News Feeds

Not all plastics are created the same, and some last longer in the ocean than others. Scientists have been working for years to quantify the environmental lifetimes of a wide range of plastic goods to see which have the shortest and longest lifespans in the ocean. To determine what plastics persist in the ocean, the team tests different products in large tanks that recreate the natural ocean environment.

Our built environment is aging and failing faster than we can maintain it. Recent building collapses and structural failures of roads and bridges are indicators of a problem that's likely to get worse, according to experts, because it's just not possible to inspect every crack, creak and crumble to parse dangerous signs of failure from normal wear and tear. In hopes of playing catch-up, researchers are trying to give robotic assistants the tools to help inspectors with the job.

A new way of creating color uses the scattering of light of specific wavelengths around tiny, almost perfectly round silicon crystals. This development enables non-fading structural colors that do not depend on the viewing angle and can be printed. The material has a low environmental and biological impact and can be applied extremely thinly, promising significant weight improvements over conventional paints.

Investigators have developed a low-cost, high-throughput device that can reliably generate uniform tumor spheroids. The study describes how to assemble the 'Do-It-Yourself (DIY)' device from parts totaling less than $7, including a coin-vibrating motor commonly found in cell phones.

Investigators have developed a low-cost, high-throughput device that can reliably generate uniform tumor spheroids. The study describes how to assemble the 'Do-It-Yourself (DIY)' device from parts totaling less than $7, including a coin-vibrating motor commonly found in cell phones.

Within the next fifteen years, NASA, China, and SpaceX plan to send the first crewed missions to Mars. In all three cases, these missions are meant to culminate in the creation of surface habitats that will allow for many returns and – quite possibly – permanent human settlements. This presents numerous challenges, one of the greatest of which is the need for plenty of breathable air and propellant. Both can be manufactured through electrolysis, where electromagnetic fields are applied to water (H2O) to create oxygen gas (O2) and liquid hydrogen (LH2).

While Mars has ample deposits of water ice on its surface that make this feasible, existing technological solutions fall short of the reliability and efficiency levels required for space exploration. Fortunately, a team of researchers from Georgia Tech has proposed a “Magnetohydrodynamic Drive for Hydrogen and Oxygen Production in Mars Transfer” that combines multiple functionalities into a system with no moving parts. This system could revolutionize spacecraft propulsion and was selected by NASA’s Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) program for Phase I development.

The proposal comes from Alvaro Romero-Calvo, an assistant professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and his colleagues from the Georgia Tech Research Corporation (GTRC). The system employs a magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) electrolytic cell, which relies on electromagnetic fields to accelerate electrically conductive fluid (in this case, water) without any moving parts. This allows the system to extract and separate oxygen and hydrogen gas in microgravity, removing the need for forced water recirculation and the associated equipment (i.e., pumps or centrifuges).

As a specialist in low-gravity science, fluid mechanics, and magnetohydrodynamics, Romero-Calvo and his team have spent many years investigating the applications of MHD systems for spaceflight. The need for a dedicated study to assess the concept’s feasibility and integration into a suitable oxygen production architecture ultimately motivated their proposal. In a previous study, Romero-Calvo and co-author Dr. Katharina Brinkert (a professor of Chemistry at the University of Warwick) noted how water harvested in situ would reduce vehicle launch masses.

However, they also noted that operating this kind of machinery in microgravity presented many unknowns, most of which are not addressed by current research. In particular, they stressed how the absence of buoyancy in microgravity results in major technical challenges, like the need to detach and collect oxygen and hydrogen bubbles, which was traditionally addressed using forced water recirculation loops. However, they argued, this leads to liquid management devices composed of multiple elements and moving parts, which are complex, inefficient, and unreliable in space. As Romero-Calvo explained in a recent Georgia Tech news release:

“The idea of using MHD forces for liquid pumping is explored in the 1990 thriller The Hunt for Red October, where a stealth soviet submarine powered by an MHD drive defects to the United States. Although it’s fun to see Sean Connery playing the role of a Soviet submarine commander, the truth is that submarine MHD propulsion is very inefficient. Our concept, on the contrary, works in the microgravity environment, where the weak MHD force becomes dominant and can lead to mission-enabling capabilities.”

Instead of traditional recirculation loops, the proposed MHD system relies on two distinct mechanisms to separate oxygen and hydrogen from water. The first comes from diamagnetic forces, which arise in the presence of strong magnetic fields and result in a magnetic buoyancy effect. Second, there are Lorentz forces, which are a consequence of the imposition of a magnetic field on the current generated between two electrodes. As Romero-Calvo noted in their proposal paper:

“Both approaches can potentially lead to a new generation of electrolytic cells with minimum or no moving parts, hence enabling human deep space operations with minimum mass and power penalties. Preliminary estimations indicate that the integration of functionalities leads to up to 50% mass budget reductions with respect to the Oxygen Generation Assembly architecture for a 99% reliability level. These values apply to a standard four-crew Mars transfer with 3.36 kg oxygen consumption per day.”

Two CubeSats communicated and then maneuvered toward one another in a recent technology demonstration. Credit: NASA

If successful, this HMD system would enable the recycling of water and oxygen gas in long-term space travel. Romero-Calvo and other colleagues at the Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering at Georgia Tech demonstrated in another paper that this technology could also have applications for water-based SmallSat propulsion and other mission profiles where ISRU is a must. At present, Romero-Calvo and his colleagues have formulated the concept and have developed analytical and numeral models.

The next step will involve the team and their partners at Giner Labs (a Massachusetts-based electrochemical R&D firm) conducting feasibility studies. Over the next nine months, they will receive $175,000 to explore the system’s overall viability and technology readiness level. These will consist primarily of computational studies but will include prototypes testing key technologies here on Earth. As a Phase I proposal, they will also be eligible to compete for Phase II funding worth $600,000 for a two-year study.

An early demonstrator of this technology was tested aboard the 24th flight of the New Sheperd (NS-24), an uncrewed mission that launched on December 19th, 2023. With support from Blue Origin and the American Society for Gravitation and Space Research (ASGSR), Romero-Calvo’s team tested how magnets electrolyzer water in microgravity conditions. The data from this flight and the forthcoming tests will inform an HMD electrolyzer prototype and could lead to a system integrated aboard future space missions. Said Romero-Calvo:

“We were studying the fundamental magnetohydrodynamic flow regimes that arise when we apply a magnetic field to water electrolyzers in spaceflight conditions,” Romero-Calvo explained. “The Blue Origin experiment, in combination with our current collaboration with Prof. Katharina Brinkert’s group at the University of Warwick, will help us predict the movement of oxygen bubbles in microgravity and it hints at how we can build a future water electrolyzer for humans.”

Further Reading: NASA, Georgia Tech

The post A Magnetohydrodynamic Drive Could Lead to Fuel Stations on Mars appeared first on Universe Today.

A review of dementia research highlights unequal healthcare outcomes for Black and Hispanic people in the US

Despite the acceptance by biologists of the fact that all animals have only two sexes, and that include humans, people keep insisting that there is a “spectrum of sex”, especially in humans. The “spectrum” assertion is made for purely ideological reasons: to buttress the feelings of those who don’t feel that they are either male or female, including trans people. (The weird thing about the trans issue, however, is that transitions are made between characteristics of one sex, males, and another, females, and vice versa—an implicit admission of a sex binary.

There are other arguments for a human sex “spectrum” based on things like chromosomes and genital configuration, but in the end biological sex is defined by gamete type, as I’ve noted repeatedly. Recognizing biological sex, however, is often done by looking at traits like genitals or chromosome that are usually (but not invariably) correlated with gamete type.

The Definitions: Males have small mobile gametes (sperm) and females large immobile ones (eggs). This definition was not confected to produce some kind of nonexistent binary; rather, it is what biologists observe in nature, and the gamete-based definition not only places nearly everyone (exceptions are roughly, 0.018%, and don’t represent “other sexes,” but rather developmental anomalies), byut also is immensely useful in understanding a lot about biology, like sexual selection.  Luana Maroja and I, in our paper “The ideological subversion of biology“, discuss the sex binary as one of the prime targets of biology ideologues.

But other people, including Colin Wright, Carole Hooven, and Emma Hilton, have spent much more time than Luana and I defending the sex binary and the biological definition of sex—not on political grounds but, well, because the sex binary is not only real, but immensely useful. If we let ideology corrupt biology, it distorts the whole purpose and interpretation of studying nature.

But I’ve said this many times before. Today, being under the weather, I call your attention to two articles and a video confirming and defending the sex binary. The first is by Eve Kurilova at the website The Distance, and I love the title (below).  If you’ve read here, you’ve probably heard about clownfish (viz., Nemo) being used as an example of the “sex spectrum”.  But they’re not. What happens, as we all know by now, is that there are males and females in clownfish, and males can change into females under certain circumstances. Here’s Wikipedia’s explanation:

In a group of anemonefish [clownfish], a strict dominance hierarchy exists. The largest and most aggressive female is found at the top. Only two anemonefish, a male and a female, in a group reproduce – through external fertilization. Anemonefish are protandrous sequential hermaphrodites, meaning they develop into males first, and when they mature, they become females. If the female anemonefish is removed from the group, such as by death, one of the largest and most dominant males becomes a female. The remaining males move up a rank in the hierarchy. Clownfish live in a hierarchy, like hyenas, except smaller and based on size not sex, and order of joining/birth.

Note that the words “male” and “female” are the only ones used. When a dominant female dies, one male, in a process called “sequential hermaphroditism”, turns into the alpha female, changing phenotype and ability to produce gametes. An individual that was a male, producing sperm, now changes its reproductive system to produce eggs, becoming a female. There are still two sexes, but one type can become another.  But even that doesn’t somehow buttress humans of different gender, as it doesn’t show the existence of a sex spectrum. And, as Kurilova says anyway, “humans are not fish”, so even if the clownfish did demonstrate a sex spectrum, producing novel types of gametes (they don’t), it wouldn’t say anything about Homo sapiens.  Click to read:

Kurilova (and Colin Wright) seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time correcting a misguided individual named Ian Copeland, who tweeted (or Xd) this:

Here we go again.  (There’s some question about Copeland’s “Ph.D.” designation, but you can read that in the posts. At any rate, Copeland was corrected but refused to give in. Here are two responses from Zachary Elliott, who works at the Paradox Institute and has written three books on sex and gender as well as produced several videos on biological sex:

Another correction from Colin and one from Heather Heying:

And of course the wag Gad Saad weighs in, asking if Copeland was joking (he wasn’t):

These sex-spectrum addicts are like creationists: when they can’t convince others with data, they invite a “debate”. And so Ian Copeland set up  a nearly three-hour debate with his detractors.You can listen to it by clicking below, but I’m not interested. Colin jumps into the fray from the outset, while Copeland comes off like, well, somebody that’s unhinged:

Kurilova ends her short piece this way:

It’s obvious that this is not an individual to take seriously, and many are recommending not to interact with him to hinder his engagement farming. I am inclined to agree, which is why I limited my own involvement to a couple of subtweets.

But I do feel like the response was very useful to show others how to deal with unscientific claims like the one Copeland was making. As I said, this is probably not the last time we will hear of someone trying to use the sex-changing abilities of fish to spread lies about human biology and call others bigots. The clear and concise rebuttals from people like Colin Wright can serve as an example of how to respond.

So, no, just because fish can change sex, it doesn’t mean that sex isn’t binary. And just because fish can change sex, it doesn’t mean that humans can. Humans are not fish.

But the ever-energetic Colin, who seems to think that Copeland has an open mind, recounts the debate in a post on his website. (Colin must have a masochistic streak!).  Clicl below to reads Colin’s account his own site, Reality’s Last Stand. Click below to read:

I won’t go into the details, but do want to emphasize that Colin refutes Copeland’s claim, which is common, that sex is defined by genes or chromosome constitution. It isn’t, though of course in some groups sex is correlated with genes or chromosome constitution. (Howeveer, in some reptiles sex is determined by temperature but is still defined by gametes.) I’ll quote Colin briefly. As usual, his arguments are clear:

Put plainly, “genetic sex” is not a distinct type of sex at all; it is a convenient term or shorthand to denote that a person or cell contains the sex chromosomes that typically cause a [male/female] to develop. For a geneticist, knowing this about a cell culture might be useful if they are investigating sex differences or wish to control for cellular sex differences as a potential confound in an experiment. Additionally, medical professionals often describe sex in multifaceted terms because examining a person’s chromosomes, hormones, genitals, gonads, and their alignment aids in diagnosing potential issues along this biological chain. The use of terms like “genetic sex,” “hormonal sex,” and “genital sex,” is driven by practicality, not because they represent legitimate, separate types of sex.

“Genetic sex” is not an alternative type of sex. Sex only refers to the type of gamete an organism has the function to produce.

This becomes obvious when we look at other animals, such as turtles, that do not use chromosomes to guide their sex development. In the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), the sex of their offspring is not determined by a genetic coin flip, but by the thermostat setting. Eggs incubated below 27.7°C develop into males, and eggs incubated above 31°C develop into females.

Discussing humans as “genetically male or female” is as illogical as referring to a turtle’s “incubation temperature sex.” In experiments, it might be convenient to label incubators set below 28°C as “male” and those above 31°C as “female,” but there’s nothing inherently “male” or “female” about these temperatures. We may use terms like “male temperatures” for those under 28°C and “female temperatures” for those over 31°C as shorthand for “temperatures that typically lead to male or female development.” However, a turtle’s sex is ultimately defined by the gamete it produces, not the temperature of its early days in the egg. For instance, if a female turtle popped out of an incubator set below 28°C, we wouldn’t say she has a female “gametic sex” and a male “temperature sex.” She would simply be female, and the researchers would likely be intrigued to learn how she developed at a temperature typically associated with male development.

In a similar vein, the Blue Groper (Achoerodus viridis) is a fish species characterized by males that are blue and females that are brown. In the field, it may be useful for researchers to use color as a quick and accurate proxy when recording a fish’s sex. However, it would be incorrect to claim that Blue Gropers have a “color sex,” as there is nothing inherently “male” about being blue or “female” about being brown.

And he quotes philosopher Paul Griffiths (my bolding)

Like chromosomal definitions of sex, phenotypic definitions are not really ‘definitions’—they are operational criteria for sex determination underpinned by the gametic definition of sex and valid only for one species or group of species.

Copeland won’t give in, and even produced this tweet below. Look at that huge area of overlap, though individuals of indeterminate sex are only 1 in 5600! Plus intersexes are not “third, four, and fifth sexes,” and so on.

Finally, Colin just put up a 35-minute lecture on the nature of the sex binary, refuting arguments like that of Copeland and P. Z. My*rs, who’s gotten on the woke “sex-spectrum” bandwagon but should know better. You can go to Wright’s lecture by clicking Dawkins’s approving tweet below, or see it to Colin’s website here.

The attempt of ideologically motivated individuals to change the biological definition of sex, trying to turn it into a spectrum, is one of the most notable examples of how biology gets corrupted by wokeness. I’m grateful to those like Colin and others who spend much of their time correcting claims of ideologues and educating the public. As for correcting off-the-rails individuals like Copeland, well, that’s like like trying to change the mind of a creationist. It won’t work unless the person has an open mind, and creationists (and “sex spectrum” loons) don’t have open minds: they are all balled up in religion or ideology.

Superbly clear & totally correct lecture by Colin Wright @SwipeWright. There are only 2 sexes & they're defined by gamete size. Convoluted attempts to deny binary sex are like Ptolemaic epicycles.https://t.co/LS3PG54JBi

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) January 30, 2024

At the smallest scales, everything is made out of a cloud of quantum possibilities. A new idea attempts to explain how our everyday world comes from this, using the laws of thermodynamics

DNA analysis of spider webs from two locations in Australia identified dozens of vertebrate species, suggesting a new approach to wildlife monitoring

I am feeling poorly today, so posting may be light. I do my best.

I know that the name “Netanyahu” is synonymous for “Satan” in most people’s minds, and he’s often completely dismissed or ignored. Douglas Murray, too, is often dismissed as being too conservative  or xenophobic. But you’d be missing out if you didn’t at least watch this new 32-minute video of Murray interviewing the Israeli Prime Minister. It’s entirely about the war, and Murray doesn’t refrain from asking hard questions, like what responsibility Netanyahu bears for the October 7 attacks, what he thinks of all the Israelis who dislike him, and so on.

But I found most of it enlightening, especially on the topics of Gaza, Qatar and Iran.  The Prime Minister pulls no punches about Gaza, insisting that there is no solution beyond “total victory” over Hamas, and that victory will have a huge effect on deterring other countries in the region, including Iran.  After watching this, I’m convinced that Netanyahu will not accept any kind of ceasefire.

As for “what about afterwards?”, Netanyahu says that Israel will supervise Gaza when hostilities end, though I don’t know how that would work or would go down with the world.

Netanyahu says that although Qatar seems to be playing a double attitude towards the war (hosting Hamas leaders while brokering peace), Netanyahu insists that Qatar must use its “considerable influence” to get the hostages free immediately, as well as providing them with medicine.  What if it doesn’t? Well, Netanyahu will have some words with Western countries.

Finally, the Prime Minister says that Iran simply must not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons, for it’s already inciting violence without them, and it’s horrible to imagine what they could do with nukes.  He insists that the civilized world cannot allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.  (Murray misses the chance to ask “how can the West do that?”)

Again, I strongly recommend that you take half an hour and watch this. I didn’t want to at first, but now I’m glad I did.

A recent study suggests that reducing social isolation among people with obesity helps them live longer, but it's not easy to prove that's definitely the case

Contrail clouds that form behind planes are responsible for much of the climate warming effects of flying. Small altitude adjustments would help minimise them

Reader Roz sent a bunch of nice caterpillar photos, though not many of them are identified. It’s up to you, the readers, to identify them, or at least have a marvel at the larval. (And please send in your photos!)

Roz’s introduction is indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them:

The Caterpillar Lab is a New Hampshire based non-profit that breeds and collects New England caterpillars from the field. They come yearly to the Arnold Arboretum or at least they have for the years I’ve been in Boston. I saw them fall 2021. These photos are from that visit.

As for identifying them, here is what I know:

Order: Lepidoptera

Families: Saturniidae and Erebidae

While I will let readers taxonomize further, I believe the genus and species for some of the caterpillars I saw include:

• Promethea Silk Moth (Callosamia promethea)
• Brown-hooded Owlet (Cucullia convexipennis)
• Hickory Horned Devil, the larva of the Regal Moth (Citheronia regalis), which I got to let crawl on my hand and arm.

The Caterpillar Lab has a lovely Facebook page for those who may be interested.

JAC: The first two are clearly mimics of  bird droppings.

JAC: This one’s a doozy!

JAC: Two photos of pupae:

JAC: Two twig mimics:

The number of near misses, false starts, and legitimate disasters that have befallen our species since the day we took our first upright steps all those generations ago is too large to count and could honestly take up this entire book. I’ll give us humans this much, though: we’re survivors, through and through.

We are, to put it bluntly, remarkable. There is nothing in this cosmos that even begins to approach anything resembling the complexity of the human brain. There is no other world that we have discovered, within our solar system or without, that can support the dizzying array of chemical reactions that we call life, let alone consciousness.

Sure, with enough planets around enough stars within enough galaxies, life is probably bound to happen one way or another, but it appears that life only happened here, once, billions of years ago, when it didn’t appear – or was snuffed out – even in our own solar backyard.

Even our planet is special. Take a look at the other planets of the solar system. If doesn’t matter if you’re using a backyard telescope or the latest NASA robotic gear, the answer is always the same. While every planet looks and acts (and probably smells) different from all the rest, they all share one thing in common: they’re dead.

Lifeless. Uninhabitable. Inhospitable. Barren balls of cold rock. Barren balls of molten rock. Barren balls of exceedingly hot rock buried under thick layers of atmosphere. Barren.

There are a million tales that the universe has been spinning for over 13 billion years to make life possible. Life could not have arisen too early in our cosmological history, for there was not yet enough generations of stars born and dead to spread their ash, their byproduct of oxygen and carbon, into the wider galactic mix. And, alas, there will come a time in the distant future, trillions of years from now but yet countable with finite numbers, when the universe will be too old, too cold, and too exhausted to fashion new stars at all.

Life as we know it was given only a narrow window of possibility in time, dictated by the cold laws of physics and the chance byproduct of the great machinations foreign, alien, and unthinking that churn in our universe, each one stretching so achingly slowly for millions, if not billions, of years. Each one governed by forces both comprehensible and mysterious, each one leading to the lucky chance of an Earth.

Some argue that the way the universe is constructed is a little too particular. That if any one small thing were to change, from the speed of light to the amount of atomic matter assembled during the big bang, life as we know it would be outright impossible. Perhaps some other form of intelligence could rise up in that strange cosmos, shuddering at the impossible thought of creatures anchored to a planet and swimming in its water oceans. Perhaps not. Either way, it appears that our universe is especially tuned for the appearance of life as we know it, indicating either divine intervention or some conspiracy of physics too far beyond our comprehension to grasp.

To that line of thinking I have this response. We have but one universe for us to study; it is all we’ve had and all that ever will be. As peculiar as this universe of ours appears, we cannot access or interrogate other possibilities. We do not know how special or generic this cosmos is, the same way you could not measure the probability of the Queen of Diamonds appearing in your hand if you did not know the contents of the full deck. That stark reality does not rule out divinity or exotic physics, but it also does not demand them. If you wish to believe in either of those, I will not begrudge you.

No matter how you count the probabilities and odds and chance encounters, here we are, alive and abundant on some planet whose name is given only by ourselves, for there’s no one else to speak of it, the glimmer of thinking, watchful eyes looking out into the void and daring to call it home.

The post The Seeming Impossibility of Life appeared first on Universe Today.

Was this infamous 1976 dioxin disaster as bad as reported, or might it have been much worse than we thought?

Light from hydrogen in the early universe has baffled astronomers, but researchers have spotted interacting galaxies that could explain how it makes its way to us

An AI inspired by the way humans form long-term memories during sleep can learn to perform tasks better than existing models

Calls made by male orangutans to attract females have short sequences nested inside longer sequences – a feature called recursion that was thought to be unique to human language

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/sciencesalon/mss401_Katherine_Brodsky_2024_01_10.mp3 Download MP3

As a society we are self-censoring at record rates. Say the wrong thing at the wrong moment to the wrong person and the consequences can be dire. Think that everyone should be treated equally regardless of race? You’re a racist who needs to be kicked out of the online forum that you started. Believe there are biological differences between men and women? You’re a sexist who should be fired with cause. Argue that people should be able to speak freely within the bounds of the law? You’re a fascist who should be removed from your position of authority. When the truth is no defense and nuance is seen as an attack, self-censorship is a rational choice. Yet, our silence comes with a price. When we are too fearful to speak openly and honestly, we deprive ourselves of the ability to build genuine relationships, we yield all cultural and political power to those with opposing views, and we lose our ability to challenge ideas or change minds, even our own.

In No Apologies, Katherine Brodsky argues that it’s time for principled individuals to hit the unmute button and resist the authoritarians among us who name, shame, and punish. Recognizing that speaking authentically is easier said than done, she spent two years researching and interviewing those who have been subjected to public harassment and abuse for daring to transgress the new orthodoxy or criticize a new taboo. While she found that some of these individuals navigated the outrage mob better than others, and some suffered worse personal and professional effects than others, all of the individuals with whom she spoke remain unapologetic over their choice to express themselves authentically. In sharing their stories, which span the arts, education, journalism, and science, Brodsky uncovers lessons for all of us in the silenced majority to push back against the dangerous illiberalism of the vocal minority that tolerates no dissent— and to find and free our own voices.

Katherine Brodsky is a journalist, author, essayist and commentator who has been taking an especially keen interest in emerging technologies and their impact on society. She has contributed to publications such as Variety, the Washington Post, WIRED, The Guardian, Esquire, Newsweek, Mashable, and many others. Over the years she has interviewed a diverse range of intriguing personalities including numerous Oscar, Emmy, Tony, Pulitzer, and Nobel Prize winners and nominees—including the Dalai Lama.

Shermer and Brodsky discuss:

• What it’s like growing up Jewish in the Soviet Union and Israel
• Why the Jews
• Why liberals (or progressives) no longer defend free speech
• Cancel culture: data and anecdotes
• Is Cancel Culture an imagined moral panic?
• Cancel Culture on the political Left
• Cancel Culture on the political Right
• Social media and Cancel Culture
• Free speech law vs. free speech norms
• Pluralistic Ignorance and the spiral of silence
• Solutions to cancel culture
• Identity politics
• Cancel culture, witch crazes, and virtue signaling
• Free speech, hate speech and slippery slopes
• How to stand up to cancel culture.

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.