Much like its creator, Karl Weierstrass’ monster came from nowhere. After four years at university spent drinking and fencing, Weierstrass had left empty handed. He eventually took a teaching course and spent most of the 1850s as a schoolteacher in Braunsberg. He hated life in the small Prussian town, finding it a lonely existence. His only respites were the mathematical problems he worked on between classes. But he had nobody to talk to about mathematics, and no technical library to study in. Even his results failed to escape the confines of Braunsberg. Instead of publishing them in academic journals as a university researcher would, Weierstrass added them to articles in the school prospectus, baffling potential students with arcane equations.
Eventually Weierstrass submitted one of his papers to the respected Crelle’s Journal. While his previous articles had made barely a ripple, this one created a flood of interest. Weierstrass had found a new way to deal with a fiendish class of equations known as Abelian functions. The paper only contained an outline of his methods, but it was enough to convince mathematicians they were dealing with a unique talent. Within a year, the University of Königsberg had given Weierstrass an honorary…
Read More…
The European Commission on Tuesday unveiled its plans for 2018, including the creation of a eurozone finance minister, tackling the spread of fake news and changes to the EU’s long-term budget.
There are 26 new initiatives in the 2018 work program, many of which had already been revealed, including by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in his State of the Union speech in September. The work program has the title “An agenda for a more united, stronger and more democratic Europe.”
“We have already put on the table 80 percent of the proposals we promised when this Commission took office [in November 2014]. The priority must now be on turning proposals into law, and law into practice,” Juncker said in a statement.
On the list are a “comprehensive proposal for the future Multi-annual Financial Framework [the EU’s long-term budget] beyond 2020,” as well as new ways of taxing tech giants and helping member countries boost vaccination coverage.
Other proposals include “addressing online platform challenges as regards the spreading of fake information,” and new legislation on the EU food supply chain to tackle different quality standards across the bloc.
In December, the Commission will present several economic reforms, including a eurozone finance minister and a separate budget for the single currency area.
The Commission also listed 66 pending proposals and ongoing legislative negotiations it would like agreement on before December 2018. These include revision of the Posted Workers Directive, copyrights reforms, new climate targets for 2030 and screening of foreign direct investments.
Eighteen ongoing legislative proposals should be withdrawn or repealed, the Commission said, as negotiations are either stuck or are out-of-date.
As Juncker pointed out in his State of the Union speech, 2018 will be the last year in which his Commission will propose new legislation. In 2019, the European election will be held and a new Commission could be in place by November. It’s also the year in which the U.K. will leave the bloc.
Bret Stephens, the neoconservative columnist recently poached from The Wall Street Journal by The New York Times, made a big show of appearing reasonable in his debut op-ed last week, “Climate of Complete Certainty.” His point, he writes, “isn’t to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences.” Rather, it’s to condemn the prevailing certainty that climate change will prove catastrophic and that immediate action is warranted: “Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.”
Stephens’s column is also a (very) thinly veiled attack on liberal elites, which, given the rise of Bernie Sanders, is perhaps the most reasonable political opinion a mainstream media columnist could have in 2017. Stephens compares the certainty of environmentalists to the certainty of Hillary Clinton supporters last year, and positions himself as a populist advocate for the common man. He writes that “ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism,” adding, “Perhaps if there were less certitude about our climate future, more Americans would be interested in having a reasoned conversation about it.”
But the main reason Stephens’s column may seem reasonable—at least to the “ordinary citizens” he hopes to reach—is because it avoids obvious absurdity. He doesn’t argue that the mere existence of cold weather disproves global warming trends. He doesn’t claim that global warming is a “hoax” invented by the Chinese. He doesn’t say that climate change can’t exist because God would never allow us to be so powerful. He’s simply asking questions.
Stephens even insists he’s trying to help solve climate change. “[O]ne point of the column was to help the climate-advocacy community improve the quality of its persuasion,” he told CNN’s Dylan Byers. In response to comments from Times readers, Stephens called for more climate research and investment, in contrast to President Donald Trump’s efforts to gut science funding: “We should continue to invest in fundamental climate research and promising clean-tech, and we should redouble our investments in proven non-carbon energy sources, particularly next-gen nuclear power.”
But it is the apparent reasonableness of Stephens’s arguments that makes them even more dangerous than those of snowball-wielders like Senator James Inhofe. What Stephens is doing is still a form of climate-change denial, just stealthier. And his faux-evenhandedness has earned him a major platform from which to push bad-faith, misleading interpretations of the science, providing intellectually lazy excuses for America to keep kicking the can down the road while the planet slowly burns up.
Stephens’s arguments against climate-change alarmism has been around long enough to earn a name: “Lukewarmism.” Lukewarmers are conservatives who acknowledge that humans are warming the planet, but “they’re not convinced there’s a substantial risk that future warming could be large or its impacts severe, or that strong mitigation policies are desirable,” as the Guardian defined them. The climate scientist Michael Mann wrote about this “new breed” of denier in his 2016 book, The Madhouse Effect:
The most insidious form of climate change denial, by some measure, is denial of the seriousness of the threat and the monumental nature of the effort required if we are to avert dangerous climate change. As outright denial of the scientific evidence becomes ever less credible, a new breed of climate change denier, a kinder, gentler sort of denier, has appeared on the scene to exploit the new niche that is emerging in the world of climate change contrarianism.
As Vox’s David Roberts explained in a Twitter rant this week, conservatives have always opposed liberals’ proposals for addressing climate change: international agreements, federal regulations, taxpayer-funded investments, etc. Conservatives argued against these policies by simply claiming the problem wasn’t real. But as the science on climate change has firmed up, “open denialism has become gauche, just a little too crude,” Roberts wrote.
Enter the “lukewarmers,” whose arguments still originate from the same ideological position—that the government shouldn’t try to solve the climate crisis, or at least not try too hard—but appear to be based on sound science. Except they’re not.
Stephens’s column, for instance, explicitly ignores the range of uncertainty within climate science. “Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” he writes, “knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the earth since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities.” He’s right that it’s “indisputable,” but wrong that this increase is “modest.” His dismissal of the rest as “a matter of probabilities” ignores that these probabilities aren’t wild guesses; they’re informed by decades—nay, centuries—of data and research. Moreover, most models predict average temperature increases that will cause a significant rise in sea level, increased heatwaves, droughts, and wildfires, and generally more extreme weather events—all of which could lead to widespread species die-offs and economic turmoil. There are some models that predict less dire scenarios, but others predict much, much worse.
Stephens has no patience for such nuance. “We live in a world in which data convey authority,” he complains. “But authority has a way of descending to certitude, and certitude begets hubris.” No wonder the above statistic about the planet’s warming is the only one in his column. Instead, he spends his precious inches taking issue with those who believe that climate change requires immediate, forceful action—while not being bothered, apparently, by those who believe we shouldn’t take any action at all. Accepting the reality of climate change is not, after all, the same thing as arguing against climate-change denial. Stephens writes that “we respond to the inherent uncertainties of data by adding more data without revisiting our assumptions, creating an impression of certainty that can be lulling, misleading and often dangerous.” He doesn’t not grant that climate change itself is dangerous.
This is a form of climate-change denial: It denies the need for action, which is, like climate science, based on overwhelming evidence. Slate’s Susan Matthews takes it a step further: Stephens’ is not denying climate science per se; he’s denying the reliability of the whole scientific process. “Stephens does not call a single fact into question throughout his piece,” she writes. “Instead, he’s telling his readers that their decision not to trust the entire institution of science that supports the theory of climate change might actually be reasonable.... Trust nothing, he urges, for nothing deserves trust.” John Cook, a professor at George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication who has studied public perception of climate change extensively, believes this type of denial is especially dangerous because it pretends to be balanced—thereby confusing people into apathy. “When you throw conflicting pieces of information at people, they don’t know what to believe, so they stop believing in anything,” he told me.
Lukewarmism is on the rise. The Danish climate contrarian Bjorn Lomborg has gained notoriety in conservative circles for his “skeptical environmentalist” approach, in which he argues that climate change is real but not urgent, and therefore it’s useless to do anything to stop it. “Lomborg’s arguments often have a veneer of credibility,” Mann wrote in The Madhouse Effect, “but scratch the surface, and you witness a sleight of hand, where climate projections are lowballed; climate change impacts, damages, and costs are underestimated.” The Oakland-based Breakthrough Institute routinely engages in similar arguments. The Guardian points to commentator Matt Ridley and the scientist Nic Lewis as examples of lukewarmists. So is Oren Cass, the domestic policy director for Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, who argues in the latest issue of National Review that “Climate apocalypticism ignores the science.”
But with Stephens arrival at the Times, lukewarmism has reached new heights. Stephens, who used to deny climate change, has found that acting slightly more reasonable on the subject has earned him a coveted perch at the paper of the record. Conservatives are rejoicing. National Review called Stephens’s debut a “perfectly reasonable column” that only “amounted to friendly strategic advice” for the left. The column may have sounded reasonable, but it wasn’t based on scientific reason. There’s a difference—and the fate of our planet depends on it.
I suppose world whisky is rather fashionable these days. Bearded mixologists, who somehow all look like clones, are lauding whiskies from Taiwan to Tasmania. People are cage fighting to win the latest Japanese release. But one country that’s seldom on people’s sexy whisky list is South Africa.
South Africa is better known for its choppy political past, diamonds, cricket – and, in terms of booze, the wine industry. Certainly not whisky. There have been a handful of whisky brands to emerge from the country. Not a lot of those South African whiskies have made it to the UK either, and very little of it ever crosses my radar. But the Three Ships range, which comes from the James Sedgwick Distillery in Wellington, is the most notable South African whisky, and it’s made at the James Sedgwick Distillery.
The James Sedgwick Distillery was created well over a century ago, and named after a famous sea-captain who was a pioneer businessman within the region. J Sedgwick & Company was set up as a tobacco and alcohol merchant and his sons later took over his businesses. It was they who created an actual distillery in 1886, which was then a brandy operation before moving into whisky just a few decades ago. The distillery itself was built on the banks of the Berg River in Wellington, and is considered now considered to be a diamond in the African distilling world.
It wasn’t always like that, however. The distillery’s reputation has largely been earned over the past couple of decades by their 6th distillery manager, Andy Watts – a one-time pro cricketer who trained as a whisky-making guru. Those whisky brands – the single grain Bain’s Cape Mountain Whisky (which I clumsily reviewed four years ago) and the single malt Three Ships – have blossomed under Andy’s stewardship, winning numerous international awards.
So I was excited to try one of the limited Three Ships single malt releases.
This particular Three Ships whisky made it into my grubby, whisky-stained hands courtesy of WhiskyBrother Marc. He said this whisky was very good and was personally sending samples out to people. Can’t say no to that, can I?
The Three Ships 10 Year Old Single Cask PX Finish is the first whisky in their new Masters Collection. The whisky was distilled in 2005, initially matured for 8 years and 10 months in American oak, with a small quantity then selected to spend another 14 months in an ex-Pedro Ximenez sherry cask. 800 bottles were produced – all the whisky was non-chill filtered and bottled at 46.2% ABV.
The whisky is not easily available in this country. You can maybe get it from the WhiskyBrother store in South Afria, though, if you happen to be passing by. The exchange rates comes in at approximately £42/US$73. There’s always the chance it will appear at an online auction as well.
Colour: russet.
On the nose: tropical fruits in syrup. Warm strawberry jam. Fresh apricots. A little maltiness once the fruits pass. And then it moves into old wood: cellars, pencil boxes. A waft of incense – but not the sort one might expect from Japanese oak; something else like pine incense.
In the mouth: redcurrants, blackcurrants. Raspberry sauce. Golden syrup. Heather honey. Mead – perhaps a dash of dry cider. Exceptionally autumnal. A few touches of wood: ginger, sandalwood. Pineapples. A lot of that old wood quality is coming back – which is unusual for something this age. Mango. A medium texture, ever so slightly waxy. Very nice black pepper finish. It’s like an exotic, old sherry-cask Scotch.
It’s a good whisky, and one that feels much older than ten years. £42 though? That is an incredible price for a whisky of this quality. It’s almost indecent. This really is a very well-made, characterful, interesting dram, and for that price you should do everything in your powers to track it down.
Comedy Central released the most substantive look yet at Broad City's third season this afternoon, and it's a reminder that the love story at the show's core is platonic. Lovers, weed dealers, and would-be presidential guest stars come and go, but nothing can separate Ilana and Abbi. It looks like they're going to spend this new batch of episodes clubbing, teaching Aquafit classes, trying to kick Grindr addictions, and sprinting around LaGuardia. Blake Griffin, Cynthia Nixon, and Tony Danza are all going to make cameo appearances, and I'm sure there are more in store. Has gallivanting around New York City ever looked more fun?
You don't have to wait much longer to join them: Broad City's season premiere lands on Comedy Central a week...
A melting pot of graphic techniques was used to create the film: collage, colored pencil, felt pens, Bic pens, painting of all types...watercolor, acrylic paint.
The post The Making of ‘Boy and The World,’ A Behind-the-Scenes Look [Exclusive Video] appeared first on Cartoon Brew.
It was the first promise Bernie Sanders made as a presidential candidate.
“I’ve never run a negative ad in my life,” Sanders told reporters at the Capitol exactly nine months ago, at the brief press conference he held to declare his candidacy. “I hate and detest these ugly, 30-second negative ads.”
As Iowa voters prepare to caucus on Monday, the Clinton campaign is accusing its surprisingly strong rival of repeatedly breaking that pledge. “Sanders Campaign Doubles Down on Last-Minute Barrage of Negative Attacks,” read the subject of one Clinton campaign email Thursday. A day earlier came a similar email: “Facing Pressure, Sanders Turns to More Negative Attacks, Undermining Promise to Run a Different Kind of Campaign.”
And on Friday, Clinton’s top pollster, Joel Benenson, charged that Sanders was running “the most negative” Democratic primary campaign in history.
Huh? Are we watching the same campaign?
All of this sturm und drang is about a single Sanders ad released on Thursday that takes aim—implicitly—at the six-figure speaking fees that Clinton accepted from top Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs after she left the State Department in 2013.
Is this a tougher, more negative ad than the hopeful, patriotic spot Sanders ran to the tune of Simon and Garfunkel’s “America”? Certainly. Is it an attack ad? No. As you can see, the narrator never mentions Clinton's name or even refers to an opponent or another Democratic candidate. The ad more subtlety drops in references to “Goldman Sachs,” “speaking fees,” and Washington politicians “bought and paid for.” It leaves it to viewers to make the connection to Clinton, which given the headlines and Sanders’ more-direct references at the Democratic debates, they surely will. In other words, it’s a classic primary-campaign ad.
Clinton should know: She ran plenty of them against Barack Obama in 2008, and if this year's race stays close, you can bet she’ll run them against Sanders as well, before long. In fact, several of Clinton’s ads in 2008 made even more direct attacks on Obama, putting to rest the specious claim that Sanders is running the most-negative campaign in history. (Benenson should know, too: He was Obama’s pollster eight years ago, and that campaign ran plenty of negative ads against Clinton.) To take one example, in April of 2008, Clinton ran an ad in Pennsylvania seizing on Obama's comments at a private fundraiser that people in small towns “cling to guns or religion” to explain their frustration. The ad featured video of voters calling Obama “insulting” and “out of touch” with voters. (While many Clinton ads from 2008 have been taken off YouTube, you can find a good repository at Stanford University’s Political Communication Lab.)
The real story here is that the Clinton campaign is pursuing the same strategy she tried to use, without success, against Obama. Sanders is running on a more economically populist version of the “new politics” campaign that Obama ran in 2008, and Clinton is looking for any morsel of hypocrisy in an effort to dent his image and cast him as the kind of traditional politician from whom voters are recoiling. By seizing on any hint of negativity, she’s also trying to force Sanders into a box of his own making, keeping him from drawing the kinds of direct contrasts he may need to make in order to win. Never mind for the moment the many studies showing that negative advertising is actually quite effective, and whether voters actually care about the “negativity debate” is another question.
It’s a tricky game for both candidates. Sanders says he won’t run “negative ads,” but he will draw “a contrast” with Clinton on the issues. That can be a very blurry line, and politicians often use the word “contrast” as a euphemism to describe ads that are, in truth, quite nasty. “Let me tell you, I run vigorous campaigns,” Sanders said at that same opening press conference. Sanders is benefitting from the fact that nothing he’s said about Clinton compares to the mud-slinging going on in the Republican primary. And so far, Sanders is the one looking artful while Clinton risks coming off as desperate. But that can change as fast as the votes are counted in Iowa.
Photo by Lucho Vidales
Originally designed by Asturian architect Manuel del Busto in 1912, the church of Santa Barbara in Llanera, Asturias, was abandoned for years and crumbling from neglect. Luckily, a group of enterprising individuals lead by a collective called the ‘Church Brigade,’ with help from online fundraising and Red Bull, the church was salvaged and turned into a public skate park dubbed Kaos Temple.
As if having a skate park inside a beautiful abandoned church wasn’t enough, artist Okuda San Miguel was comissioned to cover the walls and vaulted ceilings with his unique brand of colorful geometric figures. Nearly every flat interior surface is covered with a rainbow of color, illuminated from every side by tall windows, making this a truly special place to skate. Watch the video below to see an interview with Okuda where he talks about his inspiration both for Kaos temple and his other works around the world. (via designboom)
Photo by Lucho Vidales
Photo by Lucho Vidales
Photo by Lucho Vidales
All images provided by the Rijksmuseum
Rijksmuseum, an arts and history museum located in the heart of Amsterdam, is asking visitors to put down their cameras and pick up a pen next time they enter the museum’s walls. Rijksmuseum’s new campaign #startdrawing wants to slow down observers, encouraging attendees to draw sculptures and paintings that interest them rather than snapping a picture and moving on to the next work in quick succession.
By slowing down the process of observation, the visitor is able to get closer to the artist’s secrets, the museum explains, engaging with each work by actively doing instead of passively capturing. “In our busy lives we don’t always realize how beautiful something can be,” said Wim Pijbes, the general director of the Rijksmuseum. “We forget how to look really closely. Drawing helps because you see more when you draw.” The museum has begun to highlight drawings completed by participants on their Instagram as well as their blog associated with the campaign here.
Banning cameras (or softly dissuading attendees from using them) is also a way to bring the focus from the selfie an attendee may take with a work of art to the masterpiece before them. A perfectly timed exhibition titled “Selfies on Paper” is currently on display in the museum — 90 self-portraits from well known artists from the 17th to 20th century spread through each floor of the museum. The exhibition shows how artists captured themselves on paper while acting as a challenge to those who might have thought selfie sticks were the only tool appropriate for self preservation. “Selfies on Paper” will run though the winter. (via Hyperallergic)
Gabriel Dawe, “Plexus A1” (2015)
Patrick Dougherty, “Shindig” (2015)
WONDER, the first exhibition at the Renwick Gallery at the Smithsonian American Art Museum since its two-year renovation, brings together nine contemporary artists that each created room-sized installations inspired by the building in which they were produced. Jennifer Angus, Chakaia Booker, Gabriel Dawe, Tara Donovan, Patrick Dougherty, Janet Echelman, John Grade, Maya Lin, and Leo Villareal each work with objects that are often considered mundane, producing large-scale works from everyday objects like toothpicks and hoards of marbles. Each work in the exhibition demonstrates the labor that went into each piece, normalized elements that have been transformed into mind-bending arrangements.
John Grade created a plaster cast of a tree the same age as the Renwick building, rebuilding the tree’s form from 500,000 segments of reclaimed cedar. Tara Donovan also utilized wood in the form of toothpicks to build her mountainous works, building her towering heaps with other trash like straws and Styrofoam cups to prompt the audience to reexamine the daily detritus seen on city streets.
Other works like Gabriel Dawe’s “Plexus A1” and Janet Echelman’s “1.8” are much more colorful, Dawe’s rainbow weaving mistaken for a prismatic stream of light and Echelman’s red and orange sculptural waves brightly expressing the energetic power of one of the most devastating earthquakes in recorded history.
The Renwick Gallery was the very first building in the United States to be built specifically for the purpose of housing an art museum. You can see how WONDER transformed its newly renovated galleries through mid-2016, with a closing on July 10. (via Art Ruby)
Tara Donovan, “Untitled” detail (2014)
Tara Donovan, “Untitled” (2014)
Leo Villareal, “Volume (Renwick)” (2015)
Maya Lin, “Folding the Chesapeake” (2015)
Chakaia Booker, “ANONYMOUS DONOR” (2015)
Jennifer Angus, “In the Midnight Garden” (2015)
Janet Echelman, “1.8” (2015)
Janet Echelman, “1.8” detail (2015)
John Grade, “Middle Fork” (2015), all images by Ron Blunt
John Grade, “Middle Fork” detail (2015)
A sinister IPA.
Humans have a unique affinity for bitter food, like dark chocolate, coffee, and broccoli. Most other animals interpret a bitter taste as a warning to stay away from a non-edible material, but some humans can’t get enough of it, though scientists have never been quite sure why. How much you like those bitter foods could be a reflection of your personality, according to a new study in the journal Appetite—and people with the greatest affinity for bitter foods may even have more psychopathic and antisocial tendencies.
In the study, 500 participants were asked how much they enjoyed different examples of sweet, sour, salty, and bitter foods. Then, they were asked to take a series of personality assessment quizzes to evaluate their aggression, each of the Dark Triad measures (narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism), everyday sadism (verbal, physical, and vicarious), as well as Big Five personality traits, which include extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness.
The researchers found that people who liked bitter foods were also more likely to score highly in measures of psychopathy, sadism, and aggression. In fact, they write, an affinity for bitter foods was a better predictor of personality than any of the other tastes. “Taken together, the results suggest that how much people like bitter-tasting foods and drinks is stably tied to how dark their personality is,” the study authors write.
This study adds valuable information to the little-explored question of how personality relates to taste preferences (though researchers have already found that people who are open to new experiences eat more vegetables and fiber, and those who are “sensation-seeking” drink more caffeine).
But as the researchers themselves point out, understanding what makes a person like a particular food is a complex knot of biology and psychology, influenced by her sensitivity to tastes and odors as well as past experiences. The researchers even had trouble deciding which foods to use as examples for bitterness because different people describe the tastes differently. And although the study makes a good case for a correlation between “dark personalities” and a preference for bitter flavors, it doesn’t provide any information about what might cause that preference—is it biology or psychology, or both? Though the researchers don’t mention any intention to conduct any future studies to explore the cause of these preferences, that information might be even more valuable than the study at hand.
Matthijs van Wolferen@evelien
Sarcasm’s a great way to diffuse a negative emotion, but it’s easy to go overboard. The Wall Street Journal suggests you stick to only using sarcasm when you’re close with someone to avoid potential confusion.
It’s probably a little obvious that you should only use sarcasm when you’re comfortable with a person, but the real point here is sarcasm’s best kept for personal relationships because it’s generally an expression that helps you bond with people. The Wall Street Journal explains:
So how do you deal with sarcasm? Dr. Kreuz says to remember that if someone is being sarcastic to you, he or she may be showing a form of affection. He suggests saying something gently sarcastic back, to show you understand the exchange. If you are the one who likes to be sarcastic, don’t do it with strangers—they are less likely to understand your intent... As an adult, [Mr. Laermer] says he uses sarcasm to accomplish several things: To bond with people; push them to lighten up and not take life too seriously; and to remind them of their actions.”
So, think twice before you drop that snarky comment on your new boss, the clerk at the coffee shop, or on that first date. It has plenty of great uses, but save for them for when the relationship is a bit more developed.
People Love Your Sarcasm, Really | The Wall Street Journal
Photo by zombieite.
NEW YORK—In the shadow of the nearby United Nations, I approached the Estonian consulate this week ready to complete what's been an eight-month journey. I waited this entire time to visit the 6th floor, finalize some paperwork, and leave with a shiny blue box no bigger than a standard envelope. Soon after, it was official.
I was finally an Estonian e-resident, one of the first 10,000 worldwide.
This Northern European country, formerly occupied by the Soviet Union, has become a tech powerhouse in recent years. Its burgeoning startup scene is highlighted by Skype, Estonian citizens have their own digital ID cards (which power the country's online voting system), and the country is the home of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. And a few months back in California, I heard Prime Minister Taavi Rõivas explain his homeland’s latest ambition—e-residency cards that could extend some Estonian government services to non-residents like me.
Go ahead and found an Estonian company, perhaps without ever leaving home.
Estonian ID cards use open source public key-private key encryption (upgraded in 2011 to 2048-bit RSA), which allows government agencies to perform various secure functions online connected with a citizen's identity. These actions include handling financial transactions, issuing public transportation tickets, and maintaining student university admission records among other things. These digital ID cards are standard-issue for all citizens and legal residents.
The e-residency card is a bit different. An e-resident does not carry any of the rights or responsibilities of being an Estonian legal resident, much less a citizen. I can’t vote, nor do I get the travel benefits of being a European Union citizen. The card doesn’t even have my photo on it, but it does give me some benefits that Estonians have already enjoyed for well over a decade. According to the government, I could start an Estonian company in 18 minutes flat. And although it appeared less glamorous, I could now digitally sign legally binding documents.
Estonia hopes to eventually sign up 10 million e-residents by 2025, but obviously only a fraction of that e-residency goal has been met today. A small number of journalists, including Edward Lucas of The Economist and Joshua Keating of Slate, already acquired e-residency cards, but they hadn’t put them to much use as far as I could tell. So while I wasn't sure of everything being an e-resident could entail, I wanted to find out what one of the world’s most digitally forward countries had to offer.
Since May 2015, Estonia has allowed individuals to complete e-resident applications and pay for the card online. The process is relatively simple. First, you have to send a scan of your passport and fill out a lot of predictable information (name, address, etc). Then you declare which Estonian government office, embassy, or consulate you plan on picking up a card at once approved. (Even though I live in California, New York City is actually my nearest Estonian diplomatic presence. Luckily the Ars' annual staff conference was taking place in the Big Apple this year.)
Once that’s out of the way, you get an e-mail like this:
Dear applicant,
Thank you for applying for e-Residency. Your application has been submitted and will be reviewed shortly. You will be notified when the application review process begins. If your application is approved, your e-Resident smart ID-card will be sent to your chosen location. The whole process should take no more than a month. The Estonian Police and Border Guard Board will keep you informed about the application process by sending progress reports to the e-mail address you provided in the application.
For additional questions please see: e-resident.gov.ee or e-mail e-resident@gov.ee
Yours Truly,
Kaspar Korjus
e-Residency Program Director
About six weeks after my application, I got another e-mail: “Estonian Police and Border Guard Board has granted e-Residency to CYRUS JOHN FARIVAR.”
When I eventually made it to the Estonian consulate, I had more logistics to take care of. I presented my US passport and allowed digital scans of my index fingers to be taken. Then, Consul General Tere Peakonsul Eva-Maria Liimets handed me a welcoming blue box with my ID gleaming out at me. The e-residency packaging looks quite professional, and it reveals an additional five steps to e-Residency along the inside flap:
Your final steps towards e-Residency:
Take your ID-card reader from the slot
Open the reader by sliding into “+” shape
Take your e-Residency card
When using the card, make sure there is contact between the chip and the reader
Go to www.e-estonia.com/welcome
That seemed straightforward enough, but it wasn’t quite so easy. Once I visited the URL, I had to install three different pieces of software: one was the ID-card utility and then two more were items from the App Store. After, I was required to reboot.
In order to test the connection between the smartcard, the reader, and my computer, I popped in my card (in a specific orientation) and plugged it into the USB port on my Mac. I was quickly greeted by repeated errors saying that reader could not find my card. Worse, the instructions did not seem to anticipate such errors—there were no discernible suggestions of what to do if a card was not read. At least the error message was cute.
I put a call out on Twitter and found some guidance within minutes. Estonian tech journalist Ronald Liive and Estonian Information System Authority software tradesman Martin Paljak graciously offered a few suggestions, and soon I was fiddling. Ultimately I tried the ID-card utility, because it seemed that my PIN1 code needed to be reset. Once that was done, I was good to go—the utility app finally recognized me and my card.
This still left the obvious question: now what?
Jon Stewart slipped unnoticed into the White House in the midst of the October 2011 budget fight, summoned to an Oval Office coffee with President Barack Obama that he jokingly told his escort felt like being called into the principal’s office.
In February 2014, Obama again requested Stewart make the trip from Manhattan to the White House, this time for a mid-morning visit hours before the president would go before television cameras to warn Russia that “there will be costs” if it made any further military intervention in Ukraine.
To engage privately with the president in his inner sanctum at two sensitive moments — previously unreported meetings that are listed in the White House visitor logs and confirmed to POLITICO by three former Obama aides — speaks volumes about Stewart and his reach, which goes well beyond the million or so viewers who tune into The Daily Show on most weeknights.
As the White House recognized, Stewart can, at times, be a more potent influence on policy than Obama himself.
Love Stewart’s jokes or hate them, he has proven to be a unique voice who is capable of turning in-the-weeds policy discussions into viral video sensations that the country is still talking about the next morning.
As the White House recognized, Stewart can, at times, be a more potent influence on policy than Obama himself. The 52-year-old funnyman is widely credited with changing how the government treated military veterans and September 11 first responders and for canceling a hyper-partisan CNN talk show. His broadsides against President George W. Bush’s Iraq war and a series of Obama missteps had a searing effect on how Americans thought about Washington.
Top Obama aides David Axelrod and Austan Goolsbee knew Stewart’s voice mattered and made sure to field calls and emails from the host and Daily Show staff.
Looking back on Stewart’s 16-year run, which ends with a final show next Thursday, Democratic and Republican officials, including many of the lawmakers and administration aides he’s routinely skewered, said in interviews there are plenty of identifiable marks where Stewart has made a difference.
“I’d be hard pressed to think of a person who spoke with the same amount of authority to that big of a group of people,” said Eric Lesser, a former Obama White House aide now serving in the Massachusetts state Senate. Reminded that he had once worked for the president of the United States, Lesser quickly added this caveat: “People in media.”
* * *
STEWART ROSE TO prominence just as the stature of network news anchors faded. With the departure of Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather, a new generation of news consumers turned to Stewart for his satire and commentary, and in the process got schooled on the headlines of the day.
Even though his live TV audience averages around 1.3 million — a mix of liberal, educated viewers including the hard-to-reach 18 to 34-year-old males — Comedy Central’s searchable archive system also helped the cause because every segment can live on on the Web.
“He’s a modern day Will Rogers and Mark Twain,” Sen. John McCain, a frequent Republican guest on Stewart’s show, said in an interview.
Obama appears on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart | EPA
Stewart’s tearful opening monologue nine days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 effectively served as the opening salvo of an ongoing crusade for firefighters, policemen and other people who came to the World Trade Center site “literally with buckets, rebuilding.”
Nearly a decade later, Stewart invited four of those responders, sick with a variety of serious ailments, to explain their health situations. Their graphic discussion helped break a legislative logjam in the Senate by shaming Republicans who at the time were filibustering a bill that would provide billions in health benefits and compensation to the 9/11 responders who had become ill after their work at Ground Zero. Congress passed the legislation three days after Stewart’s show.
“What took us eight years of walking the halls of Congress, Jon Stewart in 22 minutes literally moved mountains and gave us a heartbeat again when we were flat lined,” said John Feal, an Army veteran and post-9/11 clean-up worker.
In March 2009, Stewart discussed the new Obama administration’s idea of removing veterans with private insurance plans from the VA rolls. “That can’t be right,” he intoned. The Obama White House scrapped the plan one day after his segment aired, and veterans’ advocates recall Stewart’s commentary being discussed during a West Wing meeting with senior aides including then-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
Other examples of Stewart crusading for the vets include a May 2014 bit lampooning VA Secretary Eric Shinseki for giving mild-mannered answers to Congress about an epic backlog in medical disability claims. He diagnosed Shinseki and others in the administration as having “PBSD: post bureaucratic stress disorder.”
“I don’t think there’s been a single person in the media who’s more strongly influenced the support of veterans’ policies than Jon Stewart,” said Paul Rieckhoff, the founder and CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
Many credit Stewart with helping set the tone for the sweeping national debate about the appropriateness of flying the Confederate flag.
Stewart’s successes extend into simple public discourse too, most notably with an October 2004 guest appearance on CNN’s “Crossfire” that helped change the lineup for daytime cable television talk shows. In a live segment, Stewart pleaded with co-hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala to “stop hurting America” with their partisan bickering. Three months later, citing Stewart’s comments, CNN cancelled the show and ended its relationship with Carlson.
“I agree wholeheartedly with Jon Stewart’s overall premise,” CNN President Jonathan Klein said at the time, according to a report from The New York Times.
Last month, Stewart had another straight-to-the-camera moment, channeling his disgust over what he said would be a “we won’t do jack shit” national response to the gun rampage in Charleston, S.C., that left nine African Americans dead.
“The Confederate flag flies over South Carolina, and the roads are named for Confederate generals,” Stewart said near the end of his nearly six-minute monologue. “And the white guy is the one who feels like his country is being taken away from him.”
Many credit Stewart with helping set the tone for the sweeping national debate about the appropriateness of flying the Confederate flag, and its eventual removal from the South Carolina state Capitol.
“Whether it’s guns or on the VA or anything like that, he tried to reflect back I think a national sentiment or national mood to policy makers, and he did it sometimes poignantly and he did it other times very harshly, with very harsh words and biting humor but the idea is, ‘I need you to pay attention to this and I need you to do something better,’ ” said Michael Steele, the former Republican National Committee chairman.
Former Vice President Al Gore gushed over Stewart’s successes because of his commitment to explaining global warming science.
“At a time when many traditional news outlets shied away from clearly reporting the urgency of the climate crisis, Jon consistently cut through the absurdity of climate denial night after night,” Gore said in an email.
In a rare interview, Sen. Al Franken, the former writer and actor on “Saturday Night Live,” said Stewart “made the platform” for serious satiric television news shows. “None of this makes any difference if he’s not hugely talented,” he said. “He’s not only got talent. He’s got a great work ethic. He’s very intelligent. And he has integrity.”
While Stewart’s politics are seen by many as center-left, he also has a populist streak heavy on fiscal responsibility, good government and fighting for the little guy. “He doesn’t have a permanent allegiance to the Democratic party by any means,” said Goolsbee, the former Obama White House chief economic adviser. “But he struck me as he’s got a progressive approach and like a low tolerance for bullshit slash spin, which Washington is full of.”
Republicans caution that Stewart is no easy-to-pigeonhole liberal either.
“That’s just too easy,” said Steele, who Stewart mocked in a memorable segment by creating the RNC chairman’s likeness as a blue puppet. “It’s a throw-away. If you go down that road you miss the impact if not the importance that he has had on political dialogue in this country, that he’s had on policymakers.”
Steele explained that he would often hear from college Republicans while on the road asking if he had seen a Stewart clip, and that forced him to rethink GOP positions on a range of issues, from student debt and the job market for college graduates to gay marriage.
“I certainly in my efforts to expand the reach of the party made note of the fact there were things that were brought up and talked about on his show that we weren’t focused on that we should take a look at,” Steele said.
Late night TV is usually the stuff of one-liners and celebrities. Stewart invented a different approach.
Ann Ravel, the chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission, said Stewart and his former Comedy Central colleague Stephen Colbert didn’t spark any obvious changes in campaign finance policy when they set up a super PAC during the 2012 presidential election to lampoon the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision giving corporations free speech rights to spend unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns. But, she said, the two comedians got the country talking about esoteric campaign finance policies.
“They raised the issue to the American public in a way that no one has ever done,” she said.
Stewart, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has repeatedly downplayed his influence. When Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand appeared on The Daily Show in January 2011 thanking Stewart for what his 9/11 first responders segment had done to break the legislative gridlock, he replied, “Well, that’s the thing that’s crazy. The idea that something has to be on television to mean anything is what’s so crazy. … I do feel like we drove by a burning car on a highway and went ‘Uh, someone should call that in.’ ”
* * *
LATE NIGHT TV is usually the stuff of one-liners and celebrities, movie and music plugs that help Americans fall asleep. Stewart invented a different approach, with pained attempts to explain the ins and outs of a cap-and-trade bill to curb carbon emissions and frequent reminders during the Bush years that the fighting in Iraq — and the search for Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction — weren’t going so well.
Stewart’s comic progeny will carry the torch: Daily Show alumni Colbert takes over for David Letterman on CBS this fall; John Oliver has dedicated lengthy segments of his HBO program to complicated topics like net neutrality, predatory lendingand chicken farming; Larry Wilmore engages panelists on the news of the day in Colbert’s old 11:30 p.m. time slot. South African comic Trevor Noah takes over The Daily Show later this year.
But do any of the above equate to Stewart?
“I’ll tell you some Democrats are worried,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat who says she was motivated to write her first book with the hope of being a guest on his show — only to find out it’s coming out five days after Stewart goes off the air. “He’s done a great thing for us reminding young people why the Republican party is out of step.”
Conservatives like Sen. Jim Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican and climate change skeptic, dismiss Stewart as a shill for Obama and the left.
“I’ve never seen him,” said Inhofe, who recently was the butt of Daily Show jokes for throwing a snowball on the Senate floor to demonstrate manmade climate change isn’t real. “There’s a lot of liberal press I just don’t pay attention to.”
Joe Davis, a spokesman at the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said he doesn’t buy into the premise that Stewart’s work has helped clean up the VA. “With all due respect to Mr. Stewart, the VFW over the past year testified before Congress like 30 times,” he said. “I don’t remember him providing any expert testimony at the witness table.”
McCain, for his part, said he thinks The Daily Show “had an effect in a more indirect way, but [it] certainly had an effect.”
“He talked to young people. Young people watch him. Young people vote,” McCain said. “So I don’t think that there’s any doubt that with his comedy” — the senator smiled and held up two fingers like quotation marks as he said ‘comedy’ — “that he had an effect on the workings of government.”
* * *
QUITE OFTEN, that effect took the form of either prodding, or working in concert with, the Obama administration.
In Stewart’s first show after his February 2014 visit to the White House, he picked up on the Russia-Ukraine news that Obama had spoken about in the press briefing room a few hours after their private chat. In a segment titled ‘It’s a Vlad, Vlad, Vlad, Vlad World,’ Stewart giggled as he displayed a picture of the shirtless Russian leader — “Heil Titler,” he joked. Then he showed a video of Vladimir Putin at the Winter Olympics in Sochi and wondered if he was “even paying attention at the Olympics? … Or did you consider the parade of nations a browsing opportunity?”
Obama White House officials enjoyed it when Stewart was singing from the same hymnal. But they also were quick to pay attention when he turned against them.
“He’s an expert shamer,” said Dag Vega, a former White House staffer who was in charge of booking the president and other administration officials onto The Daily Show.
Axelrod, a frequent Stewart guest, kept in touch with the host by phone and email. In an interview, Axelrod said Stewart was “a useful prod” for the administration.
“I can’t say that because Jon Stewart was unhappy policy changed. But I can say that he had forceful arguments, they were arguments that we knew would be heard and deserved to be answered,” Axelrod said.
Goolsbee said he would often wince at Stewart’s assaults on the Obama White House and Capitol Hill Democrats. He recalled one particularly tough January 2010 episode in which Stewart used a clip from the 1980s TV show ‘The Wonder Years’ to question why the Democrats ever expected Republicans to negotiate in good faith on issues from climate change to taxes to financial reform. “You’re just cringing,” Goolsbee said. “Oh God. I think the main thing that you’re hoping is you’re hoping in your heart of hearts he’s not right.”
Like Axelrod, Goolsbee acknowledged he would stay in touch with The Daily Show staff: He emailed with his former Yale classmate and improv comedy partner Scott Bodow, who joined The Daily Show as a writer in 2002 and now is an executive producer.
That work-the-umps strategy also involved the president, who used his two Oval Office meetings with Stewart as a chance to sell the administration’s ideas. At the 2011 sit-down, Goolsbee said, the president wanted to counter his critics on the left and lay the groundwork for his 2012 re-election campaign.
“The White House itself was quite interested in at least explaining its side of the story to Jon Stewart,” Goolsbee said, “up to and including the president.”
Obama ultimately appeared seven times on Stewart’s show — in their last joint appearance together earlier this month the president joked that he would issue an executive order to keep the host on the air. “I can’t believe you’re leaving before me,” Obama said
I saw Ant-Man this weekend and thoroughly enjoyed it. Appropriate to the title character, it’s a movie that deals in seemingly small things with larger implications. Largely disconnected from the wider Marvel Cinematic Universe plot arc, Ant-Man is a pleasant break from the Dramatic Global Crisis or Dramatic Cosmic Crisis themes of the Avengers and their individual films.
But you didn’t come here to read a movie review. So let’s take a closer look at a fine legal distinctions that the protagonist, Scott Lang, makes a few times in the movie: robbery versus burglary. Some minor, early spoilers ahead.
Lang considers himself a burglar, a cat burglar specifically. He takes umbrage when others refer to him as a robber, explaining that “robbery involves threat” whereas he abhors violence. As it turns out, he’s not wrong, as far it goes, but his explanation is incomplete. The distinctions between robbery, burglary, and theft are more complex than that. The film is set in San Francisco, so I’m going to refer to California law.
I. Robbery
Cal. Penal Code § 211 defines robbery:
Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.
There’s a lot here, but breaking it down we can see that robbery involves:
Purse snatching and mugging are classic examples. A purse snatcher takes a purse (personal property) from another person while they still possess it, taking it from their person, against their will, by force. A mugger does something similar, except usually they do so by fear.
But note what robbery isn’t. Casually picking up someone’s wallet off of a table when they aren’t looking isn’t robbery. The property is taken from their immediate presence, but not by force or fear.
Similarly, taking something from a person’s home while they aren’t there isn’t robbery. The property may be in the victim’s possession because it’s in their home, but it’s not being taken directly from their person or immediate presence.
Why the distinction? Because robbery is inherently a violent crime. It involves force or the fear of force, and it carries with it both the psychological trauma of that force and the risk of physical harm to the victim. Thus, for centuries it has been considered worse than merely taking someone else’s property when they aren’t around or doing so without force or fear.
So it’s pretty clear that Lang is indeed not a robber. So how about burglary?
II. Burglary
Cal. Penal Code § 459 defines burglary:
Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle, trailer coach, as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, any house car, as defined in Section 362 of the Vehicle Code, inhabited camper, as defined in Section 243 of the Vehicle Code, vehicle as defined by the Vehicle Code, when the doors are locked, aircraft as defined by Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code, or mine or any underground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary. As used in this chapter, “inhabited” means currently being used for dwelling purposes, whether occupied or not. A house, trailer, vessel designed for habitation, or portion of a building is currently being used for dwelling purposes if, at the time of the burglary, it was not occupied solely because a natural or other disaster caused the occupants to leave the premises.
That’s much more complicated than the definition of robbery, but it’s mostly technical. Paring it down to the bare essentials, we get something like:
Every person who enters any … building … with intent to commit … larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.
Much simpler! Some things to note:
Thus, Lang may be a burglar (he certainly entered buildings with felonious intent), but he also, in his words, “steals shit.” That’s where theft comes in.
III. Theft
Like many states, California has adopted a general purpose theft statute, eliminating the distinct crimes of larceny, embezzlement, and obtaining property by false pretenses. The definition of theft in § 484(a) is even more complicated than the definition of burglary:
Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft. In determining the value of the property obtained, for the purposes of this section, the reasonable and fair market value shall be the test, and in determining the value of services received the contract price shall be the test. If there be no contract price, the reasonable and going wage for the service rendered shall govern. For the purposes of this section, any false or fraudulent representation or pretense made shall be treated as continuing, so as to cover any money, property or service received as a result thereof, and the complaint, information or indictment may charge that the crime was committed on any date during the particular period in question. The hiring of any additional employee or employees without advising each of them of every labor claim due and unpaid and every judgment that the employer has been unable to meet shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud.
But we can break it down and simplify it a bit for our purposes:
Every person who shall … take … the personal property of another,
or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her,
or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person …,
or who causes … others to report falsely of his or her wealth … thus … obtains credit and thereby fraudulently gets or obtains possession of … property … of another, is guilty of theft.
Thus we see that Lang is not just a burglar. He’s also a thief. Entering a building owned by another with the intent to take property within is burglary. Actually taking the property is theft.
IV. Lang’s Crimes
We’ll take it as a given that Lang committed burglary, theft, and probably a host of other crimes when he broke into and stole from Vista Corp. But what about breaking into Hank Pym’s house? On the one hand, this seems like a classic case of burglary (entering the house intending to steal the contents of Hank’s safe) and theft (taking the Ant-Man suit).
On the other hand, Lang returns the suit the next day (and then gets arrested while leaving the scene) and we later learn that Pym wanted him to steal the suit, as a kind of try-out for another job. Would either of these facts make a difference?
A. Returning Stolen Property
This certainly won’t help with the burglary. Lang entered Pym’s house with the intent to commit a felony. Whether he ultimately committed that felony or not, the burglary was complete as soon as he put any part of his body inside the house. What about the theft? Does regretting stealing something and putting it back amount to a defense?
Perhaps obviously, the answer is no. “The fact that a thief … may change his mind and return the property to escape prosecution for the crime, does not relieve him from the consequences of the theft.” People v. Post, 76 Cal.App.2d 511, 514 (1946). It might count as a mitigating circumstance for sentencing, but it won’t affect the underlying issue of guilt.
B. The Owner’s Permission, Unknown to the Thief
This is a more complicated issue. Having permission to enter a building and commit what would otherwise be a felony within is a defense to burglary:
a person who enters a structure enumerated in section 459 with the intent to commit a felony is guilty of burglary except when he or she (1) has an unconditional possessory right to enter as the occupant of that structure or (2) is invited in by the occupant who knows of and endorses the felonious intent.
People v. Salemme, 2 Cal.App.4th 775, 781 (1992). In this case, Pym knew of and endorsed Lang’s felonious intent, but that’s not enough. Lang had to have been explicitly invited:
There must be evidence of informed consent to enter coupled with the “visitor’s” knowledge the occupant is aware of the felonious purpose and does not challenge it.
People v. Sherow, 196 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1302 (2011). This difficulty, as well as Pym’s need for secrecy, may be why Pym didn’t simply disclose to the police that he intended for Lang to break into his house and take the suit.
Thus, Lang is out of luck. He committed burglary even though Pym intended him to.
(Also, in case anyone is wondering, Pym’s claim to be Lang’s lawyer makes him guilty of a misdemeanor under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6126(a). Claiming to the police not only to be a lawyer but to be a specific person’s lawyer was maybe not the wisest choice on Pym’s part.)
So this was an interesting parcel to receive in the post. It’s from Abbey Whisky, and it’s a Rare Casks release. This also goes by the name of ‘Anon Batch 1’, and the distillery is a mystery.
Now this isn’t the first time I’ve approached whisky tasting without really knowing the contents. In fact, I do it quite a bit with m’learned colleague, Whisky Rover, when we exchange samples. It sharpens your senses and your wits, and means you don’t bring any bias to proceedings. But at least he tells me what the whisky was afterwards. Will Abbey Whisky do the same with this? Probably not.
We have some data however: this was distilled in 2001, and was bottled when 13 years old at 51.5%. It’s a Highland whisky, according to the website, and has spent the last 6 months being matured in an Oloroso sherry cask. Presumably the early days were spent living it up in ex-bourbon? It also costs just £54, and only 90 bottles are available.
All I can say is that I have previously loved Abbey Whisky’s releases – they’re a cracking bottler – so I was very much looking forward to this. Especially as Abbey Whisky themselves describe it as having bagged ‘a wee beauty’.
Colour: deep gold. On the nose: well that’s rather lovely. First impressions: it’s vibrant and really creamy. And almost like a good blend (I don’t mean this in a negative way, on the contrary). There’s a wonderful balance and harmony: honey and vanilla custard on one hand, with something more woody and even acidic, like balsamic vinegar. Pineapple, peaches. Soft fruit definitely. A real intense malted barley that almost, almost comes across as a waft of smoke.
In the mouth: yes, a gorgeously thick quality to the spirit. Very viscous and just clings to your tongue. Stacks of minerality. Hops, mead, almost refreshing notes, like a light summer ale in a beer garden. Flashes of hay-barns and meadows under a late summer sun. But Again, very creamy and malty – warming, chewy, peppery finish, to the point of believing that it might have a touch of peat in there.
There’s something very old-fashioned about this. It’s a good, classic whisky that’s full of traditional flavours and tons of vitality. And the sherry cask finish gives it a little twist. It’s a debonaire, Clooney-esque whisky that’ll charm the pants off you.
I really like it. Is it the best Abbey Whisky release though? Not quite. That’s only because they’ve released some brilliant whiskies of late. But this is certainly indicative of that high quality. It’s a wee beauty, indeed.
It's been a busy six months, but it's time to recognize some of the shows, movies, and albums that have made a big impression on us.
The post Our Favorite Films, Music, and TV of 2015 (So Far) appeared first on WIRED.
If you’ve been on the hunt for the perfect ceramic capybara planter, look no further. Ceramicist Priscilla Ramos from São Paulo, Brazil, has a fantastic line of animal planters in the form of foxes, whales, anteaters, and yes, even the world’s largest rodent. She’s even working on a sloth! The handmade stoneware pieces are perfect for small succulents or cacti, and you can see more in her shop: Cumbuca Chic. (via NOTCOT)
Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt today said it was a “mistake” to support the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that has said human-created climate change could be “beneficial” and opposes environmental regulations. Schmidt said groups trying to cast doubt on climate change science are "just literally lying."
Nonprofit that Google is part of also supports Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger.
Google’s membership in ALEC has been criticized because of the group’s stance on climate change and its opposition to network neutrality rules and municipal broadband. Earlier this month, Google refused to comment after 50 advocacy groups called on the company to end its affiliation with ALEC.
That changed today when Schmidt appeared on The Diane Rehm Show and was asked by a listener whether Google is still supporting ALEC. The listener described ALEC as “lobbyists in DC that are funding climate change deniers.”
Schmidt responded, “we funded them as part of a political campaign for something unrelated. I think the consensus within the company was that was sort of a mistake, and so we’re trying to not do that in the future.”
Schmidt did not say what issue led Google to support ALEC. Yelp reportedly joined ALEC to fight so-called "Strategic lawsuits against public participation," but it's not clear if Google had the same motivation. We contacted Google’s public relations department today but haven’t heard back.
Schmidt did not comment on ALEC’s stances on net neutrality and municipal broadband, but criticized the group's position on climate change.
“The company has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts, what a shock, and the facts of climate change are not in question anymore,” Schmidt said. “Everyone understands that climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people. They’re just literally lying.”
Google was a member of ALEC’s Communications and Technology Task Force, along with Facebook, Microsoft, and Yahoo. Microsoft cut ties with ALEC recently.
ALEC task forces write model legislation that can be introduced into statehouses and potentially become law. The group helped pass numerous state laws that make it difficult for cities and towns to compete against private ISPs by offering their own Internet service.
On climate change, ALEC offers model legislation proposing the formation of an Interstate Research Commission on Climatic Change.
The bill says human activity “may lead to deleterious, neutral, or possibly beneficial climatic changes” and that “a great deal of scientific uncertainty surrounds the nature of these prospective changes, and the cost of regulation to inhibit such changes may lead to great economic dislocation.”
ALEC has also pushed legislation requiring schools to teach climate change denial or skepticism.
UPDATE: ALEC CEO Lisa Nelson issued a statement in response to Google's departure, saying, "It is unfortunate to learn Google has ended its membership in the American Legislative Exchange Council as a result of public pressure from left-leaning individuals and organizations who intentionally confuse free market policy perspectives for climate change denial."
At ALEC's recent annual meeting, Google participated in a roundtable conversation "regarding renewable energy deployment and climate change," Nelson said. The roundtable included a variety of companies and was "intended to build understanding and pioneer future policy approaches where organizations could find common ground on issues of climate change, energy generation and government mandates."
“In the case of energy generation, ALEC believes renewable energy should expand based on consumer demand, not as a result of a government mandate," Nelson also said. "Many misunderstand the American Legislative Exchange Council and its legislator-led, free market priorities. ALEC members believe the Federal Government exerts too much control on state and local decision-making. Google’s renewable energy commitment—as well as those found throughout private industry—is completely consistent with ALEC policy because the companies in question chose renewables absent a mandate."
Nestled in Northeast India next to the Brahmaputra River sits Majuli Island, a giant sandbar that happens to be the largest river island on Earth, home to some 150,000 people. It is also the location of the 1,360 acre Molai Forest, one of the most unusual woodlands in the world for the incredible fact that it was planted by a single man. Since 1979, forestry worker Jadav Payeng has dedicated his life to planting trees on the island, creating a forest that has surpassed the scale of New York’s Central Park.
While home to such a large population, rapidly increasing erosion over the last 100 years has reduced the land mass of Majuli Island to less than half. Spurred by the dire situation, Payeng transformed himself into a modern day Johnny Appleseed and singlehandedly planted thousands upon thousands of plants, including 300 hectares of bamboo.
Payeng’s work has been credited with significantly fortifying the island, while providing a habitat for several endangered animals which have returned to the area; a herd of nearly 100 elephants (which has now given birth to an additional ten), Bengal tigers, and a species of vulture that hasn’t been seen on the island in over 40 years. Gives you more than a little hope for the world, doesn’t it?
Filmmaker William Douglas McMaster recently wrote and directed this beautiful documentary short titled Forest Man from the perspective of Payeng’s friend, photographer Jitu Kalita. The project was funded in part last year through Kickstarter. The video is a bit longer than what we usually see here on Colossal, but completely worth your time. (via Gizmodo)
Matthijs van WolferenThis is amazing
In an fascinating mix of papercraft, set design, and animation, artist duo Davy and Kristin McGuire bring stories to life inside these exquisitely built paper dioramas. With the aid of digital projection mapping the pair have created several theatrical installations including The Hunter and Psycho which netted the Samuel Beckett Theatre Trust Award and subsequently lead to The Paper Architect. You can see more of their work on their website, and on Vimeo. (via Laughing Squid)
Matthijs van WolferenThis! Just this...
Yesterday, the nominations for the Eisner Awards, often considered the Oscars of Comics, came out, honoring five comics in the digital comics category. But there are dozens of amazing webcoimcs out there that the Eisners have completely ignored.
