[syndicated profile] strange_maps_feed

Posted by Frank Jacobs

No, you haven’t suddenly gone colorblind. This map is in color. In fact, it is a map of color — specifically, of each U.S. state’s favorite house paint color. It’s just that those favorites look like a swatch book for a funeral parlor — like fifty shades of gray.

Well, gray-ish. From Hawaii to Maine, from Alaska to Florida, the most popular shade for your home’s exterior is some variation of gray, off-white, beige, or greige — a hue so existentially undecided that it can’t commit to being either gray or beige, and so ends up neither, and both.

Dipped in a vat of Resigned Indifference®

But how can this be? America is anything but monochrome. It contains multitudes of cultures, climates, and landscapes, and people who disagree, loudly and publicly, about nearly everything. So why, when Americans need a tin of house paint, do they so often reach for the neutral shelf? Why does the average house in this great and varied nation look like it’s been dipped in a vat of Resigned Indifference®?

The answer is a phenomenon dubbed “the grayening”: a gradual but relentless draining of pigment, not just from exteriors but also from interiors and from the stuff of everyday life, like cars and phones. In 2020, researchers at the Science Museum Group in London found evidence of the trend’s longevity. Feeding roughly 7,000 photographs of everyday objects — kettles, lamps, cameras — from the late 1800s to 2020 into an algorithm, they then asked it to track color distribution over time.

The result: a striking shift toward achromatic — that is, neutral — colors in material culture.

Four vertical panels show an antique radio, a pixelated abstract pattern, a smartphone, and another blurred grayscale pattern.
Color analysis of pictures of a telegraph from 1844 (left) and a mobile phone from 2008. Our communication devices have gone achromatic. (Credit: Science Museum Group)

The grayening has accelerated in the 21st century, but it has ideological roots in the 20th, and industrial ones in the 19th.

The muted lingua franca of global commerce

Early 19th-century objects tended toward natural material colors: the warm brown of wood and leather, the yellows and brass tones of metals. Over time, those pigmentations surrendered steadily to black, white, and gray.

The shift was slow but steady, and its cumulative effect was massive. By the late 20th century, grayscale had colonized and dominated a wide range of object categories. To a large extent, this desaturation is a byproduct of mass production. Industrial manufacturing favors repeatability. Neutral tones are easier to standardize, less likely to clash, and more globally marketable than a particular shade of tangerine, which may sell brilliantly in Seville but offend everyone in Seoul.

In that sense, grayscale is the muted lingua franca of global commerce: inoffensive because it says nothing at all. But the grayening is more than simply an accident of industrialization. In the early 20th century, it got a powerful philosophical boost from modernist design ideology.

“Suited to simple races, peasants and savages”

In his 1908 essay “Ornament and Crime,” Austrian architect Adolf Loos argued that ornamentation was not merely unnecessary, but a sign of arrested moral development. Truly evolved people, he suggested, would gravitate toward clean lines and plain surfaces. Applied ornament, including the use of color as decoration, didn’t enhance; it cluttered and distracted.

A black-and-white portrait of a stern-looking man is paired with a modern city square featuring a large, white building and people walking.
Adolf Loos (left) and his austere, unornamented Looshaus (right, center) at the Michaelerplatz in Vienna. (Credit: Adolf Loos Plzen; Gerd Eichmann – CC BY-SA 4.0)

Loos’s polemical target was Art Nouveau, then in full frothy bloom. His arguments were influential on the Bauhaus school of art, which canonized restraint and straight lines. It, in turn, informed the International Style that swept global architecture from the 1930s onward, a style that favored glass, steel, and concrete. All gray: not just by default, but as a statement of seriousness.

Le Corbusier, pioneer of what we now simply call modern architecture, made the point with characteristic charm, declaring that color “is suited to simple races, peasants and savages.” Ouch.

The desaturation didn’t stop at buildings. Car colors have been meticulously catalogued since the dawn of the automotive age, making them a useful proxy for the broader culture’s chromatic pulse. Black had its first heyday as a car color about a century ago, when Henry Ford famously quipped that his Model T was available “in any color the customer wants, as long as it’s black.”

The last, best decade for bold car colors

Like many good stories, it’s only partly true. The early Model T also came in gray, blue, green, and red. Ford narrowed the selection to black in 1914 for reasons that were purely industrial: oven-baked black paint dried faster, speeding the production line; it was more durable than other paints; and it was cheaper, helping to bring the price of a “Tin Lizzie” down from $780 in 1910 to $290 in 1924.

Colors also returned in the final years (1926–‘27) of the Model T, which had sold 15 million units by the time production ended — a cumulative industry record that stood for 45 years, until the VW Beetle surpassed it in 1972.

That Beetle had a good chance of being brightly colored, for the 1970s were the last, best decade for bold car colors, with audaciously named hues like Plum Crazy Purple, Lemon Twist, and Hugger Orange livening up the lots.

A comparison of parked cars: colorful, older models in 1980 on top, and modern, mostly gray cars in 2025 on the bottom.
Top: what a car lot looked like at the end of the 1970s. Bottom: it’s 2025, and gryscale has triumphed. (Credit: X/MyMixtapez)

Earlier decades had their own distinctive palettes: soft pastels and bold two-tones on 1950s cars, jewel tones through the 1960s, and a rich, earthy greenness in the 1990s.

Then, around the turn of the millennium, car colors took a hard right onto Monochrome Avenue and never looked back. In 2004, roughly 60% of new cars sold in the U.S. were achromatic, meaning black, white, gray, or silver. By 2023, that figure had reached 80%. In 2011, white became the single most popular car color worldwide, a position it still holds today.

A self-reinforcing cycle of blandness

The latest global data, from BASF’s annual Color Report, shows white at 38% of new cars produced in 2025, black at 23%, gray at 19%, and silver at 8%. That colorless quartet accounts for 88% of all new cars on the planet. The most popular color worldwide is blue, at just 6%. Green and red each manage 3%.

The logic behind this near-total surrender is once again financial. Car paint production is expensive, and unusual colors reduce the chance that a vehicle will be sold. So manufacturers rationalize their palettes to a dozen safe tones per model, max. Large institutional buyers — rental companies, fleet operators — reinforce that conservative streak, because they too must eventually bulk-sell whatever they bulk-buy. The result? A self-reinforcing cycle of blandness.

A similar calculus applies to houses and house paints. As any estate agent will tell you, neutral colors maximize the resale value of your house because they offend the fewest buyers. There may well be a future home owner out there who shares your passion for aubergine — but betting on them being in the market precisely when you’re selling is a pretty big gamble, and with one of the most expensive assets you’re ever likely to own.

And so the houses of America, and much of the world, are painted in Agreeable Gray, Mindful Gray, Accessible Beige, and their many relatives from the neutral shelf. Note what these names actually signal: not This is who I am, but Please, don’t mind me. Agreeable Gray — the top choice in Alabama, Arizona, and the Carolinas — doesn’t so much describe a color as a social posture.

How minimalism became an aspirational identity

Color-wise, the whole world seems stuck in neutral these days. Call it late-stage modernism. The narrowing of the palette that started with industrialization and became part of modernist ideology in the early 20th century, morphed into a lifestyle choice in the early 21st.

The cultural coup de grâce came around 2010, when minimalism was elevated from an aesthetic to an aspirational identity. “Millennial gray” became a form of conspicuous restraint that signaled sophistication. And no object embodied that shift better than the iPhone.

Apple’s earlier iMac computers were available in such translucent, almost aggressively cheerful colors as Bondi Blue, Tangerine, Strawberry, and Grape. The company’s current product lineup comes primarily in Space Gray, Silver, Gold, and Midnight Black.

Modern living room with gray furniture, floating staircase, wall-mounted shelves, large floor lamp, glass doors, and neutral decor.
It doesn’t get much more Millennial Gray than this interior. Whether this conspicuous restraint from color signals sophistication, is open for discussion. (Credit: Max Vakhtbovych/Pexels)

Color has migrated to a new, virtual reality

So this is where practicality, resale values, and modernist ideology have gotten us: to a material world that is so drained of color that it might depress the hell out of even Adolf Loos and Le Corbusier.

Interestingly, studies suggest there’s something to that colloquial association between gray and depression. Researchers at the University of Manchester tested healthy volunteers, people with anxiety, and people with depression, asking each to choose a color that represents their current mood. Yellow dominated among healthy subjects. Among both anxious and depressed participants, gray monopolized the top spots — with participants describing it as representing “a dark state of mind, a colorless and monotonous life, gloom, misery or a disinterest in life.” The researchers cited previous studies that found depressed people tend to describe life as “monochromatic” or as having “lost its color.”

But the world is darkest — or grayest — just before the dawn. There are signs that the grayening has peaked. As their colors of the year 2025, Pantone chose Mocha Mousse, a warm brown; Behr selected Rumors, a deep ruby red; and Valspar picked Encore, a rich navy blue. Design professionals are noting rising demand for terracotta- and clay-inspired hues.

In car colors, green made little but steady progress in 2025, doubling to 4% in the Americas, overtaking red in Europe. Axalta Coating Systems named Evergreen Sprint, a dark green, its 2025 global car color of the year, and General Motors added Typhoon Metallic, a similar hue, to its palette for the Cadillac CT4 and CT5 models.

And it is worth noting that color has migrated to a new, albeit virtual reality. Our devices may be Space Gray or Midnight Black, but what they project at us is a continuous, attention-grabbing, kaleidoscopic riot of color.

And even that may be a transitional arrangement. History points to the cyclical nature of chromatic preferences. The glorious excesses of the Baroque, for instance, were preceded — and followed — by periods of relative restraint. Who knows: Whatever succeeds the iPhone may be available in Bondi Blue, or Plum Crazy Purple.

Strange Maps #1289

Got a strange map? Let me know at strangemaps@gmail.com.

Follow Strange Maps on X and Facebook.

This article How the modern world turned gray (and why color may be coming back) is featured on Big Think.

Older but not sicker

2026-Apr-07, Tuesday 07:39
[syndicated profile] crooked_timber_feed

Posted by John Q

(A piece I wrote for the Guardian)
A couple of weeks ago, just before my 70th birthday, I completed the Mooloolaba standard distance triathlon (1,500m swim, 40km cycle, 10km run). There was nothing exceptional about my performance, placing 1,509 out of 1,730 overall and 14th out of 18 in my 65-69 age category.

But not that long ago, it would have been exceptional. Until about 1980, competitive sport for those over 70 was restricted largely to golf and lawn bowls. Until the 1990s, there wasn’t even a category for 70-year-olds in most competitive triathlons. The small number of competitors over 65 were lumped into a single category. The first 70-year-olds recorded as completing the demanding Kona Ironman event in Hawaii (3.8km swim, 180km ride, 42.2km run), to which I still aspire, were Hiromu Inada (male) and Ethel Autorino (female) in the year 2000.

What’s true of triathlons is true of endurance sports in general. Older athletes seem to be becoming more numerous, and also quite a bit faster, across a wide range of sports.

One example is the rise of parkrun, the weekly timed 5km run which has grown virally since it began in the UK in 2004. Tens of thousands of Australians over 70 have completed at least one parkrun and cursory review of the published results suggests a thousand or more turn out on an average week.

This reflects a broader change, with studies indicating an increase in physical activity among older Australians. The proportion of adults over 65 in Australia who were insufficiently physically active fell from 72% to 57% between 2017-18 and 2022.

This hasn’t changed the way we talk or think about the over-70 population. People are still classified as “older” or even “elderly” (a term more redolent of walking frames than running shoes) as early as 65, even though they are now expected to keep working until they are 67.

This has an impact on discussions around health and aged care. In 1980, Australians who reached the age of 70 could expect to live another 12 years or so. Today, they (in my case, we) can expect to live another 17 years on average, with more than half surviving to 80.

The assumption that the 80-year-olds of today will have the same health needs as those of the past implies a big increase in health care costs. But increased survival rates mean that old people today are healthier on average than people of the same age in the past.

Most 70-year-olds are much less likely than those in the past to have smoked. When combined with increased physical activity, the result has been a drop in the incidence of coronary heart disease, a major cause of both death and disability.

The Australian Burden of Diseases Study (2024) reported that while life expectancy at age 70 rose by about two years between 2003 and 2024, the expected time spent in ill health rose by as little as six months.

The trends we are seeing are better understood not as an “ageing population” but as a gradual stretching of the lifespan, with most milestones being reached later and later. Young people study longer and form households later, a fact reflected in the current rental crisis. Prime-aged adults, who were retiring earlier and earlier until recently, can now expect to work well into their 60s.

And, while the inevitable end comes for us a bit later than it used to, the process hasn’t changed much. Most people retain moderately good health until their last few years, before declining rapidly. Few spend more than a couple of years in residential aged care, with only a small fraction of that involving high-intensity care.

I’m old enough to be thinking about this future fairly regularly. For the moment though, I’m more focused on my imminent graduation into the 70-74 category, where I will be among the youngest (or least old) competitors, and a serious chance at a podium finish.

Actually, people love to work hard

2026-Apr-07, Tuesday 00:00
[syndicated profile] anil_dash_feed

Posted by Anil Dash

One of the most infuriating tropes that I see repeated in media is executives (usually from boring old companies) insisting that their employees don’t want to work hard. Media outlets dutifully repeat this pernicious lie, despite there being no evidence to back it up, and then cultural commentators either credulously amplify it, or actively take part in advancing the narrative as part of their agenda, even though they know it’s false. There is an apparently infinite attention appetite for commentators who troll for attention by saying how “kids these days” don’t want to work hard.

As has often been documented, the hoary chestnut of saying “nobody wants to work anymore” dates back decades, if not centuries, and it’s never been true in all those years of deletion. It is, firstly, a tactic that bosses use for negging workers in a vain attempt to try to drive down wages (and to successfully get media to blame people for their own underemployment), but it also serves as an effective demonstration of just how little society understand about what actually motivates people.

I’ve helped found six companies in my life, and been involved in the start of a handful of other startups and nonprofits, and literally every single one was full of people who love to work hard. The simple reason for that shared trait is that all of those teams were comprised of groups of people with a few key things in common:

  • A clearly understood goal
  • A common set of values in pursuit of that goal
  • Permission to follow their own ideas to achieve their goal
  • Trust and responsibility to be accountable to one another

If people have these things, and believe in what they’re doing together, they will joyfully work their asses off.

It is genuinely one of the best feelings in life to be completely exhausted while sitting next to someone who’s been right beside you, shoulder to shoulder, fighting to accomplish the same goal. I’ve known that to be true whether we were launching a new company into the world, campaigning to get a candidate we believed in elected, organizing to rally people around an issue, raising funds for an important cause, or even just trying to get people together for a big event or party.

Every time, the feeling of being soul-tired next to folks who you know you can trust because they showed up and worked their asses off just like you did, is among the most motivating and inspiring things you can experience. Nobody who’s ever been lucky enough to have had a moment like that could ever think that people “don’t want to work”.

When work doesn’t work

What people face too often is being ground down by systems, institutions, and unjust leaders who insist on creating roles where people are forced to do dehumanizing, isolated, meaningless work, while not being given the agency to make smart and empowered decisions about how the work gets done. Or worse, they’re forced to do work in service of goals that are actively harmful and destructive, and contrary to their own values, or just contrary to basic human decency. It’s not that people are unwilling to work, it is that they are working — to balance their own humanity with the crushing burdens of having to provide for themselves and their families. It is exhausting for a good person to have to do bad work or harmful work or pointless work, just to pay the bills. Being less “productive” in those situations isn’t a shortcoming, it’s a measure of still having an immune system that’s resistant to these moral injuries.

Preserving your soul and sanity in an organization with no morals is very hard work. If you think your workers aren’t working hard, maybe you’re ignoring the toughest part of their job.

And even in more moderate organizations, where things aren’t overtly evil so much as frequently frustrating and burdensome and stressful, there are still plenty of reasons that people aren’t as “productive” (as defined by bosses). Many of these reasons could be addressed by leadership taking accountability for the context and communication provided to workers for their responsibilities. Empowered workers who are given high levels of trust and autonomy tend to be extremely productive, and don’t need babysitting from management. If you treat adults like idiots, they will respond in kind.

There’s also the issue of what people are provided beyond their paychecks. Ideally, everyone on a team will have enough resources to do the job properly, but in a mission-aligned organization even that can be optional at first, because scrappy teams are pretty adept at making something out of nothing if they really have to. There just needs to be a point where they’re not starved of appropriate resources anymore, and it’s a leader’s ethical responsibility to provide everything people need to thrive and be healthy and happy in the long term. The key point here is that people are not driven by greedy, selfish motivations in organizations that accomplish meaningful things; if there’s trust that they’ll be taken care of, and that leaders are worthy of that trust, people will over-deliver in service of the common goal.

But in many organizations, people are given crappy tools, miserable working environments, overbearing surveillance of their workplaces and digital workspaces, meaningless and abstract metrics to achieve, and all of these are delivered with corporate communications that don’t sound like any human being ever. The executives who inflict all of this on the workers hope that they don’t notice that none of the execs are expected to endure any of this.

Finally, fundamentally, there is pay. Compensation and real-world wages have been plummeting for decades; the growing chasm of wealth inequality has been well-documented for many years. But the quiet indignities around that degradation in standard of living have increased, as well, with the chipping away at leisure time through always-accessible digital tools making people have to be on call for their jobs during every waking hour.

The erosion of social norms around employment has been so complete over the last few decades that people born in this century don’t even believe that there was a time when it was not only routine for Americans to be union members, but for private sector companies to provide, and honor, pensions for their employees to benefit from in retirement. The mere suggestion of the idea would get a public company CEO fired in the current era.

Who do we work for?

Why would someone work for an institution that is actively working to undermine their well-being? Most large companies are spending more time strategizing against their employees than against their competitors. Too many nonprofits and other ostensibly non-corporate institutions have gotten the same idea. But it is management that does not want those workers to work — or they would act like it. If your workers aren’t massively motivated to do great work, it’s your fault. Because all you have to do is provide a worthy mission and get the fuck out of the way.

How do I know? Because I’ve gotten it right, and I’ve gotten it wrong. When I’ve taken my eye off the ball, either for unavoidable business reasons, or because I made mistakes due to inexperience or ego or distraction or competition or bad luck or whatever else, the people on my team showed it. Work stopped, quality dropped, frustration and tension increased, and all of a sudden my managers were telling me that “these folks don’t want to work”. Eventually I learned: the right thing to do is to tell those managers that we should be asking, “How are we failing?” Because, short of personal emergencies or life situations that keep them from being able to do their best work, people want to feel proud about the work they’re doing, and to feel like they’re not wasting their time every day when they go into the office. They don’t want to resent their bosses or be annoyed at their coworkers.

The few times I’ve been lucky enough to get it right have been the most satisfying times in my career. Once or twice, I’ve gotten to work for great bosses. They really inspired me to do great work, and taught me a lot that I didn’t know how to do before, or motivated me to want to learn on my own. But more importantly, they made an environment where I could collaborate with my coworkers to do more than I thought was possible, both by myself and especially together with others. I hope that at my best, the teams I’ve led have had a bit of that same feeling; I know I’ve been so proud of what I’ve seen them create and accomplish that they certainly have inspired me over the years.

But perhaps the most important lesson I’ve learned from watching great teams work is that the cynical, toxic view of people’s intrinsic motivations and work ethic that we hear so often is a damnable lie. Most people are tireless and brave and brilliant in the work they do, when it’s work that has purpose and passion. Anyone who tells you otherwise is telling on themselves, and revealing their own lack of imagination and vision about what it’s possible for people to create together.

A Bedazzling Book

2026-Apr-07, Tuesday 02:38
[syndicated profile] scalziwhatever_feed

Posted by John Scalzi

At my event this evening in Upper Arlington, my interlocutor Tom Winegard presented me with this copy of The Shattering Peace, which had been bedazzled by his spouse as a gift to me. This is the first time that I had heard of bibliodazzling, but apparently it’s a thing people do all the time these days. I have to say I don’t mind the effect. The book is now at home in a place of honor on my shelf. I am bemused and bedazzled.

Also, the event itself was a lovely time! Thank you to everyone who came out to see us.

— JS

[syndicated profile] scalziwhatever_feed

Posted by Athena Scalzi

Which dish is more suited for Easter than a carrot cake? None, I say! And lucky for y’all, I have the best recipe for you to try. This recipe is tried and true and absolutely delicious. Many people have said “this is the best carrot cake I’ve ever had!”

This Brown Butter Carrot Cake comes to us from Handle the Heat. It’s surprisingly quick and honestly quite easy, and it’s my go-to carrot cake recipe, even though browning the butter takes some extra time. It’s totally worth it!

I hope you give this recipe a try, and have a happy Easter, or just an awesome Sunday in general.

-AMS

[syndicated profile] scalziwhatever_feed

Posted by John Scalzi

And you say to yourself, what? Scalzi, you are not ten years old today! You are just barely a month away from being 57! The only juvenile you are is juvenile elderly! Stop being a faker, you faker!

To which I respond: Yes, I am fifty-six and eleven(ish) months old… on Earth. But as you know, I have a minor planet named after me, and its orbital period is just a shade under 5.7 earth years long. If you were to position 52692 Johnscalzi (1998 FO8) on the day of my birth, today is the day it would have made its tenth complete orbit since then. Thus, ten ScalziYears. Today, I am ten ScalziYears old.

How will I celebrate such a momentous occasion? As it happens I have a gathering of friends at the church today. It’s for something else entirely but I might bring a cake anyway. And otherwise, I’m taking it easy. It’s nice that this time around it slots in just between Good Friday and Easter. Easter Saturday always feels a little left out of the holiday swing of things, I’m glad this year to give something to do.

My next ScalziYear birthday will be December 12, 2031, so you have lots of time to prepare. Get ready!

— JS

PS: that coin with my asteroids orbit on it was given to me by a fan at the San Antonio Pop Madness convention (whose name escapse me at the moment but they can certainly announce themselves in the comments), and it was super-cool to get it. The other side of the coin is just as awesome:

I have the best fans, honestly.

A Kitten’s First Good Friday

2026-Apr-03, Friday 20:36
[syndicated profile] scalziwhatever_feed

Posted by John Scalzi

Saja is contemplative about it, as he should be.

A reflective Good Friday, Easter, and/or Passover to you, if you celebrate any of these, and have a lovely weekend no matter who you are.

— JS

[syndicated profile] el_reg_odds_feed

Posted by Richard Speed

This GRUB is not an advert for some tasty fried food

Bork!Bork!Bork!  It's one thing to bare your undercarriage in private. It's a whole other thing to do so on the side of a road, risking the possibility that passing drivers will question your Linux competence.…

[syndicated profile] skepchick_feed

Posted by Rebecca Watson

This post contains a video, which you can also view here. To support more videos like this, head to patreon.com/rebecca! Transcript: I recently stumbled upon a headline that is essentially catnip to me. Beccanip, let’s say. “JD Vance Says UFOs Are Actually Demons.” Yep. Yep, of course JD Vance said that. Why WOULDN’T JD Vance …

1: Destiny of the Daleks

2026-Apr-02, Thursday 12:26
[syndicated profile] andrew_rilstone_feed

Posted by Unknown


Destiny of the Daleks is not very good.

It is quite hard to put your finger on what exactly is wrong with it. I think the answer is probably “everything.”

Perhaps we could have overlooked the story’s worse than usual production values if it had been based on some interesting or whacky idea. And if there had been some slickness and panache in the presentation, perhaps we could have overlooked the fact that the one idea it does contain makes absolutely no sense.

Wind back half a decade to, say, Planet of the Daleks, and you’ll find a similar ideas-famine: but that story manages to radiate a certain degree of Elusive Magic. Genesis of the Daleks, of course, was overstuffed with ideas and characters and astonishingly good writing, which makes up for the fact that it’s not particularly a Dalek story.

But Destiny of the Daleks is, well, just not very good.

It throws established mythos to the wolves. Doctor Who never had much in the way of canon or continuity, but there are things which everybody can be expected to know. The TARDIS travels through time; Time Lords physically change their appearance; stuff like that. Douglas Adams had watched Doctor Who when he was a kid; he snaffled scenes and ideas to use in his own Hitchhiker scripts. But he wasn’t necessarily a Fan, and he might have been labouring under the misconception that the Daleks had been hyper-logical automata for the last sixteen years. Terry Nation, who wrote the scripts, must have known better.

When Deadly Assassin debunked Established Time-Lord Canon, it was a conscious piece of iconoclasm, calculated to annoy a certain kind of fan. Genesis of the Daleks jettisoned Established Dalek Mythos because Terry Nation or Robert Holmes had thought up some new mythos which was more fun. Destiny seems to scupper the whole idea of Daleks without quite realising that that is what it is doing.

The production is bad. Laughably, can’t be arsed, who gives a shit bad. The interior of the ruined Dalek city feels like the Blackpool Haunted House exhibit during the off-season. There are some flats and some metal grills and strips of fabric standing in for doors. At the climax of Episode One a D-A-L-E-K smashes through a wall. It’s a pretty astonishing twist that no-one saw coming, given the title of the story. The wall is made of cardboard. No-one makes the slightest attempt to pretend that the wall is not made of cardboard. When we return to the same location a few episodes later, the wall is still made of cardboard.

I bet there is some fan fiction which reveals that the Dalek city literally was constructed from special anti-radiation cardboard, in the same way that the idea of bubble wrap was imprinted on human consciousness by ancient contact with the Wirrn.

There are a few tips of the hat to every previous Dalek story. Human slaves dig, dig, dig in a mine because as well as climbing stairs, automating drilling is one thing Daleks can’t do. The Daleks say that if one human tries to escape it will kill all of them, a bit like my old PE teacher. There is an interrogation scene with a lie detector, which at least means that no-one has to say “no, no, not the mind probe.” There is a Mexican stand off between the Doctor and Davros and the Daleks and the humans. And in fairness, Lalla Ward acts a lot. A lot. When the Daleks arrest and interrogate her she screams and yells and tries to make us believe that she is scared and angry and that these dilapidated props really are a species of outer space robot Nazi. In those scenes, I could almost convince myself that I was watching a Dalek story, that these beasts were as terrifying as I had always been promised they were.

Is it enough for the Daleks simply to be? Does Destiny of the Daleks exist simply to tickle our memories of chocolate and mint ice lollies and saying Extermenate, Extermenate in the playground? We see rows of Daleks gliding down corridors. We see them gliding past various windows and apertures. In the final episode we see kamikaze Daleks in formation in different parts of the quarry: background, foreground, middle distance, which makes the hearts of those of us who failed to pass the Anti-Dalek Force aptitude test three years running quicken. Just a little bit. The scene reminds us of something we used to love. 

If you had drilling machines, a slyther and an army of humankind slaves, you might be able to excavate an idea from Destiny of the Daleks. It’s admittedly the kind of idea that might have appealed to Douglas Adams. Two huge war fleets, controlled by computers: each computer able to foresee the next move of the other, locked in an eternal, centuries long-stalemate, to be broken only when one side turns off the computer and does something stupid.

I think it was a Star Trek plot. If it wasn’t, it certainly should have been.

But what should have been a premise is presented as a twist, revealed in the final episode with very little build up or foreshadowing. Should we not have seen the horribly be-weaponed starfleets staring at each other in the opening establishing shot? Daleks and McVillains doing nothing in their long echoey corridors, waiting centuries for the command to go over the top which will never come? Douglas Adams might even have introduced some lemon-soaked paper napkins.

But neither Terry Nation nor Douglas Adams seems to have the faintest idea what “logic” means. Granted, Leonard Nimoy sometimes used “illogical” to mean “untrue” or “foolish”, and granted, some schoolboys started to use the word in that way, to their parents' intense irritation. But there are quite a lot of episodes where Spock really does use logic to solve a problem.

Home computers were a year or two in the future: but surely Davros ought to have understood the “garbage in, garbage out principle”? Presented with the syllogism “All elephants are pink, Nellie is an elephant, therefore Nellie is pink” the brilliant scientist would have said “That is perfectly logical provided the premises are correct” or “Yes, but this tells us nothing whatsoever about elephants” or indeed, “What you have told me is logically valid, but I do not have sufficient data to know whether or not it is logically sound”. 

The Daleks opponents are the McVillains—a long hair dark skinned generic spaceship crew who are peculiarly embarrassed about the fact that they are robots in disguise. To demonstrate how the stalemate has come about, the Doctor teaches them to play paper/scissors/stone. Sometimes the Doctor beats Romana, sometimes Romana beats the Doctor. But the Doctor always beats the McVillains, and the McVillains always stalemate each other.

Perhaps a human could learn to consistently beat a machine at the game—complete randomness is relatively hard to simulate. But this doesn’t mean that the human would beat the machine on every throw of the hand; only that he would do better on average over hundreds of iterations. Darren Brown did a stunt where he appeared to consistently beat punters at the game: I assume he was closely observing "tells" to skew the odds in his favour or using misdirection to fractionally delay his choice. (Or he have just been cheating, like when he demonstrated his ability to toss ten consecutive heads by spending a week in a studio tossing the same coins several thousand times.) What does any of this have to do with logic, or intergalactic space-ship tactics?

In Genesis of the Daleks, Davros eliminated “pity” from the Daleks psychological make up: but “pity” is not the opposite of logic. He thought that the only way the Daleks could survive was by killing everything in the universe that was not a Dalek. This is pretty callous and quite possibly a bad evolutionary strategy: but “callous” and “logical” are not synonyms. Up to now, the Daleks have been driven, not by excessive rationality, but by hatred. ("Seething bubbling masses of hatred" the Doctor called them in Death to the Daleks.) Certainly at the beginning they were a very thinly veiled metaphor for fascism. Hitler and Mussolini were not renowned logicians.

The story can't make up its own mind about what's supposed to be going on. The Doctor says that the McVillains are “another race of robots, no better than the Daleks” and that “one race of robots is fighting another”. Davros says that the McVillains are “another race of robots” and therefore worthy foes of the Daleks. Romana, on the other hand, says that the Daleks “were humanoid, once”. And there is a strange, orphan scene in which the Doctor finds a lump of green goo which he claims is a Kaled mutation. “Of course! The Daleks were originally organic lifeforms. I think you've just told me what the Daleks want with Davros, haven't you?” Possibly: but he never shares the insight with us, and the subject is never mentioned again. 

The Cybermen were originally conceived as humans with such advanced transplant technology that they eventually replaced their entire bodies with prosthetics. This was also the original back-story for the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz. The question of whether a “prosthetic brain” is any different from a computer, and whether a Cyberman is any different from any other robot, and why, in fact, they need a supply of humans to turn into next generation Cyberpeople is never very clearly thought through. Latter iterations seem to assume that they retain a certain amount of human wetware inside them. 

Is the thought that the Daleks have somehow replaced their organic core with cybernetic brains and realised this is a step too far, but one which they cannot undo? And that they have to run back to Daddy so that he can restore the biological component into their make up?

Or is Terry Nation merely using the word "robot" in some esoteric way? Doctor Who scripts sometimes say "universe" when what they mean is "solar system."


“What a brain” says the Doctor as he dismantles K9, again. The Doctor certainly treats K9 as if he is a person; although he might just be being deliberately exasperating. If K9’s brain can generate a mind, then it doesn’t really matter if it evolved or was constructed: and that must apply to the Daleks and the McVillains as well. “It’s what’s on the inside that counts”. It transpires that K9 is suffering from laryngitis. The term computer virus wasn’t coined until 1983, but Douglas Adams has a fairly good track record as an accidental prophet. So is this scene a set-up for the rest of the story, making the point that, organic or cybernetic, it is the Dalek’s software that is at fault?

Actually, not. The scene is there because John Leeson is unavailable, and the voice of K9 will be played by one David Brierly in his three appearances in this Season. (Given that there is an eight month gap between Armageddon Factor and Creature from the Pit, it is doubtful if anyone would have noticed.)


Does the story have any redeeming features at all? Well, the script is edited by Douglas Adams: indeed, it seems probable that Adams wrote it from the ground up, working from a minimal treatment by Nation. And we do get glimpses of authentic Adamic humour. Romana goes back to the TARDIS to fetch K9, leaving the Doctor stuck under a big rock. 

“Don’t go away” she says. 

“I rather hoped you’d have resisted the temptation to say that” he replies. 

But most of Adams’ input seems to be rather puerile word play.

"Oh, seismic. I thought you said psychic."

"Sidekick?"

"Like it? I haven't seen it yet."

It is hard to tell which jokes come from one of the funniest writers of the twentieth century and which are just Tom Baker arsing around. When the Doctor gets a glimpse of the quarry on the TARDIS monitor screen, he exclaims “Oh look! Rocks!”, which is very funny if you happen to be a cheeky thirteen year old. Escaping from the Daleks through a raised tunnel, he remarks “If you're supposed to be the superior race of the universe, why don't you try climbing after us?” Hold the front pages: Daleks can’t climb up stairs! Whether from Tom Baker, Terry Nation or Douglas Adams, it’s an unforgivable breaking of the fourth wall. Oh, if only the "floating" special effect from Remembrance of the Daleks had been available in 1979, so the Dalek could have wiped the smug grin off the Doctor’s face!

The one thing I would be inclined would be the infamous regeneration sequence: in which Romana appears to “try on” a series of bodies before settling on that of Princess Astra from the previous story. The Doctor continues to tinker with K9, and Romana continues to act as if she were literally picking a new outfit. (“The arms are a bit long; I could always take them in.”) One wonders if the whole scene was suggested by a weak pun on the word "changing"?

The Doctor has "changed" three times in the history of the show: once through some kind of rejuvenation or renewal; once as a deliberate act by the Time Lords; and once through a process called Regeneration, conceived as a natural part of the Time Lords’ life cycle. Douglas Adams’ writerly instinct—not to pastiche the regeneration scene from Planet of the Spiders but to come up with something entirely different—is mostly harmless. A year and a bit later, the change from Doctor Tom to Doctor Peter will involve prophecies and a future zombie version of the Doctor. Romana is an up-to-date, fully qualified Time Lord, where the Doctor is an out of date fossil with a ton of field experience. The TARDIS is the place where two utterly alien beings retreat, out of the view of mere mortals. And we all know that there has been a change of cast. So instead of exposition, Adams gives us a quite funny sketch.

And in doing so, he gives us a perhaps needed signal. This is a playful riff. This is twenty five minutes of fun. This is entertainment. This is not an attempt to reveal new data about an emerging imaginary cosmos. This is not a programme you are meant to take seriously. But here is a glimpse of some battered old Dalek props as a consolation prize to your loyal old guard.

Is there an unintentional message here? The clunky old past it’s sell by date show running back to its roots to try to escape from the rut? A half-hearted pastiche of what the show had been like in the 1960s, while a spunky 1980 version struggles to be born? A clash in the actual script between what had been the voice of the old show, and what would be the voice of the new show? A cobweb shrouded version of Doctor Who twitches its fingers and comes back to life, but is shown to be comically out of its time, pushed around like an old relative in a wheel chair quite unaware how ludicrous it looks…

I wish I could say "but when I was thirteen years old I loved it; when I was thirteen years old I overlooked the faults; when I was thirteen years old it was enough that the Daleks were there, like that man who told Tom Baker that he was the only thing that made life in the orphanage bearable." But in fact I knew that people thought I was faintly absurd for identifying as a Doctor Who fan and I knew that this laughable amateurish piece of TV would be one more reason to bully me on Monday morning.

Destiny of the Daleks is really not very good at all.






SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Conversion Therapy

2026-Apr-01, Wednesday 15:00
[syndicated profile] skepchick_feed

Posted by Rebecca Watson

Babe, wake up! The Supreme Court of the United States of America has just dropped a new judgment and it fucking SUCKS! I know, it’s not exactly breaking news, but this one IS unique in a few unfortunate ways, so I’m gonna talk about it. On Tuesday, the Trans Day of Visibility, The Supreme Court …

On the Vergecast, On Video

2026-Apr-01, Wednesday 00:00
[syndicated profile] anil_dash_feed

Posted by Anil Dash

I finally got the chance to drop by one of my favorite podcasts, The Vergecast, where David Pierce had me on to talk about the recent conversation about Apple's moves around video podcasts, as well as the much broader big-picture considerations around keeping podcasts open. We started with grounding the conversation in the idea that "Wherever you get your podcasts" is a radical statement.

The episode also starts with a wonderful look back at Apple's first half-century as they celebrate their 50 anniversary, courtesy of Jason Snell, whose Six Colors is one of my favorite tech sites, and whose annual survey of tech expert sentiment on Apple is indispensable. He's completely fluent in Apple's culture and history, and minces no words about their recent moral failures. Definitely worth the watch! I hope you'll check out the entire episode, and let me know what you think, and I'm really glad to get to continue conversations that start on my site and bring them to a broader audience.

[syndicated profile] strange_maps_feed

Posted by Frank Jacobs

For early 16th-century Europeans, this map was a revelation. It showed a previously unknown island metropolis in the recently discovered Americas — an alien Venice, if you will.

However, by the time this first European portrait of the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan was published in 1524, the city, once home to perhaps 200,000 people, was already gone — razed in 1521 by Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés. In its place, Mexico City would eventually rise.

Yet this is more than the ghost map of a recently deceased city. It is a multi-layered document of first contact, evidence of the hybridization of two clashing cultures as well as the dominance of one over the other.

Curiously, nobody knows who exactly made this map. The leading theory is that it was based on an indigenous chart of the city. Cortés had obtained from the Aztec emperor Montezuma a map of the coastline, so it seems plausible that a native cartographer provided a cartographic outline of the capital, too.

The map shows a city labelled Temixtitan built on islands in Lake Texcoco. Four causeways in the cardinal directions connect the mainland to a central plaza, which contains two sacrificial temples.

Illustrated map of Tenochtitlan shows a city built on a lake with canals, bridges, densely packed buildings, and a central ceremonial square with temples.
Detail of the city center and the central plaza with two sacrificial temples – and a few rows of heads on sticks (Credit: Library of Congress)

The map is oriented toward the Aztecs’ cosmological prime direction: south. To the left is the Caribbean shoreline, with the first mention in a European document of the name Yucatan.

While those elements point to local knowledge, the houses are rendered in a Europeanized style, with turreted buildings as European shorthand for “this is a city.” This suggests the original cartographic information was interpreted by a woodblock cutter in Nuremberg, where the map was printed.

The map thus occupies a fascinating intercultural space: likely grounded in indigenous cartography, translated via Spanish descriptions into a woodblock print in the German tradition. At each stage, the portrait lost something, but in the process, gained a clear indication of whose purpose the map served.

A medieval illustration of a black double-headed eagle crest on a flag next to a cluster of buildings, likely representing a historic European city or settlement.
To map is to conquer, to conquer is to map: Habsburg flag flying over the europeanized rendering of recently conquered Tenochtitlan, an alien metropolis. (Credit: Library of Congress)

The map illustrated a letter by Cortés, currying favor with the Habsburg Emperor Charles the Fifth. It reinforced the message that Habsburg Spain had discovered and subjugated a civilization of dazzling magnificence and wealth, thereby cementing its primacy over other European nations.

The map was copied and recopied across Europe, making it the authoritative Old World vision for generations of a New World megacity that no longer existed. The map, as a window into an exotic otherworld and a symbol of Habsburg might, had become an independent reality, even though Tenochtitlan itself had been reduced to rubble — or rather precisely because of it.

What had happened to the Aztec capital was more than a tragedy. It was a template for the three following centuries of Europe’s incursion into the Americas, which can be summarized as: see, name, map, claim, erase.

The act of mapping is never neutral. Aztec cartography, as in the Codex Mendoza (around 1542), shows a cactus growing from a rock at the centre of Tenochtitlan, a visualization of what the city’s name means (“place where the cactus grows on a rock,” in Nahuatl).

Colored map illustration depicting the city of Tenochtitlan on an island, surrounded by water, with detailed buildings, roads, and a section of the Gulf of Mexico on the left.
The map is oriented with south on top, the sacred cardinal direction for the Aztecs, and also shows the Caribbean coast (on the left/in the east), with the first appearance of the word “Yucatan” on a map. (Credit: Library of Congress)

European maps replaced this symbolic cosmology with the dispassionate diagram of the surveyor, more suited to conquest. That included reducing the complex spatial and political geographies of native societies to blank spaces, awaiting a European re-reading of the land. To be unmapped was to be unclaimed — and to be mapped was to be already half-conquered. You could call it erasure through documentation. Or, the map as a menu for land-hungry empires.

What if we ever end up on someone else’s menu? Imagine some exocivilization watching us right now, mapping Earth’s emissions and transmissions. What would they see, what would they miss?

They would definitely be like that German woodcutter, mapping us after their own conventions. Perhaps they would group us by the chemical traces of our agriculture and industry, by our thermal output, or by our electromagnetic signatures. Most likely not by our languages, borders, or religions, which would probably mean very little to them.

Artist rendering of what the Aztec capital may have looked like from above at the time of first contact with Hernan Cortés. (Credit: API/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images)

Their map of Earth might carry a strange beauty, like the 1524 map of Tenochtitlan, and perhaps a dark premonition. If they published their map with a few decades’ delay — due to interstellar travel and all that — what would remain of what they had recorded? Any map of the Earth today is in effect already a snapshot of a world in rapid degradation. It might be unrecognizable in a generation or two. Today’s map of Earth would be a ghost map for tomorrow’s aliens. We, however, won’t have a Cortés to blame for it.

Strange Maps #1287

Got a strange map? Let me know at strangemaps@gmail.com.

Follow Strange Maps on X and Facebook.

This article Ghost map: Europe’s first glimpse of Tenochtitlan shows a city already destroyed is featured on Big Think.

Shape of the Daleks

2026-Apr-01, Wednesday 13:14
[syndicated profile] andrew_rilstone_feed

Posted by Unknown

When I was very small indeed I had a set of skittles in the shape of Captain Snort and His Soldier Boys, who used to rattle along in an humpetty bumpetty army truck. There was also a farmer who had a modern mechanical farm with a tractor and a miller who milled the corn to make the bread in an old fashioned windmill and sometimes got drunk on cider. He really did sometimes get drunk on cider even though Trumpton was a show for pre-schoolers. (The thing about Master Bates and Seaman Stains is not true, though, and never was.) The soldiers wore red uniforms and Quality Street hats, with their musket, fife and drum. I see now that they were toys and hence could be Napoleonic and contemporary at the same time. It took me a long time to understand how the guard that periodically changed outside Buckingham Palace and the life sized khaki Action Men that you sometimes saw at county fairs were both soldiers.

The Daleks are a bit like that.

There were Dalek toys before ever there were Doctor Who toys. It was 1976 before you could get a Doctor Who action figure. It looked absolutely nothing like him. But you could buy little plastic Daleks in Woolworths as early as 1965. They cost a shilling, which is about £1.80 in modern money, which is quite a lot for what they were. I suppose Dinky or Corgi or someone made a die-cast Bessie?

Was Dalekmania actually a thing? The story about the little boy who slept under a Dalek sheet wearing Dalek pyjamas, washed with Dalek soap and did his homework in a Dalek exercise book with a Dalek pencil sounds like the kind of thing a journalist would make up. They told the same story about Roy Rogers in the 1940s. In the 1970s there was a slightly muted attempt to invent something called Womblemania.

There were definitely Dalek toys. Or there had been. I was born too late and missed out on all the good stuff.

There had always been Dalek toys. A child's bedroom, with a teddy bear and a rocking horse and some toys soldiers and a golly and some Daleks, what could be more natural? (I actually did have a golly. We have covered this previously.)

There was a slot machine Dalek in the penny arcade at Clacton where for a penny or a shilling or five-of-your-new-pence you could get spun around and say exterminate, exterminate, exterminate if it took your fancy. And people definitely ran round the playground shouting exterminate, exterminate, exterminate at each other. 

I still cannot hear that word without thinking of Daleks, whether in the context of pesticide or in — some other context.

In a way, the slot machine Dalek was the real Dalek because you could touch it and get inside it and the TV Dalek was small and fuzzy and usually still in black and white.

Of all the things that Father Christmas bought me in 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979, the Dalek Annuals are the onwa I still own and which still live on my shelves. Terry Nation's Dalek Annual it said on the cover.  Terry Nation had a bloody cheek, or put another way, Terry Nation had a very shrewd business head. He was a very fine story teller and could spin a very fine yarn and would have never been out of work even if he hadn’t accidentally thought up the Daleks in 1963. Blake’s 7 and Survivors stand up better than most Doctor Who. But the comics and annuals and sweet cigarette cards sold in truck loads because of the Dalek’s shape, and the Dalek’s shape was invented by a BBC set designer who got a small bonus but no royalties. The Dalek Annuals contained reprints of the Dalek Comic strips from TV Century 21 and short stories about humans fighting Daleks which were probably pitches for a TV show he could never quite persuade the BBC to make and bits of free-floating mythos, maps of Skaro and cutaways of Dalek spaceships. The comic strips said Created By Terry Nation even though they were written by David Whittaker and drawn by Ron Turner and others. 

The mythos spilled onto the wrappers of a chocolate and peppermint lolly. (Not frozen ice popsicles but ice-cream on a stick, is there a word for that?) Dalek Death Rays: somehow the colour green was thought to signify Dalekhood. (There was a Dracula ice lolly at the same time, very dark blackcurrant ice, with white ice-cream and red jelly inside. Someone at Walls Ice Cream must have had a touch of the Willy Wonka about him.) They had plastic sticks, instead of wooden ones, with coded messages, not corny jokes. The wrappers told you facts about how the Daleks had tried biological warfare on the humans in the 1600s and how they had a special paint that made them invisible. I am not sure if that would work. Some of them might have been drawn by Frank Bellamy.

The Idea of the Daleks. Even the cartoon strip, which was cutting edge in England in the 1960s, evaporates like space-fog if you actually try to read it. Robot armies and space cruisers and floating hover pods and an emperor with a gigantic head and these obviously impractical mechanical creatures with a thing inside them you are never, ever, ever allowed to see. (Were there Dalek changing rooms or Dalek swimming pools where it was okay for them to take off their metal casings provided they didn’t stare?)

Someone once said that the Marx Brothers had never been in a movie as good as they were. The Daleks were like that.

But the Daleks were also this weeks adversary on a TV show that went out on BBC 1 which was normally good, occasionally excellent, but frequently not very good at all, a TV show that everybody watched but hardly anyone paid much attention to. It was The Merioneth and Llantisilly Rail Traction Company Limited, and it was all there was. And while it is true that the Daleks appeared more often than any other bad guy, it is also true that five out of six Doctor Who episodes didn’t have any Daleks at all in them.

The producers didn’t like them much because they were huge clumsy props; and the writers didn’t like them much because it is fairly hard to write monosyllabic staccato dialogue that doesn’t sound terrible, and the actors didn’t like them much because what actor does like acting at a prop where the voice is going to be dubbed in afterwards. Terry Nation was the only person who was allowed to write Dalek stories and he had long ago lost interest.

When I started going to Doctor Who conventions, there was a ritual question without which no production team Q&A panel was ever complete.

“Are you going to bring back any old monsters?”

By which we meant, of course, “Will we ever get to see the Daleks again?”

And the answer was always some polite variation on “Not if we can possibly avoid it?”


[syndicated profile] strange_maps_feed

Posted by Frank Jacobs

In the late 20th century, the world came together to plug a hole in the ozone layer — the part of Earth’s atmosphere that absorbs most of the Sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation. If left unchecked, this hole would have exposed life on Earth to dangerous — and in some regions potentially lethal — levels of radiation, but an international treaty brought us back from the brink of disaster.

That treaty, the Montreal Protocol, is a lesson in human resilience: We can save the world, because we already did it once before.

An epidemic of deadly fridges

The story of the Montreal Protocol starts, bizarrely, with an epidemic of deadly fridges in the 1920s. In those pioneer days of electric home refrigeration, everyone’s favorite new kitchen appliance relied on highly toxic, flammable, or corrosive gases to keep food chilled. A faulty compressor or leaky pipe could wipe out an entire family in their sleep, and in the first half of 1929, gas from fridges killed at least 15 people in Chicago alone.

Danger drove innovation, and in 1928, General Motors engineer Thomas Midgley Jr. synthesized the first chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) — a cheap, non-toxic, non-flammable gas marketed in the U.S. under the brand name Freon. CFCs seemed miraculous, and post-war consumers fell in love with them. They became the coolant in every refrigerator and air conditioner in the world, as well as the propellant of choice in billions of aerosol cans, ejecting hairspray, deodorant, whipped cream, and countless other consumables, all at the push of a button.

But CFCs, the solution to an earlier problem, turned out to be villains in disguise. In 1974, University of California scientists F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina asked an inconvenient question: Where do all the CFCs go? 

The message was clear: Earth’s immune system was compromised, and the infection was spreading.

Because CFC molecules are so stable, they don’t break down in the lower atmosphere. Rowland and Molina hypothesized that they drifted upward into the stratosphere, 10 to 30 miles above the Earth’s surface, where they would be smashed apart by the Sun’s ultraviolet (UV) rays. This releases chlorine atoms — like a microscopic, demented Pac-Man, a single one can devour more than 100,000 ozone molecules.

If their hypothesis were correct, that would be catastrophic. The ozone layer is like Earth’s sunscreen: It lets through most of the Sun’s relatively benign UV-A rays, absorbs most of the harmful UV-B, and blocks all of the even more dangerous UV-C radiation. Without the ozone layer, those unwelcome UV rays would reach Earth’s surface, where they’d mutate DNA, cause skin cancers and cataracts, and kill crops and marine ecosystems.

Fellow scientists were skeptical of the theory, while the chemical industry was downright hostile. Leading CFC manufacturer DuPont dismissed it as “pure science fiction” and launched a decade-long PR campaign in defense of its star compound.

But confirmation of Rowland and Molina’s dark calculus came from the bottom of the world in the mid-1980s. Physicist Jon Shanklin, working at Halley Research Station, a cramped U.K. science outpost on the Brunt Ice Shelf, measured a 40% decline in spring ozone levels in the stratosphere over Antarctica in less than a decade. Those readings were so dramatic that at first he thought his creaky Dobson spectrophotometer had finally given up the ghost, but a replacement instrument confirmed the horrifying readings.

When the findings were published in Nature in May 1985, they hit the world like a thunderbolt. As NASA’s eyes in the sky soon confirmed, there was a dangerous rip in the Earth’s protective layer. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, this ozone hole expanded to around 11 million square miles (28 million km2), roughly the size of North America.

Satellite imagery turned the abstract threat into visceral geography — terrifying technicolor maps showed a deep purple bruise spreading over the South Pole. Those visuals galvanized public opinion in a way mere chemistry equations never could. The message was clear: Earth’s immune system was compromised, and the infection was spreading. CFCs, the human-made chemicals that powered our conveniences, were literally eating the sky.

Line graph showing ozone levels from 1968 to 2100, with four circular images of the ozone hole above Antarctica labeled 1971, 2017, 2041, and 2065.
NASA reports of ozone concentration over Antarctica and projected recovery / NASA, WMO

The Montreal Protocol

With scientists and the public aligned in their alarm, governments took note, and something extraordinary materialized: a concerted global effort to tackle a problem no single country could ever hope to fix alone. In less than nine months of global dealmaking, and after a final midnight session of negotiations, the Montreal Protocol was signed on September 16, 1987. Its aim was radically and elegantly simple: to reduce and eventually eliminate the production and consumption of CFCs and similar ozone-depleting substances. 

And it worked, thanks to its ingenious design:

  • First, the treaty recognized that developed and developing nations had “common, but differentiated responsibilities.” Acknowledging that rich nations had created most of the problem and had most of the resources, it set up a binding timetable for them to act, but gave developing nations a 10-year grace period.
  • Second, the Montreal Protocol wasn’t a toothless treaty. It included threats to restrict commerce with non-compliant countries and completely ban the trade in products made using CFCs.
  • Third, it was intended to be flexible, capable of adapting as science advanced and alternatives became available. Since its inception, the Protocol has been amended six times, most recently — and most consequentially — in Kigali in 2016.
  • Fourth, it created a Multilateral Fund to help developing countries meet their commitments.
  • And finally, it fully embraced the precautionary principle: act now if waiting for scientific certainty could be catastrophic or irreversible.

Driven by the treaty, industry developed alternatives to CFCs faster than predicted, allowing multiple accelerations of the phase-out throughout the 1990s. To date, the parties to the Montreal Protocol have phased out roughly 99% of ozone-depleting substances compared to 1990 levels — effectively eliminating the chemicals once used in nearly every refrigerator, air conditioner, and aerosol can on Earth.

The ozone layer is responding by healing. It’s projected to recover to 1980 values over most of the world by 2040 and over Antarctica by 2066. Last year’s seasonal ozone hole was one of the fifth-smallest since recovery began in 1992 and broke up nearly three weeks earlier than the average over the past decade. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that full implementation of the Montreal Protocol will help avoid, in the U.S. alone, more than 280 million cases of skin cancer, around 1.6 million skin cancer deaths, and more than 45 million cases of cataracts. 

The treaty spared crops, marine life, and — unintentionally — the climate. Because most ozone-depleting substances are also potent greenhouse gases, the treaty’s measures from 1990 to 2010 alone have prevented the equivalent of 11 gigatons of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere per year. This could have reduced future warming by as much as 0.5°C.

Eight open and closed magazine spreads displayed in two rows, promoting membership benefits such as expert classes, print issues, and community access. A yellow "Join Today" button is below.

A protocol-less world

Without the Montreal Protocol, the ozone layer would be dangerously depleted. Imagine UV radiation strong enough to cause sunburn after just five minutes outside, even in mid-latitude cities like Washington, D.C. or Paris — that would have been one of the more trivial effects. Let’s doomscroll to the bleak, ozone-less futures we managed to avoid in Australia, South America, and the Mediterranean — three parts of the world that would have been most affected by inaction.

Nocturnal Australia

In the ozone-depleted future we avoided, Australia has abandoned the daytime and gone nocturnal. Artwork by Glenn Harvey

Australians have a complicated relationship with the Sun, suffering the world’s highest melanoma rates even with a functioning ozone layer. In the ozone-depleted future we avoided, that relationship has degenerated into a full-on restraining order.

Australia has abandoned the daytime and gone nocturnal. Schools and workplaces open at night, construction sites buzz in the small hours under massive floodlights, and outdoor recreation takes place in the twilights of dawn and dusk. The middle of the day is for mandatory Sun siestas. Going out at noon is dangerous — probably requiring immediate hospitalization. Fashion goes wide-brimmed and long-sleeved. Exposing your skin becomes a lifestyle choice in the same risk-seeking category as free solo rock climbing.

Is Australia’s laid-back carpe diem attitude replaced by an equally carefree carpe noctem in this future? Probably not. Deprived of the Sun, Australians acquire afflictions more commonly associated with northern Scandinavia, like vitamin D deficiencies and seasonal affective disorder, only all year-round. Still, those are better than the alternative: skin cancer.

Terraforming South America

A gondolier steers a boat through a canal lined with buildings, under a bridge, with people and Venetian architecture visible in the background.
In cities of the Mediterranean, urban spaces are covered by UV-filtering canopies. Artwork by Glenn Harvey

In our counterfactual future, Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay in South America’s southern cone, so close to Antarctica, have to adapt to some of the harshest effects of the widening hole in the ozone.

Agriculture in Patagonia, the southern tip of the region, dies off — the local sheep get eye cancer at a rate that makes extensive farming impossible. Southern right whales no longer come to breed near the Valdés Peninsula. If the Sun’s harsh UV rays didn’t kill the whales directly, they would have at least fried the krill and plankton the majestic creatures used to eat, forcing them to look elsewhere for food.

Assuming the area is not abandoned entirely, adaptation would resemble a terraforming project on Mars: polycarbonate domes on an industrial scale. UV-B stunts photosynthesis and kills useful bacteria in the soil, so Chile’s famous wine industry and Argentina’s proud cattle-raising tradition continue indoors, under UV-filtering plastic. UV-sensitive staples like potatoes and grapes give way to hardier crops like quinoa and other Andean grains. As the ocean’s surface is effectively sterile, fisheries pivot to deep-sea species or to land-based aquaculture in shaded tanks.

Reinventing the Mediterranean city

South American fisheries pivot to land-based aquaculture, as the ocean’s surface is effectively sterile. Artwork by Glenn Harvey

The ancient cities of the Mediterranean are forced to reinvent themselves to survive the new reality. For millennia, life in the region was lived out in the open, in the agora, the forum, the café terrace. No more. Going outside now means scurrying along giant arcades, shaded from the Sun by massive canopies that filter 99% of its UV light.

Exploring cities like Rome, Madrid, and Athens now means walking through shaded canyons and subterranean malls that feel like airport terminals. This redesign of the urban environment has a profound effect on the way life is lived in these ancient centers of culture. Architects call it “enclosed urbanism.” Barcelona’s ramblas are wrapped in crystal tunnels. Italian piazzas are covered by retractable, UV-filtering canopies, deployed each morning like futuristic umbrellas against an invisible downpour. The siesta, once a charming afternoon refuge from the Sun’s heat, has expanded into an enforced house arrest.

Tourism has evaporated, as has the traditional assumption that, in this sun-kissed region, people can happily spend most of the year outside the walled and roofed confines of their home. That version of life has been replaced by a shared urban space that feels vaguely like a cross between a souk, a spaceship, and a museum: life preserved behind glass.

The next global challenge

There’s a perverse satisfaction in catastrophizing, in imagining how we would have responded to such a dramatic environmental decline. Fortunately, thanks to the Montreal Protocol, most of us don’t have to think about the ozone hole anymore — but that doesn’t mean we should stop thinking about the treaty.

The Montreal Protocol’s flexible setup means it can be amended to changing circumstances. Remember those CFCs? We replaced them with hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Those don’t harm the ozone layer, but they are extremely powerful greenhouse gases — some trap thousands of times more heat than CO2. (As you may have noticed, humanity has a knack for solving problems by creating even bigger ones.)

In the wake of this discovery about HFCs, the Protocol did what it was supposed to do: It spurred its signatories into action. In 2016, 197 countries adopted the Kigali Amendment, resolving to phase down HFCs in the same way they did CFCs. Thanks to that agreement, we will avoid emitting more than 80 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent by 2050. That alone will prevent another 0.5°C of warming by the end of the century. This demonstrates that the Montreal Protocol isn’t just a relic of 1980s environmental activism. It’s a living, evolving framework that continues to protect both the ozone layer and the climate. 

Fossil fuels are far more embedded in the global economy than CFCs ever were, and the requisite economic transformation is vastly larger. But if the science is clear, and both the public and the powers that be are on board, the international community can override short-term profit for long-term survival. And if the treaties we produce are dynamic and equitable, they can be effective. 

So, the next time you step out into the Sun, think about the timeline we narrowly avoided, about the hazmat suit you don’t have to wear. Thanks to the Montreal Protocol, we know that, if we can break it, we can also repair it. We plugged a hole in the sky. Now let’s fix that next big thing.

Strange Maps #1287

Got a strange map? Let me know at strangemaps@gmail.com.

Follow Strange Maps on X and Facebook.

This article is part of Big Think’s monthly issue The Roots of Resilience.

This article We saved the world once — we can do it again is featured on Big Think.

Defending Privacy, Daily

2026-Mar-31, Tuesday 00:00
[syndicated profile] anil_dash_feed

Posted by Anil Dash

Yesterday, I had the chance to witness someone who's one of the most dedicated, competent advocates for privacy and digital rights bring that message to a whole new platform. It turns out, it's pretty delightful, especially in a moment when our civil liberties and rights online couldn't matter more!

Cindy Cohn, the executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has been a tireless fighter for protecting everyone's digital civil liberties, and I was lucky enough to get to tag along as she took the story of that work to The Daily Show yesterday. It was no surprise that the conversation was so fluent and insightful on the topic, but I think a lot of people in the audience didn't expect that it would be such a fun and even delightful conversation about a topic that is, too often, confusing or complicated or boring.

Six years ago, when I first joined the board of the EFF, I was already a believer in the core principles the organization stood for, but one of my biggest hopes was that the messages and mission of the entire team could just be brought to a larger audience. That couldn't have been more perfectly accomplished than seeing Cindy translate some topics that were fairly technical, or which involved fairly arcane legal concerns, and make them very accessible. And this work is vital because both the overreaching, authoritarian government, and the irresponsible, unaccountable forces of big tech are threatening our rights more than ever.

Cindy Cohn hands Jon Stewart a "Let's Sue the Government" t-shirt

I gotta admit, it was pretty fun to watch Cindy hand Jon a "Let's Sue the Government!" t-shirt. You can get one just like his if you donate to EFF or become a member!

More broadly, though, the interview was also just a wonderful milestone to see at a personal level. Part of the story that Cindy was telling on the show is the broader narrative she captures in her book, Privacy's Defender: My Thirty-Year Fight Against Digital Surveillance, out from MIT Press. (And full disclosure there, I recently joined their management board as well, more on that soon.) The book captures so many of the lessons that can only come from decades of fighting in the trenches, which are lessons that so many organizations are going to need in order to be resilient in the years to come, even if they're not working in the exact same disciplines. In addition to being something of a valedictory for Cindy's tenure at the EFF, the lessons of the book seem to set the stage for the new chapter that promises to unfold under the new executive director Nicole Ozer, as she carries forward this work.

But if it isn't clear enough, I'll say it directly: as happy as I am to celebrate good people getting the word out about vital work, these are dangerous and trying times. The most powerful people and companies in the world, along with the most authoritarian administration we've ever seen, are all working to try to roll back all of the digital rights that we rely on every day to benefit from the power of the Internet. The issues that EFF helps protect for us couldn't matter more. So, if you can, support the EFF with your donation (you can even get a copy of Cindy's book if you become a Gold-level member!) and take action in your own community to help push back the onslaught of bad policy and corporate overreach that threatens us all.

And finally, for those of you in NYC: If you liked the conversation above, and want to dig in even further, come out and join us on April 23, where I'll be sitting down with Cindy at the Brooklyn Public Library's Central Library. It promises to be an engaging conversation, and I hope to see some of you there!

Next Week in Upper Arlington, OH

2026-Mar-31, Tuesday 19:19
[syndicated profile] scalziwhatever_feed

Posted by John Scalzi

I’m popping up to the Columbus area next Monday at 6pm to take part in an event sponsored by the Ohioana Library, celebrating 100 years of Ohio authors (of which I count as one, considering that 95% of my novels, including my debut novel Old Man’s War, were written here in this state). In my event we’ll talk a bit about me and also a bit about Roger Zelazny (born in Euclid, OH), making a throughline about science fiction in Ohio. It’ll be fun! Plus I’ll probably sign books and may even talk a bit about my upcoming novel Monsters of Ohio. It seems appropriate.

In any event: See you at Storyline Bookshop in Upper Arlington, April 6 at 6pm!

— JS

[syndicated profile] skepchick_feed

Posted by Rebecca Watson

This post contains a video, which you can also view here. To support more videos like this, head to patreon.com/rebecca! Transcript: I’ve made many videos on this channel about anti-trans pseudoscience and mythology, like the Cass Report and journalists who think kids want to turn into attack helicopters. I don’t often talk about trans women …

The Big Idea: Annye Driscoll

2026-Mar-31, Tuesday 15:36
[syndicated profile] scalziwhatever_feed

Posted by Athena Scalzi

Feeling crafty? Cosplayer and author Annye Driscoll has got you covered, with their newest book showing you how to work with pretty much every material you could ever hope to sew. Grab a thimble and check out the Big Idea for Ultimate Encyclopedia of Fabrics & Unconventional Materials.

ANNYE DRISCOLL:

“Can you expand it to include… everything?”

Ominous words from my editor that led to the biggest and best thing I’ve ever made. 

(And I’ve made some really cool stuff! Including a six-foot-long hot dog on a fork and a suit of armor for a spider.)

When I pitched what would become my third book, I called it “Sewing with Difficult Fabrics” and it was targeted firmly at the cosplay sewist. Sequins, faux leather, plastic fur—these are the weirdo kinds of materials that costumers struggle with, but that the average sewist will use very rarely. My goal was to help my fellow weird-thing-makers!

When I’m not an author and cosplayer, I’m a software developer. I’m very familiar with scope creep: when the project expands and expands and balloons out of control. I’m comfortable with my boundaries and I have no issue pointing out and turning down scope creep, when I need to.

With Fabrics, what happened wasn’t so much scope creep as…scope jump scare. Scope avalanche. My editor saw my outline, added a few things that fit the theme, and then added basically everything else. She liked the concept of the book and my previous work, and thought we had a chance to make something big, comprehensive, and seriously cool.

The resulting book is a literal encyclopedia: Ultimate Encyclopedia of Fabrics & Unconventional Materials. I researched, practiced with, and then explained how to work with over a hundred kinds of fabric, and then added in some weird materials for the costumers. (Like paper! A surprisingly satisfying material to sew with.) 

(And, although I want to boast, there’s no way to say something like “it includes every kind of fabric.” Fiber arts are literally thousands of years old; there are—and have been—thousands of variations of fabrics and textiles.)

I got confused a lot. Did you know that sometimes two-way and four-way stretch fabrics are referred to as “one-way” and “two-way” fabrics? So if you’re trying to buy a two-way fabric, you may see it labeled as “two-way” or “one-way”. 

And oh my gosh, the language differences. What I in the United States call a muslin—a practice piece for a future project—is actually a type of fabric in British English. A muslin is also often referred to as a toile… which is a second, completely different kind of fabric. I had to decide, at one point, that I was writing the book from my own, American English perspective, and that I’d just do what I could to anticipate and reduce confusion.

All that to say: writing an encyclopedia was really hard. It was, by far, the hardest I’ve ever worked on a single project. Over 500 of my own photographs are in the book. I messaged, wooed, and profoundly thanked a little over fifty guest makers (imagine wrangling release signatures out of fifty artsy-fartsy folks!). I had to keep a list of “I decided to spell words this way” to try to maintain consistency (I went with nonslip over non-slip, for example).

And it was worth it. I am so proud. Writing and photographing Fabrics made me a better teacher, photographer, and maker. It pushed my limits and tested my tenacity. I am so so proud of it.

I can’t wait for folks to learn from it, to be inspired by it, and to make cool stuff with it!


Check out excerpts from the Supplies and Knits chapters of the encyclopedia here.

Ultimate Encyclopedia of Fabrics and Unconventional Materials: Amazon|Barnes and Noble|Bookshop.org|Waterstones|Indigo| signed copy on the author’s website

Author’s socials: Website|Instagram

Profile

matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (Default)
Mat Bowles

September 2021

S M T W T F S
   1234
567 891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 2026-Apr-07, Tuesday 18:57
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios