictionary (which can be eliminated via various tricks)). ~1x size and ~10x speed overhead is the bargain of the century to unlock #repl based development. However, you're still stuck with the agonizing pain of manual memory management and numeric range problems / overflows. Which is probably why the world didn't stop with Forth, but continued on to bigger interpreters.
#retrocomputing

#lualang #forth #basic #lisp #repl #retrocomputing
Politics & Geopolitis @[email protected] · 2024-10-16 · 18:45 UTC

The Army’s annual exercise focused on refining its Positioning, Navigation and Timing capabilities, called PNTAX, will widen its aperture in future years, the Army’s new All-Domain Sensing Cross Functional Team lead told Defense News.
The new All-Domain Sensing CFT is now fully established, following the announcement in March it would become Army Futures Command’s latest office to focus on modernization efforts.
The team, created to develop capabilities that will allow the service to understand battlespace goings-on, will initially work toward creating an architecture of sensors as well as processing and disseminating the enormous amount of data collected from those sensors.
The team grew out of the former Assured Positioning, Navigation and Timing/Space CFT and took its current staff and director, Michael Monteleone, and expanded the mission to focus on broad deep-sensing capabilities.
“I think you’re going to see an evolution of PNTAX probably both in name and also in scope,” Monteleone told Defense News ahead of the U.S. Army’s annual conference. PNTAX stands for PNT Assessment Exercise.
While he said he could not yet divulge details on exactly how the exercise would be evolving, Monteleone said: “It’ll be something different. As we go more and more towards the resilient architectures from space to ground, both in transport and in data, then also as we start augmenting our formations with the human-machine integrated side of it, as we bring more robots, more [unmanned aircraft systems] capability into that architecture, we have to evaluate that in that denied environment.”
PNTAX will also likely be federated into other experiments and activities across the Army as well, Monteleone noted.
The Army just wrapped up its sixth PNTAX at the end of last month. The experiment “continues to deliver more and more value,” Monteleone said, because it offers a realistic threat environment that is “unique.”
There were were over 600 participants in the event, to include joint partners, combatant commands and all of the Five Eyes partners Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, Monteleone said. Over 150 technologies were assessed and over 130 organizations total were on the ground over the three-week evaluation.
While the experimentation effort will evolve to encompass new focus areas within the All-Domain Sensing CFT, the team is not finished working on PNT capabilities even though it has seen successful fielding of a mounted and dismounted PNT system and the CFT has closed up shop.
“There is still a lot of work to be done in PNT,” Monteleone said.
“It’s really focused on what’s next in PNT and also focused on how to leverage exquisite PNT as a system of systems enabler to provide advantage,” he said. “Think of it from the perspective of being able to couple that with communications systems, electronic warfare systems, sensing systems and being able to outmaneuver adversaries, essentially, because I now have the ability to trust my timing source.”#assured-position-navigation-and-timing #apnt #pnt #all-domain-sensing-cft #army-futures-command #electronic-warfare #ausa-2024 #ausa #association-of-the-u-s-army #circulated-defense-news
Army navigation drill to incorporate new sensors in coming years

#ausa #pnt #electronicwarfare #circulateddefensenews #armyfuturescommand #ausa2024
Spatialists @[email protected] · 2025-08-05 · 17:36 UTC

4 years of the Swiss Territorial Data Lab: The Swiss Territorial Data Lab (#STDL) is a collaborative initiative within Switzerland’s geoinformation strategy, running from 2020 to 2025, dedicated to advancing data-driven solutions for public administration using #geodata and #datascience....
https://spatialists.ch/posts/2025/08/05-4-years-of-the-swiss-territorial-data-lab/ #GIS #GISchat #geospatial #SwissGIS

#stdl #geodata #datascience #gis #gischat #geospatial
Alan Boyle @[email protected] · 2026-05-09 · 02:08 UTC

Today's big data dump from the federal government's #UFO files includes a "bogey" seen by astronaut Frank Borman during the Gemini 7 mission in 1965. Actually, UFO sleuths explained that bogey 30 years ago. https://cosmiclog.com/2026/05/08/pentagon-releases-ufo-files-from-moon-trips-and-more/ #PURSUE #UAP #Space

#space #ufo #pursue #uap
RTN @[email protected] · 2025-01-16 · 09:06 UTC

"
Blue Origin’s New Glenn Reaches Orbit
New Glenn safely reached its intended orbit during today's NG-1 mission, accomplishing our primary objective.
.. engines ignited on Jan.16, 2025, at .. (0703 UTC) from LC 36 at Cape Canaveral ..
"
"The Blue Ring Pathfinder is receiving data + performing well. We lost the booster during descent. "
https://www.blueorigin.com/news/new-glenn-ng-1-mission
16.1.2025
#BlueOrigin #BlueRingPathfinder #BO #DarkSky1 #Jacklyn #LC36 #LPV1 #NewGlenn #NG1 #Raumfahrt #Rakete #rocketry #SpaceFlight

#blueorigin #blueringpathfinder #bo #darksky1 #jacklyn #lc36