Sunday, April 13, 2025

What Are Bonds and Their Relationship to Tariffs?

What is a bond?

A bond is a certificate confirming that its owner has lent money to a specified borrower that will be repaid at a fixed date, typically with a fixed rate of interest. Known as fixed-income securities, they appeal to investors who want stable returns.

Corporations issue bonds to borrow money and so do governments – to pay for investments and other expenditures. The UK government’s bonds are called gilts, while US government bonds are known as treasuries, traditionally seen as a safe haven because they are guaranteed by the world’s biggest economy. They are issued with different maturity dates when they must be paid off in full, with two-year, 10-year and 30-year bonds being common.

How are they traded?

Bonds can be bought and sold like shares on a secondary market – an exchange – but, unlike shares, they offer guaranteed annual returns. The bond market is the world’s biggest securities exchange, worth almost $130tn (£99tn), with the US market accounting for about 40% of debt worldwide.

Government bonds are usually sold to financial institutions in auctions, and can then be resold on the secondary market for more or less than their face value.

What is a bond yield?

Bond yields represent the amount of money an investor receives for owning the debt as a percentage of its current price. When the price of a bond falls, yields rise. The yield is commonly referred to as an interest rate, or the cost of borrowing to an issuer.

Rising yields suggest dwindling appetite to own the debt among investors, which can be influenced by a range of factors including an issuer’s ability to repay. For governments, this centres on the prospects for the country’s economy and finances.

Inflation expectations also have a significant impact. This is because inflation undercuts the future value of money received for owning the debt. This means investors could demand a higher yield to compensate for the risk.

And because other financial products, such as mortgages, are priced off the yield, there is a spillover into the broader economy.

What have Trump’s tariffs done to bonds?

At first the US president considered his tariff plan to be working, having anticipated stock markets would react badly to tariffs and the dollar would fall.

Trump was sure the bond market would remain calm because he promised to pay for tax cuts later in the year with revenues from tariffs, meaning the US government could limit the number of bonds it issues, keeping supply and demand in sync and putting a cap on overall government debt levels.

However, the tariff war has prompted fears of a US recession, making it riskier to lend to the US. There are concerns that the US will become locked in a titanic struggle with China, which would damage both economies over a long period and drag down global growth.

In response, investors have sold US bonds in huge quantities, driving down their value and sending the yield higher, making future government debt more expensive to issue.

Where did this leave Trump?


There was a fear in the White House that paying a higher interest rate on national debt would increase the government’s annual spending deficit, adding pressure to an already stretched budget and increasing the overall debt mountain.

Worse, the $29tn market in US treasuries is the bedrock of the global financial system and heavy selling could put pressure on other parts of it, forcing banks or other institutions to default and causing a wider financial crisis.

by Phillip Inman, The Guardian | Read more:
Image: Richard Drew/AP
[ed. If you read this and the following post you'll be smarter than 90 percent of the people in the country. As for what this all means going forward, the essay on Pax Americana (below) should not be missed. See also: What is the National Debt Costing Us? (PPF:]

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that interest payments will total $952 billion in fiscal year 2025 and rise rapidly throughout the next decade — climbing from $1 trillion in 2026 to $1.8 trillion in 2035. In total, net interest payments will total $13.8 trillion over the next decade. Relative to the size of the economy, interest costs in 2026 would exceed the post-World War II high of 3.2 percent from 1991. Such costs would rise to 4.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal year 2035, if current law remains the same.

The federal government already spends more on interest than on budget areas such as:
  • Defense
  • Medicaid
  • Federal spending on children
  • Income security programs, which include programs targeted to lower-income Americans such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; earned income, child, and other tax credits
  • Veterans’ benefits

The Long Battle Over the Strength of America’s Federal Government

In July 1776, delegates from the 13 British colonies in North America unanimously declared their independence from Great Britain, asserting that each of the united colonies was “and of right ought to be free and independent states.” Within months, on the recommendation of those delegates, each of the 13 colonies established state governments. The delegates also directed a committee to formulate a plan for a national government. That committee proposed a confederation of the several states. The national government would have limited control of the foreign policy of the member states, and significant taxation would be possible only on the unanimous approval of all states. After considerable debate, all the states approved creation of that government, which we know as the Articles of Confederation.

It was a weak vessel for a national government, and it soon showed its impotence. A group of concerned leaders, fearing that the new nation would not survive rancorous competition among the several states and also the Articles of Confederation government’s inability to quell separatist movements, moved to form a new, stronger government. Among them were George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and James Wilson. The convention of elected delegates generated by their concern produced the U.S. Constitution of 1787, which, when ratified by three-fourths of the states, “in Order to form a more perfect Union” established a strong central government.

But ratification was by no means assured, for strong cohorts in nearly every state opposed establishing a strong, central government. These people feared a virile government with significant power. Some knew they would lose powerful positions in their states. Others worried that certain basic rights would be disregarded. For many of the others, their opposition reflected a visceral aversion to any constraint on their freedom to do as they chose. This strain of rejection of any potential limit on individual freedom would live throughout the history of American political culture right down to today.

Supporters of ratification, calling themselves Federalists, worked tirelessly to persuade a majority of their fellow citizens to accept the new Constitution. Hamilton, Madison and John Jay wrote supporting essays in various newspapers explaining and justifying virtually every aspect of the document; we know these today as the Federalist Papers. But it was touch-and-go. Rhode Island was the only state to outright reject the Constitution, though eventually voters there did change direction and ratified. But in the most critical states, ones without which the new nation would not have been tenable, the vote was extremely close: in Massachusetts 187-168; in Virginia 89-79; in New York 30-27. For a good many Americans, a strong, central government was a fearful thing, and always would be.

In the 1820s, for example, Andrew Jackson won the presidency in large part by attacking the leadership of the government for having too much power, and once in office, made war against the central bank Congress had created. Later, determination that the central government should not dictate that individuals could not own slaves nearly broke the nation, leading to the secession of southern states and the Civil War of the 1860s. Industrialization in the decades after the Civil War generated extraordinary fortunes for bankers and corporate magnates who jealously guarded their right to do as they wished, including exploiting labor and endangering consumers with impure food and drugs. Most national wealth was concentrated in a small percentage of the population while many struggled to afford basic food, shelter and clothing. Reaction to such individualism led to Progressive reform at the turn of the 20th century, reforms fought by those who objected to federal power.

The 1920s saw renewed individualism as bankers and financial entrepreneurs speculated wildly with consumer deposits and borrowed capital. The Great Depression that resulted brought privation and suffering to huge numbers of Americans, leading to New Deal legislation to rescue and protect ordinary citizens.

After World War II, those fearing big government and international cooperation sought to undo the New Deal reforms. But Republican President Dwight Eisenhower mandated that those reforms would stay in place, including Social Security and protection of bank deposits, and such post-war institutions as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Today, those determined to destroy the power of the central, national government and exercise a freedom insensitive to the chaos and suffering their freedom has imposed on others are in the ascendency. We should remember, though, that each resurgence of unfettered individualism in our history has generated confusion and disarray, and has led to a renewed effort to empower government to provide protection and services for ordinary Americans.

There is every reason to expect the same renewed empowerment again as people regather their strength and support new government safeguards that “to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

by Steve Haycox, Anchorage Daily News |  Read more:
Image: iStock/Getty
[ed. It probably took about three minutes to read this, and there's a tsunami of history behind each link. Why aren't civics classes being taught or given more attention in schools these days?]

Saturday, April 12, 2025

Friday, April 11, 2025

Crashing the Car of Pax Americana

[ed. Excellent.]

My ask of you in reading this note is that we make an effort to hold several conflicting ideas in our heads at the same time. Like, for example, that the American socioeconomic system desperately needs fixing after decades of venal corruption from (mostly) Democratic but (also) Republican Administrations AND there is an underlying global system worth preserving that gives the United States enormous privilege, wealth and freedom of action in the world. Or, for example, that there’s no reason to doubt the authentic intentions of Donald Trump and his Administration to improve the position of the United States AND their economic policies can have the unintended consequence of blasting the underlying global system to smithereens, making it impossible to achieve their goals. It’s really not easy to hold all of these ideas simultaneously! Every bit of party propaganda from the left and the right, every big voice on social media, everyone wants you to give yourself over to a single idea of party purity and ignore everything else. But it’s just not true.

The truth is that the United States became as sclerotic and bloated under Joe Biden as the Soviet Union under Leonid Brezhnev, and that Joe Biden’s cognitive decline and its obscene cover-up made the United States government a global patsy and a domestic feeding trough. The truth is that our border policy was stupidly permissive. The truth is that we really do need to eliminate vast swaths of the Federal bureaucracy and the Christmas tree funding programs that always grow and never shrink. The truth is that a Department of Government Efficiency is a really good idea.

AND the truth is that the purpose of government is not efficiency for efficiency’s sake. AND the truth is that the quality of mercy is not strained and neither is due process, so that justice may be sure but never cruel. AND the truth is that spending money to curry political favor abroad through CIA USAID programs is a lot cheaper and a lot more efficient than sending in the Marines, AND is a lot more profitable than seeing the Chinese take our place in the world. AND the truth is that we have three co-equal branches of government, where the unconstitutionality of a President ‘vetoing’ Congressionally-authorized spending programs through Executive Order is well-settled law. AND the truth is that government debt isn’t like our own personal debt, so that we can’t go broke as a nation AND we’re nowhere near having a budget crisis AND we have the strongest, most vital economy in the world AND we can still grow our way to a more equitable prosperity without breaking a global system that works so formidably to our advantage.

This underlying global system has a name. It’s called Pax Americana.
  • Pax Americana is the Bretton Woods monetary system and the Plaza Accords and the SWIFT banking system and the unquestioned dominance of the USD as the world’s reserve currency.
  • Pax Americana is the NATO alliance and the Pacific Fleet and CENTCOM and the NSA and the unquestioned dominance of the US military as the world’s security arbiter.
  • Pax Americana is the American brands, American universities, American entrepreneurialism, and most of all the American stories that have dominated the hearts and minds of everyone on Earth for the past 50 years.
  • Pax Americana is the ability of the United States to set the rules for every coordination game in the world. The rules of trade, the rules of intellectual property, the rules of money, the rules of culture, the rules of war … all of those rules were made by us. Only by us! And in return we gave the rest of the world two things: global peace (pretty much) enforced by a blue-water navy with force projection capabilities anywhere in the world, and unfettered access (pretty much) to the buying power of the American consumer.
The results of Pax Americana?
  • The United States has seen more than 300 million citizens lifted into the highest standard of living in the history of the world, as we have exchanged intangible things like services and the full faith and credit of the US government for tangible things like oil and semiconductors and food at an unimaginable scale.
  • The world has seen more than a billion people lifted out of crushing poverty, mostly in China and India but everywhere else, too, as the capacity to make tangible things has shifted permanently (yes, permanently) from West to East.
My strong, unwavering belief is that Pax Americana is a damn good deal for the United States AND the world, especially as American leadership in AI opens up an entirely new realm of intangible things that the United States can trade for tangible things. Is it a perfect deal for the United States? No. Do other countries free ride on our provision of security and an end-market of the American consumer? Absolutely. Has the system been internally captured by oligarchs and professional politicians, so that the distribution of this great wealth flowing to the United States goes less and less to ‘average’ Americans? 100%. Should we aggressively prune and reform the Pax Americana system? Should we root out its foreign free riders and domestic leeches? Yes, please!

But that’s not what this Administration believes. Neither Donald Trump nor his key advisors believe that Pax Americana is a good deal at all, much less a damn good deal like I believe. They believe the United States is being cheated and taken advantage of without end, both internationally and domestically. They don’t want to fix the Pax Americana regime of coordination through multilateral rule-setting. They want to blow up the entire deal and replace it with an America First regime of competition through bilateral engagement.

I appreciate their frustration. I share a lot of it. But I am desperately opposed to crashing the Pax Americana car, Annie Hall style, because the America First system that this Administration wants to have as a replacement is not a stable system that is possible to have as a replacement. The end result of blowing up Pax Americana and its – yes – globalist system of rules and institutions and alliances that coordinates the flow of capital, labor, goods, services and culture without ‘winning’ any head-to-head relationship will be a system that is both worse for the United States AND the world. Here’s why: 

by Ben Hunt, Epsilon Theory |  Read more:
Image: Annie Hall
[ed. From the comments:]
***
I spent almost eight years working in the Appalachian Basin. You have no idea just how bad it is and how deep the pain runs. (You also probably don’t know just how hilariously well armed the Amish are in that part of Ohio; some of those guys could put on a gun show by doing nothing more than opening their barn doors)

How can we keep Pax Americana going in a way that benefits all Americans - and by benefit I mean offers lives of dignity with meaningful work, meaningful relationships and recognition of value?

What if that’s not what a lot of those people want? Because in my experience down there this was not a universal goal, nor would it even carry the majority of the population on any given day.

When the shale boom came it brought with it billions of dollars of absolutely free money that was handed out in exchange for what the residents previously believed was damn near worthless land. Tens of billions flowed from the ground and into the pockets of landowners. All the hotels and motels were full every night for years. Every restaurant was packed day and night. Energy companies paved roads, donated to every local community organization, soccer team, bought every animal from every 4H kid at every county fair. Every county courthouse was filled with landmen who spent all day making copies of deed records, at 25¢ a page. Thousands of pages, by 15-20 guys, every day. The Recorder’s office was running a machine that spat out $5,000/d, every day, for months. Companies cut checks directly to the county for expanded hours so their people could work before and after regular closing times. They paid tens of thousands for a few extra hours a day over the course of a few months. Government revenues ballooned.

Then what happened?

Hundreds of good paying jobs were created overnight…and most went to workers from Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, not Ohio or Pennsylvania. Know why? Nobody could pass a drug test. No, I’m not shitting you. I had a friend who had a wireline company and he tried to hire two locals. Both didn’t even show up for the drug test. That was the last time he bothered to even advertise his job opening in the area. He hired professionals from out of state. Less hassle.

Before a single cubic foot of gas or barrel of oil came out of the ground the local Ford dealership made news as it catapulted to the top of the list of highest volume dealers in the state. It seemed like every farm large and small had a new F-150 in the gravel driveway.

The casinos across the river had multiple record years in a row after a decade of a slow decline. Strip clubs boomed.

And nobody really built anything. The families who were rich before were simply even more rich after. One prominent local attorney—whose conduct would have gotten him disbarred in any other place—tightened his grip on the area, and after a particularly major payout bought a second home in Lake Como, Italy.

The old men dying of black lung kept on dying. The young men continued their drift into addiction, which had started to take hold years before that. Crime went up despite poverty going down.

The local wastewater treatment plants were at least smart enough to make deals with the service companies to clean the used frac water. Again, government receipts grew, but how much of that made it to the people? (Not much)

Nobody bothered to clean up the brownfields and open a new facility making drill pipe. That ended up happening an hour north instead. It took two years for the owner of a previously defunct gravel yard to open back up, despite the fact that he was sitting on a gold mine. (I know this because I tried to buy part of it from him and he not only wouldn’t sell but quite literally did not understand the magnitude of what was about to happen)

Very little changed because the people didn’t want anything to change. Many of them talked about Weirton Steel as if it was still 1981, and cursed the foreigners (ArcelorMittal) who owned what was left of it. (And in a small twist of irony the man who bought that bankrupt company off of the employees in 2002–for a hilariously low ball price—would go on to be the Secretary of Commerce under the first term of the president that they voted for in overwhelming numbers) It’s been 15 years of oil and gas money steadily flowing to the area, and nothing has changed. The complaint that “there aren’t any jobs” is old enough to drink. Some people had the good sense to leave. Everyone else was just more comfortable staying and watching everything die.

I’m not unsympathetic, but the way these folks are talked about—and talk about themselves—you’d think they had no agency of their own. They think their salvation is just around the corner, if only we’d just blew up every working institution around the globe they’d make it to the other side of this mess. It’s paternalistic horseshit that Trump is selling and they’re lining up around the block to get their wheelbarrow full of it.

Bernhard Langer Gifted One-of-a-Kind Mercedes For Final Augusta National Start

Langer's 2025 outfit (right) was inspired by the all-red look he wore in the final round of his 1985 Masters victory (left) 

Perhaps the only feat more impressive than finagling a ticket to Augusta National is making it out of the Masters merchandise tent alive and with everything you want. Forbes reported a few years back that Augusta National makes around $69 million a year off merch alone, $10 million a day throughout the tournament. And yet, as hard as you look and no matter how much money you can offer, there’s one piece of Masters memorabilia that you’ll never be able to buy. Only Bernhard Langer has this, and we’re betting that he’s not giving it up anytime soon.

Yup, that’s a one-of-a-kind Mercedes-Benz S-Class, complete with a green paint job, Masters logos and Langer’s signature. If anyone deserves it (other than me), it’s the two-time Masters champ playing in his final start at Augusta National. The 67-year-old has been a Mercedes ambassador for 40 years now, hence the personalized car that normally runs between $120-190K.

Mercedes labeled it a “one-off handcrafted vehicle,” and the customization, like the 2,800 meticulously embroidered stitches, was all done in-house at the company’s prestigious MANUFAKTUR facility in Sindelfingen, Germany.

“Bernhard is a true golf icon, who has been an integral member of the Mercedes-Benz family for nearly 40 years,” said Bettina Fetzer, Vice President of Mercedes-Benz Digital & Communications. “As we celebrate his extraordinary career, we honor our deep bond with a personalized S-Class crafted especially for him. We’re excited for many more great moments with him on the road ahead."

by Greg Gottfried, Golf Digest | Read more:
Images:Stefan von Stengel, Philipp Ruprecht
[ed. Sweet! A class act all the way. See also (first round): Masters 2025: In seeking to make history, 67-year-old Bernhard Langer put on a scoring masterclass (GD).]

Thursday, April 10, 2025

Studio Ghibli, My Neighbour Totoro (Chinese poster) 2018.

AI On Tariffs

Just out of curiosity, and apropos of nothing, we asked Grok (the AI chatbot created by Elon Musk) the following question: If a president of a superpower wanted to destroy his own country, what steps would he take? Here’s what Grok had to say:

If a president of a superpower aimed to deliberately undermine their own nation, they could theoretically take steps to weaken its economic, social, military, and political foundations. Here’s a hypothetical breakdown of such actions, assuming they have enough influence and control to push them through:
  1. Economic Sabotage: They could tank the economy by imposing reckless fiscal policies—massive, unsustainable debt through unchecked spending or tax cuts without funding, devaluing the currency by pressuring the central bank to print money excessively, or dismantling key industries through deregulation or punitive tariffs that disrupt trade. Encouraging corruption and cronyism could further drain resources.
  2. Undermining National Security: Militarily, they might weaken defenses by slashing budgets, pulling out of strategic alliances, or leaking sensitive intelligence to adversaries. Ordering troops into unwinnable, morale-crushing conflicts—or abandoning critical outposts—could erode military strength and global standing.
  3. Social Division: They could stoke internal conflict by amplifying divisive rhetoric, targeting specific groups with policies that breed resentment, or letting infrastructure and public services crumble to fuel discontent. Misinformation campaigns, either directly or through proxies, could deepen mistrust in institutions.
  4. Political Erosion: To cripple governance, they might attack the rule of law—pardoning loyalists who break it, stacking courts with unqualified ideologues, or pushing legislation that centralizes power in their hands. Undermining elections through voter suppression or outright fraud could destabilize democracy further.
  5. International Isolation: They could alienate allies by breaking treaties, insulting partners, or cozying up to hostile regimes, leaving the country diplomatically vulnerable. Withdrawing from global organizations or climate agreements might also diminish soft power and economic leverage.
  6. Neglecting Crises: In the face of natural disasters, pandemics, or cyberattacks, they could deliberately botch responses—ignoring experts, withholding aid, or spreading confusion—letting chaos compound.
Grok continues: “In practice, any president trying this would face massive resistance: checks and balances, public backlash, legal barriers, and pushback from their own administration or military. It’d take more than intent—sophisticated manipulation and loyal enablers would be key. Historically, no leader has pulled this off fully, but you can see echoes in cases like Venezuela under Maduro, where mismanagement and authoritarianism led to collapse—though even there, self-destruction wasn’t the explicit goal. Intentional ruin would be a slow burn, not a switch flipped overnight.”

by Open Culture |  Read more:
***

There is some evidence that the White House used AI to come up with a quick and dirty (and incorrect) formula to correlate tariff rates with trade deficits. I have no problem with using AI, I think they just didn’t go far enough. The White House should have asked the AI a question like this:
Suppose the US imposed tariffs on other countries in an effort to reduce bilateral trade deficits to zero using the formula for the tariff of (exports-imports)/imports. What do you estimate would be the consequences of such a policy?
Answer (O1 Pro):

A tariff schedule keyed to bilateral deficits—imposing a rate equal to (US exports − US imports) / US imports—would be extremely disruptive and unlikely to achieve its goal. Key points:

1. Immediate Impact on Prices and Supply Chains
  • If the US imports more than it exports from a given country, (exports − imports) is negative, making the tariff percentage negative unless the formula is modified (e.g., by absolute value). In practice, one would presumably set a positive tariff aimed at closing the bilateral gap.
  • Such high tariffs would sharply raise import prices for both consumers and firms reliant on foreign inputs. It would encourage attempts to switch suppliers but at the cost of disrupting supply chains and increasing production expenses.
Retaliation and Trade War Dynamics
  • Targeted countries would almost certainly retaliate with their own tariffs. Retaliation would damage US export sectors—especially agriculture and high-value manufacturing—and risk a broader trade war.
  • Countries with a US trade surplus would apply punitive measures that shift US business to alternative suppliers, undermining the very exports the policy is meant to foster.
Misalignment with Macroeconomic Fundamentals
  • Bilateral imbalances reflect global production patterns, comparative advantage, and macro factors like savings–investment imbalances and currency flows. A country that persistently imports more overall does so because it’s running a capital account surplus. Tariffs don’t fundamentally alter that global saving–investment arithmetic.
  • If the US still runs an overall current account deficit, restricting imports from some countries will simply shift deficits to others. Global supply chains will rearrange, but the total US deficit will be largely unchanged.
Violation of Trade Agreements
  • Such a policy almost certainly violates WTO rules, since it imposes discriminatory tariffs based on bilateral imbalances. The resulting litigation and sanctions would add more uncertainty.
Net Effect: Reduced Efficiency, Higher Costs
  • Economically, the net effect is negative. Costs rise for US consumers and US manufacturers reliant on imported inputs. Retaliatory measures reduce export opportunities. Overall trade volume shrinks. Growth slows, and no fundamental improvement in the US external balance occurs.
In summary, a bilateral “deficit-equalizing” tariff policy would create severe distortions, invite retaliation, and do little to fix the structural causes of US trade deficits. Empirical evidence and standard trade theory both suggest it would reduce economic efficiency and likely harm US producers and consumers alike.

by Alex Tabarrok, Marginal Revolution |  Read more:

[ed. Any Questions? See also: America Underestimates the Difficulty of Bringing Manufacturing Back (Molson Hart/X); and, All the arguments for Trump's tariffs are wrong and bad (Noahpion).]

ICE, ICE Barbie

Meghan McCain is joining the pile-on of ‘ICE Barbie’ Kristi Noem and her sartorial choices.

Noem—who is known to always be ready for a photo-op anywhere from an El Salvador prison to the U.S. border—has worn many questionable outfits since becoming the Homeland Security Secretary earlier this year. But she drew intense ire after holding a gun barrel directly at a law enforcement official’s head for a photo. (...)

Right-wing commentators appear to be growing increasingly tired of Noem’s cosplay with many calling for her to tone it down.

Megyn Kelly called on Noem to stop with the photo-ops on her podcast this week.

“Stop trying to glamorize the mission and put yourself in the middle of it as you cosplay an ICE agent, which you’re not,” she said. “She’s out in the field, with her gun, being like ‘we’re going to go kick some a**. No one wants you there!

Noem, however, is defending her outfits—which have included a firefighter, pilot, ICE agent, cowgirl, and now law enforcement officer complete with a rifle at the ready.

by Amethyst Martinez, Daily Beast |  Read more:
Image: Kristi Noem
[ed. Cat fight. Apparently these are conservative commentators or something. Are they all named Meghan/Megyn?]

An Advance in Brain Research That Was Once Considered Impossible

Scientists achieved “a milestone” by charting the activity and structure of 200,000 cells in a mouse brain and their 523 million connections.

The human brain is so complex that scientific brains have a hard time making sense of it. A piece of neural tissue the size of a grain of sand might be packed with hundreds of thousands of cells linked together by miles of wiring. In 1979, Francis Crick, the Nobel-prize-winning scientist, concluded that the anatomy and activity in just a cubic millimeter of brain matter would forever exceed our understanding.

“It is no use asking for the impossible,” Dr. Crick wrote.

Forty-six years later, a team of more than 100 scientists has achieved that impossible, by recording the cellular activity and mapping the structure in a cubic millimeter of a mouse’s brain — less than one percent of its full volume. In accomplishing this feat, they amassed 1.6 petabytes of data — the equivalent of 22 years of nonstop high-definition video. (...)

In 2016, the American government began a $100 million effort to scan a cubic millimeter of a mouse brain. The project — called Machine Intelligence from Cortical Networks, or MICrONS — was led by scientists at the Allen Institute for Brain Science, Princeton University and Baylor College of Medicine.

The researchers zeroed in on a portion of the mouse brain that receives signals from the eyes and reconstructs what the animal sees. In the first stage of the research, the team recorded the activity of neurons in that region as it showed a mouse videos of different landscapes.

The researchers then dissected the mouse brain and doused the cubic millimeter with hardening chemicals. Then they shaved off 28,000 slices from the block of tissue, capturing an image of each one. Computers were trained to recognize the outlines of cells in each slice and link the slices together into three-dimensional shapes. All told, the team charted 200,000 neurons and other types of brain cells, along with 523 million neural connections.

by Carl Zimmer, NY Times |  Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. So, naturally: Trump administration suspends dozens of research grants to Princeton (CNN).]

Poppy Sinks a Long One


[ed. Masters Week. McIlroy's got a good chance if his putting holds up, Poppy's been giving lessons.]

Wednesday, April 9, 2025

'Aloha Isn't Always Being Nice. Aloha Is Being Real'

Kamaka Pili is on a journey.

His lessons on Hawaiian culture are becoming ubiquitous, and his mix of academic research, gracious interviews and unguarded personal stories set him apart from most of the negativity and self-promotion of traditional and social media.

His videos don’t come off as pedantic or hectoring or staged. He makes you feel like he’s letting you in on a valuable piece of information, like he’s offering you a story of great worth. There is a lot of cultural misunderstanding and misappropriation in the world. Pili is offering an antidote.

The inciting incident that called Pili to his current path was a video a friend sent him in 2017 of a kid spray painting the Prince Kūhiō statue in Waikīkī. At first, he got angry. And then he got busy.

“I looked up every email from every television station in town and wrote to them saying ʻIf you took the position of educating people about Hawaiian culture and what Prince Kūhiō did, maybe this sort of thing wouldnʻt happen.’” He let them know he’d be willing to provide that cultural content.

KHON2 responded, and a few months later, he started appearing on the Channel 2 Morning News one day a week doing a segment about the meaning of street names around the islands. He did the gig for free, but it eventually turned into a full-time position doing the weekend weather and reporting on community stories.

Pili, 36, is a 2006 graduate of Kamehameha Schools Kapālama. He went to college at the University of Hawaiʻi Hilo, studying Hawaiian language and graduating with a degree in political science.

After that, he floundered for a while. For two years, he was a dishwasher at Bubba Gump Shrimp Co., eventually working his way up to bartender. “I was taking lomi classes during the day, learning how to heal people, and then mixing drinks, giving them poison at night,” he said.

He started a business making Hawaiian-inspired jewelry and clothing, selling the items at craft fairs. He enjoyed talking to people who came to look at his designs, and would share stories with them. One customer told him he should have his own talk show on ‘Ōlelo Public Access television, and that’s how Aloha Authentic, a brand he still owns, began in 2015.

Another incident around that time shaped how he approached educating people about Hawaiian culture.

He was taking a kapa class, learning how to make cloth from bark fibers in the traditional Hawaiian way, and went hiking into Maunawili Valley to look for a flat stone to use as the base for beating the kapa with a pounding stick. He wore a malo on the hike, his thought being that it was the most natural thing in the world for a Hawaiian to wear traditional Hawaiian clothing to do a traditional Hawaiian thing in a Hawaiian forest.

He came upon a group of hikers who were young, rowdy, and not exactly in the frame of mind to be respectful and peaceful on the trail. They started yelling, laughing and making rude comments about him. Pili stood his ground and said, “You shouldn’t be laughing at this. This is what my ancestors wore. This is Hawaiian and you’re in Hawaiʻi.”

He continued on to the stream bed in the valley. After a while, one of the hikers turned back to find him and offer an apology. “We talked and I explained to him what I was doing,” Pili said. “If I got in a fight, that would have defeated the purpose. Education has to be Step One.”

Aloha Authentic, which started at ‘Ōlelo Community Television and continues on KHON2, is his production company. He continues his jewelry and craft business under the name Naʻau Walaʻau. Up until a few months ago, he was also a hula dancer for Hawaiian Airlines, a job he held for 11 years that took him around the world. Since then, he has expanded his presence on Instagram and Facebook, offering passages from history books he’s just read or lessons from kūpuna.

“Social media is so horrible. I wanted to add more aloha and a feeling of positivity,” he said. (...)

One recent example: Pili sits on the grass beside his great-grandmother’s grave, smiling at the camera. He has a lei for his Tūtū and a story to share with his followers. It’s about how his Tūtū, who died last August at 106, loaned him $2,000 to buy a beat-up car when he was in college. He paid her back $100 a month. When he graduated, his Tūtū came with a gift.

“I opened the envelope and there was $2,000 cash inside, all the money that she lent me which I paid back to her, she gave it to me,” Pili recalled. “For someone who just graduated into the new world, $2,000 meant a lot.”

When he tells stories about himself, they’re often like this. He’s not the hero of the tale, he’s the grateful recipient or is searching for meaning in something he’s been through. He shares stories about being a gay man closeted in his youth. He talks about depression. He talks about God. He talks about not being able to pass third-year Hawaiian language.

“Hawaiians love to share,” he said. “Aloha isn’t always being nice. Aloha is being real.” (...)

“If you look up kuleana in the dictionary, Pukui mentions privilege first and responsibility second. It is my privilege to have this responsibility to share Hawaiian stories.”

by Lee Cataluna, Hononlulu Civil Beat |  Read more:
Images: Lee Cataluna/YouTube
[ed. Aloha Authentic home page can be found here.]


[ed. Grew up playing at Queen Emma's summer palace, just up the road.]

Tuesday, April 8, 2025

9 Rules for New Technology

What do you want from new technology? (...)

Wendell Berry provided a list of nine reasonable requirements for new tech back in 1987, and they’re still appropriate today.


Berry’s list is actually more relevant than ever before. And the failure of tech companies to meet his modest demands is now painfully evident to everybody.

It wasn’t always this bad.

A few years ago, most new technology lived up to many of Berry’s requirements. But not anymore. And the pace of decline gives us a useful way of measuring how poorly we are served by the current generation of technocrats.

Let’s go back to 1987.

Wendell Berry was living on a farm in Kentucky, and did his writing with pen and paper. His wife Tanya would create typewritten drafts of his manuscripts on a Royal standard typewriter purchased in 1956—which was, he insisted, “as good now as it was then.”

But friends told him he needed a computer. It would make it easier to write, they insisted.

In response, Berry came up with his list of nine reasons to embrace new technology. Let’s revisit them, one by one.

Nine Standards for Technological Innovation

(1) The new tool should be cheaper than the one it replaces.

This is a very persuasive selling point for new technology. And for most of my life, tech companies worked hard to lower prices.

I still recall my parents scrimping and saving in order to buy a color television when I was seven years old. It cost almost $500—a huge amount in those days.

They probably should have waited. A few months later, RCA dropped prices to $399.

Prices continued to drop in later years. You can buy a high tech TV today at Best Buy for less than what my parents paid in the 1960s.

Computers also got more affordable—at least until recently.

I got my first computer (an Apple IIE) when I was in graduate school—it was an expensive gift from the Boston Consulting Group in exchange for accepting their job offer.

The list price back then was $1,400. I could never have afforded to buy it on my tight student budget.

But, over a period of many years, each subsequent computer I acquired was better and cheaper than my previous model. Alas, that happy trend has now ended.

When I buy a new computer now, I pay more. And the performance is not always better. I recently had to scrap a new desktop after only a few months, and go back to my previous model.

The new computer didn’t work as well as my five-year-old one.

When did new tech stop getting cheaper?

It happened the day Steve Jobs died. Maybe not exactly on that date—but shortly afterwards.

Look at this chart of iPhone prices, adjusted for inflation, and you can see what I mean.


Now let’s go to the second reason to adopt new tech from Wendell Berry’s list.

(2) It should be at least as small in scale as the one it replaces.

This is another good reason to upgrade your setup. And tech did get smaller for many decades.

Guess who played a key role in that? Yes, Steve Jobs again. Because of his obsession with product design, we now carry a huge amount of advanced tech in our pocket.

Just consider this remarkable fact: Every device featured in this Radio Shack advertisement from 1991 has been replaced by your tiny phone.


Your smartphone has replaced every one of these devices.

But this, too, changed soon after Jobs died. (Are you noticing a pattern here?)

The thinnest iPhone ever was the iPhone 6 (2014)—at a slim 6.9mm. The company continued to launch ‘mini’ models for a few years, but stopped after iPhone 13.

Tech is now bulking up. It’s not just the devices—wait until you see those AI data centers. A single facility can spread over two kilometers.

(3) It should do work that is clearly and demonstrably better than the one it replaces.

This is the most obvious requirement for new tech. It needs to work better than old tech.

But Silicon Valley has totally abandoned this ideal. Every web interface I use has gotten worse over time—from search engines to social media to software to shopping apps.

Google is worse than ever. Twitter is worse than ever. Amazon is worse than ever. Facebook is worse than ever. Everything I get from Microsoft is worse than ever.

So here, too, we see that new tech previously fulfilled Berry’s requirement—but stopped doing so around the time Steve Jobs died. 

by Ted Gioia, Honest Broker |  Read more:
Images: Ted Gioia/Radio Shack/Wendell Berry, New England Review/ Breadloaf Quarterly

Face House, Kyoto, Japan
via:

Friedrich Schiller’s Secret Beloved

The small eastern German city of Rudolstadt sits on a curve of the river Saale. All through the summer of 1788, the great poet-philosopher-playwright Friedrich Schiller used to stride around this bend, impatient to meet up with the love of his life, his future wife, Charlotte—but also with her sister Caroline. When he couldn’t see them, he sent love letters, often several a day, and these were sometimes addressed not to one sister but both. They would gather on a bridge across the river. They would swim and sing and talk and read. When the girls’ parents were away, they spent time together in their family home. What happened inside is now unknowable. “You have already become so much to my heart,” Schiller wrote, that formal you being potentially either singular or plural.

Three years later, when Schiller and Charlotte were married and living together in the nearby town of Jena, a young poet named Karl Gotthard Graß became a regular visitor at their house. The painter once wrote Schiller a letter in which he marveled at the lack of jealousy and quarreling between the two women of the household. “I cannot hide my feelings about the love of these two splendid sisters, for each other and for you,” he wrote. “It was often as if [their mother] had only one daughter and you … had two wives.”It was, the painter continued, just like a fairy tale.

***
To get to Rudolstadt from Berlin, you pass through prime Goethe-and-Schiller country. These two friends—Goethe being older, more courtly, and more of a polymath; Schiller being younger, more furiously abstract, and more beloved by his public—take pride of place in Germany’s cultural heritage, especially in this particular stretch of central Germany, which encompasses the main stomping grounds of their Weimar Classicism period as well as the major sites of the younger Romantics, whom they overlapped with and encouraged. Every German student has to read, sometimes even to memorize, the work of Goethe and Schiller. Their names are synonymous with German cultural greatness. Their legacy is a reliable source of domestic tourism coin; it also lends historical glamour to cities that didn’t exactly have the best twentieth century. (...)

And people really are mad for them there. In Leipzig, you can visit a house where Schiller spent a summer, or a café whose hot chocolate Goethe liked, or if you’re as lucky as I was, during an impulsive solo tour around the area, you can walk down Schillerstraße into the Schillerpark and take a selfie with the Schiller bust there, only to get laughed at by beer-drinking youths in terrible Matrix coats. Down in Jena, where Schiller and Goethe and the younger Romantics all Bloomsburied out in the 1790s and 1800s, you can visit Schiller’s garden house, a Romantikerhaus, or the botanical gardens that Goethe helped redesign, which are home to a gingko tree my wife hates because one time for work she had to read a bad English translation of a bad but famous Goethe poem about it. I wandered agog around these various sites, thrilled to finally be doing—after years of study in far-flung Australia and then of semi-integrated expat life in Berlin—some of the properly serious Great Literature stuff that had lured me to Europe in the first place. Goethe and Schiller! Museums, plaques, and busts!!

The city of Weimar has a Goethe house, a Goethe garden house, a house where Schiller spent his later years, and a large bronze statue of Schiller and Goethe together, both holding one laurel wreath while Goethe gently rests his hand on Schiller’s shoulder. (Replicas of this statue have been erected by wistful German émigrés in Syracuse, Milwaukee, and San Francisco.) In its various gift shops, I contemplated books by Schiller, books about Schiller, mugs with cats on them, Goethe busts, Schiller busts, a wine corker with Schiller’s head on it, porcelain plates with Goethe and Schiller’s heads on them, Schiller applesauce, Goethe strawberry and lavender jam, and an A3 facsimile of Schiller’s “Arbeits- und Finanzplan für die Jahre 1802–1809” (Work and finance plan 1802–1809), before settling on a lovely little postcard with the gingko poem, which I mailed to my wife immediately. Saw this and thought of you xx.

Before continuing to Rudolstadt, I sat in a chain bakery and dug into The Robbers, the rebellious play from 1782 that made young Schiller a star (and Coleridge “tremble like an Aspen Leaf”). The tenor is thrusting and vigorous, as with much of early Schiller; it tells the story of a good-hearted man who is forced by tyranny and corruption to lead the life of a righteous outlaw. Like the rest of Schiller’s oeuvre—even the later history plays—it is lit up by a philosophical boisterousness, a lust for liberation and renewal, and a search for ever grander forms of “unity” outside a dried-out, teetering, dictatorial social order. While it might feel “carpe diem” corny today, its spiritedness is genuine and occasionally contagious. But I was having trouble reading, which upset me. Had I fried my brain on the American internet? Had I read too many posts? Still, all the Germans I meet tend to agree that Schiller is tough going, perhaps more admired than actually read. Out of the corner of my eye, I noticed a big white lamp in the shape of Goethe’s head, its plug unplugged and dangling loose. Where’s my man Schiller? I battled through another two pages of The Robbers, then boarded my train.

Rudolstadt, like many small cities in post-Communist eastern Germany, seems rather unsure how to define itself. They have a picturesque castle belonging to a very minor noble; they were once famous for their porcelain, and for producing a domestic competitor to LEGO. The surrounding region votes far right, but the city is run by independents. It is neither very rich nor very poor. They host a Tough Mudder event and a world music festival. In recent decades, though, they seem to have gambled a lot of their identity on Schiller—and on one saucy chapter of the author’s life. Already at the station, the marketing campaign is apparent. A big sign bids welcome to “Schiller-city Rudolstadt.” The pedestrian tunnel has a drawing of Schiller’s face and the unofficial town motto, Schiller’s Secret Beloved—adopted as part of an enthusiastically Schiller-based marketing campaign in the aughts—next to pictures of Schiller and two women interconnected with Cupid-ish arrows, cartoon hearts, and quotations. Then there are big blown-up photos of three young actors dressed in period garb. They pose in front of a church in one, and in another they look out over a castle, two of them holding hands behind the other’s back. Somebody with a pen has furiously scratched out the faces of Schiller (just a bit) and one of the women (quite a lot) on one photo.

As I approached the town square, I noticed a Schiller bust—beside the bust of two women—and then a city works van with Schiller’s Secret Beloved printed on the side. All the signs were pointing west, toward the Schillerhaus, to something. And so on I went, past the shop advertising open-faced sandwiches with raw pork mince and uncooked white onions—parsley photoshopped on top—and past the popular outdoors shop named “Sport Schart.” Past the bakery that tried to sell me a doughnut called Kameruner, like Cameroon, in the shape of a dinosaur; past the clothing store with a spiffy window display of leopard print, a discount rack featuring outgoing summer styles of leopard print, and a rack of freshly arrived fall fashions—leopard print. I even passed a plaque proclaiming Goethe once stayed there.

I got to the Schillerhaus in the early afternoon. The sun was mild, the leaves were rouging. The house itself sat elegantly understated, three boxy white floors festooned with ivy and topped with a gently sloping orange roof. Inside, a quotation from Schiller had been painted on the wall near the entrance: “All art is dedicated to joy,” it read, “and there is no higher and no more serious task than to make people happy.” All right, then, I thought, do your best. The first room was dedicated to Goethe and Schiller’s first meeting—which technically happened here, although they didn’t get along, as their letters to mutual friends attest. (Goethe considered Schiller immature and overzealous; Schiller found Goethe “an egoist of exceptional degree.”) Someone had the idea of reenacting their meeting using video screens, each containing the head of an actor: Goethe, Schiller, the two sisters, another woman, all talking over each other and attempting to be witty, then falling silent for several seconds. It felt to me, not knowing better, authentic. If you focus on Schiller, you notice him exchanging sultry looks and winks with one sister, then with the other, and then the first again. The actors were doing a great job. I recognized their faces from the photos at the station.
***
It was on a chance social visit to this house in December 1787 that Schiller met these two sisters—Charlotte von Lengefeld and Caroline von Beulwitz. What happened next is a drama that reveals itself primarily in letters, since Schiller did not keep a proper diary and none of them wrote explicitly about the situation in their published works. The love triangle shows up in some biographies of Schiller, and a couple of critics and historians have plundered the epistolary archive in search of the truth. Yet all these chunks of evidence merely orbit around the unknowability of what was really done and felt and said in closed rooms during the late eighteenth century.

Charlotte was younger and more demure; she liked the English language and drawing. Caroline, three years older, was bolder and more radical in inclination—but she had already been married off to a dull businessman. It was a loveless marriage, and he was often away on work trips, so she lived almost completely independently. Both sisters dreamed of traveling widely, although the farthest they would ever get was Switzerland. They read widely and translated—their father wanted them educated beyond their small-town context. But each of them was waiting, somehow, to find a path into the wider world.

by Alexander Wells, Paris Review | Read more:
Image: Alexander Wells

Anna Weyant, Night Flowers 2024-2025
via: Paris Review

Diphylleia grayi, The skeleton flower

Monday, April 7, 2025

Nutnick

via:
[ed. Ugh. Actual U.S. Commerce Secretary. I'd say this guy is the absolute worst but there's too much competition. Remember when he told us his mother-in-law wouldn't complain about missing a monthy Social Security check, and that only "fraudsters" would? What isn't shown here are his next few words..."and it's going to be automated. And the trade craft of America, is going work on them and fix them." Robots presumably. You can view the video here if you want. See also: Wall Street Bursts With Anger Over Tariff ‘Stupidity’ (NYT/DNYUZ); and, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s Most Lunkheaded Moments (NY Mag).]

One Agency That Explains What Government Does For You

Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired recently, and more may be in danger of being let go.

Umair Irfan — a climate change, energy policy, and science correspondent for Vox — has been specifically focused on layoffs looming over the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of late. His reporting presents a great lens for understanding the firings, and he and I discussed what the NOAA can tell us about the effect federal reductions have on everyday Americans. Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below.

Umair, what’s NOAA and why is it so important?

NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It’s tasked with developing weather forecasts for the United States, conducting oceanographic and atmospheric research, and developing long-term climate and weather models. It’s also in charge of fisheries and promoting commerce, particularly in the oceans, which means it does a lot of navigation and mapping work for shipping, and for offshore oil and gas drilling. [ed. and providing scientifc support and coordination for oil spills].

There have been reports that as much as half of NOAA staff might be dismissed. What would everyday Americans lose if that happened?

NOAA has a staff of about 12,000 people, most of them scientists and engineers. If you lost half of that, you’d lose a lot of people doing the research that informs our weather forecasts and our understanding of weather, as well as a lot of the data that industry players rely on for things like aviation and air travel. We’d also lose a lot of our emergency forecasting capability for extreme weather.

NOAA is one of the reasons that air travel is so safe, and one of the reasons that we’ve seen fewer people dying in natural disasters in the US: It has done the work of putting satellites into space, of having scientific ships on the ocean, and aircraft that fly into hurricanes, and has used its decades of data gathering to develop excellent forecasting capability — and one that, through continual work, is improving all the time.

If we lose all those capabilities, we lose a lot of progress that has been made. Extreme weather will stay dangerous, however, and our ability to drive the risks involved with weather down over time will eventually diminish if we don’t continue to invest in that.

NOAA obviously isn’t the only agency that’s facing cuts here. Do Americans gain anything by shrinking the government the way Trump has been?

Current and former agency staffers and leaders I talked to say the cuts aren’t going to help agencies accomplish their missions, and will actually run counter to any goals of efficiency, because remaining employees will have to try to fulfill the functions of their fired colleagues in suboptimal ways.

That said, there’s always going to be room to optimize a big institution like the government. But we need to do so thoughtfully, stepping back and seeing what our needs are, and what our expectations are from government in general.

Specifically looking at an agency like NOAA, it’s about looking carefully at exactly how its core functions are being met, where they’re falling short, and where they can be augmented. So far, we really haven’t seen that level of exploration and interest in how these agencies function from the current administration.

Big picture, what do you think Americans should learn from the case of NOAA?

I think it’s easy to forget that the federal government is everywhere in our country — 80 percent of federal employees are not in DC.

NOAA is one of those agencies that has a very far-flung footprint, because it has to do a lot of the local research and data gathering on site, and because its mission is to protect the whole country.

And NOAA, like all agencies, is very closely linked to people’s lives in ways they may not expect. You may not have a NOAA app on your phone, but very likely the weather app you do have, and the forecast that you’re getting from your local TV meteorologist, are informed by NOAA’s satellites and data gathering.

While there may be layers in between the products you consume and the government, it does provide the foundation for things we take for granted. If agencies like NOAA go away, we would definitely lose things we might not expect.

by Sean Collins and Umair Irfan, Vox |  Read more:
Image: Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images
[ed. I've worked with NOAA scientists throughout my career. Some of the most impressive people I've met.]

Shingles Vaccine Could Help Stave Off Dementia

According to a study that followed more than 280,000 people in Wales, older adults who received a vaccine against shingles were 20 percent less likely to develop dementia in the seven years that followed vaccination than those who did not receive the vaccine.

This could be a big deal. There are very few, if any, treatments that can prevent or slow down dementia, beyond good lifestyle habits like getting enough sleep and exercise. The possibility that a known, inexpensive vaccine could offer real protection is enormously meaningful. We have good reason to be confident in the findings: While this study is perhaps the most prominent to show the protective effects of the shingles vaccine, other studies of the vaccine have come to similar conclusions.

Beyond the promise of preventive treatment, the new study adds further evidence to a growing body of research raising the possibility that we have been thinking about neurodegenerative diseases like dementia and Alzheimer’s all wrong. It’s possible these horrible conditions are caused by a virus — and if that’s the case, eliminating the virus could be enough to prevent or treat the diseases.

How the study worked

To understand why the new shingles vaccine study is such a big deal, it helps to know a little bit about how medical studies are carried out. (...)

The new study... took advantage of a quirk in Welsh health policy to do something better. Beginning on September 1, 2013, anyone in Wales who was 79 became eligible to receive a free shingles vaccine. (Those who were younger than 79 would become eligible once they turned that age.) But anyone who was 80 or older was not eligible on the grounds that the vaccine is less effective for the very old.

The result was what is known as a “natural experiment.” In effect, Wales had created two groups that were essentially the same — save for the fact that one group received the shingles vaccine and one group did not.

The researchers looked at the health records of the more than 280,000 adults who were 71 to 88 years old at the start of the vaccination program and did not have dementia. They focused on a group that was just on the dividing line: those who turned 80 just before September 1, 2013, and thus were eligible for the vaccine, and those born just after that date, who weren’t. Then, they simply looked at what happened to them.

By 2020, seven years after the vaccination program began, about one in eight older adults, who by that time were 86 and 87, had developed dementia. But the group that had received the shingles vaccine were 20 percent less likely to be diagnosed with the disease. Because the researchers could find no other confounding factors that might explain the difference — like years of education or other vaccines or health conditions like diabetes — they were confident the shingles vaccine was the difference maker.

A new paradigm in dementia research?

As Paul Harrison, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Oxford who was not involved in the study, told the New York Times, the research indicates that the shingles vaccine appears to have “some of the strongest potential protective effects against dementia that we know of that are potentially usable in practice.”

But this is a vaccine originally designed to prevent shingles. Why does it also appear to help with dementia?

Scientists theorize it could be related to inflammation. Shingles, or herpes zoster, is caused by the same virus responsible for chickenpox, which lies dormant in nerve cells after an initial infection and can reawaken decades later, causing painful rashes.

That reactivation creates intense inflammation around nerve cells, and chronic inflammation is increasingly recognized as a major factor in cognitive deterioration. By preventing shingles, the vaccine could indirectly protect against the neural inflammation associated with dementia.

What about the amyloid and tau protein plaques that tend to be found in the brains of people suffering from Alzheimer’s, which have long been thought of as the primary cause of the disease? It’s possible that these may actually be the body’s response to an underlying infection. That could help explain why treatments that directly target those plaques have been largely ineffective — because they weren’t targeting the real causes.

by Bryan Walsh, Vox |  Read more:
Image: H. Rick Bamman/ZUMA Wire/Alamy Live News

***
“If you’re reducing the risk of dementia by 20 percent, that’s quite important in a public health context, given that we don’t really have much else at the moment that slows down the onset of dementia,” said Dr. Paul Harrison, a professor of psychiatry at Oxford. (...)

Several previous studies have suggested that shingles vaccinations might reduce dementia risk, but most could not exclude the possibility that people who get vaccinated might have other dementia-protective characteristics, like healthier lifestyles, better diets or more years of education.

The new study ruled out many of those factors. (...)

They also examined medical records for possible differences between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. They evaluated whether unvaccinated people received more diagnoses of dementia simply because they visited doctors more frequently, and whether they took more medications that could increase dementia risk.

“They do a pretty good job at that,” said Dr. Jena, who wrote a commentary about the study for Nature. “They look at almost 200 medications that have been shown to be at least associated with elevated Alzheimer’s risk.”

He said, “They go through a lot of effort to figure out whether or not there might be other things that are timed with that age cutoff, any other medical policy changes, and that doesn’t seem to be it.”

The study involved an older form of shingles vaccine, Zostavax, which contains a modified version of the live virus. It has since been discontinued in the United States and some other countries because its protection against shingles wanes over time. The new vaccine, Shingrix, which contains an inactivated portion of the virus, is more effective and lasting, research shows.

A study last year by Dr. Harrison and colleagues suggested that Shingrix may be more protective against dementia than the older vaccine. Based on another “natural experiment,” the 2017 shift in the United States from Zostavax to Shingrix, it found that over six years, people who had received the new vaccine had fewer dementia diagnoses than those who got the old one. Of the people diagnosed with dementia, those who received the new vaccine had nearly six months more time before developing the condition than people who received the old vaccine.

Sunday, April 6, 2025

World’s Largest Wildlife Crossing Takes Shape in Los Angeles

‘Even a freeway is redeemable’: world’s largest wildlife crossing takes shape in Los Angeles (The Guardian)
Image: Caltrans
The plot is a native wildlife habitat that connects two parts of the Santa Monica mountain range, with the hopes of saving creatures – from the famous local mountain lions, down to frogs and insects – from being crushed by cars on one of the nation’s busiest roadways.

[ed. Wow, this is crazy. What are they connecting to, exactly? And what are the numbers/science that support this? I and a few other biologists in my department (Alaska Dept. Fish and Game) pioneered wildlife crossings back in the 70s when North Slope oil fields were just being developed. Most of you probably don't remember all those slick magazine and tv ads from industry back then boasting about their deep commitment to the environment and sensitivity to wildlife? Haha... not quite. It was a constant fight to get even a few caribou pipeline crossings installed so that thousands of animals could have continued access to feeding and calving areas along the coast. Too expensive and unnecessary, wouldn't work. Of course, once those crossings were installed and actually found to be effective, oil companies were only too happy to take credit. And these were just 30-40 foot gravel pads. In later years near Anchorage, when moose/automobile collisions started becoming epidemic (as the city expanded highway lanes in outlying areas), more of the same fights, this time with the military whose lands the highway transited, and state DOT who again objected to 'wasting' money on unproven designs. Cost and effectiveness issues again. So, a compromise - fencing, one-way gates, and enhanced underpasses, which worked amazingly well, and continue to do so today. Which isn't to say that some overhead crossings aren't warranted in some places (we have one here in Washington over I-90 that seems to be working well for large and small mammals). But something like this California project ($92 million!) would have been a non-starter back in the old days unless there's some critical importance for that particular spot, which isn't mentioned in the article. Definitely more than the occasional mountain lion, frogs and insects. But it's California, who knows.]